tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 8, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
the president would do something about it. thank you. host: that was, the last call. that is in for a program today. another addition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ ♪ >> this morning, live coverage from print germany where president obama has been attending the g-7 global summit. world leaders have been meeting to discuss issues like climate change, terrorism, and the threat of disease. and we will hear from the president shortly and he will hold a news conference anytime now. this is the second and final day of the g-7 summit. while we wait for the
president's remarks, let's take a look at the week ahead on capitol hill. >> can we start on the house side? there are reports that trade came up in the legislative process. is that something your hearing? >> yes, it sounds like trade king -- trait can cop up later in the week and there are number of amendments as they are up debating appropriations billss. they could push it into next week but there is adash to get enough democratic and republican votes to get this bill and democrats are struggling to get about a dozen more folks to get on board with the trade bill. that will be something to watch over the next few days. >> john boehner was asked last week if he had the votes and he said he would have them. what does it look like? >> it sounds like republicans
are making some inroads slowly. this is an interesting moment for carl ryan who is leading this effort. leadership and everyone is very engaged. leadership said this is big coming there number one priority. this is consuming much of their time at this point. democrats are going to be -- it is more difficult whether they can get -- they will need about two dozen tto 30 votes and 17 have said publicly they support this trade bill. that is far short of the number they will need. it a republicans will have to work harder or democrats will have to make up some of the deficits. it's harder to do when democratic leadership is not supporting this in the same way republican leadership is. >> that is the house side and what's expected on the senate side question ?
>> it looks like the focus will be on the defense bill led by senator john mccain. it looks like senate democrats are taking some aim at the additional $38 billion that's being added to the overseas contingency operation fund. that is to avoid the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. democrats are not sure if they will go for this yet. they say this budget is gimmicky and they are not decided on whether the a will go along with republicans there. that seems to be where they are eating up much of the time in the senate but john mccain is optimistic by the end of this week, it will be wrapped up. >> we talk specifics but as far as panic bills, what still has to be considered as far as spending bills that keep government programs operating? >> if the house of representatives passes transportation and defense this week on the that leaves them with six more to do.
it is very unlikely that all 12 appropriations bills could get past by the end of the fiscal year. that has not happened since the 1990's. it's not clear whether that will be possible they are at the halfway point. >> thank you so much. >> president obama is in germany attending the g-7 global some where world leaders have been discussing issues like climate change and terrorism and the threat of disease and he is about to hold a press conference shortly on this second and final day of the g-7.
[no audio] >> it's the final day of the g-7 in germany without any representation from russia. it used to be the g-8 until some of the issues with crimea and the ukraine, russians have not been invited to attend this summit of world leaders. there discussing climate change, terrorism, and the threat of disease and we would hear from president obama shortly. while we wait, we will take a look at our conversation from earlier this morning with "the washington post." he talked about the clinton
foundation and how it has been dealt -- and how it has been built in the potential impact on the upcoming presidential election. >>host: there was a recent look at the clinton foundation and the repercussions and how they built a $2 billion global charity or. why take a look at the subject question mark guest: it has been in the news a whole lot. hillary clinton started her second presidential run and we were struck right to contrasting images of the clinton foundation. before she started running the second time, people looked at it like the red cross. as she has gotten into politics, it has been cast in a different light. it sounded like maybe it was a slush fund but not a foundation. like a clinton political operation.
we wanted to explain from the beginning what it was and wasn't and the weird hybrid it is now. host: with that in mind, what is it and what it is not and what is the hybrid? guest: it is a large and wealthy charitable foundation and does a lot of good in the world and channels money to many different great causes. the interesting thing is it was not built in any deliberate way. bill clinton did not say he would go into specific areas. it is not like jimmy carter's efforts. the topics the clinton foundation are involved in are things that happen to catch bill clinton's i like the small business initiative in harlem and aids drugs in africa. they started a child obesity initiative after his heart attack. >> good afternoon. let me begin by once again thanking chancellor angela
merkel and the people of bavaria and germany for the restored three hospitality here the g-7. my stay here has been asked ordinary and i wish i could stay longer. one of the pleasures of being president is scouting out places that you want to come back to where you don't have to spend all your time in a conference room. the setting is breathtaking. our german friends of an absolutely wonderful and the success of this summit is a tribute to their extending -- their outstanding work. the g-7 represents some of the largest economies in the world but in our g-7 partners, united states also embraces some of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world. even as we work to promote the growth that creates jobs and opportunity, we are also here to stand up for the fundamental principles that we share as democracies. for freedom, for peace, for the
right of nations and peoples to decide their own destiny, for universal human rights and the dignity of every human being. i am pleased that here we showed that the most pressing global challenges, we stand united. we agree the best way to sustain the global economic recovery is by focusing on jobs and growth. that's what i am focused on in the united states and on friday we learned our economy created another 280,000 jobs in may, the strongest month of the year so far. it is more than 3 million new jobs over the past year, nearly the fastest pace in a decade. we have now seen five straight years of private-sector job growth, 12.6 million new jobs created, the longest streak on record. the on opponent rate is near its lowest level in seven years and which is for american workers continue to rise and since i
took office, the united states has cut our deficit i2/3. in the global economy, america is a major source of strength. at the same time, we recognize that the global economy while growing is still not performing at its full potential. we agreed on a number of necessary steps. in europe, we support efforts to find a path that enables greece to carry out the reforms and return to growth within a strong and stable and growing eurozone. i updated my partners with congress to fast-track promotion authority so we can move forward with tpp in the asia-pacific territory and ttip in the european area. we continue to make progress toward a strong global climate agreement this year in paris. all the g-7 countries of now put forward our post-2020 targets
for reducing carbon omissions and will continue to urge other significant emitters to do so as well. we will continue to work our climate finance commitments to help developing countries transition to low carbon growth. as we have done in the u.s., the g-7 agreed on the need to integrate climate risks in the development assistance and developing programs across the board and to increase access to risk insurance to help developing countries respond to and recover from climate related disasters. building on the power africa initiative, the g7 will work to mobilize more financing for clean energy projects in africa. with respect to security, the g-7 remains strongly united in support for ukraine. we will continue to provide economic support and technical assistance that ukraine needs as it moves ahead on critical reforms to transform its economy and strengthen its democracy. as we have seen in recent days, russian forces continue to operate in eastern ukraine.
this is now the second year in a row the g-7 has met without russia another example of their isolation. every member of the g-7 continue to maintain sanctions on russia for its aggression against ukraine. it's important to recognize the russian economy has been seriously weakened. the ruble and foreign investments are down, inflation is up, the russian central-bank is lost more than $150 billion in reserves. russian banks and firms are virtually locked out of the international markets. russian energy company's are struggling to import the services and technology they need for complex energy projects. russian defense programs have been cut off from key technologies. russia is in deep recession. the russian actions in ukraine are hurting russia and hurting the russian people. here at the g-7, we agree that even as we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, sanctions
against russia will remain in place so long as russia continues to violate its obligations under the minsk agreement. our european partners reaffirm they will maintain sanctions on russia until the minsk agreements are fully implemented which means extending the eu existing sectoral sanctions passed july. the g-7 is making clear if necessary we stand ready to impose additional significant sanctions against russia. the under europe, we discussed the negotiations over it iran's nuclear program and remain united adding to the final stages of the talks. iran has as torque opportunity to resolve the international committee's concerns about its nuclear program and we agreed iran needs to seize that opportunity. our discussions with prime test the premise for of iraq and its president of tunisia and the president of nigeria were a chance to address the threats of isl and boko baran.
-- boko baran -- haram. as many of the world's leading partners in global development are joined by leaders of ethiopia, liberia, and nigeria senegal and the african union, we discussed how to maximize the defect -- the effective our partnerships and will continue food security and nutrition part of our effort to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. we'll continue to work with our partners in west africa to get ebola cases down to zero and, as part of our health security agenda, i am pleased the g-7 made a major commitment to help 60 countries over the next five years achieve specific targets to better prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks before they become epidemics.
finally, i want to commend chancellor merkel for assuring the summit included educational and economic opportunities for women and girls. the g-7 committed to expanding career training for women in our own countries and increase technical and vocational training in developing countries which will help all of our nations prosper. i want to thank angela and the people of germany for their extra ordinary hospitality. i leave here confident that when it comes to the key challenges of our time, america and our closest allies stand shoulder to shoulder. with that, i will take some questions and i will start off its jeff mason of reuters. >> thank you, and to president. after your meetings here, you mentioned greece in your opening statement. do you believe the europeans are being too tough on greece in these talks and what else needs to be done on both sides to ensure there is a deal and ensure there is not undue harm to financial markets? on a separate topic the french
told reporters today that you said at the g-7 meeting you are concerned that the dollars to strong. what did you say exactly and are you concerned that the dollars to strong? >> first of all, don't believe unnamed sources -- i did not say that and i make a practice of not commenting on the daily fluctuations of the dollar or any other currency. with respect to greece, not only are the g-7 partners but the imf and other representatives feel a sense of urgency in finding a path to resolve the situation there. what it's going to require is greece being serious about making some important reforms
not only to satisfy creditors but, more importantly, to requite -- to create a platform whereby the greek economy can start growing again and prosper. the greeks are going to have to follow through and make some tough political choices that will be good for the long-term. i also think it will be important for the international community and the international financial agencies to recognize the extraordinary challenges that greece faces. if both sides are showing a sufficient flexibility, i think we can get this problem resolved but it will require some tough decisions for all involved and we will continue to consult with all the parties involved to try to encourage that. >> will it happen before the deadline? >> i think everybody wants to
make it happen and they are working hard to get it done. nedra? >> thank you, mr. president. how are frustrated are you that after you personally raised concerns about cyber security with the chinese president that there was a massive it attack -- a massive attack? was the chinese government involved in as a sports fan, can you give us your reaction to the fifa scandal? >> with respect to fifa, i cannot comment on a pending case by our attorney general. i will say that in conversations i have had here in europe people think it is very important for fifa to be able to operate with integrity and transparency and accountability. as the investigation and charges
proceed, i think we also have to keep in mind that, although, football, soccer depending which side of the atlantic you live on, is a game, it is also a massive is this. it is a source of incredible national pride. and people want to make sure that it operates with integrity. the united states, by the way, since we get better and better at each world cup, we want to make sure a sport that's gaining popularity is conducted in an upright manner. i don't want to discuss, because we haven't publicly unveiled who we think may have engaged in these cyberattacks. but i can tell you that we have
known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities in these vulnerabilities are going to accelerate as time goes by both in systems within government and within the private sector. this is why it is so important that congress moves forward on passing cyber legislation, cyber security legislation that we have been pushing for. over the last several years, i have been standing up for new mechanisms inside of government to investigate and start finding more effective solutions. part of the problem is we've got every old systems. we discovered this new breach in opm precisely because we have initiated this process of inventorying and upgrade
existing vulnerabilities. what we are doing is growing agency by agency and figuring out what we can fix and what better practices we can use and better computer hygiene i personnel -- by personal and where we need new systems and infrastructure to protect information not just of government employees or government activities but also most importantly, where there is nature face between government and the american people. this is going to be a big project and we will keep on doing it because both state and nonstate actors are sending everything they've got at trying to breach the systems. in some cases, it is nonstate actors engaging in criminal activity and potential theft. in the case of state actors, they are probing for intelligence or, in some cases trying to bring down systems in
pursuit of their various foreign-policy objectives. in either case, we will have to be more aggressive and more intensive than what -- and more attentive than we have been in this problem will not go away. it will accelerate. that means that we have to be as nimble, as aggressive, and as well resourced as those trying to break into the systems. >> i wanted to ask about two things on the agenda at the g-7 -- the first was the islamic state. you said yesterday that you would assess what is working and what wasn't. i'm wondering what is not working in the fight against islamic state. will the british prime minister step up help with the fight? chancellor merkel said she was pleased to get fast-track authority. does that mean you gave her
another leaders assurance it would go through the house and if it doesn't, what does it say about your ability to achieve meaningful agreements with congress for the remainder of your time in office question mark >> i'm not going to high possib -- hypothesized about getting it done. i will get it done and we will get a vote soon because the right thing to do. with respect to isl we have made significant progress in pushing back isl from areas in which they had occupied or disrupted local populations. but we have also seen areas like in ramadi where they are displaced and they come back in another and they are nimble and they are aggressive and opportunistic. one of the areas where we will have to improve is the speed at
which we are training iraqi forces. where we have trained them directly and equipped them and we have a train and assist posture, they operate effectively. where we haven't, morale, lack of equipment etc. may undermine iraqi forces so we want to get more security forces trained and well-equipped and focused. the president of iraq was the same thing so we are reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped and have a focused strategy and good leadership. when a finalized plan is presented to me by the pentagon then i will share it with the american people. we don't yet have a complete
strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the year -- the iraqis as well about how recruitment takes place in how the training takes place. the details of that are not yet worked out. >> what about additional u.s. military personnel? are they under consideration? >> what's fair to say is that all of the countries in the international coalition are prepared to do more, to train iraqi security forces, if a field -- if they feel like additional work has been taken advantage of. one of the things we are still seeing in iraq is places where we have gotten more training capacity than we have recruits. part of my discussion with the prime minister was how we make sure we get more recruits in. a big part of the answer is our outreach to sunni tribes.
we have seen them who are not only willing and prepared to fight isl but have been successful at rebuffing them but it has not been happening as fast as it needs to. one of the efforts that i am hoping to see out of the prime minister and the iraqi legislature when they are in session is to move forward on a national guard law that would help devolve the security efforts in places like anbar to local folks and to get those sunni tribes involved more rapidly. this is part of what helped defeat aqi the precursor of isl, during the iraq war in 2006. without that kind of local participation even if you have a short-term success, it's hard to
hold those areas. the other thing is we have to make more progress is stemming the flow of foreign fighters. you will recall that i hosted a u.n. general security council meeting specifically on this issue. we have made some progress but not enough. we are still seeing thousands of foreign fighters flowing into syria and oftentimes ultimately into iraq. not all of that is preventable but a lot of it is. if we have better cooperation and coordination and intelligence, if we are monitoring what's happening at the turkish-syria border more effectively -- this is an area where we have been seeking deeper cooperation with turkish authorities who
recognize it's a problem but haven't fully ramped up the capacity they need. this is something i think we have to spend a lot of time on. if we can cut off some of that foreign fighter flow, then we can isolate and wear out isl forces that are already there because we are taking them off the battlefield. if they are being replenished, it does not solve the problem over the long term. the final point i would emphasize is the political agenda of inclusion remains as important as the military fight this out there. -- that is out there. sunnis kurds and shia all feel as if their concerns are being addressed and that operating within a legitimate political structure can meet their need for security, prosperity,
nondiscrimination and we will have a much easier time. the good news is the prime minister is very much committed to that principle. but he is inheriting a legacy of a lot of mistrust been very is groups in iraq and has to take a lot of political risks. in some cases, there are efforts to undermine that trust so we have to support those on the right side of the issue. >> you mentioned the u.s. and its european allies have reached a consensus on extending the sanctions against russia. is there a consensus about what specifically the next step should be if russia continues to violate the minsk agreement? also, can you determine aggression in other parts of eastern europe without a permanent u.s. troop presence? i wanted to ask you about the
possibility of the court battle of your actions on immigration. is there anything more you can do for the people who would have benefited from that program and now are in limbo? how do you view the possibility of your term ending without a couple she goals and immigration? -- without a couple she your goals on immigration -- without a compass and your goals on immigration. >> there are strong consensus that we need to keep pushing russia to abide by the terms of the minsk agreement. we need to continue to support and encourage ukraine to meet its obligations under meant -- minsk. until that happens, sanctions remain in place. there was discussion about additional steps that we might need to take if russia, working
through separatists, doubled down on aggression inside of ukraine. those discussions are taking place at a technical level, not yet at a political level, because i think the first goal going into the european council meeting coming up is just rolling over the extinct sanctions. at a technical level, we want to be prepared. our hope is that we don't have to take additional steps. the minsk agreement can be met and i want to give enormous credit to chancellor merkel who has shown extraordinary patience in trying to get that done. ultimately, this is going to be an issue for mr. putin.
he's got to make a decision to either continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrongheaded desire to re-create the glories of the soviet empire or does he recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries. as i mentioned earlier, the cost the russian people are hearing are severe. that is being felt. it may not always be understood why they are suffering because of state media inside russia and propaganda coming out of state
media in russia and with russian speakers. but the truth of the matter is the russian people would greatly benefit and ironically, one of the rationales nestor putin provided for is to protect russian speakers there. russian speakers inside ukraine are precisely the ones bearing the brunt of the fighting. their economy has collapsed in their lives are in disorder and many of them are displaced in our homes may have been destroyed. they are suffering. the best way for them to stop suffering is if the minsk agreement is fully instrumented -- fully implemented. with respect to immigration obviously, i am frustrated by a disparate court ruling that is owing through the appeals process. we are being as aggressive as we can legally to first and
foremost appeal that ruling and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court. obviously, the centerpiece am a one of the key provisions for me, was being able to get folks who are undocumented to go through a background check, a criminal background check pay back taxes, and then have a legal status. that requires an entire administrative apparatus and us getting them to apply and come clean. i made a decision which i think is the right one that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is clarified. i'm absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority,
the department of homeland security's legal authority if you look at the president if you look at the traditional discretion that be executive ranch has, i am convinced what we are doing is lawful and our lawyers are convinced what we are doing is lawful. but the united states is a government of laws and separations of power. even if it is an individual district court judge of making this determination, we've got to go through the process to challenge it. until we get clarity there, i don't want to bring people in and have them apply and jump through a lot of hoops only to have it deferred and he laid further. -- and delayed further. the one great way to solve this problem is congress acting which
would obviate the need for executive actions. the majority of the american people i think still want to see that happen. i suspect it will be a major topic of the next presidential campaign. we will continue to push as hard as we can on all fronts to fix a broken immigration system administratively, we will be prepared if and when we get the kind of ruling i think we should have gotten the first place to go ahead and implement. ultimately, this is never fully replaced the need for congress to act. my hope is that after a number of other issues we are working on currently get cleared that there will be quite conversations that start back up again particularly in the
republican party about the shortsighted approach they are taking when it comes to immigration. ok. >> thank you, mr. president. more than 69 americans may soon lose health insurance if the supreme court backs the latest challenge to the portal care act. the growing number of states are looking for assistance as they face the prospect their residence may lose federal insurance subsidies and their insurance markets may collapse. yet your administration is given very little to no guidance on how states can prepare. what can you tell state leaders that the country may be thrown into chaos. >> what i can tell state leaders is under well-established precedent, there is no reason why the existing exchanges
should be overturned through a court case. it has been well documented that those who passed this legislation never intended for folks going through the federal exchange not to have their citizens get subsidies. that is not just the opinion of me or the opinion of democrats. that is the opinion of the republicans who worked on the legislation. the record makes it clear. under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed not just by liberal democratic judges but by conservative judges like some on the current supreme court, you interpret a
statute based on what the intent and meaning is in the overall structure of the statute and what provides for. this should be an easy case. frankly, it probably should not have been taken up. since we are going to get a ruling pretty quick, think it's important for us to go ahead and assume the supreme court will do what most legal scholars who have look at this would expect them to do. i have said before and i will repeat again -- if, in fact, you have a contorted reading of the statute that says federally run exchanges do not provide subsidies for folks who are participating in those exchanges, that throws off how
that exchange operates. it means that millions of people who are obtaining insurance currently with subsidies suddenly are not getting those subsidies and many of them can afford it and they pull out and the assumption is that the insurance companies made when they priced their insurance is that it gets thrown out the window and it would be disruptive for folks in the exchanges but also for those insurance markets in those states generally. it is a bad idea. it is not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words. as we were reminded, a couple of thousand page piece of legislation. what's more is the thing is working. part of what is bizarre about this whole thing is we have not
had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obama care because no of them come to pass. sitting million people gotten health insurance. the overwhelming majority of them are satisfied with the health insurance. it has not had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance. the only effective is a had on people is they now have an insurance -- they now have an assurance they won't be prevented from getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions. the costs have come in substantially lower than even our estimates about how much of cost. health care and inflation overall has continued to be at some of the lowest levels and 50 years. none of the predictions about how this would not work have come to pass. and so, i am optimistic that the supreme court will play it
straight when it comes to the interpretation and i should mention that if it didn't, congress could fix this whole thing with a one sentence provision. i'm not going to go into a long speculation anticipating disaster. >> why not have a plan b? >> i want to make sure that everybody understands-you have a model for all the pieces connect. there are a whole bunch of scenarios not just with relation to health care but all kinds of stuff that i do wear if somebody does something that does not
make any sense, it's hard to fix. this would be hard to fix. fortunately, there is no reason to have to do it. it does not need fixing. thank you very much. thank you the people of germany and bavaria. you have been terrific posts. -- you have been terrific posts -- hosts. >> if you missed the news conference, you can find it online later at the www.c-span.org in our video library. this is a look at a tweet from "babington post." -- from "the huffington post."
congress approved the law in 2002 and it would've forced force the state department to alter a policy of not listing israel as the birthplace for jewelers arm -- for jerusalem born americans. they are figuring out what kind of status jerusalem has a negotiations. you can read more at the associated press. coming up today at live coverage of the american jewish committee's forum with remarks by tony blanck and and a panel discussion on the two state solution and that's expected to start in about 15 minutes, 11:00 eastern time on c-span. later, 3:15 p.m. eastern, the speaker of the iraq parliament and the highest ranking sunni official is in washington, d c speaking about the challenges facing iraq and legislation there that analysts say it's key
to the country's ability to fight isis. tomorrow, c-span three will have a hearing on the tsa. firsthand accounts of problems and we will hear with an official from the department of homeland security and a former tsa officer who has written several stories about what he has seen that the agency. that hearing is tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span three. before our coverage of the american jewish committee begins, we will look at the issue of drug shortages in the united states. this is from today's "washington journal." host: air from philadelphia is peter loft who covers the pharmaceutical industry. guest: good morning. host: a recent story of yours takes a look at the topic of drug shortages in the united states. here is the headline -- what do we mean when you say drug shortage?
guest: a drug shortage would be a drug that is in short supply so there is not enough to go around to meet the demand by patients and doctors host: give some examples. what are some of those drugs currently not in big supply? guest: one of the ones i focused on is a drug calledbcg which is a treatment for bladder cancer. it is used in early-stage bladder cancer after somebody undergoes a procedure to have the tumor removed. bcg can begin in over a few months to a few years to help prevent a relapse of the cancer. that drug has been in short supply recently. host: why so? guest: the companies that make it have experienced some production problems. this is one of the common features of the shortages is that a company is making the
drug but they run into some sort of issue with potential or actual contamination of the drug. then they have to shut down their plant or scale back production in order to fix the problem, fix the equipment or upgrade the plant. while they are doing that, that can disrupt the supply that contributes to the shortages. that's what has happened in the case of bcg. host: one companies make these type of drugs, are they required to build up some backlog so in case something like you talk about happens, they have stuff to send into the system? guest: i'm not sure there is an actual requirement for the from a legal or a law perspective. i think companies try to do that. in this case, there really were only two suppliers for the drug which is older. it is derived from the bacteria
that causes tuberculosis. it is sort of a reformulation of a much older tb vaccine. it is a complex product to make and involves using a live bacteria and they convert it into a liquid solution that has to be sterilized because it is given to the patient. there was -- because of the complexity and cost of manufacturing, that sort of contributes to a limited pool of manufacturers. there were only two as of a couple of years ago and three years ago, sanafi pasteur had a problem with a plant in toronto including mold contamination. that is not a good thing for a drug product. they ended up shutting down the
plant and temporarily suspending production. that left one of the supplier from the u.s. market which was merck. merck more than doubled production to try to meet the demand but they ran into more of a pickup -- a hiccup and that compounded the problem. there were six weeks last year when no bcg was being produced. even though production has resumed, there is still sort of a backlog. host: drug shortages in the united states with our guest peter loftis. the story talks about not only the specific drugs but overall
especially when he comes to this quarter, 265 drugs or so in short supply? guest: that's right. that number is actually down slightly from late last year. compared with five years ago it's of about 75% -- it's up about 75% so it's an increasing problem. i should point out that there was a big rash of new shortages that cropped up about four or five years ago. the number of new shortages seems to be coming down but the total number of ongoing shortages is still relatively high. host: we showed the chart before but as for his trends are concerned, is this something the united states has always had when it comes to shortages? guest: i think there has probably always been some level of shortage. it has really become more of an issue in the past 5-1410 --
5-10 years. one of the contriving factors appears to be the reimbursement system for medicare and private insurers for drugs that are administered by doctors in physicians offices or at hospitals. there is a reimbursement system where the reimbursement rate is sort of more frugal than for other kinds of drugs. it makes it tough for companies to raise prices because their customers will feel a pinch because they are being reinforced based on -- reimbursed on trailing prices. that is one potential factor. another is the activities of the fda. a number of years ago, you and some of your viewers might
remember that there was a big scandal with a drug called heperin where was contaminated and that led to patient deaths. it led to a lot of accusations that the fda was not keeping on top of making sure drug manufacturing plants were adhering to quality standards. both in the u.s. and abroad. they took some steps to try to increase their inspection activities or to be more rigorous in their inspections. when you look at these drugs in shortage, you will see that the company was having a problem the fda visited and identified problems that the companies may have already identified but maybe also additional problems and said you need to fix this. the companies would respond by either scaling back production
or just entirely shutting down the plants so they could fix the problems. host: we will talk more about the drug shortage. these are the phone lines. let's hear first from tom in maryland, democrats line, good morning. caller: can you hear me ok? host: go right ahead. caller: i think some of this has to do with the fact that the older drugs are less expensive than the number ones. -- than the newer ones. i take a drug that prevents vomiting. the new ones cost much more. the paradol does a good job in small doses so they put it in a black box to make it sure to make sure that there are changes.
they want us to use other drugs. i don't know if they are doing it because of the moneymaking proposition that they have or they really are sure of this because of contamination. guest:reparadol is a drug i mentioned in my story. there's a doctor in nebraska boy talk to who said he could not get his hands on it. he described it as, in addition to preventing nausea, it is used for other purposes in er departments to treat migraines. he has not been able to get his hands on it. i think the issue of cost is one
potential explanation. a lot of these drugs are older and generic and the price is a relatively low. if you compare -- those are the ones that seem to be having the shortage problems. in contrast, when you think about a newer drug that still has a promotion and patent protection, those drugs tend to be higher-priced. they also tend to be not as much in shortage as the older drugs. i think there probably is some sort of correlation. any manufacturer has to prioritize which drugs to make with a certain limited capacity. sometimes that may play into the sources -- into the shortages. caller: i have a question. about 1.5 years go, there was an expert from the fda talking about new changes in drug manufacturing guidelines.
he said that american drug companies are using in active and even active products being manufactured in china and india. when you have these sources from these unreliable countries is that a big cause why these american drug companies are having problems? they have to shut down because the fda finds the quality is an issue. guest: that is a good point. i think that also was one of the factors. the supply chain for prescription drugs has become increasingly globalized. you do have plants in india and china that seem to be running into issues. the fda does have jurisdiction over them in a sense.
they do send inspectors to those countries to inspect those plants if the ingredient is going to and up in a product sold here. as i mentioned earlier, there was that heperin scandal which is a clear illustration of what can go wrong. i think the fda has increased its inspections of those foreign plants. i think it's probably an open question whether that is to the satisfaction of everybody. you do still have a number of companies from india, for example, their products are put on import alert where they are not allowed to sell a certain drug raunchier -- a certain drug product here in fda inspectors found a problem in their plants in india. i would also point out that there are plants in the u.s. that have had manufacturing and contamination issues.
host: when it comes to the reason for shortages, this is a chart in the "wall street journal" story -- almost 50% is listed as unknown. is there anyway to clarify what that is? guest: that's a good question. i think the fda has increased its requirements. some of this is because of legislation that was passed a few years ago for companies to report the reasons it's possible the unknown category is sort of left over from the time when there were fewer reporting requirements so the companies did not really have to say why their drug was in shortage.
unfortunately, i don't have a good answer for that. that's why they are in the unknown category. host: louisville, kentucky democrats line -- caller: has anybody looked into the fact that veterinarians are using a lot of these drugs without much supervision? one of them is the drug for lyme disease or to disease. most of the time, they don't have proof the dog or cat has the disease. they also use a boatload of prednisone for everything. has anybody the fda looked at the fact that these drugs have skyrocketed especially do guest: that is something that i've heard about that are drugs
approved for human use and not in animals, but veterinarians prescribe them anyway for animals. it could even include antidepressants and things like that. to be honest, i don't know if those can be cited as a reason directly for the shortages. it would seem to be a plausible explanation, if in fact those drugs are in shortage. i do not know if that is something the fda has looked into. host: tell us about the end-use of someone who has these drug shortages. tell us about the recourses to find these drugs in need. guest: it has been a tough situation for a lot of patience. if patients cannot get the drugs they need, it results in delayed treatment or they take reduced doses. there have been cases where patients have them put on waiting lists to get the drugs that they need.
in the case of bcg, just to go back to that one, that is the bladder cancer drug and one i really focused on. it is sort of used in two ways. it is used up front to treat someone soon after they go under that procedure to have a tumor removed. that seems to be the use that has taken priority. a lot of doctors and hospitals have said we do not have enough to go around. let us use it for the patients who have just undergone this procedure and give it to them for six weeks. but then for the patients who would take the drug after that what they call the maintenance therapy, some of those patients are just not getting it because the doctors are sort of triaging. they might be switched to a less effective alternative. chemotherapy is one that studies have shown that bcg can be more
effective than chemotherapy in preventing a relapse. nevertheless, because there's not enough bcg to go around, some patients have to take chemotherapy goo. host: peter loftus, our people traveling to other countries to find drugs -- are people traveling to other countries to find drugs? guest: i'm sorry i'm not hearing you too well. host: are people traveling to other countries to find a judge they need? let's go to vary. he is on the independent line. caller: thank you, c-span. federal agencies should be supported by taxes. politicians know that it is to their reelection possibilities if they ask for taxes. usda came out a couple of years ago in 2012 and stated that they
needed 300 million dollars to support their generic drug evaluation business. these fees are standardized -- and i'm just talking about generic drugs right now. and when they came out, the fda said that every manufacturer of generic drugs has to pay a c. when it started, it was $117,000 annually. if you made one generic drug, you paid 117,000. if you made 1000 drugs, you paid $117,000. today's annual fee is over $274,000. if you made one generic drug today, you would pay $247,000. the reason why that fee is raised is because the number of generic drug manufacturers have gone out of business because of that fee.
a lost 65 manufacturing facilities during the past three years because of those fees. if you look at the advisory group or fda, every one of the generic drug advisory groups makes in excess of 500 generic drugs. the problem is that they should be charging based on the number of generic drugs that you make. that would level the playing field. but the fda refuses to do that. host: we will have our guest respond. >> starting shortly here on
c-span, coverage from the american jewish committee's local form, expecting remarks by secretary of state tony blinken and a panel discussion on the two state solution. it should start any moment now. it was scheduled to start a few minutes ago at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. you're watching live coverage on c-span.
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome ajc president stanley bergman. [applause] stanley: good morning. when secretary of state carried broke his leg bicycling and france several days ago, we all prayed for his quick recovery and indeed a very quick recovery. the complex negotiations of iran were coming down to the wire.
would be heading back again to europe to continue the talks. the crisis in ukraine was escalated. and we will hear in detail the world's feelings about ukraine. isis was on a rampage. seizing strategic population centers in iraq and syria. and the us-led coalition was weighing tough torches -- choices to defeat this growing peril to american interests and allies in the middle east, including israel. across europe, the ugly phenomena of anti-semitism was on the rise, with deadly attacks and chilling rhetoric. around the world, challenges to peace and stability and human rights demand it american
leadership. and wise, sensitive, coolheaded, and confident american diplomacy. fortunately for ajc, which has been looking forward to secretary kerry's second addressed for global forum in three years and fortunately for our country and friends and allies across the globe, a gifted and him experienced the format would assume the responsibilities following last week's accident. the challenges america faces never stop. and in our next speaker, they are being met without interruption. and biases and foreign policy
practitioner, a man of deathpth, character, and resulted this morning, it is indeed maigret -- my great honor to introduce a senior diplomat. deputy secretary of state tony blinken is a longtime friend of ajc. he has served on both ends of pennsylvania avenue in positions of great responsibility, and edition to spending -- in addition to spending time practicing law and spending time in a washington think tank. he spent 10 of them working for vice president i did. first as the head of then senator biden's ford biden's foreign relations staff and then later as his security advisor.
as you know, the biden family are now in morning of the tragic death of the vice president son beau, five days ago. to tony and others in this room we offer our sincere condolences. the world with which ajc interacts every day in our global advocacy work is in jeopardy and massive transition with new and evolving threats competing national interests and some but not quite enough true friends. today, i'm privileged to ask debbie terry -- deputy secretary
of state tony blinken, a true friend of ajc and unremarkable american to join us here on stage. [applause] secretary blinken: thank you all very much. it is wonderful to be with you today. stan, thank you for those incredibly kind and generous words. and thank you also for your reference to vice president biden and his family in this incredibly difficult time. beau biden was one of the finest people i was privileged to know. the loss for his family and for this country is a great one. so i greatly appreciate
the recognition of it i would also like to represent harris who is celebrating 25 years at the helm of the ajc. [applause] secretary blinken: david, congratulations. muzzle tov. we look to 25 more years fit and shalom to our israeli audience into our distinguished guests here in washington, including the former minister of bulgaria. it is great for you to be here today is welfare -- as well. [applause] secretary blinken: it is a real pleasure to join all the and to see so many familiar faces, even if mine wasn't the one you are hoping for. [laughter] secretary blinken: secretary
kerry very much wanted to be here today. as a think many of you know, he has great admiration for the work that you do to advocate for the security of israel, the well-being of the jewish people, and the human dignity of all. he may be off his feet for a short while, but he is a much in a leak with all our efforts across the border i would tell you that the smartest thing that we did to the state department was to sign up for the at&t family pan because the secretary has been burning up the phone lines night and day. no time zone is safe. but we are all looking forward to having him back in the office very soon. we are also very fortunate to have ensured a team at the state department directing our efforts every day to combat antisepsis is an -- anti-semitism and to promote peace and security in the middle east. they were all here this morning as was frank lowenstein.
they are exemplary public servants of the highest caliber. but their work, our work, would not be possible without yours. scholars and students, community members local leaders who are building relationships across religious and ethnic lines from tokyo to sao paulo to new delhi. you can call the state department of the jewish people, a title so apt that i may start giving out assignments today. yours is a community whose police as martin luther king have s described it as "bold by action." they hadve use their voice to advocate against intolerance
with unwavering commitment. your present at san francisco at the birth of the united nations for the changing of the high commission for human rights. he dedicated years of diplomacy research, and i look to hope shape a historic declaration passed by the second vatican council 50 years ago that heralded a new era of catholic-jewish relations and stood up for anti-hatred and as occasion by any time -- by anyone at anytime. any of also stood by president obama and his ironclad commitment to israel's future is secured democratic prosperous jewish state. i quote "it would be a moral failing on the part of the u.s. government and the american people. it would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stem up firmly, steadfastly, not just on
israel's right to exist, but to right -- thrive and prosper." that was president obama just a few months ago in washington. [applause] secretary blinken: for more than 65 years since israel's founding in years of war and peace, and common crisis, america has been behind it with concrete support. but no administration and no president has done as much for israel security as president obama. [applause] secretary blinken: don't just take my word for it. listen to another voice who called this administrations
support as "vitally important pickup that was benjamin netanyahu. our nation's armed forces have conducted more foreign military exercises with israel than ever before including the largest exercises our history. this work has strengthen our military capabilities and the security of both our countries. at every level of our relationship, we are engaging and more competence of an meaningful consultations than ever before, from our political leaders to our intelligence officers to our defense officials. that the president's support is true in terms of our vigilance to protect israel's legitimacy on the world stage and to fight for its full and equal participation in u.n. institutions. we help secured israel's permanent membership in western european and others groups from which it a long been excluded.
last year, the united states opposed 18 resolutions that the u.n. general assembly had that were biased against israel. u.s. cast the only no vote against unfair anti-israel measures in the u.n. human rights council. [applause] secretary blinken: we will continue to stand with israel and against one-sided biased resolution, even if we are the only country on her to do so. -- to do so. [applause] secretary blinken: finally, our unprecedented support for israel security can be seen in our direct resistance to israel's defense. last year as you know, despite difficult budgetary times, the united states provided israel with more security assistance that ever before.
since 2011, the united states has provided over $1.3 billion for a missile defense system that has saved lives, protected homes, schools, and hospitals from a rainfall rockets like those that just felt again this past weekend in gaza. [applause] secretary blinken: to guard against more distant but equally dangerous threats. we have worked with israel on the arrow weapon system to it intercept ballistic missiles and shorter range missiles. we have worked on an unparalleled radar system that could buy israel valuable time in the event of a missile attack. and we will soon start deliveries to israel of the f 35 joint strike fighter, making israel the only country in the middle east would you most -- with the most advanced fighter in the world. [applause] secretary blinken: this
administration has also stood firmly with israel and its quest for peace with its neighbors. a prerequisite for long term stability and representation of true democracy and the jewish homeland. as president obama has routinely emphasize, the united states will never stop working to was the goal of two states working a living side-by-side for a democratic jewish state. taken together, these examples are reflective of a president added administration with the personal and abiding concern for israel security and its future. i can attest to this to you from direct personal experience. last summer, late on a thursday, during the gaza crisis, when i
was in my position at the white house, i got a call from wonderment. ron said i will like you to come over and see me. i said come on over now. he arrived at the white house a later on that evening around 8:30 p.m.. he said that israel needed an emergency supply of more interceptors. the ambassador and the attache rented the subsidies of why they needed it immediately. next friday morning, i went to the oval office to meet president obama. he responded with three words get it done. [applause] secretary blinken: by tuesday just a few short days later, we had an additional 225 million and short fuse funding from the u.s. congress to do just that.
the united states and israel might not always see eye to eye. we may have our differences. but our bedrock security relationship is sacrosanct and i'm here to tell you that it is stronger than ever. [applause] secretary blinken: i can tell you another thing this morning. it's at the very top of our minds as we sit at the negotiating table with iran. united states and israel shared a conviction that iran must not under any circumstances allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. [applause] secretary blinken: when it comes to that core strategic goal, there is not an inch of daylight between the united states and israel. now we continue to believe that the very best way to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon is through a verified negotiated agreement that resolves the international
community's legitimate concerns and as a practical matter make it impossible for iran to give us the means and time to stop it. the june 30 deadline is fast approaching. and we do not yet have a conference of agreement. there remains a chance that we won't get one. if we don't get what we need on a few key issues, we won't do it. i secretary announced in april, the deal that we are working for the close each of iran's for pathways from obtaining enough material for 11. the iranian pathways and the plutonium pathways for iran's heavywater reactor in iraq and the potential covert pathway. the copies pathways, any comprehensive -- to cut off these pathways, and copperheads of -- any comprehensive platform
to detect iran to break out overtly or covertly. when you take this opportunity here today to address some of the concerns that floating about around the deal that we are working toward. i have to tell you that these concerns are simply misplaced and are more myth than fact. first, the deal that we are working to achieve will not expire. there will not be a so-called sunset. different requirements for the deal have different durations but some, including iran's commitment to all the obligations, but not to a liberation treated, not an obligation to build a nuclear weapon. as well as the building of an additional protocol we continue in perpetuity. by contrast, an absence of an
agreement, iran's obligations under the interim arrangement that we have reached an so-called joint plan of action would sunset immediately. then iran would most likely leave with a program of tens of thousands of centrifuges. second, this deal would provide such extensive levels of transparency that if iran fails to comply, the international community will know about it. and we will know it virtually right away, giving us plenty of time to respond diplomatically or if necessary by other means. most of the sanctions would be suspended not ended for a long period of time if iran written edges on its commitments. we would not agree to a deal unless the iea's been a to whatever iranian sites are required to verify that iran's program is exclusively decent.
[applause] fourth, there is simply no better option to prevent iran from obtaining the material to make a nuclear weapon than a conference of agreement that meets the groundwork that we said unfortunately, it is a fantasy to believe that iran will capitulate if we ratchet up the threat of more sections. even iran suffered more from the great deprivation from the war i direct and despite the intensifying find pressure, iraq from went from 152 to 97,000 centrifuges. nor is it without our partners that they would go along with such a plan.
they signed on to get iran to the negotiating table and to conclude an agreement that meets art core security interest. it is not for iran to abandon a peaceful nuclear program. despite the economic loss that it for some people, in large part because we are convinced about diplomacy and about reaching a diplomatic solution. if they lose that belief, united states and not iran would be isolated in the sanctions that we have worked so hard to build would crumble away. to those that would prefer that we some military action now against iran without going the last diplomatic mile, you need to consider that such a response with first destroy the international sections coalition, and second, only set iran's nuclear program i a few years back at best and they would bury their program deep underground and speed toward actual nuclear weapon.
with the copperheads of weapon agreement that we are working to approve, we would achieve much more than that. all that said, the united states continues to believe as we have from day one that no deal is preferable to a bad deal. we have had plenty of opportunities throughout the negotiating process to take a bad deal. we did not and we will not. [applause] secretary blinken: and we know that just like the interim agreement have we reached, any conference of agreement will be subject to legitimate scrutiny of our congress and our closest partners. we will not agree to any deal that would not withstand it. at the same time, i would say to opponents that you have an obligation, too. here united states, you have an
obligation to tell the amazing people exactly what you would do differently and exactly how you would get it done. [applause] secretary blinken: many of you will recall after we signed the interim joint plan of action that began these comprehensive negotiations that there were those who told us that we made a treacherous mistake. that iran would not comply in the sections was in that we built would crumble. we jeopardized the security of our nation and our partners. president obama and secretary kerry maintained that the united states are partners with israel and the entire world would become safer the day after a joint plan of action was implement it. that is exactly what happened. again have to go, iran's nuclear program was rushing full speed ahead towards larger stockpiles greater uranium enrichment capacity, and the production of weapons grade plutonium short a
breakout timelines. today, iran has lived up to its commitments under that joint plan of action. it has halted its progress on the nuclear program and rolled it back for the first time in a decade. how do we know that? because today as a result of the interim agreement, the iea has daily access to iran's enrichment facilities and a far deeper understanding of iran's the program. they have been able to learn new things about iran suture future production and they happened -- iran's centrifuge production and they have been able to identify that they are reaching those agreement. if we do not reach a deal, it will not end or alter the demand for greater respect for human rights and the rule law. we continued to insist that iran can help us find robert levinson.
[applause] secretary blinken: and reaching the conference of deal will not alter our commitment to fighting iran's efforts to spread instability and to support terrorism. this will not change with or without a deal. [applause] secretary blinken: but iran with nuclear weapons -- without a nuclear weapons, excuse me be far less emboldened. it will reduce the pressure for nuclear arms race and strengthen the international proliferation regime. is a critical step to greater global security for the united states, for israel, and for all of our partners in the region. finally, i would like to address this morning another great concerns. and that is the deeply disturbing rise in anti-semitism in parts of our world that have
already seen how this tragic story ends. and last for years, as all of you know so well, there have been horrific attacks on jews from brussels to paris to copenhagen. in some countries, we are seeing a rise of government officials media personalities, binning of horrid and dangerous anti-somatic conspiracies about jewish individuals, about israel, and about the united states. and in a few places, we see the rise of extreme right-wing parties from hungry to greece openly embracing not to like hatred of jews. -- nazi like hatred of jews. happening just 70 years after the holocaust and pledging never again, while survivors are still with us to bear witness. with organizations like ajc at
the forefront, committed communities are mobilizing a response. in france, germany, and the united kingdom, leaders have strongly expressed their unshakable solidarity with their jewish citizens. many have formed human rings of protection around synagogues in sweden. but more must be done to make this fight a global priority. last month, the ajc released a very about provoking called action on anti-semitism that raises important recommendations that all of us can benefit from. these include developing a new curricula for education undertaken thorough studies of protecting jewish communities, and blocking social media sites that incite hatred and violence. but all of you know so very well that anti-semitism is not just a
jewish issue. it is not a jewish issue. they cannot be addressed i jewish organisms -- by jewish organizations alone. like all forms of prejudice, it is an issue for all societies at every corner of the globe. [applause] secretary blinken: it is simple. we cannot and we will not tolerate it that is why the united states is devoting more and more resistance -- resources to this fight. our embassies in conflict -- and consulates are providing support . our diplomats are undertaking efforts to push back anti-semitism unfortunately on everyday basis. this year, we work to organize the first u.n. general assembly session on anti-semitism in history where people of all
faiths took to the podium to denounce anti-semitism and pledged to halt its rise. our special envoys has traveled to 25 countries and 37 communities to discuss the situation and to find new ways to combat anti-semitism wherever it exists. [applause] secretary blinken: ladies and gentlemen, for over 100 years the ajc has led the campaign against intolerance, against injustice, against a false choice between security and peace for the state of israel. for what ajc has always known and what the world must now understand, is that these issues just don't affect someone else. someone else's freedom, someone else is, someone else's safety,
they affect all of us, each of us. a undermine our security. they defy our humanity and the call to question our most basic values. and their personal. i have to tell you that their personal to me as well. last summer at the height of the conflict in gaza, i exchanged e-mails with a cousin who has been living in tel aviv for nearly 30 years. she wrote to me and the rest of our family about living with a constant worry for her children, especially her eldest son who is training for the engineering unit that would be deployed to uncover tunnels and dismantle bombs. she wrote about living with the fear that terrorists were tumbling underground and could kidnapped or killed her fellow citizens. she wrote about transforming their storage room back into a bomb shelter and cycling to work with one earbud after ear so that she could hear the air raid
sirens, about living on a 92nd time in, because that is how much time you happen to get to a bomb shelter when the car goes off. as i read her e-mails, i thought of the mothers and fathers of israel who send their children off to school or military service and endured each day the desperate hope that their sons and daughters will be ok. i thought of the mothers and fathers in gaza who face their worst nightmare when the children were caught in the crossfire. and i thought of how these parents share more experience in pain than they do enjoy -- then they do in joy. and i've thought about how it would be in reverse. this is not about naivety or false hope but that the steps that we can take together can
make us all more free and more secure. the conviction that a two state solution is the best and only way to preserve israel's future to preserve democratic jewish state and have the palestinians to a state that a verified conference of agreement is the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear often, and our stand against anti-semitism is the only way to uphold the democratic values on which our societies are built. as they have for over a century the voices of ajc remain essential in shaping the future. in setting us on a better course. it is daunting. it is uncertain. but we per serving -- pursue this better future with courage and commitment and the confidence that comes from being with you in the very best of company. the voices, your bold expressions, and your resolute actions, may they always carried
far and wide so that together we may usher in a world that is just a little bit more just, more free and more secure for everyone. thank you very, very much. [applause] secretary blinken: thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a 10 minute break. we ask that you remain in the ballroom. the great debate will begin shortly.
live coverage this morning at the american jewish committee's global forearm being held and washington, d.c. talking about u.s.-israel relations. we will have more coverage as soon as they have their panel discussion on the prospect of a two state solution in the israel-palestine conflict. it will set that up now and about 10 minutes or so. as we wait for that panel to begin, we will take a look at a week ahead in congress. this is our conversation that we had this morning on "washington journal." host: there are reports this
morning that trade may came up in the legislative process. is that something you are hearing? guest: it sounds like trade could come up at the end of the week. there are a significant number of amendments that could come as they are debating a privations bills that could slow down the process before the end of the week, but there is sort of a gash now to get enough republican and democratic votes to pass this trade bill. democrats are stored of -- sort of struggling to get a dozen folks to get onboard with the trade bill. this is something to watch over the next few days. host: speaker boehner was asked if he would have the votes and he said he would have them do how does it look like with counting and things like that? guest: it sounds like republicans are making inroads very slowly. this is an interesting moment for paul ryan, who is sort of leading this effort. leadership is also what they say
they've engaged. when i taught with them, they said this has become this number one priority and consuming much of their time at this point. for democrats, it is a little more difficult to gauge exactly what they're going to get. they're going to need about two dozen to 30 votes. so far, only 17 have said publicly that they support this trade bill. that is sort of the number that they're going to need and you did your pockets want to have to work a lot harder on this or democrats are going to have to make up some of those deficits. it is hard to do when democratic leadership is not supporting this in the same way that republican leadership is. host: that is the house side. what is expected on the senate side? guest: for the next few days focus is going to be on this defense bill by senator john mccain from the armed services committee.
it looks like senate democrats are taking some aimed at the additional $38 billion that is being added to that overseas contingency operation fund. that is meant to avoid those automatic budget cuts and the sequestration. never cuts are not sure if they're going to go for this yet. they say this budget is sort of gimmicky and they are not decided on whether or not they're going to go along with republicans there. that is going to eat up much of the time in the senate over the next few days. but senator john mccain is optimistic the end of this week that it will be back out. host: we talk specifics, but as far as spending bills, what still hasn't been considered in keeping government programs operated? guest: if the house of representatives passed chance rotation this week, that leaves them with six more today. it is very unlikely that all 12 appropriations bills will get past the end of the fiscal year.
that has not happened since the 1990's. it is unclear whether or not that is going to be possible. they are about at the halfway point with passing the other a privations bills. host: lauren fox talking about the week ahead in congress. thank you very much. guest: thank you. >> and c-span is life here at the american jewish committee's global forum in washington d c did just waiting for a panel discussion to begin on the prospects of a two state solution in the israel-palestine conflict. earlier, we heard from secretary y blinken. you can find that online in our c-span video library. also, the supreme court has struck down the born in jerusalem past report law -- passport law that underscores the president's authority in
foreign affairs for the ruling was 6-3. congress overstepped its bounds when approving the law in 2002. it would have forced the state department to alter a long-standing policy as not listing jerusalem as the first place for jewish born americans. you can read online from the associated press. as we await this discussion to start shortly here at the american jewish committee.
>> live coverage from the american jewish committee global forum held every year. they are holding it and washington d.c., about ready to start a panel discussion about the two state solution and the israel-house by conflict. we also heard from debbie terry secretary of state tony blinken. he spoke to the group about a number of issues. you can find that online if you missed it at c-span.org.
president obama held a press conference earlier today. he is in germany, just wrapping up the u. g7 conference. he says there is no plan to wrap up trying to train iraqi forces to fight off isis. he says that they are working to solidify the plans for iraqi forces to battle. here's a quote from the president, "we don't have a plan yet because we don't know how that recruiting takes place and how that training takes place." he is returning to the united states today.
>> and life here at the american jewish committee's global forum being held and washington, d.c. -- a panel discussion is about to begin on the prospect of a two state solution in the israel-palestine conflict. earlier, we heard from debbie deputy secretary of state tony blinken. you can watch that online at c-span.org. a two state solution could help generate $170 billion for the regional economy. you can see more at ib times.com. >> welcome michael ticknor. michael: good afternoon.
we have come out to one of my favorite parts of the global form -- the great debate. which is our favorites for our arguments. abraham and moses among other biblical characters. engaged in timeless debate, even today there is no consensus and the jewish community on topics like such as what judaism shall if i think temporary times, the israeli and palestinian peace process, and those truly personal issues of whether it is better to have doctors or lawyers and the family or which woody allen movie is better. it is these essential questions of just those first ones, of which are speakers have wrestled in previous iterations of the great debate. last year, we heard from roger cohen who donated weather is still emerging iran deal was a
path to progress or road to ruin. before that, we hosted josie klein and peter by dark on the nature of modern design. the great debate has given a podium to the crystal -- billy crystal and barney frank. and other luminaries giving voice today's debate is no different. in a moment, when our chevy -- ara shavit and the deputy managing editor of "the jerusalem post" we will be continuing a today, one that has served our people for thousands of years. it will take up the issue of the two state solution, increasingly being challenged by both the right and left. it is no secret that ajc believes in