We created an ngo that is trying to implement those transitions. Please. Hi, can you hear me . Yes, i can. Please introduce yourself. I am susan and i work for reuters. Concerning the conference, i think it was yesterday or the day before, syrian prime ministers said that it was their understanding that the next conference would be the geneva conference on november 23 and 24th. I wondered if you had been informed that that would be the date . I also think that the Syrian National council said recently that the council would not be going. Do you think that people from the coalition will attend . Are the americans pressuring you to go . Thank you. The first part of the question, the 24th and 25th . I think i saw Something Like that. I do not think that has been agreed upon. We have not received the letter of invitation yet. That will be the first step. There was a discussion or talk of a tentative date of november 15. Even then, it may be too soon. The second part of the question we are in a coalition. You are right on one component. The coalition came out and said they will not take part in geneva. This is based on their understanding of the balance of power on the ground. They feel that there really is not enough support coming from our friends. That is a perspective that you have to understand and respect. This may be an opportunity to bring a question of chemical weapons. I want to address this and say a few words. When assad used chemical weapons to kill more than 1500 people, including children, a lot of syrians felt that this was an opportunity for the International Community to present a credible and Swift Response to that act. We know how obama reacted. There was the case that the u. N. Commission could provide support. The president put the credible threat on the table and took it to congress. It was not going to pass. The deal with russia came to dismantle assad of chemical weapons. There was a strong sense of disappointment among syrians. The source of that has to do with two points. Number one, they felt there was no accountability. The u. N. Called it a war crime and a crime against humanity. This was expressed in so many ways. There was a group of brigades saying that they do not recognize the coalition. That is how bad the situation was. The second element, which we felt, was that the opportunity should have been used by the obama administration, put the heavy weapons on the table. Lets not forget that the majority of syrians, 98 , were killed by conventional weapons. We did not solve the bigger issue. That is where the sense of frustration is expressed. To go back here question, we have not made a decision in the coalition about whether to go or not. We agreed on a certain determinant of what is acceptable for us to go to geneva. This includes our understanding that assad is not part of the problem. It is really in the language. We will be discussing this. It will be difficult. We may need to persuade within the coalition itself. In general, i think many of us believe that this could be an opportunity especially if it is framed in the right way. If the conditions to make it successful are there, we should go and we will go. We want to end the killing and move into a transition. That is in our best interest. Not now. They see this as an opportunity. We see it the same way. We have a lot of discussions with them, but i would not call it pressure. Not yet. If i may add a word. Judging from experience in the american diplomatic corps, the notion that this is a twoday event surprises me. The notion that longer than two days would be convening a few days before thanksgiving is even more surprising. Some of you will remember that the date and talks ended when they did because of thanksgiving. Thank you. I would like to return to the challenges that you mentioned. Radicalization and governance are related. If the councils can provide services, then the extremists move in. They will impose sharia law. There have been discussions of providing training to local moderates and councils with no response. At least as far as i know. As i understand it, the administration is not interested in undertaking any kind of training or equipping syrians for fear offending assad. I would like to know what you would like to see happen. You have mentioned mediating that or assisting through the body that youre trying to form. Is there any prospect that it would be acted upon before there is a Peace Agreement . In other words, we will leave the vacuum open until theres an agreement with assad . That is not a good way forward. I agree with your question about the difficulties. We should provide training. Again, governance is necessary for those areas. I believe that there must be pressure. That is my point about putting the question of pressure on the regime to stop using heavy weapons. This has been one of the main problems. I would mention that 10 days ago, they used the air force against a city. They are still doing that. Unless the countries, including the u. S. And maybe russia, apply the kind of pressure, it will be difficult. One of the areas that the u. S. Can provide training so far there are limited trainings in jordan. This is kind of a secret operation. It should be made open. It should be given to the pentagon and i think this is needed not only for transitional periods, but for post assad. This is one of the ways that the u. S. Can be a factor in shaping the post assad order. This is what we want and need. Most syrians would like the u. S. To play that role. The good news is that there are a lot of countries willing to do more. I think that if you read the reports that came out, there are good recommendations. They mentioned details affecting the coalition and we agree with many of them. They say that our allies need to get their act together. They need to have better coordination. For that to happen, you need leadership that has been lacking. This has been one of the weaknesses. The other side has fewer friends. Those friends are more effective. They provide everything that assad needs. Weapons, money, political support. We have all of these countries that recognize the coalition. We had a meeting in new york with the u. N. With all of these friends. They say the right things. The core group of this country must really come together. We need training and intelligence sharing. There are many ways to do this. Once this decision is made, this is the end of the conflict. Hello, i am kelly. I was wondering how you would provide the Popular Support . How would you describe that . She knows more about the armed groups than anybody else i know. She wrote a good paper about it. She is asking about the Popular Support. It is really hard to gauge that Popular Support. I think, again, i mentioned the international crisis. When the Syrian National council was formed, it was formed by mostly some of us living abroad. The regime never allowed Indigenous Leaders to emerge. This is the nature of repressive regimes. Eventually, many of our colleagues had to leave and fled the country. We became more representative and the coalition was more representative. When people inside syria peacefully demonstrated, they carried signs saying that the coalition represents me. Again, this is like any governing body. It includes democratic countries. If you are able to provide, you will get support. If you have a failed government, like what happened here, you will see progress. Same situation. The popularity of the coalition has to do with its ability to address the challenges i mentioned. They need to provide governors. They must improve the unity of the Free Syrian Army. They need to deliver on the stated objective, which is to overthrow the regime. That could go up and down. Are they able to deliver . I would say yes, you have support. Some think, why should i support you . I dont think anyone is calling for the creation of an alternative institution. The current structure can be reformed and improved. It can be made more effective and efficient. That is where we are interested in going. I would say that if we are able to improve the question of governance in liberated areas, that should reflect on the popularity. My name is valerie and i want to touch on something related to that that you alluded to earlier. I wondered if you could dig deeper into the concrete measures that you might be taking . There has been a wave of public denunciation of their rejections, including some that are currently affiliated. I was wondering what steps have been taken to address concerns . Since the announcement of that communique, the leaders of the smc were in paris and decided to go back to address the situation. The 13 groups i remember three of them were part of the smc. There was the problematic group which has been acting on its own. There were others in between. This is the same for the Political Leadership of the coalition. Since this happened, they went back and they have been meeting with a lot of the leaders on the ground. There are more serious efforts to restructure the whole smc. Maybe there are discussions to create a more professional national army. This would include a lot of these groups. To my knowledge, i do not have a lot of details here, there are discussions underway. It will be addressed at the next meeting, set for the 31st or november 1 in istanbul. There was a sign that there was some disunity among these brigades. Since the frustration, theres a feeling that we need to rely more on our own resources. There is mistrust of this old deal between the u. S. And russia. Will it rehabilitate syria or not . That is the background. Going back to address these questions of whether the u. S. Is serious about taking steps to end the killing, that really does not have a place for assad. That would give more trust and credibility for a lot of these groups to be a part of a mainstream free syria. Hello there. My name is edward. Congratulations on your hard work. I would like to ask you if you could, put yourself in the shoes of your adversaries. First, the vision that you have put forward for the solution that president assad should step down why do you think you would do this . That is my first question to you. Have you heard the possibility that assad himself may organize elections . That would give them legitimacy. The second part of the question is more wide. Imagine this room was filled with worried members of the community. You referred in an earlier question to your website. Could you make it real to the community . What is your vision that syria, after so much bloodletting, that this community would be safe . Look next door at iraq. Look at egypt. After all of this bloodletting, how could you get them to buy into your vision . Thank you very much. Thank you. Those are important questions. Let me address the first part. It is easy. Were talking about elections and assads term expires next spring. He is not a legitimately elected president. He came to power we know how he came to power. There is no base for that. This is a nonstarter for most syrians. I can assure you of that. To request him to step down, when people say that he should step down, we live in a world today where if you have a responsible leader the government would resign. This president has caused the killing of more than 100,000. He has displaced more than 8 million syrians. There has been destruction of the infrastructure of the country. You want it to continue . On what basis . On what logic . On what idea . He has already served 14 years. We have had enough of this. Syria was involved in the arab spring. The head of the state departed, one way or the other. We were appealing to assad to lead the process. We were willing to foresee a role for him. More killings took place and more crimes took place. He was a war criminal according to the u. N. He committed crimes against humanity. You expect me, as a syrian, to allow this to continue . That is not acceptable. I would address the other community, the other side. This is a liability. You do not need to fight for this family that has committed so many crimes. They are still corrupt and they lead you to the situation. What i would say is that we have made a lot of appeals to the community. We have a presentation and credible leaders. You are not responsible for crimes committed by anyone. There are sunnis who committed crimes and christians who have committed crimes. We have a program for transitional justice. I would say, do not take my word for it. There should be measures. This includes the idea of peacekeeping forces who can come and be a part of the transitional period. They can protect the communities. One of the reasons that we felt good about the strike was that we felt it would encourage the community to force him out of power. They could be our negotiating partners. They could build the future of syria. This is the good news. Even though he committed so many sectarian crimes and genocide, maybe massacres, the response has not been a mass response. We have one report of extremism. Theyre committing crimes on a sectarian basis. The Free Syrian Army can bombard whole villages. To me, that is an encouraging sign. It is an indicator that we do not want to move in this direction. Only those who commit crimes should be held accountable. We do not speak a sectarian language. That is very encouraging so far. There is so much to be done. I agree that there are a lot of fears and concerns. The good news is that they are really serious and questioning the communities. There was a lot of killing among the young people. They are part of the killing machine. A lot of them are saying that they have had enough. I do see an opportunity, again, to say that from our point of view, civil war does not have winners. I am concerned about the killing from the other side. The regime is not concerned about killings from our side. We are similar to the regime. We are not. Going back and taking a few individuals, to call them the criminal elite, out of the equation, you can create the conditions for national reconciliation. Thank you. Good morning. Can you talk more into the microphone . Assuming all goes well and geneva 2 takes place, there are those extremists who would try to sabotage in any way they could. They will use any tactic to sabotage the conference. How does the coalition foresee this . How can you overcome this problem . You know the regimes dubious way of handling political issues. It is starting to surface that he is asking for a twoyear extension. Would you agree to do that . How would that apply to this kind of question . We will not agree to a two year extension or any of that. The purpose of the conference is transition to democracy. We want to create a Transitional Government with full executive authority. If that is the purpose, that is what we will do. Otherwise, i think we will not move on with this. I agree with you that the presence of extremist groups is a challenge for both sides. Especially for the international and regional players. We must be acting now to isolate these groups. We need to freeze their funding. We must start to engage. There is a difference between them. You can take away some of the base many join because they had money. Find ways to work with the neighboring countries to be more responsible and not allow insiders into the country. It is going to be a challenge. Not only for the coalition, but for the whole region. This is part of the terrorism problem that is facing these countries. It requires comprehensive strategies, not just one thing. We are addressing that. We are trying to strengthen the moderates and make all of the sources of funding come through a vetting process. Eventually, we will start funding incentives for those to go back. Speaking of terrorist groups, i should mention two others. Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary forces. They need to be addressed. If iran would like to be invited, they should withdraw and leave. There are foreign entities that are much more organized and larger in numbers. They have done more killing in syria than some of these syrians themselves. That adds to the difficulties. This is a regional and international issue. They may take my diploma way when i ask this question. I am focusing on syria. I studied here 13 years ago. I was very interested because assad was still in power, but we knew he was on the way out. I thought there was a window of opportunity because they were very open to the west. They brought the internet to syria. There was an open mind for the country. Am i wrong . Was there a missed opportunity . Please speak closer to the microphone. Have you not heard my question . Did we miss a window of opportunity to welcome syria . I thought that they were very open to the west and very open to the internet and many things that we are now seeing that they are very closed to. Did we miss that opportunity because of 9 11 . It really does not matter anymore. If i were to say a few words, when he became the president , i remember an oped that i wrote. I said that he was a legitimate president. He inherited the presidency against republican principles. Lets give him a chance. He needs to free Political Prisoners and end the emergency law. We gave him an opportunity. Our activists were leaders and they formed forums and were willing to take him on his promises. He was going to reform the country and introduce it to the modern world. There was a crackdown and they spent six months on that. There was another moment after the assassinations. Early on, i remember this very well. We were accepting the argument that they prevented him from persuing reform. He became fully in charge and the system was highly centralized and personalized. He reverted to his fathers way of addressing challenges of domestic reforms. They would not introduce political reforms. They talked about the chinese model. Nothing was meaningfully introduced to gain legitimacy. By the time he came to his second term, they wanted to introduce a slogan for his campaign. He could not find anything, so they came up with a word meaning i love you. We elect you because we love you. You are a young man and you studied in the west and you like the internet. What did he introduce here . When the arab spring started, we appealed to him. Before things happen in syria, why do you not take the lead . His response was very frustrating and it showed the mentality that he had in an interview with the wall street journal. He said that those who have not introduced reform are in trouble. I am different because i am young and i am not part of the western world. I am closer to the pulse of my people. I defend palestinian rights. I will introduce reform. He said he will introduce new magazines and more measures for local elections. He said he would legalize ngos. That is the vision that he had. He was calling for regime change and compromises. He really lost it when the people took to the streets and peacefully protested to demand the release of their Young Children who were arrested. They opened fire on them. He totally lost the support of people when he gave his first speech. He did not show remorse for the killing. Everyone had High Expectations that he would announce reform and he did nothing. I know a lot of syrians thought that was the moment for them. He lost every opportunity to be something acceptable. With more killing, the guy is a war criminal. He committed crimes against humanity. I gave a long answer to show you that we gave every opportunity. He limited himself through so many reasons. It is time for him to go. Do you have a question . Please. My name is james adams. I could describe myself as a professional field officer and recent graduate of george masons conflict resolution program. I would be interested to hear what considerations there might be by your group or syrians on two factors. One, in bosnia, they are still dealing with very serious consequences from a frozen constitution. It is highly flawed and discriminatory. This is resulting from accords it was not cast as a transitional constitution, which was the fundamental flaw. 18 years later, that is still a serious issue. That is holding bosnia back. That factor, in terms of your group, how does this affect their thinking . The other factor has to do with negative peace. This is what is put forth as negative peace, where an outside force or outside forces are needed to suppress internal conflict. In some ways, this keeps the lid on things. It gives more time to figure out how to proceed. I do not understand the second part. What do you mean by that . Negative peace in literature and among scholars is a frozen peace. This is where a conflict is put on hold. It is checked. The violence is put in check. The operation is there. Diplomatic, political, structural work is being done, all that to try to put a lid on excessive expression of whatever the various groups are trying to gain. In other words, the lack of violence, trying to perceive it as functional. That makes me think of the second factor, the factor of the other side of the positive piece, the positive peace, and that is addressing the underlying causes and conditions of the conflict, whether they be long, historical type or something more recent. And two terms, scholarly terms, that addresses more work as opposed to reconstruction or structural factors such as the constitution. I am interested in how your group or the syrians or the u. S. Governments, other governments, might address that come of those two factors, and to try to make the transition and beyond the day after, as you say, less troublesome. Thank you. Well, i think on the first question, the first part of the question, i personally attended a seminar in sarajevo about the bosnian conflict and lessons for syria. And i think i remember you raised the point that many bosnians warned us of not going through any peace arrangements without having a vision. They said they made that mistake and it was imposed on them and there was the constitution which created a paralyzed political institution, the presidency. I think it is a well taken point, and that is why you always feel we have to think about and that is only the general objectives, of a democracy, but what kind of democracy, what kind of system, all those details. We have given those issues a lot of thought. Syria is different from bosnia in the sense that in bosnia there were these three communities in a way, and they had to create the kind of system that may be close to what happened in iraq, in divided societies. In syria we have the question of minorities, and there is a clear sense of a majority in syria. If you take the divided syria in terms of the ethnic divide, the only question we have is arabs versus the kurds. Most of them are part of the opposition, and they would find a solution within a unified syria, which is good. That is helpful. The other divide is the sectarian divide. Religious and sectarian. We have 5 christians, 11 alouite. Both communities are arab, and they have more in common in terms of their cultural identity. I do not think you maybe Solutions Like federalism are viable in syria, that maybe a decentralized system would address the local concerts of these communities. What prevents syria from having a paralyzed political system is that it creates a state based on citizenship, rule of law, you create equal opportunity. Those are all missing from the authoritarian, oppressive regime of the assads. They have a clear idea, everything but the assad regime, and in that sense, the composition of syria, it is easier to avoid the problems you had in bosnia. In syria, the essence of this conflict is that people rose up demanding their basic freedom and freedom and rights. They were deprived for decades, but we were talking early on, there is an idea we should go back to the constitution, because syria had a viable democratic experience. There was that historical memory, the idea that we can live together, and we should. And so to avoid the negative peace and addressing, moving to a more positive peace is to create the political system which is responsive, gives everyone their rights, its everyone there since again that they have a place, a stake in it, and you avoid dealing with the symptoms of file its and trying to find solutions to the fighting. I do not know if i addressed the second one. The second one is the more difficult one thank you, i would like to follow up on sashas question. You wanted to ask a question . If you will go to the mic. I need you at the microphone. Pass the mic. Back here . Thank you. On the two previous questions, sasha asked did we miss an opening with bashar, the one of the things that struck me, if he had wanted to, that power structure he inherited from his father had no stake in opening up, and the issue of negative peace. That power structure will remain in place, the security apparatus, even if assad your demand is that he has to depart. The power structure will remain. How will you deal with that, and what needs to be done . I presume in whatever negotiation, whatever agreement you it achieved, how do you dismantle that power structure which is antithetical to democracy . I wanted to follow up on the idea that syria could establish rule of law, regular courts that would not be corrupt, a constitution, a democratic state, rule of law, meaning everybody abides or is sentenced. I do not see how that is possible. I would be interested in your thoughts. For us, we had a thousand years of british history and the development of a parliament chipping away at the kings powers and balancing with the monarch. Do you have any thoughts on that . Both questions are about what the realistic possibilities are. I also had a followup. It is related to maybe the first followup question. Most people when they think of a peace conference a think of the two sides have been fighting. Assad on one side and the other side the rebels. I am asking about your concept of this geneva conference. If assad is not there, who should be on that side of the table . If assad is there, if no one from the coalition will go. Ok. The first question about the structure that exists today. I think, no, we believe that these institutions of repression, particularly the intelligence agencies, must be reformed drastically. This could take time. I think we had in the day after project the whole section on security reform, in which we envisioned like all normal countries having two maybe intelligence agencies instead of the 16 that exist under assad today. Also reenvision the role for the police, which is very important and should be charged to carry out domestic order. And the same for the armed forces need to be reformed in a way that unfortunately over the years, and i think part of the reason why we have the situation we have today is that since this goes back to the french mandate, when this french first came to the country and created the first troops to carry out order in the country, they recruited heavily from minorities. This was a divideandrule policy. After independence, the country continued with that. Many of the mainstream majority would avoid serving in the army, and that explained the overrepresentation of certain minorities in the army. You need to correct that. Second, you need to create a truly professional army in the sense that it protects the country, not connected to a regime or a family or a person. That is a problem in syria. If you look at the fighting force that is doing most of the fighting with assad, it comes from the elite force of that enjoys privileges that has been equipped, trained the most, while the rest of the armed forces is almost dismantled. It is not functional. In order to move toward again democratic order, you have to reform the structure. For the security agencies and for the armed forces, and we looked in the experience of many countries and we have good recommendations there. The second question about the question of being skeptical about syria moving for democracy. Like any country, there are forces favorable and forces that are unfavorable for democracy. In todays world, the thing we learn from each other, we are not going to go through 200 years in order to become democratic. What is happening in the world today, look at the arab countries, and i teach about the transitions in the arab countries, and you look at different models of transition. Some of them have been much more successful than others, like tunisia and egypt. In tunisia they created a model that works for them and created a coalition in parliament from the three major parties that is leading tunisia forward. In egypt, the prioritization between islamists and others, led to a step backwards. Today we could learn, we do not need to go to the same time to achieve democracy. I can assure you, people who lived under authoritarian rule and suffered from that, they yearn for those basic rights and freedoms we take for granted. Once they are giving the opportunity and create the right structure and i believe there is an element of luck in doing this. You look at the American Experience and the french experience. In this country, the second time we had it right. In france, they had it more than five times. With people now provided at high cost to achieve that democratic system, im optimistic about that. Especially if you neutralize those external influences in the case of syria, the influence of iran, hezbollah, and if russia becomes a much more responsible country that finally decides to act responsibly, that could help as well. If syrians get to the other, they can find solutions to their problems. Geneva has built a process of Mutual Consent that we could veto somebody from the other side and they could veto somebody from our side. Our main criteria is people who committed crimes against humanity should not be part of that delegation. We do not want a very notorious head of the air force Intelligence Agency to be present at the table. In regime, they linked to russia some names that would be acceptable. The point is they have to be able to go back and will be reporting to some of those guides, who have blood on their hands. There can be Creative Ideas to reconcile. We believe the coalition and the opposition delegation, but we are open to include others. Those who are not necessarily included in the coalition, but share our goals of the revolution. Lets take one last question. Thank you very much. Could you speak on the difficulties of a core nation unit in providing for councils and what the isc doing to facilitate that . The acu and the local councils, they see they are one of the first organizations coordinated by the coalition. It has been doing decently, good jobs, but there have been some issues of coordination. At the local councils, the challenge with them, those are not councils that have been democratically selected, elected. In many cases the activists in this area who have been active were able to do it. In some cases like aleppo, they managed to have an election. They brought in people from the different neighborhoods, towns, and they selected the council. Part of the work that has been done with the local councils is to train them to improve, to reach out, and, number two, to improve the quality of that outreach. The more some of them were able to do it, they became more representative. Some of these local councils are challenged by other groups. In the coalition we are open to the idea of making these councils or responsive, more representative, and then it would be easier to provide through these individuals. The experience has been mixed. Some areas been a better than others. We want to always we believe it is one of the sources of becoming more legitimate, to be able to provide and rule through these councils. Let me conclude by noting that i studied arabic in damascus in 2008. I have never been in a place that seemed riper for change in a democratic direction. Ordinary people would tell you very bluntly that they wanted more freedom. I think it is very sad that they have had to go through what they have gone through. At the same time, i think the people i remember in damascus would be very proud to have you representing them here in the United States, and we are very pleased that you took the time with us to explicate the coalition. Thank you very much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] are according to news reports, the arab league will be present at the geneva Conference Held on november 23 and 24th. Journalxt washington we will talk about the week ahead in washington, the midterm elections and the budget. Our guests will be a republican and democratic strategist. How the new at Health Care Law impacts Insurance Coverage with jenny gold. On how the fbi plans to deal with budget cuts under sequestration. Washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. On cspan. Path carolina ever and are or willwerner governe speak on challenges facing his state. You can watch him live from the Heritage Foundation here on c span. This is Eleanor Roosevelts type redder writer. I have the original drafts of some of the my day columns. The first is her first my day co lumn. She is talking about the comings and goings of the white house as they get back to the regular schedule after the holiday season. 1940. S from november 6, at midnight, a larger crowd than usual came in from high park. The president went out to greet them. This was a tradition where the roosevelt would come to hide and wait forpark the election results. Roosevelt,dy eleanor monday night at 9 00 eastern. That is also on cspan radio and cspan. Org. 200yearold clock stops ticking. Time stands still. Ohio clock, an easy metaphor for the government shutdown. This is the north extension to the capital. The clock behind me is the oldest clock in the United States capital. It was commissioned for the United States senate in 1815. Ordered from a philadelphia clock member thomas lloyd. This is one of the reasons why the cspan archives are so amazing. You can view and did information at any time. To watch the newest video, go to the most recent past. To calm what you want to watch and press play. You can also search for a specific topic or keyword. You can type in a name, search, and go to people. Go to their bio page and scroll down to sppearances. Use the set button or handle tools. And share it via facebook, twitter, or google plus. Cspan, created by the cable industry and funded via your local cable or satellite provider. Next, a look at implementing state Health Care Exchanges in the louisiana, and new york. This is part of a conversation about a group that represents insurance companies. It is about 45 minutes. We are going to go ahead and continue this morning. If you would go ahead and take your seat and i am privileged again to talk with you all and introduce another great panel who is going to talk about our Early Experiences with the exchanges and give you insight from their perspective on how things are going and where we are going to stop i am going to go ahead and use our panel this morning. Our first speaker is greg cromer, the chief executive officer of the Louisiana Health cooperative. The first nonprofit coop, it plans to provide a variety of Health Insurance options for individuals and employers statewide starting january 1. Greg is not just busy enough with that. He also ran unopposed to the Louisiana State representatives among the house from the 90th district and was reelected in 2011. He also serves as the chairman of the Insurance Committee which has oversight of legislation pertaining to public and private insurance including automobile. He sits on the House Executive Committee on Homeland Security and special committee of military and veterans affairs. He is a busy guy. Our second speaker is going to be julie brunner. The Minnesota Health plan and previously the county administrator for st. Louis county in minnesota and work for the Ramsey County attorneys and anybody knows her, she brings shes probably one was quoted executives in the nation and does a fantastic job for Health Plan Members in minnesota. Our third speaker is leslie moran, Senior Vice President at the new york health exchange. She was a news producer for the 6 00 news on wnyt in new york. Shes also a valuable advocate
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.