hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it. i'm honored by the support and i'm honored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of

mr. hannah. i don't know mr. hannah and i don't know -- i don't believe i have ever met him before today. but based on the public record alone, let me say this. if our goal is to hear from an expert who actually promoted false, false white house narratives, then i think you picked the right person. but if our goal is to hear from someone who was not involved in one of the biggest misrepresentations in our nation's history, then you picked the wrong person. listening to john hannah criticize anyone else for pushing a false white house narrative is beyond ironic. he and dick cheney and their colleagues in the white house wrote the how to manual on this. the profound tragedy here is at thousands, thousands of u.s. service members from our districts were killed in iraq. and thousands more sustained terrible injuries. the american taxpayers have now spent hundreds of billions, billions of dollars, even by the most conservative estimates. unfortunately, you rushed to invite mr. hannah without consult

mr. hanna was vice president dick cheney's top national security advisor in the white house. helped prepare colinary of state powell's infamous state -- speech to the u.n., a speech that secretary powell has called a permit blot on his record. mr. hanna was identified by the as hisational congress "principle point of contact" in the vice president's office. were provided reams of false information about weapons of mass destruction. heworked with scooter libb who was convicted after the bush administration leaked the identity of a covert cia agent valerie plame. her husband, ambassador joe wilson had publicly debunked the administration's false claims about the iraqi nuclear program. libbyas the same scooter who told the fbi that it was askedble" that cheney had him to leak information about valerie plame's status. i do not know mr. hanna and i do -- i have note met him before today. if our goal was to hear from an expert who actually promoted false white house narratives and i think you picked

so, mr. hanna, why did you ignore and disregard evidence that contradicted your political narrative for the war? >> congresswoman, i would just say that, you know, to the extent that i got it wrong in believing that saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an awful lot of people got it wrong. it was not a figment of the imagination -- >> are you saying -- are you saying that mr. mclennan was wrong in the book when he said he misled and lied to the american people? >> all i can tell you is that there have been bipartisan commissions that have looked at how -- the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and they came to the conclusion that the president of the united states did not lie about -- >> i'm not talking about him. i'm talking about mcclellan. was mcclellan wrong? was he misinformed? was he lying when he said -- he wrote we were misleading the american people. we downplayed any contradictory information. >> congresswoman, i haven't read his book. all i can tell you is a lot of people that

is mr. hanna here? >> yes. >> then why didn't mr. cummings s?ked him the question >> i can say whatever i wanted to say in my opening statement. >> just be fair about it. you can say what you want. >> i wanted to know if he was here. >> mr. rhodes is not here. i would also note that the democrats were free and usually almost always invited democratic witness but there is no democratic witness because you did not invite one. >> you know for fact that we got less than the notice is required in the rules and did not object and went on with the hearing. you know that. >> i disagree with the timing issue. >> you gave us the required time. >> yes. >> i disagree. >> we will sort that out. we have a good working relationship. >> parliamentary inquiry. does the executive privilege applied to media interviews or appearances before congress? >> i do not know the full answer but i believe they are free to talk to whoever they want to in the media but they did claim executive privilege. >> is that a yes or no, does that apply when you are being interviewed b

. >> how about you mr. hanna. >> yes, very much so. >> do you believe that the obama administration withheld information from congress about the deal intentionally. >> yes, i do. >> do you believe that was in violation of the agreement, the law that he signed into law himself? >> it absolutely was and on top of which the amendment was written in such a way to prevent this from happening and unfortunately the administration simply broke the law. >> i couldn't agree more. peter roscom, a gentleman from illinois, introduced a house resolution and argued that point and the house passed that resolution that this deal was illegal from the get-go because the law required that all information be provided to congress including side agreements and it clearly wasn't. i think there's really one issue, really one question, that we need to ask and i'll ask each one of you to answer this. do you believe this deal has actually assured iran a path to developing a nuclear weapon? >> yes, at the very least it leaves iran with an in

i agree with my colleague, mr. hanna. this is an interesting topic and certainly there are a lot of changes underfoot in how small businesses are operaoperating, they're going to be paying taxes, how they impact the consumer. so it is really interesting. one of the things professor bruckner, i wanted to ask you, because you noted in your testimony that 22% of the members of the national association of the self-employed responded that they work with an on-demand platform company like uber or airbnb. of that 22%, almost half did not know about any tax deductions, expenses or credits that they could claim related to their on-demand platform income. and while most the discussion so far has been whether or not they're paying their taxes, in general, what kind of tax deductions, expenses or credits can be claimed for those in that industry? and also, what can we do to maybe better educate this group on the availability of some of these savings? >> so that's a great question. starting off with the most obvious answer is when you

. >> mr. hanna, it strikes me in your response to some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, comments with your role about vice president cheney and the agreement -- or the decision to invade iraq is -- it was a mistake and you apologize for that in your own way. but we should just move on from that. is that a misrepresentation of how you view your actions? >> it's senate more complicated than that. >> of course. >> and too long to explain. that, yes, if the case depended on weapons of mass destruction in iraq, that was false. and the american people didn't understand the grounds on which we were going to war to take out a guy who is a horrible dictator and a major strategic threat to american interests that the american congress in 1998 passed a law almost unanimously saying the iraq liberation act saying we've got to doing? to get rid of this guy. didn't say war necessarily but it says we've got a big problem with iraq, we need to doing? about it. >> but it was based, wouldn't you say, on th

hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it.'m honored by the support and i'm honored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was 60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewed

mr. hannaident dick cheney's top national security advisor in the white house. helped prepare colinary of state powell's infamous state -- speech to the u.n., a speech that secretary powell has called a permit blot on his record. mr. hanna was identified by the as hisational congress "principle point of contact" in the vice president's office. were provided reams of false information about weapons of mass destruction. heworked with scooter libb who was convicted after the bush administration leaked the identity of a covert cia agent valerie plame. her husband, ambassador joe wilson had publicly debunked the administration's false claims about the iraqi nuclear program. libbyas the same scooter who told the f

a big difference between mr. hanna and mr. schapiro. mr. schapiro enjoyed running to the press, sharing also information. mr. schapiro became the poster boy, almost the spokesperson, of a flawed and horrific iranian deal. mr. shapiro became the poster boy. did mr. shapiro, in your opinion, mislead the american public? grexit mr. rhodes it certainly did. the key here was that i lying about whether mr. romney was a moderate, he covered for the fact that iran was left with centrifuges and wants the agreement expired, there was no iran would beting any different. that is the number of centrifuges with which pakistan build not a bomb, but in arsenal. hannah? mr. hannah: if the article is accurate, you yes. i think he engaged in certain deceptions about what the administration was really up to in what we were facing in iran. lists exceptions and after eight years lifts the ends on building ballistics potentially capable of reaching the united states. can you elaborate on the threat the ballistic missiles poses to the united states? to cutle tende

now we'll recognize mr. hanna for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, on behalf of the foundation of defense and democracy thank you to testify on the iran nuclear deal. for me, as a foreign policy analyst, perhaps, the most important revelation made in the recent "new york times" profiled what's its allegation concerning the overriding in seeking a nauk lar deal with iran. a purpose which until now has been largely concealed from the american people. according to the article, "by eliminating the fuss about the nuclear -- of iran's nuclear program, they hope to eliminate a source of tension between the countries, which would create the space for america to disentangle itself from established system of alliances with countries like saudi arabia, egypt, israel and turkey with one bold move the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the middle east." this is truly a stunning admission with very big implications, as suggested els

hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it.nored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was 60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewed who are on the committee that they w

hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it. i'm honored by the support and i'm honored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was 60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewe

mr. man gnaw here? -- hanna? >> yes. >> why did mr. cummings ask him the questions? he will have a chance to ask mr. hannah whatever he wants to ask him. we don't have a chance to ask mr. rhodes the questions we want to ask because he didn't bother to show up. mr. hannah did. >> while the chairman yield? >> yes. >> i can say whatever i want to say in my opening statement yes you can. of the just be fair. that is my point. deirdre: there are investigations into the white house's message and question of the administration misleading the american public about the iran nuclear deal. welcome to "risk & reward." i'm deirdre bolton. we'll bring you more details on that in just a minute. first a broad-based market selloff. the dow fell to more than a seven-week low. it closed off the lows, still down triple digits. fox business's lori rothman with me from the floor of the new york stock exchange. lori, you saw a lot of action this afternoon. reporter: yeah a lot of trouble. on the 224th birthday of the new york stock exchange building as a matter of fact. what was the gift?

mr. man gnaw here? -- hanna? >> yes. >> why did mr. cummings ask him the questions?e a chance to ask mr. hannah whatever he wants to ask him. we don h

hanna: do you agree with that mr. kennedy? mr.ennedy: i would also add that if you're talking about withholding taxes, or providing health care benefits, the economic evidence is that the employee ultimately pays for that in reduced to take home pay. it is not really the employer is benefiting. it is possibly the employee. so, i think there is -- one of the reasons i suggested the temporary exemption is that i think there is a real goal for the companies to come forward in certain areas and have a closer relationship with their employees. and tax is one of them. because all the records are electronic. and so, providing the irs with the information is very, you know -- but the companies are afraid this will come back to bite them later, in the form of a disgruntled worker saying they were misclassified, or agency coming in and saying, they did not do this or that. rep. chabot: the tillman is recognized -- hanna: thank you, mr. chairman. i get all that. what is one last thing, the affordable health care act, regardless of how you fe

joining us now on the phone is jack hanna, director of the columbus zoo. thank you very much, mr. for joining us. i want to get your reaction. i know a lot of people are watching this and asking a similar question, was it appropriate to kill the gorilla was was tranquellizing him not enough of an option? >> well, two miles from where the gorillas live, i started in 1982. when it comes to gorillas, we lt first gorilla ever bonn here. you're talking about an animal that is quite large. you have human life and animal life. obviously the decision was made. obviously the right decision was made. people there right now at that zoo are suffering that work there. this is part of their family. there was no absolute choice. there was no other choice. the boy is at home now doing fine. so what i'm saying is when you have an animal this large, you see him dragging through the water there, if you tranquellize the animal, it takes five or ten minutes for that drug to take infect. all kinds of things happen in five to ten minutes. i know guides in africa that take me to see the gorillas and the