the chair: on this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 258. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk: page 58, line 7, this act may be cited as the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act of 2010. the chair: under the rule, the committee rised. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the

whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3082 and pursuant to house resolution 622 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the chair has had under consideration h.r. 3082 and reports the bill back to the house swundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 622, the question of adoption of the amendments will be put en gros. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction and the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous

question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413, the nays are three.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to indicate that i missed the vote on the amendment to h.r. 3082 of mr. flake because we were detained in a hearing on the honduran coup and if i had been present on the floor of the house, i would have voted no. i ask unanimously to have it placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, your statement will be indicated in the congressional record.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. and, madam speaker, i yield the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business and on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, the complete list of suspension bills as is the custom will be announced at the close of business today. in addition to the suspension bills, we will also consider the 2010 energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act and the 2010 financial services and general government appropriations act. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, this is our first colloquy since the july fourth recess.

and we are scheduled to be in session for three more weeks before the next recess. so, madam speaker, i'd ask the gentleman if he can give us a sense of what will be considered on the floor beyond next week and i yield. mr. hoyer: i expect to complete the appropriations bills and i also -- the large item that will be on the agenda is the health care legislation that with we hope to pass before we leave on the august break. and prior to that i intend to have on the floor a provision in dealing with statutory pay-go. we have not yet determined exactly whether that bill will be free standing or whether it will be on another bill that would be reported to the house. in addition the food safety bill is possible. the committees are still working on other matters and we hope to have the food safety issue

resolved. there are a number of other committees that came out of the energy and commerce committee but there are a number of other committees including the ag committee and your own committee, ways and means, that have expressed interest in that those are essentially the items that we intend to deal with between now and the august break. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the schedule is scheduled to be here one week longer. do we anticipate our working into august as the senate is scheduled to do and i yield? mr. hoyer: as i think the gentleman knows because i think he got a preliminary schedule from my office which had us working the first week in august. i received comments from both sides of the aisle, from a lot of members who have young children, school-aged children, and one of the realities is we

called around the country and schools are going back in to session anywhere between august 15 and august 25, some later but a lot of the schools and members, as i said on both sides of the aisle, are concerned that if we did not break on july 31 that they would be unable to have a vacation with their children. during the summer months. and as a result we concluded that we would end our session on the 31st, a week before the senate concluded. originally, as i said, we were both scheduled to be in the first week of august. obviously, as the gentleman knows, the good news is we are able to get our work done because of our rules more quickly than the senate can get its rules done. so we think that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish within the time frame available. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and speaking of rules, i want to first of all thank the gentleman for the ongoing

dialogue that he and i have had over the last several weeks regarding how the house will go forward in terms of deliberating on appropriations bills. and i sincerely expressed my gratitude for his engagement, his patience, the back and forth. i know that we have been unsuccessful thus far in getting to what i believe is a mutually desirable goal which is to return to the precedence of the house in rms of open rules surrounding appropriations bills. and, madam speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, he's noticed two approps bills for next week and i would like to ask him what kind of rules does he expect these bills to be considered under, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i thank him for his observation with respect to trying to work together to reach an agreement under which we would have a

confidence that we could consider the appropriation bills within the time frame available to us. we are on a good schedule now, as you know. we passed seven of the 12 bills from the house. we have five more left to go. my expectation is we will complete those. the two bills that are -- let me say that he and now have been talking for i think somewhere in the neighborhood about 3 1/2 months about this issue. i made a proposal early on that from my perspective did two things. one, it provided for time frames in which we would consider legislation and, b, provided to the minority party which does not control the rules committee. we were both in that situation for a period of time. but nevertheless, provided your party with the opportunity to offer such amendments as it deemed desirable, that it wanted to offer.

with respect to the specific two bills that you asked me about, i am not -- i have not had an opportunity to discuss with mr. obey or the subcommittee chairs of those two committees the specific rule that they are looking for and whether or not they've been able to reach any agreements with their counterparts. the ranking members on those two subcommittees. so i can't answer your question at this point in time, but as we have had discussions, i want those discussions to continue. i will say to my friend that i had a discussion with one of your members who's on the appropriations committee today who came over to this side of the aisle when we were talking about it, again, with a continuing effort to see if there is some way we can provide for the objectives of i think both of us. i yield back. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i do want to express my gratitude for his belief as a former appropriator that we

ought to be operating under open rules and an open process when we are talking about deliberating and executing our constitutionally mandated role of expending and authorizing taxpayer dollars. and i do know that the gentleman shares my belief that we ought to get there. and i do also know, and the gentleman has been very forth right in telling me and the leader on our side about his desire to want to get the work done of the people. i don't think that we disagree on trying to get the work done. i do believe, though, that we do owe to the american public the ability to see our work and the ability to have a full discussion on the separate issues that surround each appropriations bill. and as the gentleman knows even more than many in this house, as he has served here and on the appropriations committee, the precedence of the house is

open rule. and he and i have had discussion about what perhaps our party did when it was in the majority. and during the republican majority, the most appropriations bills ever to be considered under restrictive rule during any one year was in 1997 when there were four bills discussed under a restricted rule. and that, again, was in 1997. so far this year, as the gentleman knows, as his party in the majority, there have been six bills that have been deliberated and discussed and debated under a restricted rule, and we seemingly are on track for 12. so, again, i know that the gentleman and his discussions with me and we agree that we need to be under an open process. but as the gentleman has told me, it is the chairman of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, that is -- has basically overruled

all of us in the house. and essentially, madam speaker, it seems that the gentleman, who is chairman of the appropriations committee, closed down the process again this week, prevented members on our side and the other from exercising their constitutional duties while disenfranchising the millions of american citizens that they represent. so i for the life of me don't understand how it is that any individual, much less the chairman of the appropriations committee, is content to spend the taxpayer dollars without allowing there to be a full and open debate. and in fact, madam speaker, i would point the gentleman, the majority leader's attention to a quote from the gentleman from wisconsin from october 6, 2000. when mr. obey of wisconsin said , in the context of discussing the need for open and full

debate, quote, we have gotten so far from regular order that i fear that if this continues the house will not have the capacity to return to its precedence and procedures of the house that have given true meaning to the term representative democracy. he went on to say, as long as we have stuck to regular order in the institution as long as we have is to protect the rights of every member to participate, and we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world. and i say that and i bring that to the gentleman's attention for exactly the point that what he and i have been trying to achieve. let's open up the process. and, again, bearing in mind, madam speaker, the gentleman's goal of trying to finish the work, i know that he knows that i represented -- i will do all we can and we on this side feel that we can meet his time frame .

so i would say and ask the gentleman if he is still in the posture of being able to deliver the ability for us to have the choice of the amendments that we offer. so is it that if we were to now say, and i'm willing to offer this to the gentleman, if we were to say, fine, as the gentleman suggested two months ago outside the presence of the house, if we were to agree to time limits, then we could have the ability to offer the amendments and have full and open discussions on the appropriations bills as he had asked several months ago, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, the gentleman puts a lot of thoughts and words into my mouth that aren't necessarily there. let me say to the gentleman as he knows. some 3 1/2 months ago i did in fact come to the gentleman. i subsequently came to the leader and indicated that i

thought we could reach agreement if in fact we could reach an agreement on time limits and i was prepared under those agreements to have the minority choose such amendments as they wanted to offer rather than have the rules committee do that. that offer was rejected, as the gentleman knows. it was rejected relatively emphatically by mr. bane at a meeting in my office attended by mr. lewis, mr. obey, mr. boehner and myself. -- mr. boehner at a meeting in my office attended by mr. lewis, mr. obey, mr. boehner and myself. the american people decided to elect us as majority. mr. obey took over as chairman as he has in years' past. mr. obey brought 10 bills to the floor under open rules of the 12 bills.

we did so under the understanding that you would give to us exactly what we gave to you under time agreements. notwithstanding that, we debated those bills for 50 hours longer than the time constraints that we had agreed in 2006 with you, the year before, when you were in charge of the house of representatives. so mr. obey concluded and i did as well that those time agreements would not be honored and were not honored. now, i know there's a disagreement between your side and our side as to why they weren't honored, but there is no disagreement that it took 50 hours longer to consider those bills. having said that, we then went to rules. i offered some agreement some 3 1/2 months ago that was rejected. we then went to the bills and

we've gone to markups. now, we had a markup just the other day in committee on the financial services bill and one other bill. what was the other bill? one other bill. energy and water. and that -- there were some -- i'm not sure exactly the number of amendments that were offered, most of which were not germane to the bills. and that markup took until after 1:00 a.m. in the morning on nongermane amendments. so you and i have been discussing trying to come to grips with time constraints, but i will tell you that time constraints, and you've indicated, trust us on good faith. i tried to get some indication what good faith mean, what criteria i could judge good faith on.

we have not reached agreement on that. but i will tell you that during the c.g.s. debate on the rule, mr. lewis was asked on the bill that came to the floor under an open rule, mr. lewis said this after being asked, can we reach a time agreement, he said, because of that -- referring to the 127 amendments, etc., etc., that were preprinted in the bill, 104 which were republican amendments. now, under an open rule, of course, as the gentleman well knows, which by the way he serves on a committee, of course, that hardly ever reports its bills under an open rule, hardly ever. hardly ever does a bill come out of ways and means committee that has an open rule. it's closed. you guys decide what to do. you bring the bill to the floor. say take it or leave it. now, here's what mr. lewis said

in response to that question. i think the time limitation you were discussing was like eight hours or something, which is what it took in 2006 when you were in charge. i believe that this bill will have a revolution on its hand and you might have a new ranking member in response to could he agree to time constraints. so i tell my friend that he is right. i tried to reach an agreement where we could have a time agreement and you would offer such amendments as you deem to be appropriate within that time frame agreed upon. unfortunately we didn't reach such agreement. i talked to mr. obey about that. i talked to the speaker about that. i believe that had we reached agreement we would have proceeded on that course. now, that does not mean because we didn't proceed on that course that i don't want to continue discussing it. i want to assure the gentleman of that because i believe that the more open our debate is the

better we are. the gentleman's correct when he characterizes my feeling as that. but it has to be within the context of being able to get the american people's work done in a timely fashion. i know the gentleman's indicated he agrees with that. so that unfortunately in 2007, the last time we really did appropriation bills, we didn't do them last year, again, because extraneous amendments were offered to a number of the bills in the appropriations committee and we didn't move ahead on those, as you did not move ahead in some of your years. i think that was from my standpoint unfortunate. but i tell the gentleman in closing that i'm hopeful that, you know, as we move ahead we can do so perhaps through agreement. now, in terms of mr. obey, mr. obey's the chairman of the committee.

mr. obey and mr. lewis talked, they have not reached agreement, as mr. lewis said he could not. the subcommittee chairmen have not reached agreement. i'm sure the gentleman understands, as majority leader, i'm very --ed about what the chairman of both the committee and the subcommittee feels about how their bill is handled on the floor and we try to accommodate them. mr. cantor:: mr. speaker, i appreciate the speaker. he and i agree as far as the duty of the house, precedent has always been by and large for open rules. we have diverted from that precedent wholly at this point and we are trying to return to open and full debate around the bill. i hear the gentleman. as he properly says, accurately reflects discussions that have gone on between a variety of

individuals, but i'm here to tell you, mr. speaker, that the gentleman has asked for us to commit, and he wants to know what is reasonable and fair and what our good faith means. so i would respond to the gentleman by saying this -- because we were unable to fulfill the full return to the precedents of the house, though i do think the gentleman from maryland would like to, because mr. obey has seemed to get his way in shutting out the millions of american people, i will sit here and tell the gentleman, that in consultation with our leader, john boehner, as well as ranking member jerry lewis, we are committed to fulfilling his -- the leader's desire to finish the appropriations bills in a timely manner, but with full and open ability of our side to discuss the issues that we and our constituents feel should be discussed. so i would ask the gentleman, is he in the position to

readily accept at this point the ability for our side to have 20 amendments, 20 amendments, and give our side 10 minutes on each amendment to discuss those? that's a fair and good faith proposition. ladgely divergent from the precedents of this house, but in trying to meet the majority's desire to do what it can, the minority then proffers this offer. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman if yielding, i'll have a discussion with that. it seems to me a little like the off i made 3 1/2 months agoing so i'msenly going to consider it, in light of the fact it that it sounds like the offer i made. i will be in further discussions with the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. at this time, i'd like to yield to the ranking member of the rules committee, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. as i listen to the thoughtful remarks coming from my friend

the majority leader, i'm remind head dime congress a few months after i came in 1980. i'm reminded how we stood here on opposite sides, engaging in the first oxford-style debate if you recall, mr. speaker, if the gentleman recalls on the issue of trade policy being used to enforce human rights. that was the discussion we had two decades ago. and i simply put that forward, mr. speaker, in an attempt to underscore the fact that we are both institutionalists. we both served nearly three decades here and we feel strongly about this constitution and the responsibility that we have to the american people. and i know that my friend understands full well that if one looks at the constitution and the precedents that have been set in the past, there is a clear differentiation between the ways and means committee's work and the appropriations committee's work. there's also clearly an

understanding of the disparity between the notion of opening up the tax code to a completely open amendment process, and dealing with the appropriations process through an open amendment process which has, for 220 years, been the case work some exceptions. the interesting thing about those exceptions, and i know we've had both private discussions and we're engaging in public discussion now, and i thank my friend, the distinguished republican whip, for yielding to me, one of the things i believe has not been tried in this process is to allow, not the top elected leaders of the party to make these kinds of decisions, not even the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, but just to report to my friends here, mr. speaker, in the rules committee, yesterday, we had an -- earlier this week, i guess it was day before yesterday, we had an opportunity to hear from the chair of the agriculture

subcommittee, ms. delauro and the ranking member of that subcommittee, mr. kingston. recognizing that the appropriations process has seen members engage in dilatory practices, mr. kingston made it clear that if we were to have an open amendment process, that he would do everything within his power to ensure that shenanigans would not take place on our side of the aisle because we all acknowledge we want to get the work done. mr. cantor has said that, mr. lewis has said that, we want that to take place. what we're arguing is that, if you look at when we've had structured rules in the past, they have in almost every instance followed the inability of the subcommittee chair and ranking member to successfully propound a unanimous consent agreement. so while mr. cantor has just made an offer, i would like to -- i frankly believe that we

should do everything we can to at least attempt, just take one of the appropriations bills, and see if, not the majority leader and the republican whip, or the republican leader and the speaker, or whatever, you know, the top elected positions within our party, rather let the subcommittee chairman make an attempt at doing that. i say that, mr. speaker, because as we look at even the notion of what we began with, which was what created the high level of frustration for us. yesterday i heard a colleague explaining this process, the notion of somehow having a preprinting requirement does create undue constraint on both democrats and republicans when it comes to the appropriations process. that's what led to the over 100 amendments being filed because of the fact that when we consider the bill that we just

passed an hour ago in this house, last year, the unfortunate thing was, there was no chance for even perfecting amendments to be offered to technical concerns that were there. in light of that, we felt very concerned about even having the preprinting requirement my request would be, since we are now, unfortunately, having passed the five appropriations bills that we have, we are, i guess, six now that we've passed, sixth as of this afternoon, we are unfortunately creating what i'm describe -- describing as the new norm. i know that as an institutionalist, the majority leader would not like to see that continue. i hope very much, mr. speaker that we are able to at least make an attempt to embolden our -- as has been the case in the past, our chairs and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees who are expert on these bills to work on them and work with our colleagues on

that i thank my friend for yielding and hope we can make that attempt on one bill as we move forward. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from california, he echos the remarks and my sense in the beginning of this discussion, many, many weeks ago, that he and i have spoken, as well as spoke within the gentleman from maryland, i think the gentleman from maryland agrees, but i would leave this subject, mr. speaker, with the fact that the gentleman from maryland has said he will get back to me in terms of the offer that is on the table and as he may know, and certainly the chairman of the appropriations committee does know, that in the year 2007, when the republicans became the minority, it took 23.3 days to discuss appropriations bills for a total of 170 .25 hours. if we compare that -- 170.25 hours. if we compare that, in 1995,

the first year that his party took minority status, or was relegated to that status, the appropriations bills took 31 days and 205 hours. so we are not talking about anything other than the record here and the record indicates the minority in 1995, took a lot more time than we did in 2007. now, in keeping with the gentleman from maryland's desire to get the work done, the gentleman from california says he share this is a, as i do, as does our leader and our ranking known appropriations committee. we are committed to doing that. i look forward to the gentleman's return in terms of the offer that i've expressed and my friend, the gentleman from california, i yield. mr. dreier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. one other caveat as we talk about these committees, one of the things i think my colleague should know about the rules committee is that we have the

ability to do virtually anything we want in the rules committee. as we've heard over the past few week the concern that has been raised is this calendar issue. trying to get this work done before we head into the august recess to deal with these issues, and i think that it's clear that after this process goes on, an outside time limit could be put into place on each appropriations bill. that could be the rule that come downs if that's something the majority chooses to do. the concern that i have as we look at the amendments, traditionally there have been opportunities to bring about real spending cuts in these bills. as we look at the double digit increases, unfortunately, cherry picking amendments, which is what has aped so far with the process, and i understand the offer my friend made early on about minority amendments and the opportunity to offer that, but right now, what we have is a situation where the rules committee is choosing these amendments.

if in fact it simply is a time issue, rather than choosing those at all, the rules committee could, as my friend has pointed to the 200 hours that have been spent, it would be easy to say eight, 10, 12 hours would be the outside time limit for the appropriation work of the subcommittee here on the floor and then we could do it under an open amendment process. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i would ask the gentleman to -- that perhaps we are wondering on this side, having read the news report, having listened to the gentleman on this past sunday on fox news, about his, in my opinion, refreshing comments about his disappointment as to where we are in this economy and the stimulus that was supposed to have addressed this economy. again, refreshing because not that the economy is bad, but simply because i think there's a recognition that the stimulus bill that it was called that passed has not delivered on the

promise that this administration made about keeping unemployment down. i would ask since weee unemployment nearing 10%, since we promises -- since we see unemployment nearing 10%, since we see the promises made, it would be no higher than 8.5%, i ask the gentleman if he expects to be able to return to the subject and be able to put in place a plan to really do something to create or foster an environment to create jobs. or is it, or should i ho believe the reports, and i'm reading that perhaps we're going to have yet another stimulus bill on the likes of which we have already seen has not worked. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, before i go to the gentleman's specific issue, i want to make it very clear that , first of all, mr. obey,

contrary to what was represented, did not make his decisions in a vacuum. this was discussed. i don't want any implication that mr. obey arbitraryly and capriciously acted on his own. when the to determination was made as a result of conversations that ensued between chair and ranking members, both of the full committee and of the subcommittees, that was a collective decision that was made, not mr. obey's alone. the -- any implication that that was the case is not accurate, i tell my friend. now with respect to the -- the stimulus package, the recovery and reinvestment act. we believe the recovery and reinvestment act is working. we believe that there are an awful lot of policemen, firemen, teachers, who are still protecting the public safety, fire and police, and

teaching our children and the class sizes have not increased because of the recovery and reinvestment act. because of the investment we made in states to try to stabilize their fiscal condition, which is very, very bad as the gentleman knows. the gentleman was not here, of course, but in 2001 and 2003 mr. dreier and i were here, some others on the floor were here. we adopted an economic program that the leader, your present leader said and others said, mr. delay said, other members of your leadership said would, and the president of the united states said would build an extraordinarily robust economy, would take our country to new heights of economic well-being. the gentleman, i'm sure probably knows these figures, but during the last year of the

bush administration of a having passed without democrats stopping it, changing it, modifying it, after adopting the economic program and pursuing it for seven years, from 2001 to december of 2000, in the last year from january to december we lost 3.189 million jobs. 3,189,000 jobs were lost. the worst economic performance of any administration over eight years since the last 75 years. in other words, since herbert hoover. the worst performance. now, in the last year of the clinton administration, i tell my friend, we gained in the

last year when you recall there was a slight slowdown, we gained 1.9 million jobs. so the turnaround from the last year of the clinton administration and the last year of the bush administration was five million jobs. that was the economic status that was left the legacy of the bush administration and of the policies adopted by the republican congress from 2001 to 2006, which was not changed, as you recall, because president bush, of course, had the veto. the fact of the matter is the clinton administration created an average of 216,000 jobs per month on average over 96 months.

the bush administration under the economic policy that you promoted then and are promoting now -- i don't mean you personally, but your party is promoting -- let me get this again. under the clinton administration 96 months, an average of 216,000 jobs a month were created-plus. under the bush administration, the average job performance over 96 months was 4,240 jobs per month. you need 100,000-plus to stay even in america. now, let me give you an additional figure. in the three months last months of the bush administration, you lost about an average of 650,000 jobs per month. over the last three months, we've lost far too many but an

average of 450,000 per month. in other words, while we are not in the plus place, which is why i expressed on fox news, as the gentleman correctly observes, my disappointment, i can't imagine that there's anybody in this chamber the president is disappointed, the vice president is disappointed, the american people are disappointed we are not creating those 216,000 jobs per month that we did under the clinton administration and we're still losing jobs because of the disastrous economy that was inherited. i tell my friend that it was not just the facts that argue that but secretary paulson, ben bernanke, and president bush said we had a disastrous economic crisis that confronted us at the end of the bush administration's economic policy conclusion. and asked us to respond very vigorously to that. as you know, during the course of the bush administration we

did that, and unfortunately has not been enough. we did that again with the recovery and reinvestment act which we think is succeeding, but my friend would, i think, fairly observe that his 2001 tax cut after 130 days had not turned america around. in fact in my view never turned america around. now your leader talked about on that same show, well, we created five million jobs. there was a spike down and a disastrous spike down which is why, as i said, 3.18 million jobs were lost during the last three -- in the last year of the bush administration. we believe that the recovery act can work. we think it will work. we hope this economy comes back from where it was left us in january 20 of this year. america is experiencing pain. too many of our people are experiencing pain.

we regret that. it's disappointing. we need to take such efforts as we can to correct that. i will tell my friend in additioto that that at this point in time there is no intent to have an additional bill on the floor. the administration is not talking about it. we're not talkeding -- we are not talking about it. i was asked in the press and i said rightfully, we will consider steps that needs to be taken in order to address the economic crisis that confronts our nation. but there is no plan at this point in time to offer an additional bill of that type. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. historical facts can be applied and used at will. and there were plenty of opportunities to cast and blame and claim credit as were the republican congresses, democratic, presidential

administrations and the like. so we could go on for a long time about the past. my point, mr. speaker, and posing the question to the gentleman, as a result of the mere fact that promises were made by this administration, goals were set, we were told this stimulus bill if we were to act in haste the way this congress acted and in fact no one in this body read that bill of 1,100 pages, we were told if we were to pass that bill and it was signed into law that unemployment in this country would not exceed 8.5%. as we know, as the gentleman knows, in many parts of the country it is well in excess of 10%. nationally we are on our way to 10%. we must and we should, mr. speaker, in this house do all we can to try and get this economy back on track.

it is not that we should repeat the mistakes of the past in that stimulus bill, and we await the administration, the gentleman's prescription as to how to address as he says the very real pain that america's families are experiencing. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield back. mr. hoyer: i -- you won't yield? mr. cantor: i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i say looking in the past is not fruitful unless you learn from the past. the point of my recitation was that the policies proposed in 2001 and twee demonstrablely did not work. and i read -- 2003 demonstrable ly did not work. what i pointed out is that it is the same formula that is being recommended once again from your side of the aisle.

so it is instructed to learn from what didn't work in the past. i reject your assertion that the recovery and reinvestment act hasn't worked. i pointed out that we lost a third less jobs over the last three months than we lost during the last three months of the bush administration. is it losing one job too many? it is. is it a disappointment? it is. but to -- after a quarter, after a quarter and a little more of effectiveness, 95% of americans got a tax cut, got money in their pocket, as you know, as a result of the recovery and reinvestment act. there is $65 billion having construction jobs being affected. has it all gone out? it has not. was it a thought about 10% to 15% would be spent within the time frame we are now talking

about? yes, that was the projection. has that happened? yes, it has. so that prediction is correct. is unemployment higher than we anticipated? yes, it is. because the recession and almost oppression, according to bernanke, that we inherited from the last administration was so deep and so an demic that we are having real trouble getting out of it. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. in closing, i'll leave you with two points. one, mr. speaker, the plan that the house republicans put on the table, presented to this president was focused on small businesses. if he looks at that plan as the president did and the president clearly said there's nothing crazy in this plan, which meant that these are things that could work. the president also to my second point claimed that we may have philosophical differences on tax policy and the rest, but he said to me, i won.

so it is, mr. speaker, this president's and this congress' economy. we stand ready and willing to proffer up yet again a plan to address the economic woes of the american families. we have a plan that would be at half the cost of that stimulus bill and produce twice the jobs. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning hour debate. when the house adjourns on that it adjourn to meet on 10:30 a.m., july 14, 2009, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. to what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. serrano: mr. speaker, speaking about appropriations,

by direction of the committee on appropriations, i present a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 3170, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21 , all points of order are reserved.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, mark twain once said, if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. both might be true for those who rely on the national media for all the facts. for example, you might not know that the unemployment rate jumped to 9.5% last month, the highest rate in almost 30 years. or that the vice president in week admitted the obama administration misread the economy. or that president obama has given more than a dozen ambassadorships to individuals who raised a total of over $4 million for his campaign.

or that while the media report that 46 million people lack health insurance, there really are only 10 million people who can't afford or can't get health insurance. the national media should report all the facts so americans are not uninformed or misinformed about major issues. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise with great pride and a deep sense of sadness. pride because i'm honoring hazel haynesworth young, 103 years old, who passed just a week ago in my own hometown of houston, texas. i'm honored to say that she was an educator all of her life, a school teacher. she in essence set the standard

for our famous jack yates high school and wheatly high school, phyllis wheatly high school. phyllis wheatly high school was the high school that congresswoman barbara jordan graduated from. but hazel haynesworth young was a magnificent soul, someone who nurtured the leaders of today, who was the dean of girls at wheatly high school, whose daughter, mary ann young, followed in her footsteps as a teacher. she was a wonderful icon of alpha kappa alpha sorority. but she was a public citizen. her brother, of course, part of the, if you will, the intelligenceia and excellence of legal prominence in the civil rights movement. but she brought about the civil rights movement by teaching to young negro children, yes, negro children, the opportunity to go forth and to shoot for the stars. there were no barriers to her

teaching. she was honored in her lifetime because so many were guided and inspired by this wonderful, beautiful woman. i had the chance to be mentored by her, and i will go home to honor her, but she is honored today on the floor of the house. what a wonderful woman, hazel haynesworth, young, she passed but she will live on forever. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reichert: members of this body agree on the broad, major concepts of health care reform. we agree it should be cost effective, easily accessed, high quality with choices, focused on the patient and should be for everyone after government takeover, though,

won't be affordable, it'll cost $1.6 trillion. easy access, ain't going to happen. high quality? i don't think so. customer service? you've got to be kidding. doctors might say, you need an x-ray, but under the government-run plan, you may just get told, you've been x'd. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mechanic a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been informed to -- authorized to inform the house that the senate passed 611 which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> the people of this country want to know how we're going to pay for this health care plan

the democrat majority is going to put forth. last week on fox news sunday, the -- mr. wallace asked this question of congressman hoyer, the majority leader he said, how are you going to pay for it specifically? what taxes are you willing to raise? are you going to tax health care benefits? mr. hoyer said, i'm not going to go into -- that's a proposal on the table in the senate, not the house. the pay-fors will be tough. nobody wants to pay for what we're buying and our financial status in america has gone down. in order, he didn't want to tell -- in other words he didn't want to tell how we were going to pay for it. the president said at a hountown hall meeting last week said, we're going to pay for it by increased revenues, the cost will be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. he's saying they're going to have to raise at least $1 trillion in new taxes. then he went on to say, about 2/3 of it would come from reallocating money that's

currently in the system. where in the world are they going to get $2 trillion out of other programs to pay for the extra 2/3? the people of this country are being hoodwinked. this health care program they're talking about this socialized medicine, is going to cost an arm a leg, a lot of taxes and inflation because they're going to spend money we do not have. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, ski unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. soon we will be debating health care reform on the floor of the united states house of representatives. the goal is to pass legislation before the upcoming august recess. no doubt, one of the most significant features of the debate on health care reform will involve what is now known as the public option. the public option is a

government-run health care program. the president has said that anyone who has private health care insurance will be allowed to either keep it or join the government plan. mr. speaker, the public option is the first step to a complete government takeover of our private health insurance program. private health insurance system. the public option will have advantages by virtue of being a government entity. it will destroy the public -- the private health care insurance market, turning the entire system other to a federal bureaucracy. the federal government's record of managing medicare, medicaid and the care of veterans is one of allowing massive fraud, inefficiencies, and abuse of patients. our private health insurance system is in need of reform, but i would urge my fellow members of congress, to mend it, not end it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. 

the speaker pro tempore: are there any more one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. burton on july 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 for five minutes each. mr. reichert, today for five minutes. mr. jones, july 17 for five minutes. and mr. poe, july 17 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i ask -- mr. polis: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business the following members be permitted to address the house for five minutes and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, myself, mr. polis

of colorado, for five minutes, and ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection so ordered. under the speak ears announced policy the chair will now recognize members for five minute special orders. ms. woolsey of california. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent to have ms. woolsey's time assigned to me. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: thank you. last week, hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country picked up their phones and called janet napolitano to ask her to delay the deportation of a young man, walter lara. he moved to the united states from argentina when he was three 3 years old and never left he dedicated thousands of hours to serving his community, tutoring children in mathematics and computers he stood out in high school as an honors student and graduated

from miami-dade honors in 2007. instead of following his dream, walter's graduation gift was an imminent deportation order. he was scheduled to be deported over the fourth of july weekend. thanks to a week of intense activism of congressional efforts and grass roots bloggers and people who sent letters and made calls on his behalf, the department of homeland security moved to defer his deportation back an year year until july 3 of 2010. while i was thrilled to here he would be able to stay in the united states this action alone is far from enough. what will happen to him in 2010 if we don't pass comprehensive immigration reform? what does it mean for the hundred thousands of walters throughout the country who came to the united states as children, exceled in school,

played by the rules, only to face deportation? despite meeting state residency requirements, immigrant students in most cases are charged out of state or international rates, which render college inaccessible. these kids are as american as anyone else but for far too long they've had their dreams shattered by an immigration system that ignore theirs good grades and hard work. educational opportunity is a right and something we're all taught that if you work hard in this country and don't give up, you can achieve anything. but the doors to opportunity have been shut for thousands of hardworking students who have been raised and educated in our country. even though walter was able to stay, the u.s. government deports thousands of students just like walter and will continue to do so until we pass the dream act as part of comprehensive immigration reform. the dream act will ensure that children who have grown up in the united states and studied in american schools can remain

here and work and pay taxes and live in our country. under the american dream act, qualified students would be eligible for temporary legal immigration status upon high school graduation, that could lead to pem innocent legal residency if they attend college or seven in the mill tai. students like walter are our greatest national resource. they should have access to higher education, the key to success and our nation's economic growth and prosperity. i recently had the opportunity to visit an immigrant detention facility in aurora, colorado. these are young people whoever picked up, might have broke then speed limit, have a taillight out on their car, or been loitering. now at taxpayer money, we're putting them up at $120 a day rather than them being out work, paying taxes to reduce our deficits. in this era of budget deficits, putting walter and people like

him in a government hotel taxpayers are paying for at $120 a day makes no sense when walter would rather be out working and paying taxes to help reduce our deficit. to help the hundreds of thousands of walters across the country now is the time to pass comprehensive immigration reform and i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burton: mr. speaker, the people of this country many times get so frustrated because they think that we here in congress don't hear them we don't listen to them. i have a couple of letters here i'd like to read into the record, at least part of them, so my colleagues in the house get some flavor of what people

in mid-america are thinking right now. this is from a lady named emmaline, she says, it was great to hear from you at the lincoln's day dinner. she said, we are appalled by what is happening in washington. now in our 80's, we have seen many administrations. none has been as frightening as this one. in less than six months president obama has drown the government into business. the government's business is governing, not business. there's no doubt they have taken us far on the road to socialism so far we fear there's no return. their spending is out of this world and will not save the economy in the long run bailouts don't work. the health care issue, the credit card issue, the card check issue and more are taking us far from free enterprise and are causing many citizens to

give up on self-reliance and responsibility in favor of relying on the government there is little incentive for talented people to innovate, work hard, and create business. what a terrible lesson. we pray you fight for this movement. at the same time, we pray you'll support the united states safe and keep the united states safe in every way you possibly can. you can see, and you can hear the frustration in this bay lady by the way her letter sounds. then there's another one here from a general motors deal for the what bash, indiana. i'll just read -- in wabash, indiana. i want to put the whole thing in the record, but i want to read part of it because it tells you the frustration small business people have in this country. it's from david and kay dores and she says, my husband david and i are the owners and operators of a chevrolet dealership in wabash, indiana. it was started by my husband's

grandfather, gus. he came to wabsash dealership in, he came from detroit and lived by the philosophy, give back to the community because they give to you. we have been extremely loyal to general motors and our community. small business is what helped build this great country of ours and loyalty is what makes all of us successful. we have always given back whenever asked, often times without being asked. we have always paid taxes. we've always voted. we have always made contributions. we've always participated in the programs that general motors asked us to participate in. then they go on to say that they had an attorney talking to them about the way they're being treated by the government and by general motors which is now controlled by the government, government motors, no longer general motors. they say, we are now no longer to be part of the new general motors. we're no longer good enough.

even though we're part of the faction that helped support them for years. i heard an attorney representing dealers speak, he said, where are your elected representatives? where are the elected officials you donated to? where are the elected officials you voted for? he said these people never hesitated to ask for your help but where are they now? the most important question asked was, why are you allowing them to turn your backs on you. i'd like to say, if i were talking to my colleagues in the house, my friends in the senate, or if i were talking to the president, i would say, it's time for us to pay attention to these people. instead of putting everything under government control, instead of trying to bail out everything by printing money we don't have, we ought to be cutting taxes like they did under ronald reagan. with we cut taxes across the board when we had terrible problems in the early 1980's. we had 14% inflation, 12% unemployment, worse than we have now and when reagan came in, instead of throwing money

at everything he said, we're going to give people some of their money back, cut their taxes, cut business taxes, because if we do that, they'll have more income and more money to spend on expanding our economy. to buy product, produce new productsing and he did that. and because of that we had one of the longest periods of economic expansion in this country's history. you compare that to what we're seeing today where businesses are being driven out of business this business has been there for 60 years and they're going out of business because we're trying to solve the problems by letting government solve everything. 61% of general motors will be run by the unions now and we've spent $57 bling bailing these companies out when we could have done it the rayway ronald reagan did. i want to end by saying i feel real frustration when i get these letters from my constituents and i hope my colleagues are paying attention and the people at the white house are paying attention because instead of printing more money and throwing more money and putting more government control in charge of everything, we ought to be giving the american people the

right to have some of their money back so they can expand this economy because government sure isn't doing it. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. mr. kaptur of ohio. -- ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. moran of kansas. mr. gingrey of georgia. mr. reichert of washington. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. broun: i thank you, mr. speaker. i came to talk about the health care problems here in america. i'm a medical doctor. i practiced medicine for 3 1/2

decades. i'm an old-time general practitioner. i treat infants all the way to the elderly. my patients are like family. they're like friends. they are friends, they are family. and i'm very concerned about where we're going as a nation. certainly health care in this country has become extremely expensive. in fact, i myself prior to being elected to congress, being a small businessman, could not afford a comprehensive insurance policy. i had a catastrophic health care policy because that's all i could afford. there are many small business men and women across this country that are in the same category that i was in.

now, since i've been elected to congress, i buy into the government health care insurance program that all federal employees can buy into. we hear from our president that everybody in this country should have a public option, an option that they can buy into. last night my good friend, john shadegg, in a special order was talking about the draft of the bill that energy and commerce is going to be looking at next week. and during mr. shadegg's discussion last night on this floor he said that public health care option is not an option at all. and in fact the american people, if i could speak to them, mr. speaker, i would ask them to look at what is being proposed and how quickly this major policy change is being brought to the forefront.

next week on tuesday, the energy and commerce committee is going to start their process of looking at the health care reform bill. tuesday they are scheduled to have opening statements by the members of the committee. wednesday and thursday, they are going to have markup. now, mr. speaker, i don't think the american public quite understands that term. it's a term that we use, as you know, where the committee goes through a bill line by line, issue by issue, section by section, and amendments are offered, voted on, and are put in place in the final product. well, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee has decided to not go through the regular order process of letting the subcommittee, the health subcommittee look at the bill. he wants the whole committee to

do so. why? well, it's reported that the reason that he wants to do that is because he's concerned about the subcommittee taking too much time and maybe not even passing out this bill. the majority, mr. speaker, seems to me is trying to force this down the throats of the american people at a very expeditious manner. why would they want to do that? well, i think the american people, if they knew what was going on, mr. speaker, would understand that this major policy change is being hastened through the legislative ocess, so that it can be put in place, so that the american people don't have the light of day shed upon this bill, so the american people can say anything about it. over and over again, mr. speaker, we see here in this house with these appropriation bills. we've seen a change, a

historical change of how regular order is carried out. normally an appropriations bill is brought to the floor with an open rule. both sides agree on the amendments that are introduced. both sides agree on time limits, and we can go through regular order, but the majority has declined to allow that to happen. even leadership, some of the leadership on the other side reportedly would like to do so, but the speaker and the chairman are declining to allow that to happen. so we're getting bill after bill presented to the floor that nobody has had the opportunity to read. the public can't read it. the members of congress can't read it. we've had thousand-page bills,

such as the nonstimulus bill that was presented by the president, was introduced in the dead of night, and we voted on it in this floor where no human being anywhere had had the opportunity to read that bill. no one, mr. speaker, had the opportunity to read that bill. it was 1,100 pages. our leader, mr. boehner, had a large stack of papers and dropped it on the floor. no one had an opportunity to read that bill. we don't have a health care bill. i have not seen it. no member of the energy and commerce committee has seen it on either side, democrat or republican, because it's not been produced. though tuesday morning they're going to start opening statements on that bill. we here in congress have not seen the bill. we in congress have no way to

evaluate the bill. we in congress have no one to understand what the bill says in totality and how we can introduce amendments to the bill to make it better. democrats and republicans alike are being denied their opportunity to allow amendments to all these appropriations bills and the authorization bills, such as the tax and cap bill, which is going to be a disaster economically for america. this process is blatantly unfair. it's unfair to democrats. it's unfair to republicans. but most of all, it's unfair to the american people. the american people should demand better. our speaker, when she came to office in the prior congress,

said we are going to have a new era of openness and honesty, high ethics, transparency. nothing could be further from the truth. that's what went on in the last congress and is particularly going on in this congress. and we are having this health care reform bill being put together by just a small handful of the committee leadership and the leadership of this house, democrats. the medical doctors, health care professionals, at least on our side, aren't even being consulted. we have, i'm not sure, 10 or 11 on our side, not one of us have been consulted what my patients and all of our patients need in health care reform. we've been shut out of the

process, and that's not fair to the american people, mr. speaker. the american people should demand more. they should demand openness. they should demand transparency. we've had resolutions where we wanted to have at least 72 hours of every bill being posted on the internet so the american people could look at those bills. the american people have been denied that opportunity by the leadership of this house and of the u.s. senate. it's not fair. it's not fair to the american people. we're having a major change in health care policy being shoved down the throats of the american people, mr. speaker. the american people need to rise up and say no to this cloaked in darkness process wra

members of the public across this country should be able to take their reading glasses and put them on and read the bill, where members of congress should be able to take their reading glasses and put them on and look and see what's being proposed by the majority. the minority's being totally shut out of this process. now, we do know some things that are in the bill. and the american people need to understand what the ramifications of those things that are in the bill that we know about are all about. first thing, we hear all the time by the majority, we heard it during special orders, we heard it during the one-minutes this morning. we hear it over and over again in all of the debate and discussion going around here in the house about people need to have a public option. well, the american people need to understand, mr. speaker, that that public option is

going to deny them choices. it's going to put a bureaucrat, a washington bureaucrat between them and their doctor. and that washington bureaucrat is going to make their health care decisions for them. about what tests they can have, what medicines they can have, whether they can have surgery or not. and what it's going to do is it's going to shift people, as mr. shadegg was saying last night, over the next five years off their employer-based health care insurance over to a single party payer government insurance. we're told that if people like their health insurance, fine, keep it. and most american people will say, yeah, that's right. i like my american insurance policy that i have today. i don't like the insurance companies, i don't like the costs, but i'm satisfied with my insurance.

but, mr. speaker, if i could speak to each individual in america today, i'd warn them that, mr. and mrs. america, you're not going to be able to keep your private insurance. you are going to be forced into a government-run socialistic medicine health care system where some washington bureaucrat is going to tell you whether you can go in the hospital or not, whether you can get an m.r.i. or not, whether you can have the new treatments for cancer or hypertension or diabetes. it's going to destroy the health care system that we know today. we have the finest health care system in the world. that's the reason people from canada come to america to get their health care. even when they could buy the private health care in their own country, but they come to the united states. people in great britain come to the united states even if they

can afford to go through the private section in the united kingdom. they come here because we have the finest health care system in the world. mr. speaker, if i coultell the people in america, if i was allowed to through the rules of the house, i would tell them that that health care system you're enjoying today, the quality of health care, the medications, treatments, test, surgeries, all the thing this is a make us have the highest quality health care in the world is going to be destroyed by the bill that's going to be started through the legislative process next week. i've been joined in this hour by a physician colleague from tennessee, dr. roe who has a tremendous eerience with tenncare in his home state of

tennessee. i welcome him to join us today and i ask the doctor, i yield to the doctor to give us some insights about tenncare and what it produced in tennessee and about the cost and quality and how things were affected there and whatever the gentleman wants to inform the speaker, if dr. roe, if you could speak to the american people, i know you would like to speak to them but you have to speak to the speaker and me, so i invite you to, i yield to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, thank you. i think when you're looking at health care, and i practiced medicine in the state of tennessee for 30 years, ob/gyn practice, delivered a lot of babies, i can tell you, having watched this very complex system, it's unfair to the american people and we're not talking about democrats or republicans, we're talking about the american people here, who are going to be affected,

all 300 million of us are, and when we look at the issues out there we're dealing with, first of all, there isn't any american that doesn't want to have quality, affordable health care for all our citizens. i don't think any of us in this body, all 435 of us want that. it's how do we get there and how do we afford it when we do get there and not break the bank? if you read various publications, we have around 47 million people in america who are uninsured. of that 47 million people uninsured, approximately 10 million, these are estimates, but approximately 10 million are illegal in this country. of the remaining 35 to 37 million, we have 12 million to 14 million who currently qualify for plans that are out there, schip or medicaid, but who are not on it. so we need to find out who these individuals are and make those assets available for them. about nine million people make over 75 -- over75,000 a year

and choose not to buy health insurance. in my part of the world, in the first district of tennessee, that's a lot of money. i assume in a lot of places in georgia and around this country, that's a lot of money. we have about eight million people who make between $50,000 and $70,000 who are uninsured. for those, there are ways to make sure affordable health care is available to them. when i first heard, when i first came to d.c., i heard the argument of the president's plan and it turns out, i don't think the president had a plan, but the plan coming out of the house of representatives is that we're going to have private health insurance and then we're going to have a competitive government-sponsored plan. i said, what is that supposed to do? they told me, i said, 16 years ago we did this plan in tennessee. it was called tenncare we got a waiver from medicaid, h.h.s. to provide health care for as many citizens in the state as we

could. tennessee is not a wealthy state. we have a much lower than average per capita income in the country tasms noble goal. and it was -- the government, the managed care plans put a rich plan together. in other words, it was very generous in benefits, and what happened was, almost 50%, 45% plus of the people who got on it had private health insurance. what we found, and for them it was fine. they had a plan that paid the coverage, paid to see a doctor, the problem with it was, it didn't pay the costs. when i started askinging digging into this plank i said, how much of the costs of the providers, hospital outpatient surgery centers what percent of congresses does this plan pay? 60%. medicare, another government run plan, pays 90% of costs. what happened was you had costs shifted to the private insurers. these private insurers that would be the other businesses in tennessee, their costs went up and up when they tried to

buy health insurance. more and more people were dumped into the plan because businesses couldn't afford it. how did the state of tennessee handle this? mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. roe: yes. mr. broun: i want to make it clear, businesses could not afford to continue paying for the private insurance, people went from private insurance, they were being forced over to the government plan, is that correct? mr. roe: that's correct. they made a perfectly logical decision, it was cheaper to go into the subsidized plan for businesses struggling to survive anyway. what happened was, the state couldn't afford even paying 60% of the cost of the care, there was so many people on it, the health care part was getting more than all the education and the other things that the state were providing. so how our governor, who was a democrat in the state of tennessee and a republican

legislature, they had to cut the rolls. you only have two choices. you can either cut the rolls or ration care system of i predict to you, dr. broun and madam speaker, that when this public option comes out there, it will be exactly like that. it will be a very generous plan, subsidized by the taxpayers and supported by that, and businesses, especially small businesses first and proprovide most of the jobs in this country are small businesses. you want to make it easier for them to provide the benefit, not more difficult. they will drop that and orr time this will met morph into a single payer -- metamorph into a single payer system. some people would be happy with a single payer system. my problem is i believe health care decisions should be made between patients, their families, and their doctors and you do not need a government bureaucrat injecting himself, no pun intended in between this very important decision. in health care decisions.

that is exactly what will happen. in this plan in england, they have a comparative effectiveness, called nice. let me explain that to the viewers. what happens in a public system where it's funded by a single payer, i.e., the taxpayer, in england, the government, a board or committee is put together by the government to evaluate the outcomes of certain treatments. well, they have, for instance, if they estimate in england that you are in your last six months of life, they'll -- in cancer, for instance a cancer treatment they might invest as much as $22,000 in you, about what a used honda would be. i know the american people and i know the people in think brict -- in my district and madam speaker in your district are not ready to let the government decide that your life and your family's life is worth that. that's, in a nutshell, where we were -- are in tennessee dealing with this.

there are a lot of other options out there. i think these mandates for, in this particular legislation, which we haven't seen other than just a synopsis of it. we haven't seen the full legislation, and of course the devil's always in the details. i want to sit here and look at the american people and tell them that the doctor's caucus, the conservatives in this house, i think both republicans and democrats, want to be sure that the patient and the doctor are making those very important health care decisions and not the federal government. i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you. i wanted to bring out a point, i appreciate you yielding back, i've got an article here that came from "capitalism" magazine, it -- the title article is "health care to die for in britain." by ralph reiland. february 26, 2005. just wanted to read a couple of

points that mr. reiland made in this article he says, quote, among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46% chance of dying from it in britain versus a 25% chance in the united states. brintain has one of the worst survival rates in the advanced worldering writes bartholomew, and america has the best. he's quoting an issue in "the spectator magazine," where james bartholomew was talking about the british health care system. the point of that, and the american eem, i hope, will understand, as we look at this, their single payer system in great britain if you're extremely wealthy, you have to be extremely wealthy, then you can buy private health insurance. we've seen a lot of those people who are extremely

wealthy come to the united states for their health care. but unless you're extremely, extremely wealthy, then you're in that single payer system. that's where we're headed in my belief in the united states. you have almost a half chance, that's in a five-year study, of dying, where it's less than 25% today. i know you've quoted statistics on breast cancer -- mr. roe: when i began my medical practice, we had 50% survival 30 years ago. now it's a 90% survival rate. when patients say, what are my chances of living, i say, it may be tough, you may have some down day you probably will but you're going to make it, you're going to be ok. we can provide that kind of hope in this country for our patients.

i look at st. jude's children's hospital in memphis, where i was a medical student. when i first went there, they -- 80% of children died of childhood leukemias and cancers. today, over 80% live. i had the -- i had one they have greatest evpks this last monday night of a young boy i had delivered 16 years ago. 2 1/2 years ago, his mother called me and said, dr. roe, i'm afraid my son has cancer. we were there for that 16th birthday to celebrate, he is cancer free. that is a wonderful, wonderful thing to celebrate. my joy goes out to that family and the community. the whole community celebrating. that's kind of things i think we've seen in america with our health care system. i think back, dr. broun and madam speaker, when i began my medical practice, we had only five high blood pressure medicine, three of them made you sicker than high blood pressure did. today over 50.

antibiotic, there was one type of slofe spore run antibiotic, today over 50678 we have robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, that i was able to do, privileged to do and provide everyone. i was at a business meeting not long ago a year or so ago, they said the health care system and certainly there are excesses we need to do a better job of managing the system, they said, you need to run this like southwest airlines. said, well i was in washington when i have told that. i said, i'll tell you what we'll doe. we'll go over to reagan national and pick a guy up who lives under the bridge, a homeless person, we'll show up at southwest airlines and i will go in my pocket and i will pull my credit card out and i will say here, i want to fly and the guy with me can fly but the man that has no money can't. in america if we all three get in there and go gow back to george washington university's emergency room, day or night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of your

ability to pay, in america, we'll take care of you. is that the the best way to do it? no, i argue it's not, that's what the debate is about,000 better use the resources. mr. broun: will the gentleman yield back? mr. roe: i will. mr. broun: you just made a statement i want to focus on. you say somebody could go to the emergency room, any emergency room in the united states, and they'll get health care provided to them. is that correct? mr. roe: that's correct. there is -- mr. broun: there's a federal law, the emergencied me medical treatment act and labor act that requires emergency rooms to evaluate and essentially treat everyone who walks in the door, whether they pay or not, whether they're here lell legally or not, is that correct? mr. roe: that's correct. mr. broun: i keep hearing, particularly from those on the other side that want socialized medicine program this

washington-based, washington bureaucratic administered health care system, that everybody needs access to health care. but you just made a statement that the american people need to understand and madam speaker, i hope that they will understand, everybody is in this country has access to health care by walking in the emergency room. the question is really, where are people going to get their health care provided to them, who is going to pay for it, and what cost? is that correct, doctor? mr. roe: if the gentleman will yield, yes. i know that the only -- you can show up at an emergency any time but the only hospital i've had people denied care was a government hospital, the v.a. i've never had a patient refused care if i said this patient has to be in the hospital. our problem is not the quality of the care, it's figuring out a system to best pay for it.

that's what we're dealing with here. 're war -- we're not going to wrap this up and be fair to the american people in two weeks. it's ridiculous. it's too complicated. i was speaking with a friend of mine this monday, dr. jerry miller. he and i were in a detailed discussion about how complex when you're looking at home health care, oxygen infusion, devices, occupational therapy, physical therapy, all of that that goes with increase and improving the quality of your life, that's what we're dealing with, an incredibly complex system. i don't believe the government can best run this system. i think that the private sector is much more equipped to deal with new technologies. i'll give you an example. i think if we were waiting on the government to develop a davinci robot, you wouldn't be having your davinci robotic surgery right now. we see radical prostatectomies, for prostate cancer, done in a couple of hours or less with minimal blood less.

before, it was several hundred c.c.'s of blood, now 75 or 100 c.c.'s. minimal blood loss. patients leave the hospital in a day or two and resuming normal activities incredibly fast. . mr. broun: with the current technology that we have on that surgery of taking all the prostate out, in the past, when we did it with nonrobotic surgery, chances of that gentleman having to wear a condom catheter was very high. compared to today. their chances if they're a young man of having impotence and could not perform sexually was a

pretty good chance they were going to have problems with that. with the robotic surgery, the incidents of incontinence is very low. the development of tha the development of that technology is very low. the development of that technology is going to come to a screeching halt, would you agree? mr. roe: when you don't have enough resources in the system to develop new technologies, new treatments, new pieces of equipment, there's no question that you freeze in time where you are. there wasn't a day when i wouldn't go to the operating room when i would see someone getting operated on for a bleeding ulcer. we have almost eliminated that very invasive surgery. and we don't want this to slow down. one of the things that i think we value in america -- i know we do, is we value every human

life, every life has great value here. and that's one of the things that i have seen in my practice whether you are rich or poor, you are valuable to the american people and to the health care system. and we're going to take care of you. and dr. broun, madam speaker, one of the things that's an untold problem in the health care system is the availability of care, the accessibility of it, i should say. in the next 10 years, 50% of our registered nurses are able to retire. 50%. we need a million more nurses seven years from now. we need to encourage young people to go into these very needed specialties. we are already behind the curve. in the next 10 years, we will have more physicians retiring or dying than we are producing and the population is growing and the baby boomers are going to need more care. and guess what we're doing? we are living longer than we

ever have in the history of the world. so we have a multiprong problem. am i go go to be able to find a nurse and doctor to take care of me. i yield to the gentleman. mr. broun: you are exactly right. we have a critical shortage today of medical care personnel, nurses and doctors as you're saying. in fact, the medical college of georgia in autha is developing satellite campuses to try to train more physicians in the state of georgia. in fact, one will be opening in the next two years in athens, georgia, where the university of georgia is. i live outside of athens. but we still are going to be behind even with this new training. but what i've seen and i think dr. roe will cor borrow ate this, we have -- corroborate this, we have seen doctors stop

taking medicare because of the poor reimbursement rates. and if we go to this supposedly two systems, one private, public public as has been projected by the leadership and many people on the other side, what is going to happen is that your's going to have -- because of the very poor reimbursement rates, you're going to have hospitals fail. you will have doctors not take those patients on the nonpublic plan. so that will take choices away. you will have a washington bureaucrat tell on the public option -- be telling the patient what medicines that they can have. you mentioned, dr. roe, about all of the powerful antibiotics. when we came along, we were con temperature prayers in medical school. you went to tennessee and i went

to medical college of georgia. we had antibiotics that were very limited. we've got bacteria today, in fact a patient that's very close to me personally has a certain form of pneumonia. when i went to medical school, that patient would have died within weeks. she has gotten antibiotics over and over again. that's not going to be available to her in this new public option plan, this government-run plan and she's just going to die. she's 85 years old. and she's going to die. she has had this pneumonia for six months now and she's still living. when i was in medical school, she would have died within a matter of days. life is precious. some would say she is 85 years old, we should just let her die. and that's what's going on in canada and great britain today.

they don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently. and dr. roe, a lot of people are going to die. this program of government option that's being touted as being this panacea, the savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price is going to kill people. mr. roe: i think what we need to do is look at the problem we are faced with, what are people concerned with. affordability. we have to deal with this. number two is accessibility. and thirdly, when we have a job, our health insurance is tied to our job. so we're concerned if i lose my employment, i lose my job. do you need an entire government takeover of medicine to address those issues? no, you don't. a when you look at port bilt,

that is one thing that can be done with limited involvement. all of us, many of us have children. and today is a very poor work environment. when you see young people come out of college and high school, it's difficult for them in this market to find a job. guess what happens to them when they graduate from east tennessee university or georgia university and there is no job available, they lose their health insurance coverage. why not leave them on their parents' plan until they are 25 years old. you know how many people that would cover? seven million young people. i know for all three of my children, when they got out of school, they needed help with their health insurance coverage. i had to go out and buy a health insurance plan which was not tax deductible. last year, when i worked in my medical practice, i provided health benefits. that was one of the benefits i have for our employees and me.

i retired from my medical practice to run for congress. the next day my health premiums went up 33%, because they were no longer deductible. simply allow individuals out there who want to purchase their own private health insurance plan, if you are a farmer, small business person, let them deduct that exactly like g.e. does or any other large business. mr. broun: you made a great point there. the vast majority of employees in this country are employees of small businesses. small businesses are having a hard time paying these high premiums. and so if we could just have some tax changes to allow deduct built for the individual or for the small business -- it's only the large businesses that can deduct and not pay taxes on that

benefit to the employees or the employee not having to pay tax on that benefit. it's only applicable to large businesses. most people who are employed, most of the uninsured in this country who have a hard time affording it, most small businesses who have a hard time paying for health insurance for their employees are in that situation because it's not deductible. and if we made some tax changes to make it deductible for everybody for their health premium, that would take care of a lot of those people you were talking about earlier who are not insured today. mr. roe: i would like to know the logic and i haven't had anyone yet since i have been in this body give me the logic of why a corporation with multiple assets is allowed to take a tax deduction for health insurance and an individual -- let's say a small business, let's say

someone in a small landscaping business who takes care of my yard, i should be doing it myself, but why shouldn't he be able to deduct as an individual employer -- he just got himself, why can't he deduct his health insurance like general motors does? i haven't had anyone explain that to me. you could help a tremendous number of people in this country if we did that simple thing. i yield back. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding and you're exactly right. i hear the majority members over and over again, many members on the democratic side talk about the republican party is the party of no, n-o. they are going to accuse us of being the party of no on this health care reform that will shove down our throats. the -- they are going to accuse

us of being the party of no. but i submit the republican party is the party of know, because just that one point, if we would make that one tax change, it would pull into the insurance pool privately administered, no cost to the taxpayers, no cost to our children and grandchildren and would not increase the deficit, bring in that one thing of a tax policy changd ane it would ensure on a private basis a lot of those people who are uninsured today. mr. roe: i would argue it would even do more than that because it would do the opposite of what the public plan will be. what it will do is, if you make that available where the uninsured can afford it through this tax break, it will make less people uninsured and therefore less cost shift to the people who already have health insurance.

i would argue it would exactly opposite and it will work immediately. you will have -- the challenge we have in a down economy, there's no question, when people lose their jobs and health insurance. and it can't be cobra. bill gates can't afford it. we have to have a plan for people when they are unemployed. that's a real challenge. no question. i yield back. mr. broun: i thank dr. roe for yielding back. i'm developing a bill in my office that will give patients the ownership of their health insurance whether they buy it themselves or whether it's paid for by their company. and if the patient owns the health insurance, it will stop that porta bility problem. if they leave one job, the insurance goes with them. we are the party of know, because we know how to make

insurance portable. we have numerous members over on our republican side that are putting together proposals that the american people will never see. why? because the leadership of this house will not allow the american people to see my bill or your bill, mr. shadegg's bill plrks ryan's bill -- mr. ryan's bill, the republican conference, bill after bill are being proposed or introduced that will never see the light of day. the american people won't see it. the members of this house won't see it. members of congress in either house won't see those. why? because the leadership of this house is forcing in a dictatorial manner their health care bill that's going to

destroy the quality of health care. mr. roe: would the gentleman yield? mr. broun: yes. row mr. roe: yoim going to make a plea to the american people. we saw a cap and trade bill brought before this house, not thoroughly vetted, a very important issue and not read -- let me say this again and i get angry when i think about this, something that affects every single american, not one, not one congressmen of the 219 who voted for that, ever read the bill, and it will affect every american. and i want to challenge this body right now, right here and now not to bring a bill here in two weeks which no one has read which affects the most precious decision, the care of you and your family and your children and you haven't even read it. the american people need to know every dot in that bill before we

pass that bill onto the u.s. senate. and i yield back. . mr. broun: i agree with you whole heartedly. the american people need to demand that the bill be presented to the american people so they can understand how it's going to affect them. it's going to affect every single person. a lot of people who work for big companies, they say, well, i've got good insurance through my employer and i like it. they need to understand that they're not going to be able to keep it. in five ars, whether they're in a big multinational corporation paying for their health insurance today, they're going to be forced out of that, into the single payer government program where that washington bureaucrat will be making the decisions. secondly, it's going to be extremely expensive, for everybody. government intrusion into the health care system is what's driving up the cost. let me give you, dr. roe and

madam speaker, let me give you a good example that happened in my own medical practice of how government intrusion has affected the cost of insurance and health care across the country, whether it's government-paid health insurance such as medicare, medicaid, or schip, or whether it's private insurance. i was practicing, one-man office, three employees. down in georgia, i had a small, automated lab in my office. if a patient came in, doctor, to see me and they had a red sore throat, maybe with white patches on their throat, running a fever, coughing, aching all over, maybe their nose was run, maybe coughing up some stuff, i, as a physician, knew that they may have a bacterial infection, or they may have a viral infection. or they may even have alger jis. an allergy can show those same

symptom complexes. i was taught in medical school not to abuse antibiotics because the overprescription of antibiotics causes a whole lot of problems for patients and causes a lot of increased cost. congress passed a bill called clia, the clinical laboratory improvement act which basically shut down my small automated lab with quality control, i wanted to make sure whenever i ran a test, that i had good, proper results. congress passed a bill, clinical laboratory improvement act, clia, that shut down my lab. if a patient came in with a red sore throat, i would do a c.b.c. to find out if they had a bacterial infection and thus needed antibiotics or had a viral infection and did not need the expense or ex-pe shower to those antibiotics. i charged $12 for that c.b.c. clia shut down my lab. i had to send patients over to

the hospital. they had tro to drive from my office over there. took an hour or two to do the paperwork to get into the hospital and have the blood drawn. they'd come back to my office and sit and wait, frequently for several hours, before i got the results of the test back. what i was charging $12 for that test, c.b.c., took five minutes to do, good quality control test, proper results, 12 buck, five minutes, the hospital charged $75 and it took two to three hours. now, you take that one test, jumped from $12 to $75, for one test, what's that do to the cost of insurance across this country? it markedly increases the cost of everybody's insurance and makes it less affordable for anybody. hipaa, let me bring another critter out, i call clia and

hipaa critters, i tell my constituents if they see these congressionally created critters, hipaa and clia and the others, they better hold on to their wallet, but he health insurance board, hipaa was passed, it cost the health care system billions, billions of dollars and has not paid for the first aspirin to treat the headaches it's created. it's totally unneeded legislation. so government intrusion into the health care system has created this mess of unaffordability. the more government intrusion we get into the system, the less affordable it's going to be. i yield. mr. roe: just to amplify what you said, madam speaker, years ago we had a test in our office which we did about 10,000 of them a year.

we contacted our local pathologist and said, we'd like to have a -- we'd like to pay $10 for this test, they said $1urks -- they said, that's $100,000 of income, no problem. we couldn't do that, it was $5 less than what medicare paid. we had to charge all patients $15. that ended up costing our patients another $50,000 in one medical practice in johnson city, tennessee. amplify that across the country and imagine the billions of dollars being wasted because of lack of competition in the health care system. i yield back. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for bringing that test out. it's a good example of how government intrusion in the system creates higher costs for everybody, whether it's a privately insured plan that a patient has or whether it's a

government-insured plan the patient has, government involvement creates higher cost. and we know, at least on our side, we have some solutions. we can low they are cost of health care if we change health care tax policy and made it deductible for everybody. if we allow the patients to have some input in how health care decisions are made. we have, in our office, in the plan i'm developing, a plan that would make patients be in charge. whether it's government insured or not. we create health savings accounts. we need to have health savings accounts for medicare patients, where the medicare patients and medicaid patients control that health savings account. it seems as if some in this body have decided it's a

god-given right for people to own health insurance. maybe it is. i don't know. i don't find it in the constitution of the united states. we haven't had that until medicare came along and medicaid, where government intrusion in health care system really has created this boondoggle we have today. but government intrusion already is rationing care for my patients and yours. it's already causing problems for patients to find providers that will accept the insurance. it's already causing the high cost. it's already causing rationing of care. and to go down this road that's going to create a bigger government intrusion, which is going to destroy the quality of care, stop innovation, going to stop all these life-saving drugs and treatment modalities we see in the health care

industry today, it's going to top all that. because of that cost effectiveness that the gentleman from tennessee was talking about. i'll yield. mr. roe: i think the thing i want the american people to understand, for 30-something year, i've had to look at patients, some who had health insurance and we had to figure out how do i get this patient care? that's a patient we want to find out. we're the ones who go to the emergency room at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and treat a sick child or see a youngster who has a fractured arm or whatever. we're the ones who provide this and go out there along with other health care providers and we want a way so that system can flourish, as efficiently as it can and as cost effective as it can. we doon this. we have solutions out there. the solution is not the government running your health care. that is not it. that will be a problem. it will be a problem as far as innovation is concerned, as you pointed out.

it'll be a problem as far as access is concerned. access is already a major problem we have to address. i want to tell the american people, i want you to be engaged on this, learn about this call us, tell us what you think. certainly one of the last patients i can -- i saw in my practice was a 60-something-year-old woman who worked, who didn't have health insurance. and quite frankly, that is a problem. she's 60 years old, just before medicare, it's something that can be dealt with, though, without a complete takeover of the government health care system. the people had better pay attention. this next two weeks is the most critical debate about health care that's occurred in 45 years. mr. broun: i i want to ask the gentleman this. in my 3 1/2 decades, plus, of practicing medicine, i know in my own medical practice and colleagues i've been associated with in georgia which is where i practiced medicine, that all

of us have given away our services and not gotten paid. i don't resent that, i don't regret that, it's just part of what i did as a family doctor. and now, under federal law, if i was accepting medicare as a provider, if somebody were to come into my office, or to see me, did a full-time house call practice, i still see patients when i go home today so i'm still practicing medicine. i'm actively practicing, but i don't take medicare or medicaid. i just see those patients and treat them if they can pay me, great, if they can't, that's great too. i don't care. i went to medical school to serve people. i think, dr. roe, you did the

same thing. but under current federal law, if our physician that was a preferred provider in the medicare system, i had a young man, young woman who came into my office, trying to -- who is working, trying to make ends meet, had a health care problem and they just could not afford to pay my bill, literally, under the laws of this country today, if i told them, don't worry about it, don't worry about it. i'll treat you for free, as i've done to thousands, literally thousands of patients, given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my services over my career of of -- of practicing medicine, if i did that to one patient, then the medicare system, if they knew about it, could fine me for every single medicare claim

i ever made, ask for all that money back, and could put me in jail for seeing a patient for free. that's inane. it's absolutely stupid. if we change how the government insurance is provided and get the medicare, medicaid, state child health insurance program, all the government insurers so that the patients own the policy and insurance is what it's supposed to be, to help those people manage their finances to help them manage expenses, for their health care that they purchase, that they're going to see the doctor or go to the hospital for, if we could give them ownership and give them their the rights to make those decisions,

doctors could see patients for free that needed to be and doctors could make those decisions, patients could make those decisions, and that's what we want to do on our side. but those philosophies are never, ever going to come to this floor. because the leadership won't allow it to happen. we can literally lower, and i think by at least a third, to half, of what the costs are today for medicines, health insurance, hospital bills, doctors' bills, oxygen, wheelchairs, all those thing, we can lower the cost of those things, if the republicans proposals could ever see the light of day and be passed into law. i yield to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: madam speaker, i think one of the things dr. broun brings out so eloquently is it's a true privilege to do what we've done, to practice medicine and try to heal the sick and take care of those folks. that's what we want to do,

continue to proid provide them services where patients and doctors continue to make those decisions, i yield back. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we've got just a moment or two. if i could speak to the american public today, what i would say to the american people is that what's going to go on starting next week with this health insurance reform that the majority is going to force town the throats of the american people and is going to adversely affect every single american, that the american people should stand up and say no, we want transparency. i i would, madam speaker, if i could speak to every individual across this country, i would tell the american people, get on the phone, email, fax, visit your congressman, your u.s. senator, and say, let's slow this process down, let's get it right, let's don't hasten in

this process of trying to force something down the throats of the american people in the night blackness where people can't see what's going on. let's see, as americans, what your proposing -- what you're proposing so we can look at the bill so we can evaluate the bill so that everybody's voice across this country is heard. former u.s. senator edward dirksen said when he feels the heat, the sees the light. the american people, madam speaker, need to put the heat on every single member of congress in the u.s. house and the u.s. senate by calling, writing, faxing, email, and visiting their offices. and say no to this process of in the allowing people to read the bill. the american people need to

demand that this health care policy be looked at and available for the american people to evaluate. . not being forced down their throats like is being done today. more than that, madam speaker, i invite the american people to call their family and friends and ask them to do the same thing. we have to light a grass fire of grassroots support all across this country to slow this process down. demand transparency. demand fairness. demand openness. we're not getting that today, madam speaker. we have to demand it. and the only way that's going to happen is if the american people will stand up and say no. and tell their member of congress, particularly here in this house, between now and next wednesday, they need to tell

their congressman to stop this process and allow fairness, allow transparency. let's have a forum that makes sense. republicans want that. democrats want to have reform, but we don't need to break the system. the health care will be extremely expensive to everyone. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion to adjourn? pu mr. broun: i have a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in f

>> the focus now turns to the confirmation process of judge sonya so my your -- sonia sotomayor. tomorrow, at 3 former law clerks will talk about their experiences working for the nominee. that begins at 7:00 eastern, saturday on c-span. then, on sunday, more about the life and career of sonia sotomayor, as well as an in- depth look at the confirmation process. that begins at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the confirmation hearing begins monday. here is a look. >> live coverage of the

confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor starts monday at 10:00 eastern on c-span and on the web at c- span.org. will replay the proceedings weeknights on c-span 2. coming in this fall, towards america's highest court. the supreme court, on c-span. >> how is c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars. >> donations? >> public support. >> consumer funded, i guess? >> i do not know. >> private contributions? >> how is it funded? 30 years ago americus cable companies created c-span -- america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> president obama told reporters that world leaders remain seriously concerned about the events surrounding you ron's

presidential election. he also talked about creating international rules for nuclear weapons with respect to iran and north korea. this last about 35 minutes. -- this lasts about 35 minutes. >> please, everybody. have a seat. i apologize for being a little bit late. good afternoon. we have just concluded the final session of what has been a highly-productive summit. before i discuss what we have achieved, i would like to take a moment to express my thanks to the prime minister -- prime minister of italy, his staff, the people of italy for their hospitality and hard work. particularly, i want to thank

the people who love welcomed us. we have seen how you have come together and taken care of each other. we have been moved by your courage and results. i am confident that's l'aquila will be rebuilt, and it will serve as an example of how people can rise up in the face of tragedy and began a new. we will keep you in our thoughts and prayers. we come here for a simple reason -- the challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every nation, and no one nation can meet these challenges alone. the threat of climate change cannot be contained by borders on a map. the theft of loose nuclear materials could lead to the extermination of any city on earth. reckless actions by a few have

it fuel recession that spans the globe. rising food prices mean 100 million citizens are expected to fall into desperate party. right now, we face a choice. we can either shape our future or let events shake it for us. we must not let the this agreement of the past dividers. we must work together to create a safer and cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations. i believe is clear from our progress the last few days, the path that we must choose. this gathering has included not just members of the g-8, at members from 25 nations and major organizations such as the u.n., imf, and others. after weeks of candid and spirited discussions, we have

agreed upon significant measures respecting our economy and international security. let me outline what i believe has been more time -- most significant. first, there was widespread consensus that we must all continue our work to restore economic growth in our national and international regulatory systems. user please the united states has taken the lead on the regulatory systems at home. -- i am please the united states has taken the lead on the regulatory systems at home. while our markets are improving, and we appear to have averted global collapse, we know too many people are still struggling. we agreed that a full recovery is still a ways off. it would be premature to begin winding down our stimulus plans. these plans will lay the

foundation for a strong and lasting recovery. we also believe is important we return to fiscal sustainability in the midterm, after the recovery is completed. second, we agree to historic measures that will stop the spread of nuclear weapons. the will move us closer to the long-term goal of living without nuclear weapons. as part of a comprehensive strategy pursuing that goal. moscow, president medvedyev and i agreed to suspend our warhead systems in a tree that will become played -- completed later this year. our agreements include encouraging nations to limit arms control, and to secure nuclear weapons and volatile materials so they do not fall into the hands of terrorists. i have also invited leaders from the broader group of nations here to attend a global nuclear

summit i will host in washington in march of next year. we will discuss steps we can take to secure loose nuclear materials, combat smuggling, and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at terrorism. we face a real time challenge in iran. the g-8 nation came together to call upon iran to fulfill its responsibilities to the international community without delay. we remain seriously concerned about the appalling events surrounding the presidential election. we are deeply troubled by the proliferation risks there nuclear program -- their nuclear program poses to the world. with their rights, come responsibilities. we hope iran will make the choice to fulfill them. we will take stock of their progress when we see each other this september at the g-20.

third, which a groundbreaking steps to address climate change in our time. we agreed that by 2015 we will reduce our emissions by 80%, and we will work -- by 2050, we will reduce our emissions by 80%. all nations agreed to reduce their emissions. the united states, we have already passed legislation in the house of representatives that puts us on track to meeting that 80% goal. we made historical clean energy investments in our stimulus, as well as setting new efficiency standards to increase mileage and decrease pollution. we believe the nation that can build a 21st century clean energy economy, it is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. we did not reach agreement on every issue. we still have much work ahead on

climate change. but these achievements are highly meaningful, and a will generate significant momentum as we head into the talks at copenhagen and beyond. finally, we've committed to an investment of $20 billion in food security. agricultural development programs to help fight world hunger. this is in addition to the emergency humanitarian aid we would provide. i would note that we had agreed to $15 billion. we exceeded that mark and obtained an additional $5 billion in commitments. we do not view this assistance as an end in itself. we believe the purpose must be to create conditions where it is no longer needed. to help people become self- sufficient. that is why i propose a new approach to this issue, one endorsed by all of the leaders here. a coordinated effort to support plans created by countries themselves, which helped by a

multilateral institutions like the world bank, when appropriate. i also want to speak briefly about the one on one meetings i had with leaders outside of the g-8 context. these meetings were tremendously valuable and productive. we spoke about how we would forge an accord needed response to nuclear proliferation threats from iran and north korea. we also discussed challenges to our economies and the steps we would take to combat climate change. i believe we have a solid condition on these issues. ultimately, this summit reflects the recognition that defining problems of our time will not be solved without collective action. no corner of the globe and wallets will fall from the challenges of the 21st century or the needs and aspirations of fellow nations. the only way forward is through shared and persistent efforts to combat threats to our peace and prosperity and our common

enemies wherever they may exist. none of this will be easy. we have not solved all of our problems. we have not agreed on every point. we have shown that it is possible to make progress together. i am confident we will continue to do so in the months and years before -- ahead. with that, i will take questions. .

>> what you heard is true. i started with this fairly telling point, at that when my father traveled to the united states from kenya to study, at that time the per capita income of kenya was hired in south korea. -- it was higher than south korea. today, south korea is a highly- developed and relatively wealthy country and kenya is still struggling with poverty in much of the country. the question i asked in the meeting is why is that. there had been some talk about the legacies of colonialism and other policies by wealthier

nations. without in any way diminishing that history, at the point i made was that the south korean government working with the private sector in civil society was able to create a set of institutions that provide a transparency and accountability and efficiency that allowed for extraordinary economic progress. there was no reason why african countries could not do the same. and yet, in many african countries if you want to start a business or get a job he still have to pay a bribe. -- you still have to pay a bribe. there remains a lack of transparency. the point that i was trying to underscore is as we think about this issue of food security, which is of tremendous

importance. we have 100 million people who dropped into further poverty as a consequence of this recession. we estimate 1 billion people are hungry around the globe. so wealthier nations have a moral obligation as well as a national security interest in providing assistance. we have to meet those responsibilities. the flip side is that countries in sub-saharan africa and elsewhere that are suffering from extreme poverty have an obligation to use the assistance available in a way that is transparent, accountable, and that builds on will of law and -- rule of law that will allow long-term improvement. there is no reason why africa cannot be self-sufficient when

it comes to food. it has sufficient land. what is lacking is the right seeds, the right irrigation, but also the kind of mechanisms that insure that a former -- that a farmer will be able to grow crops and get a fair price. so all these things have to be part of a comprehensive plan. that is what i was trying to underscore today. >> [inaudible] >> the point i was making is that my father traveled to the united states 50 years ago, and now i have family members who live in villages where hunter is a real -- where hunger israel.

if you talk to people on the ground -- where hunger is real. if you talk to people in kenya they will say that part of the issue here is the institutions are not working for ordinary people. so governance is a vital concern that has to be addressed. i want to be very careful, africa is a continent and not a country, so you cannot extrapolate from the experience of one country. there are a lot of good things happening. part of the reason we are traveling to, is because there is a functioning democracy. -- part of the reason we are traveling to ghana is because there is a functioning democracy. i do not want to generalize it, but i want to make the broader point that a government that is stable, that is not engaging in

tribal conflicts, that can give people confidence and security that their work will be rewarded, that is investing in its people and their skills, those countries can succeed regardless of their history. michael fletcher. >> thank you, mr. president. as he pushed for an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles between russia and the u.s., part of your rationale has been that you want to have the moral authority to turn to north korea and iran to get them to suspend their programs. why will they listen to what the u.s. and russia have to say? >> i don't think it matters so much that they will listen to the u.s. or russia individually,

but it gives us the capacity as the two nuclear superpowers to make appeals to the broader world community in a consistent way about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the need to reduce the danger, and hopefully at some point eliminate it. there are countries that have decided not to pursue nuclear weapons, brazil, south africa, libya, have all made a decision not to pursue nuclear weapons. part of the concept behind the not live in trash nation -- behind the non-proliferation treaty was that countries could develop nuclear energy, they would not pursue nuclear weapons, and the u.s. and russia would also reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

so part of the goal is to show that the u.s. and russia are going to be fulfilling their commitments so that other countries feel that this is an international effort and not something being imposed by the united states or russia or members of the nuclear club. i am confident that we can rebuild a non-proliferation framework that works for all countries. i think it is important for us to establish a set of international norms that can be verified, that can be enforced, and when we are speaking to iran or north korea, it is not a matter of singling them out, but a set of norms we are expecting everyone to abide by. our next question. >> it seems that yesterday

morning you had a very lively discussion with the g-8 plus five, ignited by the president's objection to the [unintelligible] of the g-8 as a forum. what was your argument during this discussion and do you feel that the days of the g-8 are over? and a second question, after six months of dealing with this international forum, do you find it more complicated or less complicated to deal with that than the american congress? [laughter] >> on the second question, it is not even close. congress is always tougher. in terms of the issue of the g's

and what is the appropriate international structure and framework -- in the discussions, i listened more than i spoke. although, what i said privately was the same thing i said publicly, which is that there is no doubt we have to update and refreshed and renewed the international institutions that were set up in a different time and place. some date back to post-world war ii. others are 30 years old. so there is no sense then those institutions can adequately capture the enormous changes that have taken place during those intervening decades. what exactly is the right format is a question that will

be debated. one point i did make in the meeting is that what i have noticed is that everybody wants the smallest possible group, smallest possible organization that includes them. if they are the 21st largest nation in the world, then they want the g-21. and they think it is highly unfair if they have been cut out. what is also true is that part of the challenge is revitalizing the united nations, because a lot of energy is going into these various summits and organizations because there is a sense that when it comes to tough problems, the un general assembly is not always working as effectively and rapidly as it needs to, so i in a strong supporter of the un and i said so in this meeting, but it has

to be reformed. this is something i have said to the secretary general. one thing i think is absolutely true is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers like china, india and brazil, it seems to me wrong-headed. they are going to have to be included in these conversations to have entire continents like africa or latin america not adequately represented in these major international forums and decision-making bodies is not going to work. i think we are in a transition period. we're trying to find the right shape that combines the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.

my expectation is that over the next several years you will see an evolution and we will be able to find the right combination. the one thing i will be looking forward to is if your summit meetings, because i have only been in office six months and there have been a lot of these. i think that there is a possibility of a streamlining them and making them more effective. the u.s. obviously is an absolutely committed partner to the concerted international action, but we need to make sure that there is -- that they are productive as possible. our next question. >> [inaudible] >> i noticed you are not hans. >> thank you very much for the

question. i would like to return to domestic issues. health care -- the momentum seems to have slowed a bit. the senate finance committee is still wrestling with the cost issue. the blue dog democrats yesterday said they had strong reservations about what is developing so far. when are you going to be jumping in full force with this? do you have any sweeteners planned? what is your push before the august recess? >> we jump in with both feet -- we jumped in with both feet. it is my highest legislative priority over the next month, so i think it is important to recognize we are closer to achieving serious health care reform that cuts costs, provides

coverage to american families, allows them to keep their doctors and plans that are working for them. we are closer to that significant reform than at any time in recent history. that does not make it easy, it is hard. we are having a whole series of constant negotiations. this is not simply a democratic versus republican issue, this is a house versus senate issue. this is different committees that have different priorities. my job is to make sure that i have said some clear parameters in terms of what i want to achieve. we have to bend the cost curve on healthcare, and there are some specific ways of doing that, and game-changers that incentivize quality as opposed to quantity, that emphasize

prevention. there are a host of things that i want to see included. i have said that it has to be budget-neutral, it has to be deficit-neutral. whatever bill is produce has to be paid for. that creates some difficulties because people would like to get the good stuff without paying for it. so there will be some tough negotiations in the days and weeks to come, but i am confident we will get it done. i think that appropriately, all of you as reporters are reporting on the game. what i am trying to focus on is the people out in states all across the country that are getting hammered by rising

premiums, they are losing their jobs and their health care, they're going into debt, some are going into bankruptcy, small businesses that are feeling the enormous pressures. i am also looking at the federal budget. there has been a lot of talk about the deficit and debt, and from my republican colleagues, why isn't obama to doing something about this? ignoring the fact that we got into the worst recession since the great depression with a $1.3 billion deficit. fair enough. this is occurring on my watch. what cannot be denied is that the only way to get a handle on our medium and long-term budget deficits is if we corral and contain health-care costs.

nobody denies this. my hope is that everybody who is talking about deficit reduction gets serious about reducing the cost of health care and puts serious proposals on the table. i think it is going to get done. it will be hard because as i said in one of the town hall meetings, as dissatisfied as americans maybe with the health- care system, as concerned as they are about the prospects that they made this their job for their premiums may keep rising, they are also afraid of the unknown. we have a long history of scaring people that they will lose their doctor and their health care plans, they will be stuck with some bureaucratic government system that is not responsive to their needs.

and overcoming the fear, fear that is often actively promoted by special interests who profit from the existing system is a challenge. my biggest job, even as my staff is working on the day-to-day negotiations with house and senate staff, my biggest job is to explain to the american people why this is so important and give them confidence we can do better. >> it is pretty much a do or die by the august recess? >> i never believe anything is do or die. but i really want to get it done by the august recess. our next speaker. issue around? she is not here. -- is she around?

i am disappointed. do we have any members of the foreign press? i will use her spot just so that you guys have a chance to ask a question. >> thank you very much. >> i cannot hear you. can someone make sure the microphone is working? >> on this trip you have been talking about the state sovereignty as a cornerstone of international order. how do you reconcile that with the concept of responsibility to protect what used to be the cornerstone for [unintelligible] >> how do i reconcile that with the responsibility to protect what used to beat what? >> the cornerstone of hope for lots of people in the post-war? >> if i understand your question correctly, on the one hand, we think that respecting the sovereignty of nations states is

important. we don't want stronger nations bullying nations. on the other hand come up where you had nations that are oppressing their people -- on the other hand, isn't there an international responsibility to intervene? it is one of the most difficult questions in international affairs. i don't think there is a clean formula. what i would say is that in general, it is important for the sovereignty of nations to be respected and to resolve conflicts between nations through diplomacy and through international organizations in trying to set of international norms that countries want to meet. there are going to be exceptional circumstances in

which the need for international intervention becomes a moral imperative. the most obvious example being in a situation like rwanda, where genocide has occurred. gordon brown during the last session told an incredibly powerful story. i may not be getting all of the details perfectly right, but he said he had gone to rwanda, went to some sort of museum or exhibition that marked the tragedy in rwanda. there was a photograph of a 12- year-old boy and gave his name and that he loved soccer and wanted to be a doctor.

it provided his biography, and the last line on this exhibit said that right before he and his mother was killed he turned to his mother and said don't worry, the united nations will come save us. and that voice has to be heard in international relations. the threshold at which international intervention is appropriate has to be very high. there has to be a strong international outrage at what is taking place. it is not always going to be a neat decision, and there will be objections to just let any decision because there are some in the international community who believe that state sovereignty -- you never

intervene under any circumstances in some of these internal affairs. -- in somebody's internal affairs. rather than focus on hypothetical, what my administration wants to do is build of international norms, put pressure on nations that are not acting in accordance with universal values towards their citizens. but not hypothesize on particular circumstances, take each case as it comes. richard wolfe. >> i get -- i guess i have to follow on that. is iran in that category and are you disappointed that when you came up with a statement of condemnation from the g-8, you could not come up with any

sanctions on their crackdown of protesters? >> i read your article and maybe some others. this notion that we were trying to get sanctions or that this was a forum in which we could get sanctions is not accurate. what we wanted was exactly what we got, which is a statement of unity and condemnation about the appalling treatment of peaceful protesters post-election in iran, as well as some behavior that violates basic international norms, storming of embassies, a resting embassy personnel -- arresting embassy personnel. so i think the real story here was consensus in that statement, including russia. this does not make statements like this lightly. the other story there was the

agreement that we will reevaluate iran's posture towards negotiating the cessation of a nuclear weapons policy. we will evaluate that at the g- 20 meeting in september. what that does it -- is it provides a time frame. the international community has said here is a door you can walk through that allows you to lessen tensions and more fully join the international community. it iran chooses not to walk through that door, then you have on record teh g-8 to begin with,

but potentially a lot of other countries that will say we need to take further steps. and that has always been our premise, that we provide that door but we also say we are not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of a nuclear weapon, the breach of international treaties and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act. my hope is that the iranian leadership will look at the state in coming out of the g-8 and recognize that world opinion is clear. thank you very much everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> as congress wraps up another week, the focus turns to the confirmation process of judge sonia sotomayor, who was nominated by president obama to replace stephen briar on the supreme court. coverage begins tomorrow with three former law clerks to talk about their experiences working for the nominee. abel also take part on a round table discussion. -- they will also take part in a round-table discussion. on sunday, more about the life of sonia sotomayor, including interviews with friends and former class weeks -- former classmates. that begins at 6:30 p.m. on c-

span. her confirmation hearing begins monday. here is a look at our coverage plans. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for sonia sotomayor starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio and on the web at c- span.org. we will replay the proceedings weeknight on c-span2. coming this fall, tour the home to the supreme court on c-span. >> earlier today, hillary clinton held a town hall meeting at the state department to announce the launch of a new initiative that coordinates u.s. diplomatic and development strategies. she answers questions on this and other issues for 50 minutes.

[applause] in >> this is one of those occasions were a long introduction would be entirely inappropriate. welcome to the state department auditorium. members of the state department and our colleagues in the press. it is my pleasure to introduce the secretary of state, secretary clinton. [applause] >> it is such a joy to see all of you. i am sorry there are not enough seats, but there are a few empty

ones for those of you who might still be looking. it is a great personal pleasure for me to have this opportunity to meet with you again and report to you and answer questions. i want to thank pat kennedy for that introduction and the work that he does. sitting up on stage with pat is our deputy for resources and management, and the head of our planning program. i want to thank all of you for your efforts over the past six months. we are nearly at the six-month mark, and it has been a high honor and privilege for me to work with the men and women of the state department and usaid. day after day you prove your professionalism and your patriotism and your effectiveness. i think that our country and the

obama administration is very lucky to have each one of you on the job. i also appreciate the dedication and sacrifice is that your family is and partners and loved ones make to serve our country by your side. together, we have been on this job for almost half a year. some of us have the scars to prove we have been working hard. i have not been throwing sharp elbows. in fact, it was one of those slips and falls, to paraphrase president lincoln. we are seeing encouraging results from all of our efforts, including my physical therapy. we are preparing a strange alliances, we are cultivating new partnerships, working to engage and change the behavior of adversaries. we are prioritizing development

along with diplomacy as part of our global agenda. we are working to build a world of economic stability and prosperity, clean and affordable energy, health care, housing and education for our children, tackling the threats of extremism, terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. but to sum it up, we are working for a world in which more people in more places can live in freedom, can enjoy the fruits of democracy and economic opportunity, and have a chance to live up to their own potential. having said that, i think it is only fair to add that we face an unprecedented set of challenges. in the face of those challenges, the state department is frequently having to just work overtime to try to catch up,

because too often our policy structures, staffing patterns, are standard operating procedures are insufficient to meet the country's priorities and challenges. we don't have the luxury of deciding which issues to deal with. we need a framework and vision that will allow us to address all of that's to multitask to get their results that we are seeking. we have to work simultaneously with the urgent and long-term. i have been fighting for the resources that we need to do our jobs. we cannot send diplomats and experts into the field underfunded and under yclept, -- under-equipped. we need to align our resources would strategic priorities to direct our funds and maximize our impact.

we need to work better, smarter and work together with more partners beyond our government. instead of simply trying to adjust to the way things are, we need to get into the habit of looking to the horizon and planning for how we want things to be. to help us in that effort and enabled the department to get a head of emerging threats and to make the case effectively for omb, the congress and people of our country for the resources we need, today i am announcing that we will for the first time ever conduct a diplomacy and development review. i served for six years on the on services committee in the senate. it became clear to me that the process the defense department ran was an important tool for the defense department to not

only exercise the discipline necessary to make the hard decisions to set forth the priorities, but provided a framework that was a very convincing one to those in congress that there was a plan, people knew where they were headed and they had the priorities requested aligned with the budget, and therefore people were very convinced it made good sense to do what ever the defense department requested. i want to make the same case for diplomacy and development. we will be doing this reveal, -- we will be doing this review, which will provide us with short-term and long-term blueprint for how to advance our foreign policy projects. this will provide us with a comprehensive assessment for organizational reforms and improvements to our policy in

the planning process these. this will help make our diplomacy work more agile and complementary. this is what meaning then we talk about smart power. -- this is what we mean when we talk about smart power. to accelerate transitions from old ideas. a state department protocol will give us the strategic guidance we need to help us allocate our resources more efficiently and deploy people where they will have the most impact. it is a new way of doing business that will give us the dynamism that we should have and better equipped us to deal with the accelerating rate of change that we confront. this effort is also essential to effective coordination between the state department and usaid. and monday i will talk with them about the implications as well

as its questions. our development and diplomatic goals are best achieved when we are coordinated and integrated. we need a planning process that helps ensure this happens. i am happy to answer questions about how this review will work in practice, but we are starting this a fresh. we're looking for your ideas about how best to implement this. the review will be chaired by secretary lou and co-chaired the acting in administrator and director of policy and planning. we want to learn from the process see is that not only dodo but the -- not onlyodo and -- not only dod but the department of homeland security use. i am interested in making sure

that development and diplomacy are right there at the table on any national security decision. it is designed to tell us where we are, where we want to be and how to bridge the gap between the two. we are going to coordinate with the interagency process, because obviously other agencies play a role in diplomatic development, but we will leave this and we are going to look for ways to better coordinate, weather is -- it is with the treasury or dod or the white house. i have been very pleased at the response we have had since we began the secretary savin board, at the forum we established to solicit -- the secretary sounding board. you have submitted over 300 ideas, and a lot of them, significant number discussed

ways about how to get greater access to mobile computing technology. this is not rocket science. many organizations have been making use of these tools for years, we have just not kept pace. but thanks to your input, irm is increasing investment in our mobile computing program and purchasing additional 2500 remote access fobs that will allow more department personnel to use computers when they are away from the office. this will make people more productive and also enable some of you to actually go home instead of staying in the office waiting for the communication from a time son -- a time zone many miles away. you came up with the idea and then we used stimulus dollars for it. [laughter]

because we thought it would stimulate you. [laughter] we are making other changes as well that are in reaction to the idea is posted on the sounding board, but we need to apply this spirit of evaluation reform and improvement to the entire organization. the course we expect that there will be some missteps along the way. we have never done it before but we need more -- we need your immediate feedback, because weather is fobs for computer access, we will continue to work as hard as we can and i will continue to make the case as effectively as i can for the resources that you need to do your jobs. in exchange, i need three things from you. first, i need your patience. i know there are problems and we want to fix them. the changes may not come overnight but they will come,

and we are working very hard on this. second, we do need your ideas. the process will not work if it sets apart from the expertise within this building. so this whole effort needs to be powered by your ideas and experience. we are going to need your support. just speaking very bluntly for a second here, at any one of us who has been in or around government for more than at least one year knows that the halls and shelves are littered with stale volumes of will- intentioned reform efforts. too often the reason they failed is because bureaucracies have a hard time changing. people get in a groove. i learned the other day that i was the first secretary of state ever to ask the art collection to actually put some modern art

in my office. [laughter] apparently, that was like a big break with tradition. [laughter] but i think we have the capacity for change. everyone of us in this hall has had to change, because when i think about the changes i have seen in my lifetime and how the pace of change and accelerated even more for my daughter and young people, it is just breathtaking. so we change and the ordination -- the organization that we are a part of has to change, too. it is a living organism and we have to mickey -- we have to make sure it is prepared to give us the best that it can. the stakes are too high. we have seen in the last six months that the u.s. and particularly our new president is expected to

deliver a lot. it may not be fair but that is the way it is. some of the meetings that i have had in my travels are around the world, foreign governments and foreign leaders have made very aggressive demands on our country. on at least one occasion i have said you did not make those demands the last eight years. they said we knew we would never get a response. [laughter] so a lot is expected of us. our arms control team did an excellent job in starting the frame work, and we will be working hard on that huge priority, but everywhere you look around the world, we don't have the luxury of being by standards -- of being

bystanders. we have to be as capable as we can be. i think that is exciting. reform needs to be part of our regular business plan, not just a slogan we invoke on special occasions. this process is likely to be put into legislation, so it will not be a one of experience. it will be expected of departments long after i am gone. and i want that to be an institutional part of how we do our business and how we expect so much of ourselves because we want to deliver at such a high level of professionalism. i am looking forward to hearing your ideas and your questions, and working with you to build a state department and united states agency for international development that are the envy of not only our government but of governments everywhere, because of what we will prove we are capable of producing, real

change that furthers our interests and values, protect our security, and inspires millions of people from around the world. thank you all very much. [applause] >> now i think we have two microphones. go ahead. >> we have three microphones. there are two in the center aisle for questions from the audience, and we also electronically connected to the field. one of our colleagues will present you a question from the field. i would suggest we go stage left to stage right. >> people can line up behind the microphones. you are in line. please identify yourself. >> my name is tim.

i am a professor at cornell university. i want to make a plug for science diplomacy in particular. more than saying nice words about it, for the words to mean anything it has to come with funding, which means coordination between state and usaid to promote programs. i was wondering if you could say anything about how the organization of usaid will develop to support new initiatives like this. >> i agree with you, and i thank you for taking time out. i love cornell, so is wonderful you are here working in the state department. i think science diplomacy and science and technology corp. between the u.s. and other countries is one of our most effective ways. -- science and technology cooperation. this is a way to create bridges

between the u.s. and counterparts. we do want to put some resources behind that. as we are negotiating some of the strategic partnership compacts that we are involved in where we are working with a number of countries, science and technology is one of the highest priorities for the countries with whom we are dealing. we just have to be more creative and more focused and we need more partners. one person went to russia to help create a very positive partnership between our academy of sciences and the russian counterpart. we really look to see other partners as well as the u.s. government is stepping up. i can assure you that this is a priority for us and we will look for more resources and more means of trying to implement it. if you have ideas, let us know. yes. >> i am an overseas buildings

operations. i envy [unintelligible] -- i am the [unintelligible] i am from the american federation of government employees. as you know, personnel or human- resources is a huge issue in any organization. in particular, i think we have kind of a broken system. we are supposed to head the civil service -- we are supposed to have the civil service that was supposed to end nepotism, and it seems to me from my operations -- from my observation is that we're going back to nepotism and patronage. people on the local levels -- lo levels are getting picked on or mistreated, and the higher level people are retiring and coming

back with personal services contracts. i hope that he will be looking into that when you are doing your studies. >> thank you, we will. >> yes. >> our first online question comes from tyler sparks. has the department considered moving more -- establishing the foreign language training centers in mexico city for spanish word moscow. it would increase the effectiveness of language training by allowing more practical hands-on training, greatly enhance the cultural studies aspect of training and save the department money. >> it is a very interesting idea. i don't have an opinion on it but i will make sure we evaluate it. i will raise it with our management, said thank you for that idea. >> thank you for holding this town hall.

my name is emily. i am from the office of international religious freedom, but my question is not about religious freedom, it is about biking and running to work. [laughter] and whether you would support an initiative to get us access to showers? [laughter] [applause] first of all, it would save the government a lot of money because we would not have to get our transit subsidies. i would much rather buy to work and take the metro. it would be green and it would promote morale. >> i loved that idea. [laughter] we will look into it. i think it has -- it also has a lot of positives about it. i will see whether there is anything we can do. most people would say what does that have to do with running a

state department or usaid, but i think that there is a real desire on the part of many people, and particularly the many young people, to lead not only a healthier lifestyle but a greener lifestyle. the more we can demonstrate our commitment to that the better. i don't know what portable showers look like. [laughter] but we will look and see what we can find out about that. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for raising that. [applause] >> good morning. i work in the executive office of the bureau of western hemisphere affairs. i think that i can safely speak on behalf of the entire foreign service for thanking you for all of your efforts to help close the overseas [unintelligible] we very much appreciate it. >> thank you.

[applause] we made real progress on that in the supplemental and we are continuing our efforts so that it is a permanent change. it is just unacceptable there would be such discrimination on the basis of the locality of your assignment. yes. >> our next online question comes from clark fry. i recall several weeks ago a message regarding your main street concept at embassies. i have discussed a similar idea previously. i believe it would be a great addition to foreign posts were a little slice of america would be welcomed. could you expand more on this concept and your intentions of pursuing this implementation? how widespread would this be applied? are there any planning stages to implement it? thank you for your strong leadership over the past few months. >> we are trying to evaluate how we could bring what is called

locally called main street america into some of our -- what is called mainstream america into some of our facilities around the world. they used to be a lot more out reached by american missions. some of you may remember we had a lot more libraries, we had centers before the concerts -- security concerns became so intense. we do want to try to create more contact between people. one of the biggest complaints i have heard from many of you is that a lot of our new embassies, which are beautiful and secure, really cut you off from feeling like you are part of the community, which you get out into but make it difficult to serve as a convenient forum for people in the country. i don't yet have anything to announce but we are looking at that. the questioner sounds like he or

she may have some real ideas, so i hope that whoever is, they will convey their specific ideas to us, because we are interested in ways of trying to come up with ways to get the linkage back between our representatives and the people that we are working with. yes. >> thank you for your remarks. i was hoping you might be able to share your thoughts on north korea and the situation with the journalists who are still being held there. >> the two journalists and their families have expressed great remorse for this incident. i think everyone is very sorry that it happened. what we hope for now is that these two young women would be granted amnesty through the north korean system and be allowed to return home to their families as soon as possible. >> my name is joan and i am in

the bureau of the administration. i volunteered on our human rights report on persons with disabilities. what is the department doing in light of the fact that the eoc >> the department of state among cabinet agencies -- ranks the department of state among cabinet agencies in last place with people with disabilities. and retention rates for people like myself who feel like we may have to leave because of our experiences. i give this to you for your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. i recently met with our revisory council on disabilities and they had some good recommendations. we are trying to improve our treatment of and support for people with disabilities. thank you. >> our next question comes from jim. you let the staff use an

alternative to web browser called fire fox? [applause] i just moved to the state department from the national spatial intelligence agency and was surprised that state did not use this browser. i don't understand why state cannot use it. it is a much safer program. thank you. [applause] >> apparently there is a lot of support for this suggestion. i don't know the answer. do you know the answer, pat? [laughter] >> the answer is at the moment that it is an expense question. [applause] >> nothing is free. it is a question of the resources to manage multiple

systems. it is something we are looking at. thanks to the secretary, there is a significant increase in the 2010 budget requests pending for what is called the capital investment fund by which we find our information technology operations. we are hoping to get that increase in the capital investment fund. with those resources, we will be able to add multiple programs to it. yes, you are correct it is free, but it has to be administered. it may seem small but when you are running a worldwide operation and trying to push fobs and other devices, you are caught in the problem of tree irish of trying to get the most out that you can. -- the problem t theriage. -- the problem of triage. >> we will try to move towards that. when the white house was putting together the stimulus package,

we were able to get money that would be spent in the u.s., which was the priority, for it and upgrading our system and expanding its reach. this is a very high priority for me and we will continue to push the envelope on it. pat is right that everything comes with some cost, but we will be looking to try to see if we can extend it as quickly as possible. it raises another issue with me. if we are spending money on things that are not productive and useful, let us know. because there are tens of thousands of people who are using systems and office supplies, the more money we can save on stuff that is not cutting edge, the more resources we will have to be able to do things that will give us more

tools. it sounds simplistic but one of the most common suggestions was having better systems to utilize supplies, paper supplies, office supplies, and be more conscious of their purchasing and using. . >> help us save money on stuff that we should not be wasting money on and give us the chance to manage our resources to do more things like fighting fires. >> good morning, madame

secretary. i am from the overseas building operation and director of return of -- internal review and research. i asked you a question during the women's history month concerning workplace bullying. since then you have mandated a policy be developed for addressing this systemic issue with bullying. i want to thank you so much for being the first secretary of state to take a stand against workplace bullying. because of this, a committee is being formed by the human resource department to develop this policy. i have a couple of requests. our request is that this committee also include some of the folks that have been bullied to look after the best interests of those who have been abused. otherwise, it would be like letting the fox in the henhouse. secondly, i request that this committee address the retaliation against those that have piled -- filed complaints, because that is being done as

well. when they are standing up for themselves, they are prevented from being promoted, rewarded for their work, and then being marginalized, like stuck in the corner. and then from advancing in their career. the third thing is that it has been stated by some senior management that if you work for a bad manager, or if you do not like how your manager is treating you, then you should look for another job. madam secretary, i am certain that this will not be your statement, because bad managers make the department is functional, and as you mentioned, you need the support to move forward on your programs. so our request would be that the bad manager be turned into a good one. if they do not change, then they have to be removed. people are being placed under bad managers, those people are being moved out and the other people who come in will be abused as well.

so i want to just thank you so much for all the good work you are doing in setting up this committee. >> thank you for those excellent suggestions. [applause] >> i am with the office of international religious freedom. with president obama's cairo speech last month and his outlining of several foreign policy goals specifically dealing with democracy, religious freedom, and human rights, what are some things to do what are some ways in which we can do more outreach in support for religious minorities, especially the religious minorities in iraq and other places? >> excellent question. we began at the follow-up effort it -- efforts to the president's historic speech in cairo.

the policy planning office under dr. slaughter is coordinating that, and we are looking for your suggestions. we have already passed on to the white house a number of very specific ways to follow up. we do not of the speech to be given with nothing happening and nothing changing. so i would welcome your ideas and the ideas of the people working with you about how we could perhaps address these. you mentioned to particular concerns of mine, the treatment of the copts, which have raised with the egyptian government, and as part of the reaction to the swine flu, all of their pigs were slaughtered, which is a real economic hardship that they are trying to recover from. in iraq, we have seen some glimmers of hope in the way that the iraqi government is treating

and protecting minority religions, but there has to be a lot more to do, and that is one of the issues we are discussing with the rockies on our agenda. specific ideas are very -- discussing with the iraqis. >> could you tell us what your plans are for restructuring of foreign responsibilities of usaid? will they have an administrator before the end of the year? >> i hope so. we are working very hard to get to the point where we can announce a nominee for the director, which we think of as a very critical leader in our efforts. i hope that will come very soon. part of the reason of doing this process is rather than running separate processes, which is what we do now for budget and

planning purposes, is to start from the beginning with an integrated process that usaid will be a complete partner in with state. there is so much synergy. when you look at the work that we do here on population and refugees, or on democracy promotion, and was so our science out reach, or held an economic work, there is so much synergy that can be created if we are better able to work together and integrate appropriately between state and usaid. clearly, getting a leader on board is a very high priority for me, and i am working very hard to make that happen. i hope it certainly will be in the very near future. >> i am an intern in diplomatic security international programs, african division.

i am very honored to be here. i attend the university of miami and i applied on line, and i am here today. i just wanted to know what, as interns, we could do to help with the changes happening at the state department, and also ways that they can may be in the future help in terms who come to d.c. and sometimes are not paid and have to find housing and just lived here for two months in order to help the state department. if there is any way that we can help you with these changes happening in the state department. >> you are at the university of miami and miami florida? >> yes. >> that is a great university. i think that is a really good point, and how many in terms are here? we have a lot of intern's. -- how many interns are here?

i think that is a great tribute to the state department. i know we are looking for and one to use the talents and hard work, often free, of internes like yourselves. part of what i hope, and i know we run a very good intern program here, and by the number of hands that went up, it has a lot of good outrage. any -- good out reach. any of your ideas of how we could improve it, how we could utilize it more, whether it's a way to solicit opinions from young people like yourself about your experience and your desire and interest to work full time for our government, particularly at state or usaid, i am very interested in what you might

have to offer us. i think it would be useful to have an organized way to solicit the opinions and ideas of the interns who are here. technology is changing so quickly that you may have some new ideas that we have not even thought up. we have a very vigorous effort underway to make us more and techno-friendly and to be involved in all the new technology, but we are very much looking for ideas all the time. may i suggest to the interns that you can use a sounding board. you cannot let the people with whom you work know of any ideas or suggestions that you have. we are looking for people to make a commitment to public service, and we hope that many of you will decide you want to go into foreign service or the civil service and be part of

your country's foreign policy. >> i work in the office of the cheap operating officer at usaid. this is my personal question, however. i think americans are more and more conscious of global problems as they come home. your strategy represents an unprecedented opportunity to make a clear story of how our work addresses those problems. you have also mentioned that this would likely be institutionalized in legislation. our legislation does not present a clear explanation to americans of how we take on these problems and what we do for u.s. citizens. i was wondering, many thinkers point to the need for a grand compromise between the executive and legislature, how congress

can feel comfortable with the supervision it has, but the administration can have more flexibility in what it does. i would like your ideas on your plan to move forward with that. >> i think you make some very important points. we need an narrative, especially in difficult economic times. we need to be able to explain to the american people who are losing their jobs, feeling more and more insecure, by spending money to send diplomats or development experts around the world to deal with problems that, in the view of a lot of the folks that i know out in our country, people should just take care of for themselves. we need to make the linkage between not just our humanitarian and moral values, but our interests, our strategic interests in the world, and tell a story that is convincing to our fellow citizens. one of the reasons why i want to

do this qddr process is, we need to update and refresh our story. we need to listen to each other and we need to cut down the bureaucratic barriers that sometimes get in the way of common effort in our own government and with the private sector and set forth a clear sense of mission, backed up by defensive war requests for resources. we are just beginning this process. i have ideas, and it sounds like you have ideas. i bet everybody here has their own ideas, and that is why we want this to be a bottom up process. we want to hear what you think we should be doing, but i want people to think about it in terms of telling your family members, people you go to sea at a high school reunion, hard- working americans, why what you

do is in their interest and interest of their children. if we cannot make that case, we cannot sustain the increased resources that we are obtaining. i have worked very hard over the last six months to make the case for greater resources. we have done well, but part of the reason we did well is because i kept saying over and over again, the united states cannot be a bystander. it will come back to hurt us. it will endanger the future of our children, and therefore, what we are doing is most profoundly and fundamentally in the interest of the american people. we have got to make that case. i think we can make a without any question at all. but we need to make it. that is what this process is for. i do not want to prejudge it and

say what i believe we should do. i want to hear from all of you, and i want to make sure that we come up with a very convincing story about who we are and what we do for the american people and for peace, progress, and prosperity around the world. >> our next question comes from time grant. border security is a top priority, yet i am not sure how stake fits into the overall plan to combat illegal trafficking drugs, humans, and terrorists. what are we doing now and what are we doing in the future? >> we are doing a lot, and i hope that tommy would get a copy of our tips report, the trafficking in person's report that has just come out, which is the definitive analysis of what is happening with the trafficking of persons around the world. i think the report is a very

critical part of our role in trying to raise standards and protect human rights, but i have said that next year we will include ourselves. i want us to start looking at the united states for every report we do, because i think we will end up being a tier one country. i think will have more credibility if we start looking at the united states while we criticize other countries as well. [applause] >> on the tips report there is a lot of work that the state department does in conjunction with homeland security, with ice, with the department of justice. we also have a very active role in drug interdiction, counter narcotics trafficking work. i think that many of our missions around the world house

d.a. agents and others who are part of the overall american presence. so the state department and usaid are very active in our border security efforts. we do not have the lead. that is not our mission, but we are very active participants and supporters in our country's policy. >> i work in the messaging office of irm, and i am also a student and i am excited to be in the program. i was wondering if you had any interest in promoting the co-op program. it is a little broader and brings in more students, especially in that area. i go to the catholic school of america school of law, and i know a lot of students will look for an internship that will bring the men and be able to keep them in the federal government. >> i very much support those programs, and i wanted to add to the young woman who spoke earlier about the internship

program, i know it is a financial hardship on many students who cannot afford to do unpaid work. i do not know what the legal constraints are, but it might be possible to bribe some minimal subsidy for people who have financial needs. we will look at -- it not possible to provide some subsidy. we will lookit that. -- we will look at that. >> i work for western european affairs. not to make this into an intern central town hall and, but i have enjoyed my time working here. it is an important time when we can find out information about possible job opportunities, and just paying in touch with each other. i would encourage everyone here to keep in touch with their intern's. >> do we have any kind of

website for intern's? it is called in turtern connect. >> it has just been set up in the past month. lots of in termterns have signe, and it is a great place to share your ideas. >> i think it is a great place to have the interns themselves connected, but those who have worked with and mentored in turns should reject those who have mentored interns should stay in touch. the more we can nurture those career ambitions, the better, so thank you. >> i serve on the arab

diplomatic and translating it team. we are very proud and happy to see you, for those who served under you and the former secretary rice, you are a source of inspiration for us. we are definitely very thankful for our leaders at the department who encourage things like work life balance, for the lady who spoke about salaries and things like that. this makes a big difference, because if you have a healthy mind, you can have a healthy, productive work force, so we are thankful for that. one more point about allocation of human assets. if you think about the corporation in the private sector, they can see and asset and how they can tap into it for different purposes. is it possible to have our department, a database where you have a particular contingent

that is serving a particular project, but if you need them to go and to assist on temporary women's issues or engagement for the muslim world and things like that, where they can bring something to the team. you can call on them on a particular project just via e- mail or something like that. >> thank you for that. that is an interesting idea. >> i am a contract employee under irm at the moment. as a former soldier, and noted that many of our field commanders have extensive diplomatic relations with their local counterparts. i was wondering if it was possible if there is an initiative to actually draw on that experience from the state department point of view, and

also possibly to exchange its bite the subject matter experts and regional exports to pre deployment units to help free them and get them ready for the challenges of warfare and its operations. >> thank you for your service. we are trying to do more of that. you will not be surprised that a lot of military officers have been increasingly responsible for what we would consider diplomacy and development in conflict zones, and we are working closely with the defense department and the congress to try to get some more balance into that, so that we can have more of our diplomats and development experts working with the military, and that we can learn from the military experience. one of the things that the military did, which made diplomatic and development work

possible for them, was to create something called the commander emergency response funds, back in 2002 and 2003. when i went to iraq and afghanistan several times, particularly in iraq, i met a young captains and majors and lieutenant colonels who had a sum of money that they were able to disbursed without any real accountability. it was what they thought was best. it was an important tool. we do not have that on the develop -- diplomatic and development side. is a very cumbersome progress -- it is very cumbersome process. they were relying on diplomats for how to tell them how to spend the money. we are working to get a better balance between defense, diplomacy, and development, and

it is important that we try to learn from each other. if you take what we are doing in afghanistan and pakistan, but general petraeus and ambassador holbrooke working closely together. they have had a lot of joint meetings together. there is almost a mind meld of brown what we are trying to achieve there, so we are learning, but any thoughts you have based on your experience, we would be very happy to see. we need to get better at that. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> deputy secretary of state jacob lew discussed it more in detail. this is about 30 minutes. >> been afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the state department. to lead off our briefing, we

have anne-marie slaughter to talk about the quadrennial diplomacy department that secretary clinton talked about this morning. >> thank you all for being here. i will speak briefly at the outset, because the secretary addressed this initiative in the town hall, and i think you all had the ability to be here or listen in. want to start by saying how excited we are about this. in some ways it pulls together a lot of the things we have been thinking and talking about from the first days we have been here in terms of how to take a strategic look at everything we do in diplomacy and development, to be able to order our resources, people, and programs so they are in service of our highest priorities. we begin the process as an outgrowth of reviewing for assistance programs. we have been in the process of looking hard at our foreign

assistance programs. it quickly became apparent to us that one could not really just look at development in the absence of looking at development and diplomacy. one has to inform the other, and it has to go both directions. our development strategy has to tie into what our foreign policy objectives are. our foreign policy objectives have to reflect our development strategies. we are putting together an effort that will reach across the entirety of the state department and usaid. it will involve the participation of senior letter ship in both organizations. there will be -- senior leadership in both organizations. it will include the active administrator of usaid. he is on a college tour with his daughter today. i spoke with it senior leadership that usaid, and we

have the town hall today and monday. that is the plan for how we announce it. let me talk a little bit about the expectations and the timetable. we are very aware that what we announced is a big undertaking. we do not have the luxury of undertaking it in an academic way where we have years to complete it. we are in a world where as early as the middle of september, we have to have our budget proposals at the white house for next year, for 2011. at the end of the year and the beginning to dig at the end of the year, the beginning of next year has to be locked up so that our proposals for 2011 are set. we are undertaking this in parallel to the normal budget process is. we have sorted our senior reviews on the budget process. there will be structured around strategic issues. . qddr will have a longer time frame. we will not be done with an

undertaking as expansive as that by the end of september, but we will have some initial thoughts that will inform the budget process. as we get toward the end of the year, we will be six months into the qddr. before we finalize the budget, we will have the opportunity to have the process of checking in take place again. the question many have will -- is when will there be a report and what will it look like? we are shooting to have our first round to look at it at the beginning of next year. since the beginning of a new process, i am reluctant to set a date. we are not looking at having this take multiple years. we know that after we have done it, we want to keep it going to have it be a quadrennial process. every four years it will be updated. if you look at the initiatives we have undertaken in the area

of development and foreign assistance, you can see the seeds of what we are thinking about. the food security initiative, the global health initiative, that have a lot of things in common in terms of strategic direction. they are the result of asking questions about how to have sustainable results, how do you tie what you are doing in so that the diplomatic and development efforts support one another, and how do you reach out across not just u.s. government agencies but other partners to have better results than we could have ourselves? those of the kind of questions we will be asking on a much broader basis. i am certain that when we get through the process, we will have a set of reorganized and reprice or not this objectives -- reif prioritized objectives. -- re prioritized objectives.

to ask the question about how the development and diplomatic efforts complement one another. i will stop there in terms of opening, and ann marie and i are happy to answer any questions you have. >> i am having a hard time getting my head around exactly what this is supposed to do. hasn't the u.s. government and the state department, since their inception, been trying to streamline and make more efficient development and diplomacy? if they haven't, the taxpayers would like to know why that is. i cannot imagine that this is the first time that the state department under any administration has started to look at these questions. what exactly is the report going to say when it comes out, and why is it going to be different than any of the myriad similar

reports done in the private sector by think tanks? there floods of them, 10, 15 a year maybe, about how state and usaid can do a better job. >> on the first question, even if you were doing everything well, it was still be our job to ask the question, how can we do it better? we have been candid about the fact that we do not think we are doing everything is well as we should. there are areas of our program that we need to change, in some cases how we do business and how we define the objectives. the pentagon had a very serious program to defend the united states before they had a qddr process. they learn that they could look down the road and envision what the future challenges would look like in a way that better informed the decisions that they make. there is no agency that freezes

in place its plans for four or five years at a time. it is an organic process that is ongoing. there ought to be a longer view. you ask the question and make changes subconsciously so that there is an analytic approach. there have been a lot of efforts in the past. many reports were put together by governmental and non- governmental organizations. the process of pulling the ideas together and having them informed by the experience of the professionals at state and the other agencies that would be involved, and framing it for strategic choices by the current leadership or what we are talking about. none of those other reports were prepared by leaders responsible for putting forward budgets for the president to present to congress. there were not put together by people responsible for implementing our foreign policy or development program.

>> they were put together by people who had been previously, and given the revolving door nature of this town, will be coming back into these positions. why is this thing not going to get caught up on a shelf and forgotten about? >> i would underscore it by the way it is connected on a daily basis. it will be informed by the quality of work done in the qdd r. we will have a budget that the congress -- that the president sends to the congress next year. having been in government and out of government, it is different to have ideas when you are giving suggestions that it is to make decisions that you are responsible for. >> the other big difference is, this is the first time we have done something that brings development and diplomacy together. they are the embassies of the

future. there are lots of reports on how you can do development assistance, but secretary clinton has said one of her primary goals is the development and diplomacy being equal pillars of foreign policy. this is the process that will do that from the bottom up. it will not just talk about it, but integrated with aid and state and all the other agencies working together for a combined land. -- a combined plan. >> dod is a much more generously resourced place and state. >> we had not noticed. [laughter] >> you have any concern that -- do you think you have the bandwidth to do this, or will it sucks more people away from other more pressing needs?

a perennial problem that many of us in this room have associated with the budget process is that when we ask, as we did about honduras, how much money does the u.s. government of honduras? it took 48 hours to get that question answered. one of the reasons is so hard to do that is that money that goes to different countries gets split up and lots of different accounts of the government. i wonder if you guys are trying to get a better feel for not just how much money state and eight spent on country x, but how much the government as a whole does, so that you have a sense of how much the u.s. government invests. every time, it is like reinventing the wheel to try to figure out where the money goes and what is used for.

>> i do have the advantage or disadvantage of having said that that is what we need. we need to be able to see what we are doing in each country and region in a systematic way. i can tell you that the systems are far from perfect. it is not like we inherited a system where the numbers tie together easily. there are lots of reasons for that. some of it has to do with the history of separateness of the programs. some has to do with the systems that support them, and some has to do with the attitude of whether review what we are doing as a whole of government effort or not. the process will be viewed by a sense that all the agencies have to look at it holistic lee. we have to reach out and work across government. i should note, this is not something that will be confined

strictly to the state department. other agencies have significant roles in the international arena. we are very conscious of the fact that international financial institutions, trade policy, law enforcement policy, and host of areas have enormous impact on what the total presence of the u.s. government is. the nsc will try to pull together across government a view of this. it is a big undertaking. i don't think anyone should expect that in 12 months we will have it down perfect and that we will be able to have them seamlessly integrated so that you can sit at a computer and get the answer to your hunter's question in 5 mins. i think we can do a lot better than we are doing now. as i talk to my colleagues and other agencies, our

administration is focused on doing it that way. >> it is more than eight years since you were at omb. secretary rice talked about how she asked this question which came in as secretary of state and she was never able to get a quick answer about how much we spend on country x. adjust your that eight years from now it will be the same thing. if you cannot just be your out that money your spending in a place, it is hard to see- properly in a greater development and diplomatic efforts. >> i think our systems are better developed than there were eight years ago. there is more of an ability to look at the organizations in this state has responsibility for. if one asks the question, what are the biggest pieces that one has to get their hands around, as opposed to how do you get

every source coordinated, you can make significant progress more quickly. i do not want to go beyond the boundaries of our process. our qddr will be aimed at the institutions we are responsible for, but in consultation with other organizations. there will be a shared objective to be closer to that point. >> it is difficult to follow, because it is abstract. if you took the exact problem of the middle east, how would you match development and diplomacy better? how would it be different from what it is today? >> rather than use the middle east as an example, i think the history of the different strains of support for the middle east are so unique that it is hard to generalize from it. let me use an example that covers many countries in many regions.

pepfar is an enormously effective program. it does cover the treatment for hiv aids, and malaria. if you had told me that that level of commitment would have been made, it was beyond imagination. when no we have a challenge. the challenges, have you have a sustainable program when the country on said, where you add treatment to the prevention, and where there is a system in place so that fewer people get sick in the future. that is not something you can do through the boundaries of a program along. it involves usaid and the mcc. some of those countries are mc eligible. it involves diplomatic relations. in order to have a country understand how important it is

in terms of our support to have a sustainable government approach, it involves the ambassador and the leadership of the department engaging with the leadership of the country at the presidential and prime minister level as well as the health minister level. i think we have an outstanding new leader. it is not within those boundaries to sustain it. we are doing the review in parallel to this, but it is part of it. we have a report to the congress in september on a strategic review of pepfar. i use that as an example because i think it cuts across as many lines of the programs that are -- that we are responsible for as anything does. i hope that we come up with

answers that are different, because we are asking the questions in the qddr. >> the two examples you mentioned are both bush administration initiatives. you said you will take the good programs that the foreign minister russian put in place and put together -- that the foreign administration put in place and put together. >> it will be the focus of a lot of review of how we coordinate our foreign assistance programs. when we announced the global health initiative, we went out of our way to complement the efforts of the past administration and said we want to build on it. we do not think it is on a sustainable path. the question is, how you pivot to get it to a place where it is sustainable? >> [unintelligible]

>> accountability in terms of the way the funds are handled by the country's we may foreign assistance grants to. a lot of issues are capacity of governments that we provide assistance to. the capacity question comes in many forms. it comes in the form of democratic institutions, transparency, and questions related to corruption. we have to be focused on capacity building. if one really hopes to get to sustainable results, that has to be one of the things we are aiming for. it has been a challenge in the past and will be a challenge in the future. i think we have learned lessons from the past. we will be looking at that in this review. >> i will take one more and we will switch off. >> does this come under your budget? is this being done under

ordinary funding for your office is now, or are you requesting more money to do this? >> it is within the boundaries of what the policy staffs here do. we are pulling people from different places. i have not looked to see whether in the aggregate distresses any of our office budgets. we are not talking about hundreds of people. other agencies do this with hundreds of people. we will be doing it with less than a dozen people, so i hope we can handle that. >> is this ensconced in statute in any way? will the next administration that is not led by president obama be able to continue? rex our view has been that we wanted more time to think it through and structure it in a

way we think makes sense. we believe it makes sense ultimately to take the process and regularize it. i have talked to my colleagues in the defense department. they know a lot more now than the first time they did a qddr. we will try to learn from the experience of others, but once we have established a process, we think it makes sense to carry it forward. >> do you think this exercise will have any impact on the approaches that we take for those countries with whom we do not have any diplomatic relations? >> i am not sure exactly how to answer that question. as we think about the challenges of the future, and as the president and secretary have made clear, we have to think about how do we have relations with countries to move towards

progress in areas where progress has been difficult to achieve, in part because we do not talk to each other? i suspect that questions like that will come up in the diplomacy part of this qddr. >> does this have the potential to basically become a policy- making exercise as opposed to just a review of some kind? >> it is inherently a policy- making process. i may have a bit of bias, but i think even the research allocations decisions have been formed by a policy. where we put our people and program dollars is policy. the diplomatic piece of this, and anne-marie can address this in more detail, is going to have a lot of bearing on how we present the u.s. president in countries where we are and perhaps in countries where we are not. we will ask questions about the right way for the u.s. diplomatic presence to be managed.

there is a lot of policy and what we are doing. it is not a procedural exercise. there may be organizational decisions that come out of it, and there may not be. we are not going in with the notion that at the other end will be an organizational chart for all development and diplomacy. it is all about how to achieve results, and that is all about policy. i have to run, but anne-marie will stay. >> you will hear the secretary next week talking about broad strategic objectives and approaches. this process takes that very broad view down to the more operational level and says, how we actually achieve those objectives? it is establishing resource allocation by dividing --

defining specific policy areas. it is not an outside report saying what the state department should do. we are consulting on what we need to do to accomplish those objectives. >> traditionally, humanitarian aid has been wall off -- walled off from the diplomatic objectives of the united states. should this be seen as blurring that line? >> i do not think so. we are constantly engaging that question, and sometimes one is a tool of the other. when we have a peace settlement, we need to pour in development money to stabilize it. the secretary has made clear that as far as she sees our objectives, they include women's education, health, reduction of poverty -- those our foreign policy objectives. i would include providing

humanitarian assistance in extreme crises. to the extent that is a foreign policy objective, it will not subordinated to something else and will not interfere with our ability to supply it. i would say is more likely to leverage our humanitarian assistance dollars by thinking about how we connect other governments and international and regional organizations. >> maybe you can shed some more light on when we could expect naming of the u.s. aid director. i would imagine is someone who has a lot to do with this report. can you explain why one has not been named already? >> we are very anxious to have the administrator on board. the acting administrator will be working with us until the aid administrator is name, and he or she will be able part of the process. no one will be happier than we are to stand up and make that announcement.

>> the secretary said that there has been a dearth of information for the american public as to where all the money goes, and that this qddr is part of a function of telling the american people here is where the money is being spent and why. is it going to be like a corporate annual report? >> it will be quadrennial, so not annual. i emphasize that. we hope there will be a break between the end of this and the beginning of the next, so it is not a for your process. the idea of -- so it is not a four-year project. are we spending the money as effectively as we can in support of a defined set of objectives? it has to be an external story that we can defend on the hill and in press briefings. it is a large part of the way she thinks of our mission.

we are out in the world and engaging other countries, but we are also spending taxpayer dollars, and we need to account for that. >> the success of the approach to u.s. diplomacy does not depend on how much budget you put forward and give these countries, but especially in the middle east, after the great speech of president obama, what secretary clinton has mentioned this morning about engaging other countries that do not agree with you, the success of this diplomacy will depend a lot on how much the u.s. administration is going to depend on the values of america and the principles of america

and international legitimacy. how much of that is going to be part of the new stratton -- new strategic approach of diplomacy of the u.s. when it comes to implementing basic principles and values in the middle east, and not the dependence on only the alliances with israel that is igniting the trend of violence in the middle east? >> the question of how we integrate the values we embrace and champion and what we do in concrete policies, both diplomatically and development policies, is exactly what we hope to get at in this review. it is not all about money. part of the review is, of these are our objectives and i use, are these policies serving those objectives and i use? sometimes we conclude know, -- serving those objectives and values. we want to integrate what we are

doing better. one guy is to strengthen civil society across the middle east and many countries -- 1 value is to strengthen civil society across the middle east and many countries. there is a diplomatic objective there. there is also a development set of objectives. simultaneously, having our development and diplomatic objectives work together. >> are you trying to say that the new strategy of diplomatic approach of the united states is going to directed the values and principles of america in implementing its policies, and not only the alliance's that hae had more importance in the previous administration when it deals with the grievances

against what israel has been doing in their territories? >> i think president obama may very unclear what bodies we want to stand on in his cairo speech. i would definitely stand by that. -- made it very clear what values we want to stand on. i think the idea we are reviewing our objectives and trying to align the way we spend our money with our values and stated diplomatic objectives is part of what this administration wants to be doing. it goes back to the first question, we are at the outset of a new administration and we want to set those objectives. >> do you envision this being an elaborate interview process, aren't conducting a lot of this business by conference calls are travel? how do you physically see the review being conducted out?

>> there will be a lot of working groups within the government, but also cables out to posts, asking for input. you heard the secretary saying for everyone to send us their ideas. we'll be doing that more systematically. i imagine we will use electronic and video means rather than sending teams out, but it will be an effort to canvass the people out there and build on previous reviews to the extent that they are helpful. >> will it be done green? >> it will be done green. there will be a report. i would imagine it will be electronically available. >> the administration has talked this over with the chairman who has proposed a language that has been passed by the house. if you did discuss it with him,

it was not clear to me from secretary lew's, is whether you would like to see his language become law. >> secretary: has consulted closely with chairman bermin. the secretary said we would like to see this be made regular. the exact terms of how it will ultimately put into legislation will be worked out. we wanted to do it before rebounder cells under a mandate. -- before we found ourselves under a mandate. >> coming up, center roland burris of illinois makes an announcement about his future plans. then as the founder and chief trial counsel of the southern poverty law center talks about fighting hate crimes.

later, today's state department briefing. >> illinois senator roland burris top -- spoke to residence in chicago where he announced he will not seek a full term next year. he was appointed that sent by former illinois governor rod blagojevich to fill the seat vacated by president obama. his remarks are about 10 minutes. [applause] [chanting "don't do it."]

>> thank you also much. -- thank you all so much. i appreciate all the energy. thank you for joining me here today. i am here to talk about some important issues, about the importance of representing the wonderful people of illinois and how important the united states senate is to the future of our country. when i was named to the senate back in december, i stated that i would serve a two-year term. i felt strongly at that time that illinois needed two full- time centers, and i still feel that way. i have served the good people of this state for 30 years. public service means working,

advocating, and fighting for your constituents and their needs, day in and day out. that has been my commitment. i have tried to do that every day of my career. i am honored to be a member of the united states senate that such a critical time in our nation's history. we have a new president with bold ideas for programs dealing with health care, the economy, jobs, schools, and the environment, all important issues for the people of our state and our nation. i am proud to follow in his footsteps in the senate, and i look forward to continuing to work with him on the pressing issues of our time.

the united states senate will be at the center of debate for all those issues. i have been a member of that body now for seven months, and i have been seeing firsthand that my colleagues are thoughtful, dedicated, and loyal americans. that is democrats and republicans alike. it is my hope that we can come together and work together in a bipartisan manner to address these important topics. . .

i am the only african-american serving in the senate. i believe in diversity and representation in all segments of our society. it is essential to who we are as a nation. we must have diversity. today requires not only a time commitment to performing the job but an almost equal commitment to raising the funds to run competitively for the office. political races have become too expensive in this country.

[cheers} i am making this decision and was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state. i believe that the business of illinois should always first come first. today i returned to the place for my political journey began back in 1978, back to the south side chicago, back to my community and my institutes. i pronounced that i will not be candidates in the 2010 election. i will not run for the united

states senate seat. last january, the same month that i was seated, president obama and president -- vice- president by then swept into the office, sending our country on a new course and reaffirmed the truth of the american people. the obama administration is bringing transformational changes to this nation and it is an exciting time to be in public service. more exciting and thrilling is hope and possibility. i say to the young people in the audience here today, this is the world in which she will grow up. this is the world you will shape and change. i made the decision as a young man, probably younger than a few of you in the room today, to get

involved in the public life. i never imagined that i had the great honor to serve the state and this country for as long as i did. now young people, it is your turn. now it is your time to decide how you will serve your communities. you in this room are the next generation of leaders. all of you have the potential to rise to any level you choose. i am encouraged at what the future holds. as a look around the room, i see future educators, senators, and maybe even a future president of united states in this room. serving in public life is not easy. it is a noble and rewarding calling. for the remainder of my senate term i'm committed to working

hard the people of illinois in fighting health care, education, bringing jobs, and safe communities. i will stand up for veterans and the security of our country and the need for our men and women in uniform. as i have done in the past three decades, i will keep fighting for the great people of the state of illinois. [applause] there have been times we have been successful. i want to thank each and everyone of you for making this possible. i look around the room and see how long ago i have been in business and all the progress that we have a together. i am grateful for the partnership. i'm grateful for the leadership. i am grateful for the help during my political career. i thank my family who has been with me all these years, my

friends who have always my core of support and to encourage -- and whose encouragement and support i will never forget. i am proud of everything we have accomplished together. most of all, i think the people of illinois and to live had the honor of serving and private service for over the past 30 years. thank you all very much. may god bless you. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> as congress wrapped up another week, the focus turns to the confirmation process of judge sonia sotomayor who was nominated by president obama. our coverage begins tomorrow, with three former law clerks to talk about their experience working with the nominee. they also take part in a round- table discussion. that begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on saturday. on sunday, more about the life and career of sonia sotomayor, including interviews with friends and former classmate and an in-depth look at the confirmation process. that begins a 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. her confirmation hearing begins monday. here is a look at our coverage plan.

>> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for sonia sotomayor or starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c- span radio, and on the c- span.org web. . we will replay the proceedings weeknight on c-span2. this fall, it for the home of the highest court, the supreme court, on c-span. >> a special on extremist activity. you will hear from civil rights leader morris deeds. he talks about his legal efforts to hold certain groups accountable for violent acts committed by their members. this event for the national press club is about an hour.

>> i wanted a thank the supporters who have come. i will not try to recognize those -- i will try to recognize those. i would like to recognize cover ms. davis -- congressman davis into is a very wonderful spokesperson for our state. i want to talk a bit about u.s. domestic terrorist threats posed by extremist and radical right in this country. we know that james von braun walked in and shot a security guard, mr. stephen johns in the face, and killed him. it was a shocking thing to happen. he had a website called the holy western empire. he had written a book called "killed the best gentiles." let me read you a pair crap out of this book -- let me read you

a portion out of this book. the captivated discussion of the white race and culture it represents. it is not overrun with hordes of non-wide and mongrels. this man had a long history in the holocaust denial movement. he blamed jews the description of the white race in america and the world. there was a nobel was found in his car. he said that obama was treated by the jews. obama does what his jew owners say. he almost ended his life targeting the object of his fate.

you just heard about timothy mcveigh, killing 168 people. you could also consider him a loan nut. house largest number of people killed in the united states in any terrorist act until the world trade center. there have been numerous plots and oklahoma city. you will see a listing of these incidents involving bombings, plots to blow up federal buildings, plots to assassinate federal judges, and many, many more. thanks to the very good work of the fbi, justice department, local and state and federal police, most of these plots have been stopped.

since the election of president obama we have seen a rash of serious incidences that have been caused by domestic terrorism. on a tour 24, two skinheads were involved in a plot to assassinate president obama. they were with the supreme white alliance. ready for the murder took place, we were taking the head of the group to court. i can tell you from the testimony we brought out in court and from the dealing with these people that they were dead serious. they would kill president obama if they could. on december 16, before president obama was inaugurated, a marine from a camp was indicted for threatening obama. that was based on the right

things in his journal that was full of neo-nazi and anti- semitic material. days before obama was sworn in, a white man shot and killed two black immigrants in massachusetts and planned to kill as many jews as possible. he said he is fighting for the dying light rays, whites are facing genocide. three police officers were killed in pittsburgh by a white man who said that obama intended to complicate our government. the incidents go on and on, not just involving the threats to kill african-americans and jews, also latinos. on june 12, executive director of the minutemen american defense went into a home invasion in arizona and shot a latino man and his nine-year old son.

the whole thing was to rob the family who they thought or drug dealers and it would ever money they could get. it was very serious. the threat from right-wing terrorist extremists in this country is real. i guess you might see the flames are being fanned by many people in the news media. glenn befck said that fascism is coming. rush limbaugh u.s. several million viewers of that fascism we must not be afraid to wear that use. yes talking about. he was talking of the government of barack obama. they said will be a wholesale

hiring of white men in the u.s. government. their guns will be seized in your free speech gone. dick morris on fox news said that those crazy says they will kill the atf agents because of the un well, if they are beginning to make a good case. similar words have come from members of congress of the united states. i will not good for all of them but one. congressman paul brown recently suggested that obama might establish a gestapo security force. then he says that i'm not comparing obama to his letter, what i'm saying is that there is potential. -- to hitler, but what i'm saying is that there is potential. when there is unstable extremists stewing in their own hate and rage, when they keep

hearing the paranoia validated by mainstream figures come is it any wonder that they take up arms and do things like von broonn did? he groups -- hate groups are on the rise in the united states. there are 926 cases that we have documented in the southern part intelligence project. i cannot say that we have been able to identify everyone, because they do not raise them to the heat chamber of commerce. we know that they are nine and a 26 that were documented. -- 926 that were documented. you can pick up our copy or go on a website and see all these hate groups. they are scattered all over the united states.

those hate groups have a 54% increase since the year 2000. there are 186 groups that are affiliated with the coup coquelin, 196 near-nazi groups. -- with the ku klux klan and 196 neo-nazi groups. they say that jews our children of the devil and that duty is some -- and that judea's thaisma bad religion. one of the most troubling things that we are seeing now is the re-emergence of the so-called patriot and militia groups.

back in the time of timothy mcvey there were several hundred of these groups and they eventually waned. back then their focus was anti- government. they were against high interest rates, unemployment, you name it. now we are seeing a re-emergence of militia groups. there focus is racism, because the fate of our government is -- the face of our government is black. we have an african-american president. these groups are emerging in many ways with the neo-nazi and other hate groups. heat web sites are feeding this frenzy. on our web site you can find a listing of the 638 website. -- 630 hate website. when the investigative von

bronn, they found he is a frequent visitor of the web sites. david duke picks up on this anxiety and frustration and distrust. on the website he put that obama 's victory will serve as a visual aid to whites that will produce dramatic increase in our ranks. there was a picture of president obama with a cross hairs from a spill from a rifle -- from a spoke from the rifle and is said kill that n-i --and you can figure the rest out. they said we need to charge to the mexicans as they cross the border. -- start shooting mexicans as they crossed the border.

this language is out there. what is going on in america today? what is happening? i think it does not take an expert on demographics to tell you that america is changing. america is drastically changing. in 1970, when i was just getting started in the legal profession, only 20% of our population was non-white. when i say non-white, i also mean non-latino. now it is 34%. by the year 2014, the population will be approximately close to 50% non-white in the united states. diversity is a great thing. i have said many things when i speak to college students that america is great because of our

diversity and not in spite of it. diversity also brings with it serious issues of people getting along with each other. recent polls show that in a population, say in south dakota, we had 85% in goal whites. people trust their neighbors. polls show that many had a very diverse population, 1/3 of different ethnic groups, the trust of one's neighbors falls substantially for no real basic reason. with the diversity and its value also comes the problems that we face. that is what we are seeing with these things. another thing that clearly speaks for itself is that american a black president. we had to under 50 years of

slavery, 100 years of jim crow, and 30 or 50 years of brown vs. board than nothing. all the conflicts and the civil- rights movements -- and now we have a black president. this is extremely unsettling to a large percentage of the population in this country. another thing that is happening in our country, and i do not have to tell you, we are suffering a serious economic decline. it is not just a decline in this country, but it is a decline in the whole world. this creates a lot of issues here, paranoia, and it creates those who are looking for a scapegoat. probably along with this issue of our economy becomes the fact that the united states is losing

its place among -- as an economic leader of the world. we have serious competitors like china, india, brazil, and others whose gdp will probably increase this year. that is a good thing, not a bad thing, because there is a place again sell our products. the world is a bit frustrated of financing the deficit spending habits of the american consumer. the serious issues all come together to make a problem not just in this country, but a problem in the whole world. homeland security in issued a report recently. it was titled "pipe -- right- wing extremists, economic climate stealing recruitment." they scited the current

economic crisis as been a problem, exploiting the economic downturn, historical presidential elections, and illegal immigration. under illegal immigration they get example. one was six militia members are arrested for machine -- plans to machine and immigrants. -- machines gun immigrants. they mentioned disgruntled military veterans. the report went on to say that large numbers of potentially violent skinheads and others are now learning the art of warfare in the united states military. this report was ridiculed. pat robinson said it shows somebody in that organization is either left wing or gay.

you know the of the criticisms. most of the criticisms were coming from the political right. it was not as pat robinson's of the world. they were attacking the good men and women of the united states military. that is not what the report was doing. those were disingenuous criticisms. this report said that there are many people that would be coming back from the military from iraq or iran and not finding jobs, being frustrated or disgruntled. those people, not all of them, are prime targets for recruitments by the radical organizations that i mentioned. the second point is report made was that we are training in the night states military -- in the

united states military individuals who are already involved in neo-nazi and supreme this activity. we see on heat websites suggestions that some members to join the military and learn how to use c4 explosives. you cannot buy these exclusive anywhere else. it is illegal. why not let the government train you? today there was issued a letter. we ask the chairman of the senate homeland security, the chair of the house committee on homeland security --it was directed to the armed service chair. i will read to a few paragraphs

from this letter. accompanying this letter was about a 400 page bound report backing up what we said is happening. in the wake of several high- profile murders by extremists of the radical right, we heard you are committed to investigate the threat posed by extremists that might be serving in the military to ensure that our own forces are not inadvertently training domestic terrorists. a couple more things and i will not redo the whole letter. you can pick one up outside this room. we are not alone in our concerns. in july 2008, the fbi issued a report indicating the problem of extremists in the military may have worsened. according to report, reliable sources show that leaders aren't urging followers who like documented neo-nazi activities

to infiltrate the military as ghostskins in order to get training. they go on and lay out what the support says. some of the things that we found -- we gave the postings on the neo-not see facebook page. it is called newsaxon.org --40 postings of people in the military. one lists adolf hitler's book as his favor. one said he served in afghanistan and his favorite book is written by a neo-not seeing -- neo-nazi and was

the blueprint for timothy mcvey. these individuals go on and on, posting these views. one of the 70 before to killing as many bloody n-i-g-g-e-r-s as he could find. this is an issue that we hope the united states military will take seriously. america is changing, but with this continuing fuehrer over the changing democrats of our country and the collapse of our economy in the backlash o