Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20110324

he walked and then collapse. it brought him into a resuscitation area. most traumas were notified by communication area. there was little time, but they were there. they got there and put him on a gurney, they took off his clothes off, started examining him and did all of the right things. so reagan watson, jury is in the limousine, jury trust to help them out, reagan says no, the jury thinks, he wants to be a cowboy. reagan hitches up his pants leg he always does, the other aides do not think he looks so good. ronald reagan viewed his role as president has brought light. he was an actor. he was not going to get care to the doors. he walks in, it's in 15 feet, collapses like a rock. her bobnandez is there. he sees reagan fall to the ground. he says, it is cold city. "city means that he is one to die. they're having a nightmare thoughts about the president is going to die. they did not think he was one to make it. >> what did you think, gerry, when he collapsed? >> well, i really thought he was going to die too. but before the first three or four minutes, because he looked so terrible. one of the first nurses said, i thought she said no blood pressure but what she said was low blood pressure. i did think he was going to die. but he kept living on and living on and they kept doing the right things to him. >> doctor, let us go back to that page. in those days i guess it was a pager you were caring? >> easily they pay me through the bellboy. -- usually day page me to the bellboy. i walked down into the pressroom, i saw a lot of strange people. young people with earphones. i did not know what was going on. when i got back there in to the resuscitation area, he was lying on a stretcher, totally naked, and the present at the united states. my residence with their -- >> did you know right away with the president? >> yes. i just saw him. i did not have to think about it. >> you have never seen him naked though? [laughter] >> never seen him naked. just look at his face. my residents were already there and they were doing an excellent job and putting ideas into him. all of the things we were trying to do. they all spent time in the shock trauma unit in baltimore so they were very experienced in managing these things. when i got there, he was improving already. first of all, he is lying down. that always improves blood pressure. he was alert. he had a concern on his face. we asked them how he was doing and what is going on, he said he was short of breath. we turn him around, we look on the other side to see if the bullet came out, it did not. >> and he knew it was a bullet? >> we had information. it was a small hole. and so things move very quickly. there were six or seven people around, the amnesties just in the front. people on the outside looking in but it was a chaotic event. it was not. everybody had a job to do and we moved quickly to get the job done. within a very short period time, the blood pressure began coming up. we knew we had lost blood, the bullet wound went into the chest bleeding into his left thoracic cavity. >> how long before there was surgery to remove the bullet? >> the first thing you have to do is put a chest tube in. the way we treat most of these patients is that you put a test -- chest tube in. you put the tube into the thoracic cavity, a drop of blood, and then the laundry expands. -- -- three expands. it usually stops 85% or 90% of the time. >> and so there was a preliminary that by, what, 3:335 he was under? >> he was there 40 minutes. we gave him a whole lot of blood, sailing, and you watch the blood come out of the two. initially there is a rush of blood that comes out. once that is out, you hope that the blood loss is starting to get less and less. this did not happen. to the contrary, it got more. that is what i called dr. ben aaron. he came down and took over the care of that patient. >> that is when you knew how seriously it was in the lungs? >> there was something like 3 liters of blood in the test tube by the time he had this. >> remind everybody -- this was pre cable news. pre internet. the way information was getting around was very different from the way it is today. we are going to show you two clips. the first one is -- here is some of what america was sing. this is part of an abc news special. they broke into regular programming. it was probably around 3:30. >> we want to remind you once again, -- we will have more details on abc news. >> this has been a bulletin from abc news washington. [unintelligible] >> the president is in stable condition. according to this, he is in stable condition. the president was hit. he was hit in the left chest, we are told he is all right. >> so that is a remarkable piece -- and unusually remarkable piece of network television. again, it was pre cable. everything up to that time was usually packaged and prepared. it was life. and the media did not get it right to begin with. >> you did, judy. [laughter] >> seriously, and that situation, they have information coming in and it was incomplete. >> the whole information on the entire thing was incomplete. even at the white house they did not know what was going on. it finally sent everyone to the hospital. there were getting reports back trickling in. through my research, i realized he had already been taken to the operating room to two minutes earlier. i do not know why he said he was not in surgery at. there is all kinds of misinformation this day. at one point the reported that jim brady had died. there was a beautiful moment where jim brady's brain surgeon was operating on him, people were saying do not operate on him. it or ruin your career. he said i am want to operate on him anyway. anyway, they hear this report that he had died. he said, what are we operating on, a court here? there is this perception of reality at the hospital and the reality of what people were sitting at home. i think this on television is what gives people the impression that it was not that serious. this is what people lived through on the state. they heard about jokes letter which i am sure we will talk about in clips, and i said, it is not that serious. in reality, you do not understand the story. you can understand the story until you really live through this and talk to these guys and realize there is even a scene in the operating room where there is a 31 surgical intern who holds reagan's beating heart in his hand. that is how serious this day was. meanwhile, here is jerry and a bunch of others. there is a normal guy on the operating team holding the hard gently as sides of the surgeon can try to find the bullet. so they do not know that. >> and i understand what you're saying, it is not chaotic, everybody is -- another part. the scene had to be something that people -- the secret service does not reverse or something like this, or do you? >> no, we did not rehearse for that. we knew that the president was then about the best place he could be with conditions he wasn't. so what we did, we simply had a post outside of the room. he knew we were there. i was the only friendly face. he did not know a living soul in that hospital. i think it was a comfort for the agents to be close by. at the hospital, the only change i made on their posting a sign that, i said i want an agent at the foot of his bed every day, every night, in this hospital. so for 14 days, there was always an agent at the foot of his bed. we did not prepare for that, but you have to sometimes do things on the fly and that is what we did at the hospital. we did not have an agent ahead of time what we normally would have in preparation, we just at the post up as we arrived. i told him to set up a perimeter and he said it up. >> what was going to your mind when he was in surgery? >> well, i could see the monitor. i could see his blood pressure and his heartbeat. i thought it was better than mine. to tell you the truth. i thought he was in excellent condition. i did not know much about surgery. i saw the ribs being pulled apart and all of that. i thought he was going to make it to tell you the truth. >> dr., how difficult was the surgery? >> i think the key thing was when the president left the emergency room, his blood pressure was above normal. he had good blood pressure, he was rushed to the or, we had to do a little procedure to make sure there was no route nominal bleeding, it was pretty standard. you open the chest but, there was a point of bleeding in the long. he felt the bullet, it was close to the heart. he felt the bullet in the long itself. usually we do not remove bullets. we leave them and, especially when it is near vital organs. he kept feeling it and decided to remove it. that was a good decision. it was one of these bullets that has a charge and that that did not go off thankfully. i can not a match in what would have happened -- maybe i can imagine what would have happened if the bullet was left in and he was recovering, we find out is one of those bullets, will we do about that? that is a tough decision, let luckily we did not have to make that decision. >> that bullet had hit a reinforced or on his limousine before him. is that right? >> i actually have a photograph of that. you can see the pop art. it slipped through a gap about that big between the door and the college in his arms were stretched out. if you track the trajectory of the bullet, it would have hit reagan in the head. so this whole they came down to a matter of inches and a matter of seconds and it split seconds that he lived. >> meanwhile, i want to just quickly remind everybody that there were three other people who were wounded -- jim brady severely wounded. he was hit in the head. i think the bullet in that case did explode. then there was a secret service agent, and the d.c. policeman. were they getting care of their own? how was that working at the hospital? give us a quick sense of that? >> the resuscitation area had two days in it. brady was in the second day, he was cared for very rapidly by another team. tim mccarthy had a gunshot wound to the abdomen which actually traversed his liver as we later found out. he was pretty stable the whole time. we had another team working on that. three was about the maximum we could handle without straining our resources. the other one went and was taking care of their. it all went pretty well. pretty was in the operating room right across from reagan. barry quickly, meanwhile, john hinckley was taken to where? john hinckley was taken to d.c. police headquarters where he was immediately questioned by a grizzled homicide detective named eddie meyers. recently he had seen everything on d.c. streets but not john hinckley. if you had seen john hinckley, he had this boy is patch of hair, piercing blue eyes, and he was as calm as could be. there was one. were thickly was not talking and wanted a lawyer. myers was typing his report like you can imagine with two fingers. he turned it to mccarthy, hardee's but the word "assassinated?" hinckley spoted and spelled it correctly. that is where hinckley was. he was eventually taken to the field office and the secret surgeon agents there question him. there is a wonderful moment where people said, this is a loner. this is another surprising thing. the guy is investigating the case were not convinced hinckley was a deranged loner until about 7: a space 30 that night. there is a moment where a veteran of the fbi questioned, are there other assassinations in the city. is there anyone else? >> he said, john, were you acting alone? hinckley said, yes, i was acting alone. meanwhile, said resurgent -- secret service agent brought in, he had experience with people who had mental illness. he eventually is not getting anywhere with hinckley. he remembers the wallet. he remembers their being pictures of a girl in hinckley's wallet. there was a phone people -- phone number. he said is this, to affect other people? he said, you mean like a girlfriend or friend? hinckley says, kind of. he asks, who is this woman? it is jodie foster, the actors. when you find my hotel room, you will see tapes i made of the phone calls. it is a one-sided relationship. that is when he realized that this was over a movie star. think of that, the president of the united states comes within an inch of his life for a movie star. >> it is still stunning. there was so much going on in different places. the book captures it so well. this is a report that i filed that night for the nbc nightly news. this aired at 6:30 when the president was still in surgery. we are going to show you this. a double come to you for questions. -- then we both countries to four questions. >> he talked for about 20 minutes about his renewal package. >> we are going to convince this city that the power, money, and responsibility of this country begins and ends with the people and not in washington d.c.." afterwards, mr. reagan standing about 15 or 20 feet away from a limousine, it was a matter of seconds before we heard shots fired and almost instantly he was pushed into the car and driven away. the others shot or look on the sidewalk and a gunman was surrounded by police. a cameraman for abc television standing next to the gunmen said he had noticed the man earlier. >> he was in the price line. -- he was in the press line. i thought it was a little unusual. >> the police were checking for evidence on the scene. how does the gunmen gained access to an area that is supposed to be reserved only for the press? >> jerry, --[applause] -- the question of course is how did it happen? you had to already be thinking about that during the day. how much did everything changed after that? >> that is a good question, judy. that probably happen to a combination of reasons. one of the things is that was the 110th time we had taken the president to the washington hilton and a period of about nine years. that meant president nixon, ford, and reagan had been there. we had sort of a permanent kind of arrangement for the hotel because we went there all of the time. we had a number of agents posted inside and outside. we thought it was adequate. what i failed to really know what was the fact that the crowd was building out over the times we had gone there and over the years. it got to be a habit. what president carter would do, he could not be seen behind a car because of his height. the crowd got used to the fact that the president was going to do that. we got used to letting him do it. so it caught us by surprise when the gunfire was sounding. we also did not have a departure side. we have that now. if you go there now, there is an armored building. that was built later. whenever you get a major change like that, you have to have some dramatic incident occurred. that was the dramatic incident that made it occur. clearly, the preparation for the arrival site could have been better. it probably should have been better. it was my call to make, he did exactly what he was supposed to. dale reported in his book, he did everything he was supposed to do to have a safe arrival and departure. we thought we had done that. the thing was, the secret service went from a reactive posture. we were always pro-active if something happened. we went almost immediately into like a crystalize thing that happens, we decided to go pro- active after that. things really changed rapidly after that. i think it paid off because we have not had anything happen in the past 30 years. not a major attempt like that, close to the face. >> we knock on wood. >> north dakota, we knock on wood. >> there is much more to talk about. but i want to let those of you in the audience ask questions. we do have microphones here and here. come forward if you have a question. i have got plenty more questions of my own. i want to give you all a chance as well. dale, while we are waiting for somebody to ask a question in the audience, what about the situation. he said in essence, i am in charge. that was really just the tip of the iceberg. >> i was very fortunate in researching, imagine this, the situation room is where they all went to process reports from government to make plans and everything. the situation room is about the most secure room in the entire country -- or one of the most secure rooms. he goes into the room, drink a tape recorder, puts it on the table, its record. he lets me listen to four and a half hours of commentary from that room that day. you hear that alabama really does want to be in control. -- you hear that al really does want to be in charge. blessed soul, he was a long time soldier, commander of nato, nixon's chief of staff, he went through watergate, he knew that something happened there. he was so intent on controlling the situation and wanting to control the situation, what amazed me most besides -- they do not know. it put bombers on alert. al hague does not want that to happen. the did not want to spiral out of control. then he looks up at the television screen. larry speakes with the esoteric -- deputy secretary. you do not want to be on the other side ofleslie. the questions are getting more intense. it was not like larry's speech was deflecting the answers, he does -- he just did not know. you have to say what is worse, not the government not knowing what was happening or him try to deflect the answers. he leaves, they go up, and there is a moment or al is mangling the presidential succession. he literally back, he is often, sweat pouring down, dick allen in his mind is going, if he collapses right now, do i carry him off or do i shuffle him aside and continue the meeting? this is a crisis. this is the worst presidential crisis since kennedy has been killed. >> i have worked for the old washington star for 20 years. you know how things sort of become legendary. the story now that i hear is that president reagan leaving the helton was going to the washington star building for lunch. is there any truth to that? >> no, we were going back to the white house. >> ok. that is how things grow. >> i never heard that one either. >> thank you all for an amazing discussion tonight. >> speak a little closer. >> thank you all for an amazing discussion tonight. i wondered from your perspective, from a research perspective, or the other members of the panel, can you share anything about what the first lady's life was like on that day and in the ensuing days? >> i can tell you a little bit about it because -- and i will d letale and all three of these gentlemen. i interviewed the first lady extensively for a documentary i did about her. she was in the white house, she had come back from somewhere and was going about her business. i think they were seeing a decorator. her agent, her secret service agent, got word that something had happened. they did not think the president got shot, but there was a shooting. he felt he had to tell her just to let her know and thought, we will stay here at the white house until we know more. as soon as mrs. reagan heard that there was a shooting, she said i want to go. the first word was that he was coming to the white house. as soon as she heard he was going to the hospital even though she knew heat she did not know he had been shot, she said "." here is a sage and thinking he has to break the news to her. he tells her and she basically is going to the stairs and he is trying to catch her. she says, george, i am getting of the car and walking there now. they were very close. of all the people who knew reagan, the one person who knew him really well was in it to reagan. so she is walking to the hospital. she says, mike, you have to let me see him. they do not know about us. >> this would go on to changes presidency because, whenever he left the building, she had a completely different attitude going forward. in fact, in the scheduling -- >> i saw her twice, during the time of the resuscitation and the surgery. we brought her in. she was concerned, but very composed and very strong. that is when he looked up and he said, honey, i think i have to duck. >> it is so amazing. >> they wheeled him into the zero aror. in the middle of the case, i went into the second floor to talk to her and tell her what was going on. it was all very positive. >> again, she was concerned, but strong and very composed. i could see how she was that way after. >> can a follow-up? something that i hope that people take away from this that it read calibrated riggins entire presidency. he has a hospital record where it was stored at the hoover center. this is as a chest tube is inside him. in another moment, he gets to the operating room and he looks up, gets up on one elbow and takes off the oxygen mask and says, i hope you are all republican. to which, the surgeon says, we're all republicans. [laughter] when the american people heard this, they liked reagan almost immediately. researching the book, i did not realize that ronald reagan had the lowest approval rating of any present at that time in his first term. -- of any president at that time in his first term. there was a column that said "the honeymoon is over." after a string of very unsuccessful presidents, which had jfk killed, lyndon johnson did not seek it will second term because of vietnam. nixon resigned under watergate. ford made it three years. carter had won term. and here he is cracking jokes in the face of death. and what that did was allowed him and allowed the country to separate the man from his politics. it formed this bond that, although his approval ratings would dip, like every president, he had his troubles. but he had a bond with the american public that allowed them and allowed him to sustain a lot problems later and made him a mythic figure. a very astute man told me a few months before he died that this is the day that made reagan a mythic figure. i think that is important. especially these one-liners. >> it is important that the white house put those lines out. they knew it was important to get that kind of detail out. natalie to reassure the public, but to humanize the situation. >> -- not only to reassure the public, but to humanize the situation. >> i was 6 years old, leaving in longmeadow, mass.. they probably continue with the television that day. i really did get the idea because an fbi agent stuck the gun in my hand. i have to look into this war. i was curious. then 15 minutes over a roast beef -- looking to this more. i was curious. then 50 minutes over a roast beef sandwich, wow, the history of this day is full of surprises. >> thank you all for coming. i wondered if you would talk about the secret service code name "rawhide." also, -- >> you want to know how he got these names? >> yes. and if the code names are agreed .pon with the protect thee >> reagan got the stiglitz service name rawhide in 1976. i tracked down the military master sergeant that comes up with the list. rawhide was among them could he remember that reagan had been an actor in westerns. he did not get to act in as many questions as he wanted. jack warner was always putting him in a summisuit. but he did have the french mentality. -- but he did have this ranch mentality. he got the nickname rawhided during the campaign and he kept it. >> in the years that i was over there, we had no argument with him. for president carter, we chose "to begin." that was a cool thing. deacon."ose "to begi that was a cool thing. we tried to pick the proper names. nobody argued about it. >> how was the president's blood type determined at the hospital? did they have it on file or did the secret service and for mühe? >> yes. the hospital has it. they know the president could go to the hospital. they are notified about that. >> yes, go ahead. >> i have two questions. did you try and were you successful in interviewing jodie foster? second, did you get a sense -- i remember this. i was a freshman in college. it was only three months after john lennon was killed. there was such an "oh, no, not again" feeling. >> jodie foster, know. i did not try. she has given few interviews about it. she is tangential to the book. in terms of john lennon, it is interesting that you bring that up. john hinckley was a massive john had -- a massive john lennon fan. it almost destroyed him knowing that his great hero, rock star, had died. >> there was a second. oh. the media certainly made mistakes and mistakes made by others and there were heroes that day. we talked about jerry par. i want to leave the audience with these thoughts. >> i'll is a jury was. i also talk about dave ruby. wealthy people or prominent people who have a medical problem want to get out of the system and get an expert and so forth to come in and get them. usually, that is not the best way to do it. during the resuscitation, i looked up and i saw this very distinguished gentleman. i knew he was a secret service agent -- i knew he was not a secret service agent because he was older and did not have an earpiece. before i know it, he came over and said "my name is ben ruby and i am the president's physician. i'm here to provide any information you need. he is your patient and you take care of him like to take care of any other patient. >> that was not to the vip syndrome. ben ruby was one of those unsung heroes. >> he did not insist on a certain thing being done. >> for me, it was to mccarthy. if he is not standing there with his big irish body and facing down the shooter, one of those shots would have gotten me or the president. he got hit. one shot knocked him off his feet. but he did stand there and he took it and he did what he was trained to do. but no one knows whether they will really good, but he did it. mary anne gordon ran the route ahead of time. they got him there fast. >> we want to remember jim brady. >> maryann gordon. >> and jim brady is still alive. >> maryann gordon is a great one. she is a female secret service agent can she is the first -- secret service agent. she is in the league scout car, a police car. there was the shooting. she runs back to check the scene. the limousine goes. she jumps into the spare s limousine, hurdles over of the front seat. they take off. but finally catch up. remember, we have all been in washington appeared you have seen the motorcade pulled up traffic for how long? forever. there has just been a shooting. for those 30 seconds to 40 seconds, that limousine is alone. imagine that. jerry parker, a driver, and the present along on connecticut avenue. marion gordon cages up. the cops do not know that they're diverting for the hospital. marion gordon had the presence of mind to order the spear limousine in front of the presidential limousine to act as a battering ram to hit anything on the way to a hospital. she is one good number two, the nurses at gw hospital. in my research for the book, they are the first ones who treated reagan. there were the first ones there. they held his hand all night. there is a wonderful story involving denise sullivan who, 10 years later, she is a nurse in the recovering room, and reagan and scribbled notes on light, because he is a constant entertainer and he cannot help themselves. he was joking back and forth. somewhere deep questions and some were not. a myers held his hand. they are in it -- they're renaming the emergency room in riggins honor. there is a funny joke. -- in reagan's honor. there is a funny joke. here's this flirtatious former movie star, you know? and they make a joke about this at the ceremony. , a noteys later arrives in the mail. he said, your hand clasped that night meant more to me than anything during my entire stay. i think those nurses deserve a hand. [applause] >> absolutely. >> and i think some are here. the nurses never get the credit they deserve. >> this is true. there is a much more we could talk about. but i think we have come to the end of our hour. i want to thank this extraordinary panel. i have been privileged to be part of this conversation. thank you all for coming to the museum to be part of this conversation. good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this weekend on c-span 3, special counsel to president nixon talks about the watergate break-in and his relationship with the 37th president. ruth simmons on the role of flyering in academia. -- the role of slavery in academia. and the assertion that james madison should be known as the father of american politics. for a complete schedule go to c- span.org/history. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning. -- every morning, it is "washington journal." weekdays, which live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see your signature interview programs. on saturdays, "the communicator's." you can also watch our programming in a time that c- span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> new york democratic congressman anthony wiener, a member of the energy subcommittee on health, said today that congress needs to do more to highlight the benefits of the health care law. it was enacted one year ago today. congressman wiener was talking about the -- talking at the center for american progress action fund. >> thank you all for coming today. i am mayor ed tanden. -- i am neera tanden. we are very honored to have you all here. prior to my time here, i served on the president's health care reform team at the white house and was an advisor to secretary sebelius. i am particularly honored to invite you here on the first anniversary of the affordable care act. it is actually a six-year anniversary for us here at cap. it was six years ago today that we put forward our own plan to provide coverage for all americans, reform the health care system through insurance regulation, provide tax subsidies, and subsidies for people to be able to afford it and to lower the cost of health care. it sounds a little familiar. i hope it does. we believe it helped shaped the debate in the presidential cycle and ultimately the congressional passage. over the last six years, cap has worked very hard to push the idea of covering all americans and lower health care costs as well as working with our allies and congress. on this anniversary, there are those who are a little wary of the attack a year later. people wonder why the bill is ial ando controversy why we still have to defend it. we have a congressional debate rather than moving forward and talking about had to make the bill work more effectively. a lot of us can grow a little tired. i find myself in little weary talking about health care reform. i hope people are already benefiting from this law. a woman of the -- a woman does not have to worry that she will lose her daughter because she is losing her lifetime limit. because of the affordable curette, those days are over. on it -- affordable care at, those days are over. those public servants who underwent angry town halls and some of them underwent death threats to defend the this, the process and deliberations, and eventually vote to have affordable health care for all americans, there are many public servants who knew it was a tough vote and a politically tough vote for them and they did it for a simple reason, that it was the right thing to do. in a cynical age, it is important to remember that that is the really the guiding principle for many members of congress. congressman anthony wiener is a person who never shies from a fight. he often leads the fight on progressive values, whether it is 9/11 workers or health care reform more funding basic benefits for the american people. he has been a champion for these issues throughout his service and he has been a champion for health care reform. for that, we're very grateful and honored to have him. >> thank you. i am thrilled to be year with it -- to be here with you. if you have time later, i will also be doing a twitter town hall meeting at 12:30 p.m. and a facebook town hall meeting at 3:30 p.m. and there is something called read it at 5:30 p.m. this is a great day it took a long time to get started. this is all that is left of me after 22 town hall meetings, 70 hours of markups and hearings. i think there have been -- after six months of this debate and back and forth, once the law became a reality, people could sit on a piece of paper and it would take shape and it's the people in our communities benefit from health care reform. it would then be hard to lie about the bill. that turned out to be surprisingly not the case. a year after pen to paper by the president of united states, a year after people can see what is in the bill and what is not in the bill, there is still is widespread and sophisticated and well done campaign by republicans and opponents of the bill many of them sponsored by the health care industry to make up things about the bill to continue the mistrust that goes into it. we democrats and progresses, we sometimes have this facility to process it is not just -- process. it is not just enough to say that this is what we're doing and we're off to the races. thankfully, the republicans have given us another bite of the apple. they have come to washington to repeal and replace this bill. every day, we have had hearings and some other vote on elements of thdefunding. they have invested a lot of stock on discovering parts of an unconstitutional. i think that the center for american promise welcome this. this is the second opportunity for us to make the case and to explain to people the separation between wheat and chaff here. i think there will be a lot of opportunities where people will be doing summaries of what is in the bill. i want to take some of those basic republican threats -- we have not done a very good job at facing them had gone. we can take them down a notch and explain why, at the end of the day, they're not only not valid, but, in many cases, hypocritical. to some degree, we response to the bill and worked on a bought into this notion that what we had done to health care was this giant transformative thing. in fact, it was not. in fact, for many americans who have health care at their workplace, they will still get treated like crap by their health insurance. there will have little control about how their -- how high their rates go. there will have few choices. that is something that i would have liked to done more transformative things for could but i had a deep sense going into this that we wanted to try to find a compromise between the people who were like me, who said let's double down on the employer-based model, double down on the single-payer government model, medicare, which essentially takes money from taxpayers and then gives it to doctors and does not take much in overhead and does not take anything a process and employers. so there were great pains gone into it by the sponsors and those of us who supported the bill not to completely disrupt the marketplace for people who already have health care. the one thing that is commonly said, that health care was transforming it, it really was not. for those who do not have it, it it would be. for those who have small businesses, who want to do the right thing, provide health care for their workers, enormous benefits. but the idea that the entire health care structure that turned upon his head a year ago today simply is mythological. there are things that were changed, but not nearly as many as many people in america wanted. many of the polls that say are you satisfied? if you drill into those were dissatisfied, you will find that many wanted bigger change because they found out that, frankly, their benefits would not change that much. the next thing that republicans say is similar to the first, that there's this big government takeover of health care. in fact, it is the opposite. when people use words like "socialization" to describe it, it is hypocritical. we're taking health care dollars and giving them to private companies. that is the opposite of socialism. even if it did what i wanted, that would have been -- that would not have been a government took ovetakeover either. it is all going to private doctors. we went to great lengths in the slot to empower -- in this lot to empower people. governors with political interest come to washington and say that we are trampling on the rights of states. if you look at how the bill is structured, we gave the state every right to administer exchanges. even the most anti-health care gov. wilson, yes, we want our state to govern the exchanges -- -- even the most anti health care gov. will say, yes, we want our state to govern the exchanges. should i start the talks [laughter] the decision to not include tort reform and a limit on towards in the federal law, something that the republicans bitterly complain about today, is that that is the province of the state legislatures. furthermore, there is not a body of tort law that governs things like malpractice. the idea that there's this big government takeover and trumping state rights is of course not the case. finally, we have heard many governors complained about provisions of law that expand medicaid eligibility between now and 2018, saying that you will bankrupt the state. what they fail to point out is that, in that time, yes, more people will be covered under medicaid. but it will be entirely paid for by federal dollars, which results in a dramatic savings for the states. there is a scenario in 2019 where states have to pay a lot more, but only a few governors did very poorly. if you think about it, the expansion of medicaid still means you have to have an enormous number of poor people for it to not be a good deal for your stay. it is interesting to hear haley barbour come to washington and say that you will bankrupt my state. your stipulating to the fact that there will be an enormous number poor people in his state. it is funny to hear the governor of mississippi complaining at all about anything by the federal government. they get almost and 80% reimbursement on their medicaid. far be it from me to complain about haley barbour. i hate to points down, but, still, i do believe that the complaints of trumping states' rights are simply not true. today we saw him talk about the burdens of small business. in fact, there are none. i mean, that's not true. there's 1099 provision that the senate put in, there's con us is -- there's consensus in this town to do away with. is the only new regulation tax fee burden put on small businesses. on the other hand, we, in this law, are going to make it 30% cheaper for any small business to offer health insurance to its workers. and in the future we're going to allow those small businesses to go into this exchange where there's going to be competition to hold down prices. we're going to offer small businesses for the first time ever the opportunity to get subsidies, to purchase health insurance for their workers. so if anything we now have republicans complaining bitterly about one of the largest tax cuts for small business in american history. the idea that somehow small business is being burdens by this law, quite the opposite. we hope that small business takes these incentives to go out and buy insurance for their workers. because it is simply unfair to to be honest with you, to have a shoe store that offers health insurance, competing against one on the other side who doesn't. the fact is those costs are getting passed along one way or the other. another common cry that we've heard from the republicans is the notion that this is going to bankrupt the federal government. now, we can have a conversation that can dominate this forum on how the cobb score was done, how its 10-year projection, 20-year projection, both of which show this is going to be a reduction in the deficit and debt. but what i'd prefer we focus on is an element of this has not come up in this conversation about cost. we also have the cost to locates and local taxpayers when uninsured people walk into hospital emergency rooms without care. in new york city we pay $8 billion in taxes, $8 billion in taxes each and every year for the uninsured and the underinsured. that doesn't even count to the social cost of the fact that we have 17 fewer hospitals in new york city since the year 2000. have 17 fewer hospitals in new york city since the year that shows up in no cobb score, no debates we've had here in washington about the cost of this bill. frankly there is a transfer from local taxpayers, from state taxpayers to the federal government in this bill. taxpaye taxpayers to the federal government in this bill. even with that transfer, it winds up being a net savings of $1.2 trillion over 20 years. i want to point out when we have this conversation about cost and bankruptcy, one of the things the cbo gives zero credit for is a lot of the incentives built into the bill for preventive care. we know intuitively and we also know because our mothers told us an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. the heads of cbo don't see it that way. they give us no credit for virtually everybody agrees is that if you do things like we do on the medicare side of the bill, where we cover preventive services 100% without a single co-payment, that you're going to insentivize people to get those preventive services, the conversations we're going to be having about insentivizing in years to come to get more people in the front end of the health care structure than the later end, none of those savings are included in the bill. i think if anything, the cost is articulated by the cbo score are very, very conservative. that in fact, the savings are going to be much higher. if you start adding in the savings to state and local taxpayers, you're going to see the number increase even more. finally, there is this issue of the mandate. this is perhaps dominated in more conversation than it really deserves. first of all, the philosophy behind the mandate is one most americans understand, the idea that people have to bear responsibility in this transaction for their own care. people have to be, if we offer them incentives, if we offer them subsidies, ultimately they have to accept responsibility for their own health care decisions inasmuch as they impact everybody else. there's a basic element of legal thinking that, you know, the right of my fist ends at your nose. i can do what i like. when i start to impact your rights as an american, as a steb, there's reasonable place for government to come in and set the rules of the road. when it comes to health care, people that choose not to get insurance, choose to be uninsured are making a decision that has only two branches on the decision tree. one is to be perpetually healthy and the other is to pass along expenses of health care to someone else. as much as we think we're ready, the shear expense of being hit by a bus is pretty high. when you can't pay it, it gets passed to hospitals and fellow citizens. the mandate is something that was included in romney care, included in the president that the signed a year ago. in massachusetts, which again, it's a similar model. i'm going to enjoy watching governor romney debate himself during campaign 2012. it's a similar model. here's a subsidy. here's a system to shop for health care more efficiently. now you have to get it. a number of people that given that structure, which is the same in this bill, that chose not to get it in massachusetts was .067%. meaning virtually everybody. this should come as no surprise to anyone who takes a step back from the political debate and thinks the way most people think, people want health care. they want health insurance. they want their family to be protected. they want that peace of mind. if lightning strikes and it turns out that as many of us believe the supreme court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate, big deal. big deal. first of all, i believe that as many of you know, not to get off on a tangent, it's pretty clear that justice thomas should recuse himself from these decisions given the amount of money he's gotten from companyings overturning health care reform, putting that aside, we pretty much see the direction the supreme court is going, although i think it would be folly to strike it down, it's a relatively small number of people. by the way, the solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like a house of cards. people aren't going to suddenly start cheering and say i'm going to sign up, now i'm not, the solution is going to be offering something that everyone agrees is constitutional. that's the public option in the exchange. clearly that is constitutional. no one denies that because it would be into medicare, social security where we do require people to withhold money from checks and go into those programs. if you think about that list that i just read and the brief and i think i did each in a couple of minutes, the brief rebuttal, it donesn't change th fact that more millions and millions of americans, they saw this first year not be as much about back and forth as if they wanted it, if they were a senior citizen, they got coverage for the doughnut hole, if they were a young family, 23 or twour 24-year-old person in the family, they were able to go on their parents' health insurance plan. this next period is going to be very, very important. it's going to be the rule making that's going to go on, as with any big bill, it's going to go on here. you have enormous back and forth about the minimum standards in the bill. that's the next big fight. every advocate for an illness is going to want coverage. advocates for certain technologies want prejudice in the bill for their services. that's going to be tough but necessary. the third stage of the bill is the implementation of the exchanges which is where the big stuff that we're trying to do in the bill, covering the uninsured, taking that burden off of states and individuals. that gets implemented and people get to shop on those exchanges just the way members of congress and federal employees shop for their benefits. the final stage of the bill is all the republicans who voted no going to ceremonies and going to town hall meetings where they're bragging about how great obamacare is. they have to bite their tongue for calling it obamacare for the next 50 years. i don't anticipate this fight will end. i think we're in this dynamic that synopsises are facing in a certain direction on this bill. we're going to continue to have debate. democrats have only a couple of choices. we can engage the debate or not engage the debate. i think it would be folly to believe it is going away. it would be folly to believe that i am either. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we'll take your questions. go right there. that's great. so i have a few questions and we'll take questions from the audience. first of all, you referenced the presidential debate, the upcoming presidential debate. as you might note, republican presidential candidates, possible republican presidential candidates are celebrating the anniversary differently than we are. you referenced this a little bit at the end, what specifically do you think advocates for the legislation should do over the next year as presidential candidates on the other side attack the bill with a lot? >> it depends on who we think is going to run against us. i think the one thing we have to do is make it pretty clear that a lot of the values that these republican can indicates espouse are in the bill, are reflected in the legislation. look, this was basically a structure that republicans, for years, had advocated. the idea of taking tax benefits and incentivizing people to get health care. we took a couple of steps to codify it differently than they would have, but, you know, there's inherent inconsistencies in what they argue. there's a class act which is a voluntary long term care insurance program. what it does, it says if people sign up, they can sock away some money and they get a guaranteed cash benefit to provide long term care services in years to come. it's a medical savings account. it's exactly what many of them have been arguing repeatedly year after year, yet this is what they want to repeal. the other thing is i think we need to embrace this argument about -- i think we need to engage and have some fun with the argument that the field is having with mitt romney because, if for no other reason, he to some degree deserves some credit. i mean i can do him his campaign by giving him credit, but for leading an adult conversation in massachusetts but also showing something else. the basic thing we learned from the romney care plan in massachusetts was that even a state isn't muscular enough to be able to force insurance companies to compete and hold down -- hold down rates. most of the rest of the field doesn't seem to know what's in the bill. either that or they're overtly lying about provisions of the bill. i think we should -- i mean, i don't think the president necessarily should engage every one of them, but i believe we as democrats have an obligation to the primary voters of iowa to have this debate. >> also, we could demand they put their own plans forward. >> right. >> i want to shift a little bit to the budget debate. we're seeing there's two points emerging in the budget debate on the hill. there's a debate about how much money we spend. and then there's a debate about riders. obviously, repealing health care reform itself is a rider. so i wonder, there's been obviously a lot of back and forth. the white house seems to be signaling they have a real concern about the riders and trying to eliminate that. i think it could end up that we're in a place where a government shutdown is threatened over riders itself. how do you think we as advocates should respond? >> well, there's two things i think that fundamentally have to change here. for one, i think we need a competing narrative from two of the basic thrusts of what the republicans have said. one is repeal and replace. i believe fundamentally americans offered the choice between repeal and replace and something like implement and improve believe basically in the idea of not rolling back things but trying to work them out and make them better as we go. yet we haven't offered them that narrative. it's been very defensive and reflexive up to now. the republicans have done a pretty good job of making this fight on their side, for lower deficit, smaller government, less debt, lower taxes. our side, it's just this general defense of the good things that government does. rather than us having our things, we should have, i don't know, medicare, social security, environment and education. those are our four things that we're not going to budge on. now let's negotiate, because i think the challenge we're having in this town legislatively and from public perception is we have not defined our side of the argument particularly well. i think if the republicans want to shut down government ovary peeling the health care reform, i don't think we're that lucky. i mean, there is this tendency among republicans right now, but i think that it is insufficient as i said recently, to sit back and wait for the republicans to self imlate. i think we need to have an affirmative contrast. >> i now invite questions from the audience. if you could identify who you're with. over there. >> bob catcher. thanks from brookings and mckenzie. we're inspired. republicans keep saying, this bill doesn't cut deficits enough, yet they're against cutting medicare and medicaid. how do we score that argument? what's the right comeback? >> yes. for one thing, implicit in a lot of their critique during health care is they can't possibly like medicare very much. you know, they're concerned. i mean, i asked a panel of witnesses at one of these mind numbingly boring hearings on health care, whether the panel considered medicare to be a single payer system that they derive so much. i think there is this notion, you just mentioned it, that it takes a great man to build a barn, but any jack ass can kick one down. we pretty much know the republican talking points against the solutions we've tried to come up with in this bill. we've yet to see very much public pressure put on them to come up with what their ideas are. i can tell you their ideas during the health care debate, not with standing their protestations were not serious, things like tort reform is a solution. well, the cbo -- we asked cbo to score a 30% reduction of torts. what they found is it would save you $50 billion over ten years. we spend 2.7 trillion every year in health care. they have yet to be terribly serious about it. i think we haven't done a very artful job even with the thrust of this nonsensical question of double counting of the $500 billion of savings of medicare. article after article have unpacked that and explained it to my republican funs. they keep using it because it's fairly successful. we need to do a much better job pushing back. >> right there. >> my name is scott. i'm from gw. first of all, thank you for -- i don't think members of congress, i don't think y'all get enough credit for this bill. you get a lot of crap for it. i'm diabetic, i have a preexisting condition. i'm able to stay on my parents' plan until i'm 26. the president said something about letting states opts out if they can come up with a better plan by, like, a few years from now. what's the whole consensus on that? what are they trying to do about that? >> what was your name? >> scott. >> before you put down the mike, there's a lot of talk about the free market governing health care. you chose to have diabetes, right? that was your free market decision? >> yeah, when i was 8, i said that would be cool. >> i think -- look, thank you for the kind words. i think the president articulated something that i was debating whether to bring this up in my remarks about things we're not pushing back upon enough. there have been well over -- i don't know what the exact number is, over 1,000 waivers given over different provisions of the of the bill to states, labor unions and businesses. this notion of one size fits all, the federal government shoving the bill down the throats, hhs has administered this bill to be very sensitive to the idea we have common objectives. we want lower costs, more access. we want the system to work. the idea that somehow we would not want the law to work by driving health insurance companies out of business or by being inflexible in regulations. in fact the waivers, i would hope that the administration kind of understands, makes this argument more forcefully, is an argument, look a lot of the people who got waivers were organizations that didn't like the bill and had real problems with it. some of them are friends. i think when the president said if you've got better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, come do them. i'm in the process in my office of trying to see if we can take him up on it in the city of new york. i have a passing interest in the management of the city of new york. so i'ms i think the president is right. if you can achieve the objectives of the bill, then all of us in congress would be flexible enough to say go to it. >> right here. thank you, congressman. i'm from americans for democratic action. you mentioned before we weren't doing a very good job at that narrative. i simply want to ask why, and what agents you think need to play a role in helping us craft that, as a young progressive, where should i go and who should i be looking to for leadership on these issues. >> thank you from your organization does great things. i think it's more about who we are structurally as progressives to some degree. we have this idea that if you have a law and think it through carefully and you're trying to implement and you have regulations, we're all going in the same direction, that ultimately, that will weigh out for someone who still to this day is talking about death panels. i think to some degree, we have to play more skillful defense and offense at the same time. i think that today, you're going to see a lot of democrats. nancy pelosi is using her twitter feed to have another benefit of the bill every hour. it's important to do. it's important to realize that we have not done a good job disabusing americans of some of the things they've heard so many times that we can't just say that's obviously not true. people can go to any website they want and look at it or pull out a fact and check it for themselves. no. we have to keep doing -- we have to keep at these fights. who does it? i think the white house has to understand at the same time they're trying to write these regulations this is going to be an issue in campaign 2012. i think whether they like it to or not, and i think they should make a virtue of it and should be out there doing it more. i think there are a lot of people in congress who are trying to do it, but we in congress still have within the democratic family do have disparate voices. there are some people who are cringing anytime health care comes up they don't want to go through that again. it's not going to get any better. we're going to have this discussion whether you want to or not so let's have it skillfully. >> there's a question in the back. sorry to make you walk around. >> i'm deborah shumen with physicians for national health program. i've also been working in the state of maryland with the governors coordinating council to implement the affordable care act. one of the main things going on in anap list during this session is to try to create an exchange or at least set up the structure for an exchange. in maryland, we have two bully insurance companies care first and united health care who control 70% of the market. one of the things that they talk about in the committee meetings is who's going to pay for the exchange. they look at it as another layer of bureaucracy. i have to say i agree with them. i wonder how this is going to get paid for once we have the essential benefits package. these are all good things, essential benefits package is a good thing. no lifetime limits a good thing. no preexisting condition limitations and recisions, those are all good things, but i really can't believe that an exchange is going to be able to control costs. it hasn't in massachusetts. i'd like to hear your comments. >> first, look, there is no doubt we are, to some degree, betting on the following premise, that if you give companies a playing field on which to compete, if you give consumers information that allows them to examine choices side by side, that the presence of that competition and the rules of the road being consistent, will lead to people making decisions that are driven by cost and price and that consumers will choose lower priced plans and that more choices that people have, the more likely costs will come down. this, by the way, is not socialism. it's free market concept. it's the law of large groups of consumers shopping for a product. now, we are not entirely taking a shot in the dark here because putting aside the massachusetts experiment which had mixed results, we got the federal employees health benefit plan which covers 9 million americans and their families. that's a pretty big universe of people who use an exchange model that is very low cost, meaning the administration of the program costs less than .075%, less than one 0.1 of o1%. there's one other element that my republican friends talk about a lot but ignore in the bill. once you have regulations that are consistent across state lines, that tennessee can no longer have very, very bare bones things, there's nothing stopping companies from offering services over state lines. this mantra we hear from republicans all the time. why don't you let companies sell their products over state lines. there's a simple economic reason. they have their own state insurance commission, but another is a fairness thing. if tennessee, just to take an example, offers a bare bone, low cost health care plan, it would serve to attract a lot of younger, healthier people and states like maryland and new york would be stuck with more, bigger families, more sick people. it wouldn't be fair. once you have these regulations in place, you may have more than two choices, but your argument, your question is why cbo said that having the public option would save a bunch of money, because then we would know that there would be an efficient, low cost option available to people and with that knowledge, we know that competition would at least have some effect on lowering costs, but to some extent, it's an experiment with the rules of the free market, and unfortunately, the insurance industries have proven that the laws of economic gravity don't apply when it comes to insurance rates for a lot of reasons and hopefully, this model will work. >> we have time for one more question. someone in the front? right there. >> final question, congressman, ms. tanden. what's the verdict? is this a happy birthday or an unmerry birthday? >> i'll let you take that one. >> the way i look at it is what are we going to be saying about this in, let's say ten years? if you look at, as i did, you look at the debate on medicare, you look at the year after. there was still enormous amount of questions about whether the system would work. what ultimately happened was a divided public opinion. ultimately, evolved to a near universal among 65 and older people, near universal support for medicare. among people 65 and below, a great deal of confusion. but i do think that if we're going to look back at this year and we're going to laugh at some of the things that the things that its critics said about the law. we're going to see that things like a day of armageddon or whatever boehner said the day that this passed, crazy. and still be tweaking it in ten years. that's what medicare -- we're tweaking it to this moment. so i think this is a day that testimonies and people who voted for this bill should be celebrating. and i hope it's a day that americans renew an interest in it and don't look at, you know, two people shouting on tv and try to learn a little bit more about the law. and i believe that each successive year that goes by, if we handle this conversation right, i think it's going to be seen as a true success story. and i guess the question is going to be this. this time in 2012 or later in the fall of 2012, are you going to see ads by the republican saying, don't vote for president obama, because he passed obamacare, or are you going to see ads from president obama and all the people like some of in this room that are getting care and how much better the economy is because we addressed this problem? i think it's going to be the latter. so i think this is a happy birthday. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congressman weiner mentioned the health care law earlier this month. it occurred at a hearing of the house energy and commerce committee. >> i just want to ask a couple of questions. i didn't hear you respond, governors respond about these questions abouter to the reform. you don't want federaler to the law to you is plant and supersede stater to the law, certainly? >> i thought the question was, what happened when we did this in our state and it's been very, very beneficial. >> would you agree, i assume you would, that you want state law to supersede federal law? you don't believe there should be a federaler to the law, do you? >> i think in federal causes -- cases i think there ought to be -- if it's about federal law. >> as you know, -- >> if you go into federal court in mississippi and a case of rights in state, state law reprail -- prevails. we wouldn't want to change that. >> medical practical practice is a state law. you don't want federal law to supersede state medical malpracticer to the reform. >> not in state cases. >> from the conversation we're having here, you'd think you have any additional cost at all before 2017. are you both aware that you don't? you have no additional cost before the year 2017. >> that's why i said, sir, when i was trying to say what the costs were, they're so back loaded. >> right. let me ask you this question. do you anticipate in the future, mississippi will have more or fewer poor people with you as governor? >> depends on the national economy. as long as we've got the economy we got now, we're going to have more. we're going to have more -- >> but is it your policy to reduce the number of poor people in your state >> policy of our state is to grow the economy and have more people working. >> is that a yes, sir? >> should be the result. should be the result. >> it's more or less a rhetorical question. you endeavor to have fewer poor people. that would make you a more successful governor. if you have fewer poor people, wouldn't your medicaid costs go down? >> when we added 60,000 employees my first three years as governor, yes, sir, people went off the roll, our medicaid cost were better under control. >> so if you have fewer poor people than today your medicaid costs will go down, won't they? >> now they'll actually go up because we're going to put all of these people on medicaid under the affordable care act -- >> i'll put it this way -- >> who are not on it now. >> in terms of the law, under the affordable care act, people eligible will have a family of four making $30,000 a year will be the maximum coverage. under the increase under the affordable care act. starting in 2017, when the federal government stops absorbing 100% and absorbs 95% of that, if your number of poor people goes down, goes down a sufficient amount, if you're a good governor and your number of people goes down, your medicaid costs will go down. won't they? >> the definition of poor and eligible for medicaid are two different things. the number of people eligible for medicaid will go up. >> $30,000 for a family of four will be the new limit. if it goes down and you as a good job of governor, fewer poor people, lower medicaid costs. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> not compared to today. >> that's the number i gave you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> our guest was an society editor with "c.q. health beat." this is 45 minutes. host: rebecca adams is with us, the associate editor at cq healthbeat. we have a separate line for health care practitioners to call in on. 202-628-0184. we will get to the second bullet point in a little bit. but i want to stop on these health insurance exchanges. guest: in 2014, there will be new markets open for people who buy insurance on their own, who do not have employer sponsored coverage. these are people who get their care through individual or small group markets now. these are going to be new insurance exchanges that have to meet federal guidelines. states can choose whether to run their own or the government can come in to create these marketplaces. people will be able to go to websites and see what is offered in their state, see what prices are. they will have pretty uniform benefits in the health care law. host: they are only allowed to participate in their own states exchange, unless there state says that there will be part of the federal exchange? guest: there is law that would allow regional compacts to be up and running. most states will probably just have it within their own. host: have you heard about other state performing a compact? would that be competitive for the buyer? guest: we have not heard much. it is in the early planning stages. in the next year, state officials will be deciding, do we want to run this ourselves, do we want the federal government to come in, what do we want the exchange to look like? host: so people do not have access to these exchanges yet, even though funding is beginning. how are states reacting to this? guest: it is interesting. we have heard a lot of complaints from the 29 republican governors out there, but not all of them are saying they want the government to come in. some would want control over their exchanges. we want it to reflect our values and what we want. so we are going to run it ourselves, regardless of our opposition to the health care law. host: we got a phone call earlier from abramoff collar, -- from a vermont caller, saying that they are going that way of single payer. guest: vermont has an interesting history. you remember there was quite an expansion of public programs in vermont any way through public programs. they want to build on that to have a state-run health care plan. host: let us talk about the cost. that has been critical. cbo came and with new numbers on how much this is going to cost. what did they say? guest: repealing the health care law would cost $210 billion, if the republicans were to succeed in that. that is something that republicans will disagree with. they say, cbo, we have to pay attention to what they say, but they are discounting the impacts because they do not believe all the savings will accrue to medicare from the cuts in the law. they also say the costs will be higher than expected. so there is a little bit of disagreement on whether the scores that are put forward, but estimates put forth by the cbo, are simply reflecting what is on paper or reflecting what will really happen. host: cdo on friday said this, according to "the wall street journal" -- guest: the cost of coverage in everything, that is what is included. but we have reductions also. when i was talking about the $210 billion cost, that is cuts to medicare, other programs, so that is when you end up with. host: so they did not take into consideration payments to doctors, everything else, that will be revised? guest: not to the increased costs. host: mary is a democrat. good morning. guest: most people -- caller: most people do not realize these health care companies are on the stock market. their goal is to raise the stock price, paid executives. they make these huge salaries that are beyond comprehension. they do not prioritize real health care. this is what i see amongst most of the people that i know. if they realized this, they would have a different attitude towards the affordable health care plan. guest: she is correct. some of these insurers are publicly traded. aetna, humana, etc. this would allow states to take a closer look at a rate review. the federal government is not saying that rates have to stay under a certain amount, but they're providing money to states to take a closer look at whether insurance rates are too high. starting this year, one thing that is important, there is something called the medical loss ratio going forward. what that means, in simple english, insurance companies are not supposed to spend more than 80% of your premium dollar on anything such as medical cost in texas. that is for the individual market. for large group markets, 85%, who have spent a bit more on health benefits. if they do not meet that, then next year, consumers will get a rebate. host: lee is a republican in springfield, missouri. one year later, what are your thoughts about health care? caller: i am on social security disability. i just got on last year. period a two-year waiting plut to get my medicare, but they want a $631 premium. there is no way i can afford it being on disability as i am. i am afraid of this health-care law, the premiums that i will have to pay, being on limited income. host: she wants to ask you a question, so hold on. guest: have you been uninsured for at least six months? caller: yes. guest: you have an option that you may want to look into. the pre-existing condition plan. it started last july. you may want to check it out. it offers insurance to people who have been uninsured for six months and have pre-existing conditions. this is something that states are ripping up through the country. the rates are better than what you would typified through high risk pools or private insurance. they are still not terrific, but better than previously. the government is putting $500 billion to offer that insurance. host: for people with pre- existing conditions that prohibits them from getting private insurance and temporarily put them into a high risk pool. robert is a democrat in atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. i guess i am one of 140 million americans without health care. i have been living on my savings for several years. i would like to get health insurance. i have two questions. where do i go to find out -- can you recommend a government agency that can help me get started? and because things are changing because of the implementation of this, should i do this now or when things change? guest: let me just say, if you have been insured for six months, you might want to check into this program that i just talked about. but you have to be uninsured for six months. if you buy insurance and looking to the pre-existing plan, then you are not eligible. host: what about that criteria, pre-existing condition? guest: if you are in a state running one of these high risk pools, then you have to have been denied by insurance companies for anything that is a chronic condition. states are a bit more flexible. some of them don't need to necessarily have gone through the entire process. let me mention a website, healthcare.gov. there is another, healthcarefinder.gov. you can enter your zip code, and it will give you some options for insurance. host: next phone call. good morning. caller: i am calling in reference to the health care law that was passed. i am one american that does not have health care. people do not realize that 17% of our gdp was going to our health care. we cannot do that if we are going to be a leader in the world. host: what about those numbers? guest: he is right. we have one of the highest costs per capita around the world and our mortality rates are worse than some of those countries. we spend more than other people in the world and some would argue that we did not get as much for our money. host: the senior house policy analyst at consumer union has a piece in "usa today." one of the first thing he read it -- recommends is to not demand unnecessary care for minor ailments and pains. things that will heal on their own. a large body of research shows that up to 25% of care that is delivered is useless, questionable pa or harmful. guest: that is something that we say with parents that have children with viral infections. an antibiotic will be issued, but that does not really help. there does seem to be a balance. you need to be getting appropriate care. host: some other recommendations that he makes -- share record with other doctorsk tv" what are your comments on that? host: we should note, it does bedight your privacy, but you may want to consider another doctor. here are some of the websites they recommend. guest: there are all sorts of things out there to look at. you can also look at the medicare website which has hospitals, compared by quality measure. host: an independent caller in arcadia, florida. caller: if obamacare was such a good deal, why did they have to give out a thousand waivers and exemptions to companies and states? guest: he is referring to something that took place over the past year. on september 23, there were a lot of different consumer protections that kick in. we saw things like the coverage for young adults and other things kick in. one of the thing that took effect was a limit on how much insurance companies can cap your insurance every year. the health care law says that has to phase out, and in the first year, the limit was $750,000. what hhs faced was a lot of complaints from employers that said, we offer these very limited health-care plans. we are either not going to be able to offer these plans at all, we will get rid of our coverage, or you have to give us a waiver. there is no way we can meet the limit this year. so it hhs complied. they did give out a thousand waivers. 90% of the applications were approved. a lot of those went to mini-med plans, very basic health plans. host: according to "the new york times" -- seattle, steve on the republican line. earlier there was a story on "politico." he was supporting it initially but now says that it will put too much pressure on businesses. caller: i am a small businessman. he is absolutely right. since you are showing media accounts, the most misleading and inaccurate statement that rebecca made was the idea that states have the option under obamacare to have their own values and run it in their own way. that is not true. i want to draw everyone's attention to a march article of "the national review." it is by michael kamen. keep in mind, obamacare does not allow states to decide policy. this article points out that the federal mandates, the only thing the states are allowed to do is have people or heavier mandates, equal or heavier price controls, or a single payer system. anyone -- and the states are a lot to do that even before obamacare was passed. you should go to the article as a resource. kathleen sebelius has made it clear, and the law has said, these can go towards mandates. it is heavy price controls combined with the heavy mandates that will force insurance companies to be unable to compete in the free market. prices are going to go up, rationing is going to occur. any state that starts putting together their own -- you know, plan -- it is better to put the burden on the federal. you have to totally repeal and dismantle this. people should stop saying that states will have their own belt use through this bill. guest: he is right, that there are concrete things in the law that are not negotiable, that states do not have control over. the individual mandate, that is something that states cannot wave. the employer mandate, -- there are a lot of things in the law, especially related to benefits that have to be in the plans. all of those things cannot be waived. he is right in that sense. what i was meaning -- republicans who are concerned about the law but still want to run the exchanges are thinking that they will test the limits of how much they can tailor the law to their benefit, how much influence they will have over that. host: cspanjunkie tweets -- chattanooga, tennessee. dorothy is a health care practitioner. what do you do in the industry? caller: i am a nurse. i had to retire because of arthritis and i had back surgery. what puzzles me, i went back to work but i could not work full- time. because i could not work full- time, i could not get insurance. my therapist said, why don't you try for disability? because i was gainfully employed, i could not get disability. now i am training for a job that will let me do sit down work, but i cannot get health care. while i am working, nobody wants to employ somebody who is high risk. and i cannot afford -- any health care that i can get will not cover my back. he only way i can get high risk insurance is if i go without health care. that is a rationing. i have never seen anything more like rationing. it discriminates against people who try to work. i think that is decimating for our work ethic. everything is against the worker. host: hang on, dorothy. guest: if she has insurance, in order to qualify for the temporary high-risk pool, she needs to be without insurance for six months. it is what is available. there are limits on when you can qualify for disability. congress, 10 years ago, tried to loosen those, but there are still restrictions that apply. it sounds like she is in a difficult spot. host: next phone call. larry on the democrat's line. caller: i am a single data with three kids. i was trying to get health insurance for them. what can we do about the deductibles? deductibles seemed to range from $1,000 to $3,500, depending on what you pay for a premium, and i could not afford to pay the deductible, so insurance companies would -- host: i think we have your point. you have to remember to turn down your television. i would recommend you see if you qualify for the children's health income program. it is a bit more than the medic medicaid income level. for deductibles, it is difficult. you need to shop around and do what you can. if you have access to a flexible spending account, you may want to look at that as well. host: when will medicaid be expanded? guest: 2014. 15 million people will be added to the rolls. right now, there are a lot of restrictions on who is eligible. you have to be in a certain category to qualify. one of those categories is people with children. if you are a child less of adults, often times you do not qualify for medicaid. in 2014, that will change. anybody under 133% poverty will be covered, regardless of whether you fit into one of these categories. host: for all ages, all types of people? guest: yes, if you are over 65, you are eligible for medicaid. host: let's go to paris, illinois. donnie is an independent caller. caller: i was so happy that i just got on. i have been waiting for a while. the lady and fellow that was on before i called answered a lot of questions that i had. i am basing my opinion just on today. medicare, medicaid, social security, disability. i started working when i was 13, picking strawberries over the summer. i have worked all my life. i am 58. 2003.e been crippled since i was lucky enough to have children although i have only started to collect medicaid in the past few years. my youngest is starting college this year. i lost my insurance december 1. between december 1 and february 2, i have already accredited about $4,000 in medical bills from my heart doctors and everywhere else i go. i do not understand how the situation is working. how do people, who do not work, and have not worked, and i see people collecting medicare, they get paid, social security check us, they get disability every month, and i am still fighting for that. guest: medicare and medicaid, you have to qualify. it is income-related. one of the things the proponents of universal health care have said, they wish there was a public option in the health care law. they wish everyone would have had access to a government-run plan, which is not part of the law. host: we talk about what would happen in 2013, state-run the insurance exchanges. other aspects of this law that will be kicking in, phasing in of subsidies for medicare part b coverage gaps. -- d coverage gaps. guest: last year, these people got a $250 check to cover this. this year, it is going to change a little bit. there will be a 50% discount when they are in that group, known as the don't hold. it will continue like that until the gap is completely eliminated. host: other things scheduled to kick in. guest: i need to make sure i am understanding exactly which provision you are referring to. there is an increase for primary-care doctors that starts. it is a two-year program. but it phases out after two years. that is something that congress put in, try to attract people to the primary care field. they earn less than specialists. there has been a concern about a shortage of primary-care. that is what that refers to. host: bennington, vermont. peggy on the republican line. caller: you actually just started to touch on what i have called about. i was reacting to something that you read from the "usa today" article about people trying to take steps to improve their own care. it included rating doctors, providing medical providers, making choices and choosing different providers, if you found the quality of service lacking. i think the real problem for many people, increasingly, is that you are simply not able to find any provider that will accept you, particularly for those people on one of the government programs, whether on medicare or medicaid. they are not really in a situation -- and it is not just those people -- but particularly if you are on a government program. guest: she has a point. some of the critics will say, you are adding 60 million people, can you handle that? right now, there are some anecdotal access problems. the argument is, are you just giving people a piece of paper that does not really allow them to get the access they need to health care? that is one of the criticisms of this law. host: san francisco. murray is in the health-care industry. caller: this country is run by people selling drugs. our country is addicted to drugs. our country is one of the sickest countries in the world. in reference to health care, i feel president obama has done an outstanding job. he is looking up for the masses of the people. he is trying to uplift the people. i feel he is one of the true statement that i have ever observed in my 78 years. the increase in the insurance rate is due to the pressure being put on the people, in order for them -- based on fear. guest: it sounds like he is a gung-ho supporter of the a lot and president obama. he referred to prescription drugs. that accounts for 10% of spending. the increase in insurance rates, there is debate about what causes that. insurers will say it is because of the underlying health care costs. there is a perception among critics that the health care law is contributing to that. however, there are others who say that is really not true because the provision that have taken effect so far would have a modest effect on premiums. host: several opinion pieces in the papers about this health care law. the editorial page of "usa today" -- sam graves, a republican from missouri, he writes the peace in "the washington times" -- small business is not celebrating. he says this is having an impact on the mandates. the new senator from wisconsin, a republican, he also writes in opposition, in "the wall street journal." he is writing about his own daughter and a halter that she received as an infant. chris is in frederick, maryland. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is along the lines of unfunded mandates that come down to the states. there are already doctors not accepting medicaid, medicare. what is going to happen in the future if there are more and more doctors at opt out, and even states that opt out? 20 states have pending legal action against this. is there a tipping point, something that may not have been planned for, if enough doctors and states opt out of this, and what will that do to the concept? guest: he referred to the constitutional questions. the supreme court is likely to rule in june, july, 2012 on the constitutionality of the individual mandate that most americans buy insurance. in terms of states opting out, if states have decided they did not want to run their exchanges, and the federal government would run those exchanges in those states. melo will continue to go forward, unless the supreme court rules, or congress acts to stop it. host: we saw a new poll that said that neither side, opposing or supporting, have broken 50%. guest: absolutely. it is amazing. the numbers, i think, were 46% opposed, 43% in favor. that is not much different from the time of passage. 50% of americans approve this. host: debbie is next, a republican caller. caller: i think we are going about this the wrong way. it is not so much the insurance companies. they need to be capped. but there needs to be a standardized cost. when i was on personal insurance, medicare -- eventually i have to go on medicaid. who i see as the bookkeeper are the hospital charges. day stay.or a three-sta and that is just for the room. no doctors, tests, anything else. when it costs you $150,000 to see a doctor, when years ago in used to cost $25 -- the services have not changed. they have more inside with the ppo's. they have everything right there now. it is not the insurance companies, the insurance company premiums. and there has always been injured for pre-existing conditions. you just have to pay more. -- insurance for pre-existing conditions. guest: the law does to do anything with standardization of medical costs. it tries to deal with insurance premiums. there have been concerns about transparency in pricing, but hospitals charge. it is hard for a consumer to find out what something is going to cost before they go in, especially in an emergency situation. that is something that has been a concern over the years. supporters of the law " that cost will come down -- hope that cost will come down, with the inclusion of care. host: we are showing viewers what will be kicking in. restaurant chains must disclose additional content. what happens after this? guest: this will be an interesting year. last year, there were a lot of announcements. the announcement of young adults staying on their parents' insurance. those announcements about a temporary high risk pools, early retiree program which subsidizes companies that pay for retiree coverage. all of the limits on insurance no longer being an issue. this year is different. it is interesting. a lot of what is going to happen will be in the courts and states. in the states, we will see a lot of planning, preparation for 2014, which is when everything takes hold and changes. it will be interesting what the perception is a year from now. we are not going to have the same sort of announcements about the so-called early deliverable that we saw last year. host: 5 more minutes with rebecca adams. robert is a democratic caller calling from saratoga, new york. caller: i had a comment -- first of all, she brought up pre- existing conditions. those would start after a six- month period. one thing that was not mentioned, the medication. they get dropped and the old copays are no longer there, $5, $10, and but now it is a thousand dollars a month. what is going to happen after six months of pre-existing conditions? who is going to cover the medication? guest: people in the pre- existing condition pool have drug coverage, but you need to be in the program. host: tinsley is in the health- care industry. caller:, actually, dr. tinsley. this is hoping that a lot of us doctors are concerned about. a lot of us doctors can no longer afford to take medicaid. i just did it. i miss my medicaid patients. unfortunately, it is a business. i do not make enough money. i cannot a miner says, staff. -- my nurses, staff. my salary has also been greatly reduced. we were making $0.19 on the dollar earlier, but i think now we are only making about $0.50. when you are talking about medicine, it is not necessarily medicine, but the cost of insurance has gone up. my premiums have gone through the roof of my salary has not. where is the money? another thing about medicare, four out of five dermatologists here are no longer taking medicare. a lot of my colleagues are on the edge. a lot of other family physicians have got out of medicare practice. you are going to have a shortage of family doctors want to have an increase in the medicare population. they are having a problem finding medicare doctors. as far as filling in gaps with mid levels, they are not physicians. medicare patients are very sick. i do not know if that is what you would want your grandmother our grandparents to be taken care of by. host: you talked about going under and not being able to afford medicare. moreer: you have to make mone money than you are paying out. currently, we are in the hole. guest: that goes to access problems we are talking about. doctors are concerned. for about 10 years now there has been an animal debate over physician payment rates. there is a formula that pays the medicare rate, that congress routinely comes in and changes, but this formula always calls for cuts. if this payment is not changed, doctors will see cuts of about 30%. congress often comes in and changes that, but they do not give doctors a big boost. physician payment rates for medicare have not gone up as much as doctors say that they need. host: melbourne, pennsylvania. pete is on the republican line. you are the last phone call. caller: i am an employer, i run a company of about 150 people. in 2014, i understand i will find out if i am subject to fines or not. currently, we contribute $11,000 toward a family of four health insurance. so am i going to have to find out the household income of all of my employees? that is my first question. second, all of these incentives appear to show that i should drop health care. either i pay relevant thousand dollar premium or a $3,000 fine. i think cbo made a miscalculation assuming employers would not do that. what happens to the total cost of the plan if employers like me, en mass, decide to do that? guest: employers are subject to fines if they have 50 or more employees. if they do not offer coverage starting in 2014, or if the coverage does not match federal torments. there are two different kinds of find that an employer might be subject to. if you are paying an $11,000 premium and your coverage does meet the federal requirements, you should be fine. he would probably not be subject to the fine, but you have to pay attention to the details. in terms of the question about household income, i am wondering if he is referring to the tax credit. there are tax credits for small business. that is just for small businesses. companies of 25 employees or less. your average income has to be $50,000. host: one last question, a tweet -- guest: we have heard a lot about repealed and replaced, house republicans want to start over. one of the things they talk about frequently is medical malpractice reform. they want to cap liability rewards. they're also interested in allowing insurance to be sold across state lines of they are not subject to mandates. several other things that they have talked about. we do not know exactly what they're going to propose. that will probably pass the house but not go anywhere in the >> on to more's washington journal, the former u.s. comptroller general with a report on america's fiscal management. be two political strategists. we would discuss the unrest in the arab world with mike ginsberg. washington journal begins live that 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. on c-span tonight, morocco's foreign minister speaks at the brookings institution in washington. we also have a report on a negotiated peace in afghanistan with the taliban. congressman anthony wiener discusses the health care law on its one-year anniversary. thursday night on c-span, a look at education reform with former washington, d.c., chancellor. we will discuss academic disparities between america and children of different races and districts in the country and white student achievement has worsened despite federal spending over the last 30 years. >> it is all of us doing our part whether you have kids or not. we have to do our part. there are far too many kids who are languishing. there are also kids to live in nice neighborhoods. their schools are not serving them to the degree they need as well. >> i concur with him. we are in a position right now in this country where if you were to tell me the is it coat a child lives in and the race of that child, we did it with accuracy until you their academic achievement levels. that is one of the most un- american things i can possibly i imagine. this is betrayed the ideals by which we live as americans. >> what's this the debt from the university of arkansas thursday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. -- watch this yvette's from the university of arkansas thursday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> ishmael reed has written over 25 books. join our three-hour conversation, taking your phone calls, females, and tweets, sunday, april 3, at noon on c- span2. you can find our entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> with a backdrop of political protest, constitutional changes had been proposed which would grant parliament more power and create a more independent judiciary. morocco's foreign minister is in washington with meetings with secretary of state clinton. he talks about arab politics and political reform. this is one hour 10 minutes. program and especially the saban center, director ken pollack is here in the front row this morning, we're delighted to bring you another statesmen's forum, this time to host the minister of foreign affairs in cooperation of the kingdom of morocco, taieb fassi fihri. it's a special pleasure for me. the minister has been a good friend personally and a good friend of the united states for many years and i've long wanted to have the opportunity to host him here and am delighted that he's agreed to do so. the minister has a distinguished career in diplomacy, but it didn't start out that way. he was a professor of microeconomics at the university of paris, then became a research fellow at the french institute of international relations, ifri, before he joined the planning directorate in the ministry of planning of the kingdom of morocco. from 1986 to 1989 he served as the head of division in charge of relations with the european community at the foreign ministry and then was nominate das secretary of state for foreign affairs and cooperation in 1993 by the late king hassan ii. he served in successive governments and then his majesty king mohammed vi appointed him to the position of minister of foreign affairs and cooperation. and corporation. as some of you may know, k king hassanmade a king's speech a couple of weeks ago. it did not get a lot of attention here. but king mohammed announced sweeping reforms -- political reforms. as ken pollack was pointing out last night, we have in north africa today an amazing set of phenomena. one the one side, a leader -- muammar qaddafi who is using brutal force to suppress the political aspirations of the libyan people, on the other side we have tunisia where a revolution has taken place and long-time leader, president ben ali has been overthrown in three days and left the country and a process of transition to democracy is now underway. and then we have what ken was calling the third way, the way the way that that king mohammed ii has announced for morocco and it's that way that i've asked the foreign minister to explain to us this morning. so, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming taieb fassi fihri to the statesman's forum. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, madame ambassador, thank you. thank you very much, martin, for this introduction but maybe you have to add that my english is still today, after this long career, still approximate, but i will try. i will try to say some -- express some observations about what happened in our area and we can first have some preliminary conclusion and i think that the first conclusion is that there is no arab exceptions for the universal principles for democracy and hopefully the arab citizens, like others, wants better life and wants to live in the context of freedom and privilege democratic, multi parties. arab citizens like others wants better life and wants to live in the context of freedom, democratic, multiparties. then no one can progress, including in our area, without working on the -- walking on the two legs. economicevelopment and political progress. the second lesson is that even as a -- even if there is economy growth, this economy growth has to be shared by all peopl in the country. shared in different area of the country, but also shared by all people. and i think that the egyptians and two nearbyans cas -- two nearbyians -- tunisians case is observation is that what's happened in some countries i terms of revolution when we look to the tunisian and egyptian casee see the regime maybe was , i don't know if we said that in english, scler rotic -- sclerotic. it's better in french. and remember that when the president was re-elected in noveer, 2009, some weeks after there was mobilization from many people to -- a new candidate in 2014. imagine this people, young people, opened their eyes under the regime and we said to them that we have to live under the same system with the same values, with the same injustice until 2019. and i think that is also the case for the egypt hosni mubarak , then we can say there are many hopes in these countries and that the arab group is not a monolitical group and the regime in bahrain is total different, an algeria, or tunisia or morocco an yemen. monarchies here, monarchies there. military power, and the s it means that the change will happen hopefully because we are faced an hour earlier with the same challenges, same challenges in terms of employment, same challenges in terms of investing in people, because more than 50% of our societies are less than 25 years old and how to respond to the ambitions, natural ambitions and legitimate ambitions of our youth facing the same challenges, probably going forward in terms of evolution, but there will be no domino impact in this region because each country has its own specific itinerary because each country has its own political system. but between revolution and evolution, the specter is large and i hope that each country can progress and respond to this legitimate aspiration of people and, namely, of youth people in this area. what about morocco? morocco? i can say that first morocco refuse the unic party since the beginning and it was not easy. a monarchy expressed clearly that we want multiparties. and people work and political parties work together and hopefully we havehe system and the multiparties was concentrated in the first constitution in 1962. and when i read some days ago the proposal, the new constitution in egypt, i think that we have to be proud as morocco that in 1962 we have this constitutio and this constitution was amended four times. then it's expressed that morocco progress and progress looking to the evolution of our society, but also of our alignment regionally and internationally. we have also integrate the friendship of france. in 1998 for the first time the opposition came to power. we also tried since this time with the king, muhammad vi, to continue thanks to some efforts to progress on our two legs. on han development, fighting against poverty, and the other thing is the fighting against corruption, creating business environment possible, and in this context we negotiate and conclude and f.t.a. with u.s.a. but beyond the trades or business or investments aspect, what we are interested at this time is to take a strong commitment for better environment for business. when we talk about environment for business, we talk about the necessaryity to have transparency, the necessaryity to have transparent rules of game in morocco. and with it the same with european union. probably you know that morocco since many years asked for specific status with european union, and european union don't offer to us because, for morocco advanced status and this status for us is testimony that morocco walk on the two legs and he will continue to walk on these two legs and we are very happy and satisfied to note that the same status just given to jordan. recently. what happened in the arab world then, taking account the evolution in morocco, i want to insist on as martin said this new step taken by morocco an people of morocco. and when the king propose and advanced organization in november, 2009, then before the air raabe spring, saying that it's time for morocco to have this -- not only this organization but more of that because the democracy start first at the local level. when we present that and ole political parties, all n.g.o.'s part -- participate to the debate about the regionalization and to report presented to the king during the last month, then the king said, ok, for this important step, but maybe we have to take this opportunity to go forward deeply and to not go to constitutional reform overwhelm for organization. let us take this momentum, let us take this possibility and oprtunity, listen to what's happened in our own society, but also looking to what happened around us. not only in the arab world but also in europe and in other countries. and what it was now it's an inclusive debate for the best constitution we can have during this year. the king ask to have the reform before the end of june -- proposal for reform before the end of june and the process, as i said, start with all political parties, with all n.g.o.'s, with all trade unions, inuding youth oanizatio. and the goal is to have total independence of powe and powers body. executive, parliamentary, and justice. in morocco justice is still today an administration. it will be before the end oe year an independent, totally independent body. i am member of cabinet, elected cabinet, with a large coalition of political parties. but we will have a jump many here during the next month. elected government, yes, but with the prime minister we wil have the best score in the elections. human rights, we just reform our mechanism of human rights. and i can say to you not as diplomat, not as member of the cabinet, that the system is maybe the best system for the supervision and guarantees of human rights in our area with the best international -- with the new national council for human rights, with the new invigorate institution of mediator, and a new and energetic executive coordination among the government in connection with the international institutions and also international n.g.o.'s. then after same moment some protest -- at the same moment some protest continue, peaceful protest. and here, too, happy it's happened like this. i'll talk aut inclusive debate . we have also to note that the process in the street, because there is the freedom for protest when it's peaceful. and i am sure that in some month morocco will continue. i don't appreciate the term exception or the leaders of reform in the region, but because we do that for us first, not only to come to washington and to say my country's the best in the region, no. because we want to see our people progress and our people taking opportunities for their own benefit. in conclusion the arab spring is here. we are not sure the summer will succeed to the current spring. and maybe, we can talk, maybe we will go directly, toward a dark winter like it happened in our area in iran in 1979, like when we see the counterrevolutions are still dynamic in tunisia or egypt, and when we see that we'll probably take this opportunity to create the atmospre becausel qaeda needs large space more than only the sahara region, but they are very active now in all west africa and maybe they will take this -- maybe evolution in this country, then we have to be very careful, very prudent, and we have all u.s., european union, arab countries have to work together to protect this positive evolution this transition and to be sure that the legimate aspiration of people will not -- were not kept by others and to come back to autratic systems. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we are going to have a bit of a conversation here first and then wel take -- the minister wl take your questions. i wonder if i can start with the political reform process and just get you to elaborate on a couple things. your presentation was very clear, but i suspect not everybody has had a chance to read the king's speech. there are a couple of things that i wanted to just have you elaborate on. the first is the parliament. you said you had political parties. you had rotation, opposition leader and party has become the government in the past. the difference now as i understand it is that the king will not appoint the prime minister. the prime minister will be the leader of the largest party in the parliament, is that correct? >> exactly. it's important. it's happened. the current prime minister is the leader of the party who has the best results. but naturally it need coalition. but his majesty like in other countries, democratic countries, will ask the best results party to lead the government. and it would be in the constitution. >> i don't know whether you can answer this question, because as a constitutional process as you describe it, what do you imagine will be the reserve powers of the king under this arrangement? will he -- what powers will he retain? >> first, the monarchy in morocco is the -- one of the oldest monarchy inhe world. monarchy play aey role in terms of guarantee of the unity, because morocco are naturally, arab country, we are not only arab, we are muslim, jews, we are african cntry, and it's mixed. needs, different source of our identity are expressed by this monarchy system of the the king is also commander, and in morocco the political area and the religious area are totally independent but they are joined only at one point, the level of the monarch. then it's important and everyone in moroccorefer to live in this -- under this umbrella. but now in terms of executive decisions, the role of the government will be enlarged significantly, and as much as it's openedow to delegate many of its current power to the government. and this government will take its responsibility to parliament. when i say for you it's normal, but let us come back to what happened in our area to take note that it's very important and significant step. >> foreign policy and defense will remain in the hands of the king? >> like in all democratic countries, it's the guarantee of the unity, it's a shared power, but the head of state will continue to lead the foreign policy. >> so as foreign minister you'll be a member of the executive branch of the government. >> i have only visibility -- after the reform then many thing will change with the implementation of the next constitution. . >> i did not mean to make it personal. the foreign minister is a member of the executive branch. >> in many countries, the foreign minister is not necessarily -- it is open. i hope for morocco that it will be the best possible foreign minister. >> you mentioned this new regionalization arrangement. what will be the powers of the regional governments? >> that is an important point. it will be a real revolution. a revolution in morocco, because today, at the level of the region, we have people appointed by the government, the national government, but today, we will have an elected council with a president with all -- for the local government. and then, the elected people will have the power to manage the region. it is not -- this is not easy because the elected people means that the political party can have a program and can manage that. we take the experience of some countries like mexico or tunisia, to have success in this important step. important because we have many regions in morocco. in each region, we have disparities, socially, economically, that will create and within each region, the best possility in housing and education, health and roads. that will be for the local government. >> the independence of the judiciary will be a new development. presumably that will be guaranteed under the constitution. and so the judiciary will function independently of the king, as wl as the parliament? >> no. the exutive. the justice will have its own law. an independent power -- and independent power. this will be expressed by the king. >> he wi appoint the judges. >> we will have an independent body. think in terms of -- in morocco, first we have our own justice principles. but we have the legacy of the latin law and the code. will have -- we will have what is important. it is not ready today. and because some -- time to time, the justice department, but now we want to ensure this development. >> can i ask you a couple of questions about foreign policy? your region in north africa is now considerable turmo. do you feel it in morocco? is the trouble in libya going to affect life in morocco in any way? >> in terms of condition, yes, .ecause we have the treaty - this treaty -- we have difficulties with our brother, nigeria. but we have the ambition to bring this important integration among the five member states. nigeria, morocco. we demonstrate maybe we have to wait more. that what is sure is that when we talk about north africa, revolutions from tunisia, the libyan case is maybe very complicated, and the think that no one can today say clearly what will happen. there is, maybe for the first time, a strong expression of real consensus from the arab league. we have to notes that the arab league did not succeed in terms of economic integrati short in terms of sheddg the same values, or in terms of crisis management. and i hope that taking the opportunity of these -- we can rest and we can give to our common house. but the arab league is our common house with many windows, many from time to time national position is stronger than the common decisions. but we note that the arab league claimed the first for the -- in libya. with some reservation in syria and algeria. and mauritania. my colleague changed this morning, maybe do to that. i do not know. it changed -- >> against or in support? >> no, it changed. a new foreign minister this morning. this coming from the region -- , the international community. today, we have a resolution, a security council, which might give to us all international community and all countries. we are in the chapter 7. and this resolution, it is not the resolution of france. it is our common resolution. each country can say i am interested by this or like that. the resolution is comment. the resolution talks about -- it takes about four weeks. first, a cease-fire. second, to protect civilians taking all necessary measures. third, human -- actions. first quarter, a political ocess. some countries decide that to protect the civilians, they have to intervene against the army which killed the civilians. and then i cannot say that is illegal. i note there is a large coalition of countries saying that is the best way. i have to respect ts point of view. but morocco said at the same time, the resolution is wider, in some countries have to prepare themselves for a contributionor each human actions or the real, deep, frank dialogue. between people in libya. between people. >> does that include colonel khadafy? >> all the expression of something. be sure there are many groups saying many things, asking for a change. these people will watch on tv disagree. but we have some experience in the past. >> so at morocco is part of the coalition, but -- >> morocco participated at the paris summit. we were invited. the resolution inviting us together. i participated in the summit. with with my colleague of jordan and from qatar and with my colleague from iraq. and they were -- the current president from the arab league. and we discussed and i said what i said now. morocc is member of coalition, trying to theest implementation of the resolution. >> we have a saying here. i do not know how will it translate to a french or arabic. we say what happens in vegas stays in vegas. [laughter] the question is as follows. does what happened in libya stay in libya, or does it have a ripple effect through the region? we can see what happens in egypt has a powerful impact on the rest of the region. explain. is live be a different to that? -- is libya it different to that? >> no. the heart of north africa, the heart of the south mediterranean. but also in connection with many countries. >> african countries. >> african countries. i'm sure it will have a real impact. al qaeda is present in the south of -- in niger, in chad. and we want to link between al qaeda and the activities in the east of africa, somalia, and others. and when muammar gaddafi said it will have an impact, we have to take account of this. >> is he exaggerating al qaeda's role at the moment? >> i cannot -- i do t

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Arkansas ,United States ,Mauritania ,Qatar ,Alabama ,Chad ,Niger ,Vermont ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Syria ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Bahrain ,San Francisco ,California ,Mexico ,Nigeria ,Morocco ,Massachusetts ,French Institute ,Iowa ,Libya ,Ireland ,Longmeadow ,New York ,South Korea ,Missouri ,Texas ,Algeria ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Florida ,Illinois ,Town Hall ,Georgia ,Wisconsin ,Jordan ,Mississippi ,Tunisia ,Iraq ,Tennessee ,Pennsylvania ,Maryland ,Somalia ,North Dakota ,Saratoga ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Springfield ,Americans ,America ,Egyptians ,Tunisians ,Egyptian ,French ,Libyan ,Han ,Tunisian ,Irish ,American ,King Mohammed ,Larry Speakes ,Nixon Ford ,John Hinckley ,Kathleen Sebelius ,Rebecca Adams ,Nancy Pelosi ,Al Hague ,Ronald Reagan ,John Lennon ,Dick Allen ,Deborah Shumen ,Ruth Simmons ,Anthony Wiener ,Maryann Gordon ,Jerry Parker ,Mary Anne Gordon ,Haley Barbour ,Ben Ruby ,Al Qaeda ,Jim Brady ,Maurice Thea Myers ,Ishmael Reed ,Hosni Mubarak ,James Madison ,Ben Aaron ,Michael Kamen ,Marion Gordon ,Dave Ruby ,Lyndon Johnson ,Taieb Fassi Fihri ,Mike Ginsberg ,Neera Tanden ,Eddie Meyers ,Jack Warner ,Ben Ali ,Denise Sullivan ,Mccarthy Hardee ,Reagan Watson ,Tim Mccarthy ,