beyond that, i do not have any comment. >> press reports? they say that the north koreans issued an invitation. >> i do nothing that i would characterize it as issuing an invitation. .

>> he said before you would not meet them unless they agree. >> they will not as a surly agree, as opposed to say that we will not help until the participants love. >> we do not want to disenfranchise are partners with this. this is an issue of regional security, it has to be resolved regionally. >> so if they were scheduled for january, you would meet with them before that? >> you are asking me to speculate, and i am not going to speculate. >> he said he was trying to get the six party talks restarted. but that is not really his job.

he is out there talking about sanctions. >> was meant to say and what thought i was saying is we have to show our colleagues the best way to get north korea to come back to the talks. one of those ways is to force the u.n. security council. that is what goldberg is doing. >> he said he would not characterize it as an invitation. what would you characterize it as? >> i will not characterize it. we have all kinds of ways of communicating, and i'm not want to characterize. i just an awkward to characterize it. -- i am just not going to characterize it. >> with the people detained after the election, among them

was a man charts with national- security and esplanades violations. any comments? >> i have not heard of that. if that report is true, we would be very concerned about that. we have been trying to get informations out, we have called repeatedly for his release. this is a man who has worked for many years to help build understanding between iranian and under -- american people

through his style of work. we will have to confirm these reports. >> the report is directly from the iranians. >> i've not seen these reports. let us look into it. >> what about forcing the border with iraq? any news on that? >> let me check. i do not think so. our position on that is similar, that we have been trying to get consular access, to get more confirmation. their families are very concerned about their welfare. >> is it that they are not giving any answers, or what?

>> we have been able to get consular access to the first embassy, and i do not think we have got much information. >> in terms of them being harassed enough, is anyone in touch with you? people are being harassed in australia. >> in baghdad, they have had a crisis between iraq and syria. do you have any comments on that? >> this is something that happened today? i have not seen it. let's look into it.

>> we have a report out of vienna saying that iran has not expanded the number of centrifuges it has in britain uranium. do you believe that is correct, that they have not increased the number of services? if so, dieppe any sense of why? >> there are a very deep-seated concerns about uranium enrichment activities. it is what the highest priorities of this administration that we -- is one of the highest priorities of this ad and a station that we try and stop this activity. we have an invitation to run -- i ran to sit down with us. they have yet to respond to this

invitation. we are very concerned about the refusal of iran to adhere to its international obligations. regarding the report mentioned, i think you know that we are expecting a formal report from the iaea in coming days. once we have that report, i can comment on it. >> do you expect it to address this issue? >> i will not get into -- i'm not going to speculate as to what will or not be in the report. >> do you have any comment on the arrest today in new york on the guy who served as the secretary the finance campaign?

he was arrested on fraud charges. do you know where one might go to find a comment on it? >> let me see if i can get that information. >> [inaudible] >> a helicopter? >> yes, the helicopter you sent to taiwan. >> i am not aware of this. i do not know what this particular contract is. if you can give us more information, maybe we could find out. >> can you comment on the south korean much of their rocket? -- launch of their rocket? >> the common will sound very familiar. -- the comments will sound very familiar. korea develop its program in a responsible manner. south korea is an active member

of many international non- proliferation agreements and regimes. in january 2001, they began implementing guidelines on possession and of rocket systems in a transparent manner. we have no of formation at all that this launched was conducted in any way inconsistent with this international obligations and commitments. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the country continues to debate health care. here we continue to cover for you. first, virginia democrat jim

rand, joined by howard dean, former chairman of the dnc. conceive of life on c-span. -- you can see that live on c- span. lee's summer rakowski plus recent town hall meeting -- we will have that after senator rand's event. >> as the debate over health care continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. go online, follow the latest video ads and links. what's the latest events, including town hall meetings, and share your thoughts on the issue with citizen video, including video from any town halls you have gone to. and there is more at c-span.org /healthcare. >> how is c-span funded? >> grants? >> public television. >> i do not know where the money comes from?

>> how is it c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> now discussion on pensions in northern iraq between government forces and kurdish regional troupes. a report on the subject from the international crisis group. this is just over one hour. >> good morning. thank you all for coming out on a hot august day when others are all in martha's vineyard, vacationing. i'm so excited to see you.

we have such a great turnout. there are many iraq experts out there, but i have a certain bias. i think ours is the best, and he has certainly spent more time in the field than most researchers on iraq from his base in jordan, where he lived many years, and in iraq proper. when i met him three years ago, he was working to highlight the crisis of the internally- displaced in iraq and to highlight his responsibility that the u.s. government had to deal with the refugee crisis. more recently, he has been looking at the crisis between the iraqi federal government and the kurdish regional government, their growing tensions and conflicts. he has documented the tensions and possible solutions to what he sees in a report he authored

this last july, called "iraq and the kurds:trouble along the trigger line." he is here to discuss that with us today. we have the independent non- governmental organization dedicated to conflict prevention, and in the capacity of our guests, he cord make organizational research -- ordinates international organizational research. prior to that, he was executive director of the arms division of human-rights watch, and prior to that as director of iraq's document project. he also worked at a policy and human rights group in ramallah. he has penned dozens of articles on the middle east. he is also the opera two books, a poisonous affair -- america,

iraq, and the gassing, as well as behind labor markets in the occupied territories. before we begin, just below housekeeping. upcoming events i would like to tell you about tomorrow. the middle east institute is hosting a talk about development with the former president of the university, and august 27, we have the current american ambassador to kuwait, deborah jones, who will be talking to us about affairs there. i hope you can join us for that, as well. please join me in welcoming our guest. >> thank you. timing is awfully good.

the issue of the events, what is called the trigger line, is very much in the news from today. the general yesterday made a statement that he is proposing to deploy american troops in northern iraq along the trigger line and have them partner with army troops in order to reduce tension. the trigger line is a military term, and is something that is not actually to market and on any map. it isn't to the green line that existed from 1991 until 1993. i do not know if we can call up the map, but if you pull it up,

you can see a line there, and to the north and east is the line between 1991 and 2003, and to the southwest, is the rest of iraq. this green line was a cease-fire line that came about unilaterally when iraqi troops withdrew from the north. if you remember the uprisings in the north and south. the forces went up back north and to the kurdistan region, but then not really succeeding in

the area they withdrew to a major themselves, the green line. in 2003, forces across the green line went into areas they claimed were majority and part of historic kurdistan. for that you need to see this map. there is a light area to the north and east, and you have the middle area, that dark area. with the green line, if you do not know the southern line, it is the demarcation. that is an area that is disputed.

there are disagreements over what areas are included. it really was a conflict over two nations in iraq. there outside iraq, said there are also kurds outside of iraq, in iran and syria and turkey. in iraq itself, there is a deep conflict between arab and kurdish people. they have lots -- fought off and on for almost a century, and they have at times reached accords that eventually fell apart. since 1991, an autonomy agreement signed with the regime

in 1970, and that came apart in five years -- in 1991, the kurds were able to reinvigorate their autonomous region and occupied the area you see on the mat -- matt. since then, they have started to develop away from the regime and to bring some economic growth to the area. but for many years until 2003, they were restricted that their only access was through iran, a state with no interest in allowing the kurds to developed, because they oppose the emergence of the kurdish independent state in iraq or more broadly in the entire region where they live.

in 2003, the kurds were able to cross the green line and took positions in baghdad, and they had done much more to increase their chances of turning their one state entity into an independent state. for now, it is not realistic, because none of the country's nearby or the international community at large favors a kurdish state. so what they're doing is to maximize future possibilities of an independent state by creating the infrastructure for it, in interatomic -- economic and legal terms, through a record of sovereignty. by repeating the claim over and over again that kurds are able to have independence and this is the evidence for it. the problem is that if it it is

going to be a kurdish entity, where is its boundary with the rest of iraq? we know the northern boundary, the border with syria and iran. we are in disputed territory. the dispute is over the boundary, and this is significant because there was never an entity called kurdistan in legal terms, but also because this area happens to be enormously rich in natural resources, especially oil and gas. of course, the area is also very rich in water. and because of the presence of oil and gas, which first started

to be exploited in the 1930's, the issue has been highly incendiary over who can control these territories. in the last few years, both sides have started to take unilateral steps over the areas they control. forces are deployed there, while the federal government controls other parts of the territories and have their troops there. that is the trigger line.

it is not necessarily a stable line. it changes. it is usually visible only if you travel the road and hit checkpoint and realize, for example, just past the last iraqi checkpoint, you are going past a kurdish checkpoint and you are in their territory, but not necessarily the kurdistan legion, which is so important to the iraqi constitution. so there is an arab-kurdish dynamic over the boundaries. that is one dimension of conflict, but there are two other dimensions that will play in the past year as this plays itself up. the second dimension is regional. i already mentioned that the regional state, the neighboring states, turkey, iran, and syria especially, do not want an independent kurdistan. they want kurdistan to be weak,

but they also wanted to be stable, because they have no interest, especially turkey, in an unstable kurdistan on their southern border. they fear an unstable iraq, but they do not want it that stable that it might actually start to act on its aspirations to become independent. so they're playing a very difficult game of keeping kurdistan sort of stable but week. moreover, what the states also what is some of the resources. what excess oil and gas in iraq, but also in the disputed territories. the fact of the matter is, the

more south and west to go, the better the quality of the oil and the larger the quantity of oil and gas. you have a map that shows the kurdistan region in the basic colors and you have the rest of iraq, light blue. that show's disputed territories, and then you see the old fields lying through that area, and some of them are currently being exploited, others are not. they have been explored, but there is no doubt that the area

is hugely rich in oil and gas. turkey, which does have its own oil and gas, is quite eager to diversify a source for hydrocarbons and eager to bring oil from iraq on to turkey and through turkey for exports by the mediterranean port of tyre had to the rest of the world. turkey does not care where the oil comes from. they're happy to have it come from any part of iraq to turkey and then on to the met italian coast. there's also a pipeline that connects from kirkuk, and turkey is also willing to take oil from the kurds. but so far, the issue is who has

control of this oil. that is part of the dispute right now, and turkey does not want to unilaterally take oil from the kurds because they do not want to give the kurds that type of strength. so that cannot be part of the deal, and that means that they have to compromise. the third dimension is another full issue that has been there that is the leitmotif of kurdish history. ever since the defeat of the revolt in the 1970's, there have been two major parties. the democratic party, which was founded by barzani and is now headed by his son, but there has

also been the patriotic union of kurdistan, which sprang out in 1976 and has led talabani, also the president of iraq. these parties have been at loggerheads many times but have also cooperated on other occasions, as they are still doing now. they fought a civil war in the 1990's, but they have made an uneasy peace since then and have tried to reintegrate the two separate administrations they set up. these two are largely integrated at the top level, but underneath, a lot is still a star. there is a lot of the conflict there.

moreover, these transitions are always difficult. from a guerrilla movement to a government that needs to administer territory, there have been a lot of complaints about corruption, lack of governance, lack of accountability, the lack of service delivery. in the last weeks, we have seen the emergence of a viable position in kurdistan in the form of a change list headed by talibani's erstwhile deputy, and a secular moment -- movement that drew support, and secondly, the islamists, who in this case are rather moderate,

in the vein of the muslim brotherhood, and they ran a list that came in third after the public, a coalition. what is important is that the original split has never truly been overcome, except, as i said, at the top level. we now see a small alliance between the leadership, but they are symptomatic about the discontent and the close alliance, and they are very much opposed to the kdp. they voted against barzani for president in the last exemption -- elections, for example.

importantly, the kdp is viewing the future with trepidation, especially the troop withdrawal, and they are starting to turn towards turkey for solace, thinking that there economic relationship might lead to a relationship of becoming a protectorate of turkey, where turkey can replace the united states as the main protector of the kurds. but the people of so many and their political representatives do not see things that way. they are distant from turkey, closer to iran, and they also have a much stronger sense that their relationship, their primary relationship, if there has to be one, if there has to be a relationship, it has to be with baghdad. talibani has been in baghdad for the past two years, as have other pok leaders, including the

prime minister, but mustafa is also very explicit, saying very clearly that there is no room for a mini-state in northern iraq, and the kurds are part of it and they need to deal with baghdad. he is also a hard liner when it comes to issues like disputed territory. he strongly holds these territories should be incorporated into the kurdistan region. so it is no different than barzani. but this split between the kdp and the political parties is a significant as the conflict over disputed territories is going to play itself out in coming years, approaching a time where the united states will withdraw troops. three things are going on. what is the u.s. troop withdrawal, and it's just like

the announcement of the withdrawal was preceded by a surge, now we see that the withdrawal from the disputed territories and areas of northern iraq is preceded by a mini-surge that was announced yesterday, involving additional deployment of american troops ahead of withdrawal to bring down tensions between baghdad and r. beall. but this is a stop-gap measure at reducing tensions. it is not in itself a solution to the problem of the disputed territory, and it could make the parties depended on american troops, which is not a good thing when you are going to take the american troops out. so there is an inherent contradiction between the short- term objectives and the medium- to-long-term objectives to be

resolved. the solution lies in the political process. just like the surge in 2007- 2008, we made remarkable progress in the military demand but failed to reach any progress on the political field. it may well happen with the political process on disputed territory. that is the second issue. what else is happening is that there is a u.n.-led process, the assistance mission for iraq, which has a process. it came out with a big report that until now has not been made public but is starting to circulate in ever-wider circles, so sooner or later you will have a copy on your desk. this report is remarkable.

the in-depth research it displays on the social and economic and legal and jurisdictional and political history of individuals, districts in these territories. it suggests ways of building confidence that made them lead to a political solution which could only come from the stakeholders themselves and could not be produced by the united states -- the united nations, as they make clear. this report was released in april, and it was given new life. prime minister malinke went to the north to me a few weeks ago. this task force is now charged with coming up with solutions to

the disputed districts, and this process may golan, working on the principle that essentially, those districts have a majority population, and where there is a history of control, you should probably gravitate toward official controlled by either krg or federal government. but that is difficult and will take time. more importantly, at the end of the road, there is still kirkuk. you talk about other districts, but at the end of the day, what is really at heart and the court of the conflict is kirkuk. a city in government that the kurds have claimed, but also where most of the oil is. this process is going well, but not on the timetable washington

likes, meaning that it may take years. but that is probably what is possible and probably what is necessary in order to instill confidence in all parties. just as we had ended ministration before that was impatient about how things are done in iraq, we now have an administration that wants to pull out at high speed. again, these are american type cables, not iraqi ones, and they are essentially at loggerheads. the result could be chaos. the third element of process that is happening in the same time frame are the iraqi legislative elections planned for january 15, 2010. elections have a way of bringing the worst out and people, maybe also the best.

we heard head of the provincial elections last january that the rhetoric between krg and government went sky high, and clearly this was triggered, and they may do so again in legislative elections. it is a way of presenting himself as an iraqi leader. but that said, what he has said is he wants to create a post- sectarian, post-ethnic coalition. he needs to do this. the second is small, one of the weaker parties. he became prime minister by default in 2006, not because he was the strongest leader, and

now he has to transform his position. that means he needs to build a coalition and bring in kurds. that means yes to reach out to the kurds, and the only way to do that is not to raise the rhetoric, because that would have the opposite effect. there are very few kurds in northern iraq with any love for baghdad or arab nationalism. and rightly so, because it is hurting them. what is interesting is with that image and find itself out, we may well see an effort to reach out to descending elements, and i do not know what will happen.

already, they said that their interests will run separately in national lections but also they will be part of the kurdistan forms in bad debt -- baghdad, not wanting to undermine kurdish unity as they confront the federal government. and in kurdistan itself, the parliament will have to meet and for the first time there will be an opposition that is actually occupying some 38 to 41 seats, depending on how well the position gets together. so that will push the kdp and pok towards greater openness, hopefully, and greater accountability. it is in a place where corruption is rife. but what will happen with

disputed territory? that remains an open question. our sense is that if the united states manages to exert sufficient pressure on that two sides, it could come about three. one year before drawdowns is too short to accomplish this. and then, the question is, if the u.s. military is capable of instilling sufficient confidence between the parties, to facilitate relatively peaceful relations once troops pullout of the area.

we should be very careful, because it could happen. and then it goes back to neighboring states. they are looking towards turkey because they want the excess that turkey provides to the access outside world, to the united states, like opening turkish air space. they have the truck route to the border crossing, and they have turkish investment that is critical to developments of the kurdistan region. construction is booming, mostly due to investments from turkish companies. turkey also, if they were to

join the european union, all for having some access to the european union. not directly, but indirectly. much more than if they had stuck with baghdad. and i think most important of all, as i mentioned, they would provide protection for the kurds in turkey found it economically useful. why would they? well, if turkey were to gain access freely to oil and gas, then and they would act to protect. this may well be a scenario, because it might well be that when american troops pull out,

there could be civil war, and the kurds will gain the facto control of resources and be able to export these resources to turkey, and this is in neutral and trust of the region, turkey, and the united states. so there is a political momentum. if this happens, that is the scenario. but then they come back and we have to wonder what will happen between the two asides. will its split again or will they stay together?

already, you see ground movement in that direction. the infrastructure is separate, contracts made for companies working, and the infrastructure is separate. so there's already a ground push toward separation rather than towards unification, which i think is disturbing. i want to leave it at that because i think of questions. >> i will begin by asking you a question about your book.

there will be a referendum on your book, postponed under pressure from the u.s. government. where do things now stand on kirkuk? are there hardliners? >> if you listen to the president, he talks about the need to implement the constitution, particularly article 140, up discussing the disputed territories. that process originally envisioned a phenomenon called normalization, essentially a rolling back of previous meetings, and a referendum. all this is supposed to happen in 2007. it did not. now it can repeat some of the

line, that becomes a net was voted for but not implemented. and this is when the united states stepped in and began its process of adjudicating the district. but a report in april made very clear that it stays within the bounds of the constitution and made very clear that it supports article 140. so you say, this makes sense, then, because barzani is talking about it. it is all about the implementation. because of the work referendum. the constitution does not specify what type of referendum. they just say it should be held. they do not say which questions should be asked. but barzani says, the question should be, do you do it or not?

forget that referendum, because it is possible. can only live -- lead to conflict it would instead be a confirmatory referendum. that would say to you, people of kirkuk, agree, yes or no, with this. that agreement is a compromise agreement. and if such an agreement were to come about, once you have it, people are going to favorite because it is a conservative agreement. so what both sides are claiming will no longer apply, because it does not matter. so it is a very smart way of doing this, and you have to come to the agreement. may take several years. but at least a way that could lead to a peaceful resolution of

conflict, rather than as a referendum. so at the moment, it is not off the agenda, it is just not imminent. >> state your name. >> i was twice a member of u.s. delegations. i'm not an optimist when it comes to kurdish issues. if iraq pulls apart, there are still people in influential positions to think it is not too late to revisit what happened, and that turkey could again have a protective role in northern iraq. but my question but specifically deals with the other great foreign, in addition to kirkuk.

the bitter and does flare up from time to time, and i wonder how that plays out in the turkish kdp and in larger relationships. thank you. >> it is a critical issue for turkey, and they will raise it at any moment. it is partly a serious issue because they are militarily in northern iraq and have looked at military efforts since then from there, but it is also part of the turkish public debate. no turkish politician wants to survive politically can easily compromise on such an issue. so what we have seen very recently are steps taken by the party government in turkey towards some kind of accommodation with turkey, and

there are hopeful signs that something will happen coming with a road map in the next couple of weeks that may or may not facilitates such efforts. you will have to see. this is going to be a deal between turkey and the krg, it will have to include some kind of provision based inside iraq. krg as always said listen, we do not like them, but they are kurds and we are kurds, so there's some affinity, some solidarity. but we take steps against them, and they do not like it. but they cannot do is to militarily dislodge the pkk, and frankly, these parties

themselves were never this dislodged from chemical weapons and other measures. so i think that is a good argument. but that said, there are other ways forward. in turn, they say we can take steps to get the pkk, but why not get rid of their reason for being? it is an argument, and turkey is now listening to that. there are always turkish groups that will push back against that strongly, so it will take time. but the pkk is an issue for the kurds in turkey. the iraqi government is only part of that. they do not need to be in iraq. things they carry out in turkey have nothing to do with northern iraq. they're deeply into turkey with no go-betweens at all. so the question is what happens

in northern iraq? there has been talk of other ways of dealing with it, and there has to be a package deal, probably. and i know these things are being discussed, but they will not seem to be negotiated. >> thank you very much, as usual. i wonder if i could get you to expand some of your nuances to other parts of the region and how it plays on the kurds? i am not saying this to be controversial, but i keep hearing that it is a model, what they might like to achieve. moving in a western direction,

and of course, israel have relations with turkey. i would like to hear some opinions on that, and iran. it is interesting that they still feel they have to play inside iraq and that is the most important high and so on. but what about around? they're very close, they have to consider them. they have always been more secular, and here they have a government in baghdad that is not, clearly. its ties to iran are also controversial. i wonder if he could give us some thoughts on how relations would be. >> the kurds have the tragic

predicament of having been split up as a nation among several very powerful states in the region which have emerged. so that is their conflict and predicament that have to deal with. the other conflict, also coming out of the empire, is the palestinian conflict. we have always been looking for partners among non-arabs. now, of course, we have and nasty israeli lobby and dynamic. but they have always said, there is no problem between the israelis and the iranian people. it focuses on the arabs. so you find a lot of support for the predicament. a little bit is mediated by the

strategic alliance, and in kurdistan, you find a strong feelings of sympathy toward israel. it is always confusing a little bit, i do not know if they're talking about the israeli or the palestinian perspective. so that is a disturbance. i think they like to have it both ways. it is a little hard to equate. i remember going in and seeing the district office, and i asked him about it. back to 1970, it was supported

by israel. i do not think there was other was a strong israeli role in kurdistan, and they cannot afford to do that. there has been talk that there will be a staging ground for israeli jets on their way to the facility. i am not sure they want to become a warship. it is a very weak and fragile area and is totally vulnerable to attacks by neighboring states, which are hugely more powerful. i do not see a strong alliance. the alliance is even stronger there because it joins around in the war effort, not against

iraq, but against saddam hussein. the famous attack was a prime example of that when they basically escorted trips into iraqi territory and got pummeled with the largest chemical attack on an urban center in history. that is the subject of my book, by the way, available in bookstores. [laughter] were not available, but online come anyway. -- or not available, but online, anyway. turkey has been actively preventing that for a long time, and iran says, thank you very much. do not do anything except to send messages every so often. earlier this year, the foreign minister went to northern iraq and let drop that he was

against it, not the first time that this message was relate. happen before. clearly iran does not doeskirkuk -- does not what -- want kirkuk, because without their resources the bid would be stronger. i think iran knows how to meddle in kurdistan. they have played their part in the past. they have supported islamist groups that are radical in this unique sense, so it makes no sense ideologically, but this is all about doing that, and it may do that again if necessary. thank you for listening. thank you very much. >> any questions from the press? ok. >> this is a question i tried

out once before. in terms of a potential confrontation, without predicting anything, if you look at it from a krg point of view, there is going to be a confrontation, have it earlier. look at the buildup of military and security forces, they have gunships, f-16 planes, and they remember the iraqi air force and have options. could there not at least be a strong incentive for the kurds to try and settle this, even in a confrontation earlier rather than later, when the iraqi military would be stronger? >> they wanted to settle it, but they did not happen and they grew very frustrated.

the problem is, they do not come down from their main demand, kirkuk. is there a sign of compromise from kurdish leadership? there isn't. with talibani, you can find room for compromise, and that is the historic role leaders have played. . .

one side is saying that we are ready to accommodate and the the said those in the opposite direction. but they see the military risk. my sense is that the kurdish leadership has made the connection that the americans are not kidding when they say they going to leave. they are leaving. we believe that iraq will not survive with the american troops with a drawl. -- with a drawal.

[unintelligible] it is too much of a mess. based on that assumption, they making the calculation that it is too late. we cannot reach a compromise, even if we wanted one. we tried. it did not work. we need to look elsewhere. nobody likes turkey and kurdistan, but it is better than baghdad. it is better than iran. it is better than syria. we have to live with it. i think it is a dangerous assumption. first of all, iraq is not lost. secondly, if you're going to take a position, that means you're not going to compromise now. everybody at the un is totally lost. the challenge for the united states and for kirkuk is to

make -- is to send a very clear message to the kurdish leadership that they need to make an accommodation with baghdad at this point. they have to make a compromise on territory. >> i am going to combine two of their questions. which of the parties before the new kurdish government? -- what should the priorities before the new kurdish government? >> who is the new kurdish government? we have to see the government emerge. we do not know who will form the government appeared very likely, it will be the kdp and pok. this pivots on the issue of how many positions the pok will get

in the new coalition during there's a pilot -- there is a possibility -- in the new coalition. there's a possibility that the kdp say, why would we give you the prime ministership when you did not pull your weight? now we have an opposition that is coming in to the parliament. now you are working against us. why would we give you 50%? if that happens, which do think will happen, but this is the kind of debate that is happening now, but if it happens, you could see an opposition coalition been large and being in a position to form a government. there may have to be some kind of compromise where the pok got some positions. then the kdp would take over and

they would get all of the senior positions that they are entitled to. they are facing very strong opposition parliament. the priority is when to have to be to fight corruption. -- the priority is going to have to be to fight corruption. the kog has always talked about fighting corruption, but you have seen little actual change. the second issue is service. they have made some headway in bringing electricity to some people's homes. these are clearly the top priorities. these were the electoral

defeats. what was the second part of the question? >> democracy in kurdistan. >> the elections were largely free and clear. there were fraud allegations. there were unusual problems. by and large, they have accepted the results, which is a wise thing to do. this is a useful exercise is one of a series of exercises that, together, could be encouraging. institution-building is a generational project. i am awaiting the results of our research.

but i am heartened by the progress that is being made. there are so many factors that could throw a spanner in the wheel. we can just hope that the kurds will have the space to seem to move forward. they could not cheat the with the iranian regime did. the u.s. should continue to play the world unmonitored, benefactor, protector, to the extent that it has to encourage democracy. >> i wanted to rescue a question about the kurdish party and the kurdistan front looking forward to the 2010 national

election. if you look at the 2005 election, the kurdistan front effectively had an alliance with the united iraqi alliance. they had particularly good ties with the supreme council, a party that supported the kurds regionalist ambitions, but they also supported maliki as prime minister. to the extent that there are no some serious cleavages between maliki and [unintelligible] and the council on the other, hal will this affect the -- how will this affect the calculations in terms of national politics? will they go toward the supreme council or, if maliki is willing to give them something of significance on an oil law or some other issue, would they be

more inclined to support maliki? >> the kurds will go with whoever [unintelligible] but if no one is going to do that, i think there will be some tough negotiations ahead for everyone. i think the courage to rid the time -- i think the kurds rued the time that maliki when in. -- that maliki went in. [unintelligible] the supreme council, first of all, they fought together with the kdp. there is a lot of solidarity between the leaderships. some of those are starting to fade.

but the bond is very strong secondly, the kurds want maximum autonomy in iraq. the idea of southern federalism, decentralization, this suited the kurds very well. the supreme council did poorly in the provincial elections. now we are going to see says the emerging. -- now we're going to see new alliances emerging. all of these parties need some kurds in order to make a new coalition against each other.

they need to give something. what they going to give? they going to give provinces. when we become the government, then we will do. but nothing will happen after that. that is the thinking. it has happened twice in the past. i see a lot of continuing and happiness of the head on that front. -- i see a lot of continuing and happineson happyunhappiness up e front. [unintelligible] ] -- >> [unintelligible] do you see a need, first of all, for a mediator between the

krg and the ehg. if so, who? he would be a viable mediator between the two sides? >> it definitely needs some mediation. there has to be mediation. it has to occur at different levels. you have the u.s. brigade headquarters in kirkuk. it is all along the trigger line. the elections have become particularly acute. is more less serious among the other parts. -- it is more less serious among the other parts. there have been attempts to set up a coordinating center in ver -- in various parts of the governance.

[unintelligible] you could have the same vein -- you could have the same in ninoa. there are the least american troops and the need is the greatest. that would make sense. but there's also mediation done by the u.s. embassy, which is shuttling back and forth all the time, and by the united nations with other people also going up and down to other places to try to call things down -- to try to calm things down. we have already had an experiment with a joint patrols

operating together at checkpoints and going on patrol. it is possible. on a historical footnote, it is important to remember that summit in 1991, after the uprising was crushed, that there was a standoff and then an accommodation. it lasted a few months. then why the iraqis said let the kurds still in their own juice. they are not necessarily long- lasting. but they could lead to a political agreement. i am not saying that we need an envoy or anything. there are enough people they dealing with it in a fairly coordinated fashion. >> i am afraid that our time is up. i know that there are a lot of

questions. you can come up afterwards. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> we will continue our coverage of the health-care debate tonight with a couple of town hall meetings. first democrat tim murray and will be joined by dr. howard dean, the former chairman of the dnc. that will be live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. alaskas republican senator and her recent town hall meeting will be it 9:30 p.m. eastern. while we wait for live coverage

of the town hall meeting in virginia, we have barry ritholtz on his new book. vineyard. >> we want to welcome to walter reed -- "washington journal" with author of "bailout nation," barry ritholtz. let me begin with the news of the day, the renomination of ben bernanke. does this surprise you? >> guest: not at all, we have been debating this amongst my colleagues, strategists and economists, a number of people have been scratching their head. i thought from a game-theory approach, the safe bet was to reup with ben bernanke. if anything goes wrong, it's hard to blame the president if you just reappoint somebody who has been widely thought of as doing a good job. on the other hand, if you were to put his own personal in and there were problems down the road, it comes back to the

president. so this was a safe, conservative pick. >> last week mr. bernanke met with the president in the oval office and he headed to wyoming to meet with colleagues. do you have any other becomeground on the dynamics that led to this decision? >> guest: not really. it has been closed mouth. a lot of people are wondering why the president hadn't said anything and why it it was going on so long. we were waiting to see how the economy played out, what was going on with interest rates, with jobs, with economic activity and most importantly, what was going on with the credit crisis. you know, i give ben bernanke high marks for being the right guy there when the emergency struck. in terms of how well he's going to operate as a fed chair under normal circumstances, well, the jury is still somewhat out on that. in terms of a great depression

like threat it was the right guy to have there at the right time. he's an expert on depression. he's looked at the things that the fed did wrong in the 1930s that either made the depression worse or prevented it it from getting better sooner, and took aggressive stops to avoiding that happening. as a fed governor when he was working under greenspan, i'm a little less impressed with him. a lot of the blame, by that by no means all, a lot of blame ends up on greenspan's plate and he was very much a -- like the rest of the fed, not very challenging, far too deferential to former chairman greenspan during the formative period that led to the crisis. >> host: that gets to your book. you write how the united states ended up a "bailout nation" is the work of just more than one

man. greenspan looms in this story, but it it took irresponsibility and misguided philosophy of many players, presidents, senators, sec chairmen, treasure secretaries and members of congress all contributed. how so? >> guest: well, remember there's two major groups responsible for this. later on we go over what the private sector, the wall street bank, the investment houses did to contribute to this. but washington, d.c. was the great enabler of what various corporate interests wanted. so for example, for a long time a number of people who were ideologically driven, that is what keeps the investment banks which are riskier and the traditional depository banks where you keep savings and checking accounts insured, keeps them straight. it was repeald and we allowed the two groups to come together

and what that ended up doing was making the crisis much worse. instead of keeping it contained to wall street it spread throughout the entire economy. that is one thing that washington, d.c. did that was then treasury secretary robert ruben, along with his replacement treasury secretary larry summers, now key advisor to president obama, and bill clinton, all pulled for the repeal and they got what they wanted. ruben ended up at citigroup on the executive committee, so he got to reap what he sowed to so. when we look at the commodity future monetization act of 2000, passed 99-0 in the senate. unread it was attached as rider by senator phil graham before the christmas break in 2000. this essentially created the shadow banking system for

derivatives. it treated the derivatives, including credit debt swaps and all the acronyms that people have pointed to as a key factor in bringing down lehman and bear stearns and aig. there were no reporting requirements, no loss reserve requirements. if you are an insurance company and you are writing hurricane policies or life insurance policies you don't know exactly what you will spend every year over the next 10 years, but you have a ballpark of what history suggests you will pay out in actual claims. you have to reserve for that and put money aside. this allowed derivatives to not do that and not be traded on any exchange, to not have any state or sec, regulatory supervision. it it was left to his own devices and things ran wild, which again led to a.i.g.,

lehmen, bear stearns going the way of the do-do. you have the five largest investment banks on wall street led by then goldman sachs c.e.o., hank paulson going to the sec and saying we are prevented from leveraging capital more than 12-1 and we find it constraining. it is an accounting issue, now and then. we are big boys and we can take care of ourselves, we would like a waiver of this rule. the five banks were given waiver of this rule. it was called the bear stearns exemption because it was anyone as large as bear stearns or bigger $5 billion in assets or larger and all five of the companies now no longer exist as they did at that time. merrill lynch got absorbed by bank of america. goldman and morgan stanley became holding companies. bear is now part of j.p. morgan

and the bulk of lehman is now part of barklay's. it is not just the government's fault. the government granted special dispenizations, special legislation at the behest of wall street and ultmeatally these firms ended up blowing up. >> host: we are talking to barry ritholtz. he is joining us from our studio at pace university in new york. our phone lines are open. we will take your calls and e-mails, as well. you spend time talking about the culture in washington and mentality of america's largest industries, most notably the automotive industry. you said, and this goes back to bailout of chrysler. had senior management been forced it would have served as wake-up call to all too many layers of management of the remaining two companies. what happened instead was failure of imagination at ford and g.m.

>> guest: that is pretty much, look at the bailout of chrysler, to speak broadly and i'll nary it down to the automobile makers. whenever there is a bailout or a lot of money thrown into a company that is in trouble, typically what it does is paper over structural defects. it papers over problems. with the bank its had to do with leverage and risk management and how close to the edge they were running. with the automaker its had to do with their ability to put out parts the public wants it it to buy. in the late 1970s, the baby boom was expanding and so while everybody was selling more cars, the big three were selling a smaller percentage. their market share was going down. so that demographic boom kind of covered up some structural problems underneath. by bailing out chrysler, we prevented three things from happening. first, someone would have come along and bought the remnants of of chrysler.

i strongly believe unlike us humans who shuffle off, when a company with factorys and trademarks and know-how goes belly up, if you can pick those assets up for pennies on the dollar without debt attached to it, you end up getting a really, really reasonable platform to go forward. if you look at the history of booms and busts in the united states, every time there is a new technology introduced, you end up with a ton of companies, they expand to the point where competition becomes so fierce they subsequently collapse and what is built on the collapse is the industry going forward. so there were thousands of car companies and automobile companies. radio, telephone, every time there is new technology, you go through a boom and bust. automobiles were no different and chrysler was still carrying on a lot of negative baggage, a lot of bad structure.

all the automakers signed a very tough contract with the union in the 1950s. again, after world war ii, a lot of economic expansion really covered up some structural cost problems and when i say tough contract, it was generous to the union and tough on the companies and it took about 15 or 20 years before those problems started to reveal themselves. the old joke is g.m. used to stand for generous motors. very lucrative pension plan, lucrative healthcare plan, better than most industrial employees got. that eventually came back to haunt the big three or the big 2-1/2 as barrons called chrysler in the 1950s, it it came back to haunt chrysler. had they been allowed to collapse normally, someone would have taken them over and would have started with a correctly structured relatively debt free car company. a lot of other things come from that.

management of g.m. and ford should have been forced to do deep look and then the union would have been forced to look at the pay structure and said, hey, maybe we need to rethink this. if we put one of the big three out of business, there might be something wrong with this. throw enough money at a problem and temporarily it goes away and we are dealing with the exact same situation only putting g.m. and chrysler into bankruptcy this time. i think it was the better approach than just throwing a lot of money at them without causing them to restructure. >> host: our viewers are lining up to ask you questions. kenneth joining us from oklahoma city. good morning. >> caller: good morning. am i on? >> host: you are. >> caller: thank you, c-span. i live in oklahoma city and i drive to chickasaw, oklahoma. there is a large road sign i see every time i go down there that

says: government takes from the needy and gives to the greedy and contributed to ronald reagan. in my opinion that is what ronald reagan did and bush one did and especially, especially, especially george w. bush. thank you. >> host: we'll get a response. >> guest: well, i'm not a political analyst. i'm an independent and i throw stones at both their houses, but it is pretty clear that what took place with the bailouts last year was money going from the american taxpayer to very reckless and irresponsible companies who were poorly managed and who quite frankly had enjoyed the fruits of that risk for many, many years. mean, they were well paid and highly compensated, enormous bonuses. capitalism says when you fly too close to the sun and you come crashing back down to earth you are supposed to go through a normal bankruptcy process. you are supposed to suffer the fate that you built for yourself and i think what we did and what

the caller refers to is we ended up throwing far too much money at reckless banks and reckless brokerage firms and what we're left with is not >> we're leaving this recorded program to go to live coverage. jim moran will hold a town hall meeting surely that is expected to get underway 30 minutes from now. howard dean, the former chairman of the democratic national committee will also be there. we are hearing a little early to give you a flavor of what the audience is like before the event starts. you can see the people lining up to get into the town hall meeting. we are told that the residents have been there for hours waiting for the town hall meeting to begin.

[no audio]

>> we continue to watch live scenes and the live coverage outside of the high school where congressman jim moran will talk to the residence. he represents in virginia's eighth district, which is just outside of washington, d.c. after the seabed is over, we will open up the phone lines to get your reactions and your comments. some have turned to the immigration issues. the question is how there will be able to treat those in the country illegally.

it has been read it -- it has been written that illegal immigrants have been drawing more attention they want to write a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to buy health care insurance just like anyone else can. they have not decided how the legislation will cover those who have recently entered the u.s. with their papers in order. they have been considering a republican proposal to establish a five-year waiting time for immigrants with subsidies to buy health insurance with the exchange under the house bill. [no

[no audio]

[no audio]

>> how is it going? health-care reform now. [no audio] >> you are watching residents lining up for a town hall meeting in was regina -- in virginia. in will start in a little over 50 minutes from now. you can see people holding signs and walking into the venue where the speakers will be paired congressman iran is also -- will be. congressman moran is also joined by the former chairman of the democratic national committee howard dean. starting tomorrow morning, we

are going to have a three-part series on medicare. tomorrow, medicare part a is the focus. tom scully, the former director with the bush administration will be there. on thursday, medicare part b commit individual medicarmedica- medicare part b, individual medical insurance. on friday, it will be medicare part c. "washington journal" starts every day at 7:30 a.m. [no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio]

[cheering]

[cheering and applause] >> what you're seeing here is folks waiting for a town hall meeting to get underway.

they are planning to hold more than five health care events. congressional officers will return to washington two weeks from now. they can vary from neighborhood phone banks to large halls with people. this is in virginia.

[cheers and applause]

[no audio]

[no audio]

[chanting]

[chanting] >> we have another look as virginia residents entered for a town hall meeting. the former chairman of the dnc, howard dean, and congressman jim morale and are scheduled to speak tonight. let me tell you about c-span's health care hub. you will find video and a number of town hall meetings and speeches. you can also read the bills and proposals from the house and senate. also, there will be videos of any town hall meetings. please send them in. there's a quick reminder that we will open at our phone lines after the town hall meeting to get your reactions.

[chanting] >> we want health care. >> now. .

[chanting] ha

>> we want health care! we want it now! [chanting]

[chanting] [cheers and applause] [chanting]

[leave us alone! -- open-air>> leave us alone! [chanting] >> said yes, we can!

[chanting] yes, we can! [chanting]

[unintelligible] [no audio]

[no audio] >> we have been having technical problems with this wide headband and reston, virginia. we can go back live now. -- we have been having technical problems with this wide event -- live even in the reston, virginia. we can go back now. [cheers and applause] [booing]

[unintelligible] >> well, this is going to be fine, governor. -- going to be fiun, governor. thank you for coming. unfortunately there are still two barry long lines, but we're still full here so we're going to start right on time. [applause]

we do appreciate your attending this, regardless of how it you feel on the issue of health care. it is important that we hear from all sides. this is the most important part of the democratic process and so i think each and every one of you for being here. -- thank each and everyone of you for being here. i like to invite the rabbi from reston's no. congregation to open the night with a prayer. rabbi? [applause] >> and joseph said to his leader, the nightmares that you

are having are true, they are one, and not sent them to you. years of plenty are coming, great plenty for the land but they will be followed by years of hardship that will ravage you. so do this, look for a leader who is discerning and why is, appoint him to hold substance any good years for the years of famine that will write arrive >> the years of famine that will arrive. our own repeated premonitions have come true. our health-care system needs help. [cheers and applause] our trust in a safe path toward is easy during times of plenty,

but during hardship and challenge we must draw together. so what do we seek? we seek in our leaders nothing less than the qualities of wisdom and discernment. we seek and them to know the infinite potential of every human being. and we remember the potential of harsh winds, of indifference, and inaction that blow across our capital. we see the true engagement in this debate, but to approach each other up this evening with respect, with civility, and an honor for telling in repeating the truth as we need to understand it. [applause] -- as week each understand it. -- as we each understand it.

let's take a moment and remember it the possibility that we could be a chance of healing, reminders to renew it and with wisdom, and a drop from each of us -- [unintelligible] if i ask you to draw your thoughts to those who are in need of health care, who are injured at this moment, at this hour, at this day. good sweet god, but children's of healing to those who are in need of it -- a bill -- fulfill appealing to those who are in need of it. comment. -- amen.

>> thank you, rabbi for those very thoughtful words. and now our local boy scout troop, 1018, at it with their scoutmaster will lead us in the pledge of allegiance which will be delivered by a scout. >> please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the black of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [cheers and applause]

>> we thank troop 1018 for leading us in the pledge. [applause] boy scouts are well known for their civic participation and adherence to the values of order and civility. i trust they will get their citizens badges as a result of this tonight. now let me say a word about our ground rules. dissent is as american as apple pie, and it is the cornerstone of our democracy. [applause] the freedom of speech, the first amendment, is clearly the foundation upon which our

country was built. the voices of the american people should not be silenced, particularly on issues -- [cheers and applause] particularly on issues as important as this. now that being said, it does not provide one with the right to shout down or to otherwise interfere with someone else's right to be heard. [cheers and applause] at the door we've provided cop ies of george washington's rules for civility. i hope that that was not a naive thing for us to do. i am not sure that we had enough for everyone. we wanted to do this in an auditorium where we had seats for 500 people. the gymnasium has ceased or over

2500. -- has seats for over 2000. we could get close to 3000, and then our two very long lines outside. i apologize to you that may not be able to get in because of fire department rules. we do apologize for not having more space but there simply was not another space that could provide more seats and and what we have right now. -- than what we have right now. the purpose of this town hall meeting is to get feedback from my constituents primarily, but from others as well. my constituents in the eighth district will get a priority. [cheers and applause] but i also want to share information as to what the

congress has been working on. where there is consensus, what we intend to do, certainly on the house side, and i will share with you what i intend to vote for. we cannot do that if we are constantly interrupting one another. i really do respectfully ask that we be as simple and respectful as possible. -- as civil and respectful as possible. we're going to draw questions from a box that contains the questions asked by people who are supportive. we will draw an equal number from those who are not supportive. and from those who are undecided. from the best that we can determine -- police. that was not a controversial thing to say.

[cheers and applause] the best that we can determine, the crowd is equally divided, roughly. and so i think that is a fair thing to do. [unintelligible] following my remarks, we are fortunate have a real experts and a grass-roots leader on health care. five years ago -- [cheers and applause] [booing] this is going to be a fine night, the governor. five years ago he ran an insurgent campaign for president

based primarily on this issue. he has also written a great book. he insisted that it be in paperback to be more affordable. you can get it in a any bookstore. it is entitled, "howard dean prescription for real health care reform brought -- "howard dean's prescription for real health care reform." he is a former physician. he was at governor who implemented a statewide health care plan that the people of vermont are very happy with. he is also chairman emeritus for the democratic party. he is going to provide a broader view of what health care reform

means in real life terms for the american people. now -- man, really. -- ma'am, really. sometimes people say more about themselves than the issue when they are constantly talking. [cheers and applause] because i feel it is my responsibility to share with you how i feel and what we have been doing for the past several months, i am going to take several minutes to do that and then to address some of the inaccuracies that have been going around. i am sure that all of you have heard them. i'm going to address those and then turn it over to dr. dean.

[booing] that will taken total of about half an hour. then we will take an hour and i have to hear from the audience. a three to one ratio of speaking to hearing, it seems it is a reasonable distribution of time. what we're going to do, as i say, is picked proportionately from each of the three boxes and we will have microphones in the audience. mobil microphones, so that i will announce the name of the person, and then that person will stand up and repeat their question. i am not going to try to read or paraphrase a question. i am going to ask you to ask the question yourself. and we're going to be as unbiased as we can and

proportionate as possible in terms of questions that are asked. let me discuss -- well, actually, i will address that because many people have suggested that i've read the bill. we have taken four hours where we had to sit in our seats [booing] listening to some very technical language. we normally do not do that. it was important enough because of a lot of this bill is complex. it is technical. but it is also our responsibility to understand it to the best of our knowledge. let me share with you now where we stand. i am going to explain some of the component parts of the bill and then address some of the things that could best be classified as a meth's -- myths.

the third and final committee of the house of representatives agreed upon a bill. we now have three bills that have been reported out of committee. the education and labor committee, the ways and means committee, and the other the energy and commerce committee. they are compatible. but one major change that was made in the energy and commerce committee was made by relatively conservative democrats teaming up with republicans who put in a provision that requires that the prices charged in the public option be negotiated with the hospitals, doctors, and the other health-care providers. originally, what we were going to do was to use the medicare price schedule. one of the things you are going to realize that is so controversial is that it is almost identical with medicare.

what is doing is expanding medicare for more people if they choose to enroll in that has an option. this is something that governor dean has bought about and proposed for some time. rather than this public option that no one understands, the best way to understand it that it is very much like medicare but extended to the rest of the adult population. it is not identical but very similar. now there are a number of key positions in these three bills, but under this proposal no one will lose their current health coverage. that means -- [unintelligible] so that means -- so that means that regardless of what health insurance plan you

are now in, you will stay in that plan. and roughly that will apply to over 80% of the people in the audience. about 80% of the people who are insured, who are satisfied with their insurance plan, you will just keep your insurance plan. [unintelligible] another important thing that this legislation does, bearing in mind that in the eighth congressional district, are relatively affluent district, very high employment rate relative to the rest of the country, but even in the eighth district, there were over 800 families last year that went bankrupt solely because they could not pay their medical bills. and in most cases -- in most

cases, the cost of their health care exceeded the insurance. in some cases the insurance company simply dropped them when they realized that these families have health costs that was more than the health insurance company wanted to pay. so that family goes bankrupt. it is one of the principal reasons for the high rate of bankruptcy in this country, medical bills that people cannot pay. i say that as a context to explain that one of the important things that this bill does is to cap out of pocket expenses for individuals at $5,000. if your cost is more than $5,000, you do not have to pay it. [cheers and applause] [booing]

families will be capped at a total of $10,000. that way families can put money aside knowing that there is some limit as to how much they are going to have to rely upon out- of-pocket costs if the worst happens and someone has a serious accident or illness. under the bill, knowing can be denied health insurance by a private insurer -- no one can be denied health insurance by a private insurer. [cheers and applause] and knowing can be denied and the basis of a pre-existing health condition. -- and no one can be denied on the basis of a preexisting health insuranccondition. they're trying to determine who not to ensure.

basically those are people who are most likely to get sick, who need insurance the most. there is nothing wrong with an objective of making profit. there is something wrong if we do not have an option available in my mind. their objective to make profit means that it is in their interest to exclude people who are going to disproportionately draw from net profit because they get very sick or have a very serious accident. under that bill, and you cannot be denied by a private insurer because of pre-existing health conditions. [cheers and applause] [booing] and many of you, may feel that it is unlikely to affect you. pregnancy is generally considered to be a pre-existing

health condition. and some insurance companies, not all, but some will drop coverage or deny payments for a serious condition by manufacturing of violation and the policy. that happens. it happens here in northern virginia. i met with a woman recently who after being diagnosed with breast cancer, her insurance stated that because she saw a doctor for acne 20 years ago and did not disclose it as a preexisting condition, they were able to drop her coverage. that is a real-life example and i think it is wrong. it needs to be corrected. these situations can be appealed, but the insurance companies understand, as other companies in other industries understand, that if you can delay the process -- make it as

cumbersome as possible -- many people will simply give up their appeal. that is what has happened. that is why this provision is very important, that they cannot drop coverage under this bill. dropping coverage -- [cheers and applause] dropping coverage as the term, it is called recision. someone diagnosed with cancer, the insurance company manufactures are reason to not cover them anymore, that is called a rescission. recisions are not allowed in this bill. i consider that a morally outrageous practice. but some insurance companies -- clearly not all, not even a majority here in virginia, but many to make it a practice. it maximizes their profits and pleases their shareholders but a

great disadvantages their enrollees. it would not be allowed under this bill. mental health treatment and substance abuse programs will how will parity with other treatments. -- will have full parity with other treatments. [cheers and applause] it will be treated equally. in many parts of the country, the option for private insurance is very much limited. some insurance companies to cover 85%, for example, of the population. you do not really have a whole lot of choice but to pay the cost of that insurance policy and to except the restrictions that are included with the insurance policy. we are setting up an exchange. the exchange works basically the same way as the federal employee health system works.

it is modeled after that federal employee health system. you will be able to go online, compared different health plans side-by-side, and choose the one that works best for you and your family. [applause] i think and economists have shown that a lack of competition in many areas is the main reason why insurance premiums continue to rise much higher than the rate of inflation overall. as with car insurance, the legislation that we are considering -- and this is included in all three house bills -- requires everyone to purchase health insurance. no free rides. [applause] because everybody at some point gets sick. everyone at some point has an accident. everyone at some point needs

health care, and most often it will go to an emergency room even though they do not have health insurance. they will get health insurance -- they will get health care in northern virginia but somebody has to pay. and in fact, more than $100 million just in northern virginia is spent on health care for people who are not insured. who pays for that? everybody else pays for that. in fact, on average a costs us an extra $1,100 a year to pay for uncompensated care. that is why we have a provision in each one of the house bills as well as the one senate bill that has been passed that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. [unintelligible]

those who can afford to pay will pay for their health insurance. but if they decide not to have health insurance, they will be subject to a 2.5% fee, 2.5% of their income. [booing] [applause] generally health insurance on average costs about 10% of your income. we are really taking 25% of that as a penalty. but i think that it will be sufficient motivation for everyone to purchase insurance. karr obviously we are not going to put people into jail if they

do not, but there needs to be some penalty for people who are trying to free ride the system. that penalty will be at 2.5% fee on their income. [unintelligible] [booing] >> for senior citizens, and i understand that senior citizens make up a disproportionate number of people, at least from what we are told, the objective is. it is important to lay this out. this bill significantly narrows the part d prescription drug donughnut hole.

it s senior spans $27,000 in the year, they then have to pay 100% even under part d. this will substantially reduce that toll. after a number, the government covers it. but many people fall into that gap and that will be substantially narrowed. i do not know that that has been adequately explained. one other thing that -- [unintelligible]

senior citizens can save as much as 50% of the money that they are currently paying out of pocket. [applause] we estimate that every senior citizen will say on average about $1,700 in prescription drug costs which we saw in this bill. finally, the legislation includes a very important provision. of course, it has energized people across the political spectrum. it is a provision that does not seem to be fully understood by could do the most to bring down long-term medical costs. and to adequately ensure every american -- ensinsure every american insurance. and as the public option.

-- and that is the public option. [cheers and applause] [booing] when i use the term energized, i guess that was a fair term. perhaps a little understated. but the public option means is that the federal government would provide americans a choice. [laughter] to purchase either a government health plan like medicare that would provide a basic level of insurance -- but no one would be required to join the public option. [laughter] [booing]

people, everyone is still free and to purchase private insurance. now the private insurance companies, we think, are going to want to be more competitive and so insurance premiums will probably go down, all fully to the point where they do not rise any more than the rate of inflation. [unintelligible] now the public option is not going to be a cadillac insurance plan. it is not going have a whole lot of thrills on it -- frills on it, but it will focus on quality preventive care using up physician of your choice.

[cheers and applause] now the cost of the bill would be roughly $100 billion per year for the next 10 years. that cost is going to be fully paid for. [unintelligible] half would come from graduated surcharge of 1% that starts with each dollar over two ordered $50,000, and in the case of individuals, each dollar over $350,000 in the case that family. it applies to the wealthiest 1.2% of americans in the united states. [cheers and applause] [booing] in other words, it does not affect 98.8% of wage earners in this country.

it is estimated that this will raise about $544 billion. over 10 years, approximately $50 billion a year. the other $50 billion would come from reforms to the health care system, including the medicare payment system. medicare had managed reimbursements to providers and a program to dramatically reduce hospital readmission rates. what is designed envisions is that if a hospital does the right thing initially, so that people do not have to come back to the hospital, consistently, they get additional reimbursement. now hospitals where people get infected in the hospital are it

is found that the care was not adequate and have to keep returning, hospitals with high readmission rates will be relatively speaking pay a price for that in reduced reimbursements. that is the kind of incentive we are building and so that hospitals reduce the amount of infection, which is one of the major reasons why people have more serious illnesses. we have a high rate of fatalities in hospitals. what we are trying to do is to give incentives for hospitals to do it right the first time, and also to be as clean and sanitary and professional as possible. now let me say, in northern virginia we do not have that problem. but that is not the case throughout the country. and i know you care about our friends throughout the rest of

the country, not just for ourselves. [applause] the reason why we are doing this is because of a lot of things that occurred that put us deeply into debt, such as the iraq war which was never paid for. [cheers and applause] the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, none of which were ever paid for. we cannot and should not pass a health reform bill without fully paying for it, not increasing the national debt, and not passing the debt onto our children. [cheers and applause] now the president, president obama, believes this very

strongly. and the congress is committed to this principle as well. now let me give the second part of this before introducing governor dean. [booing] [cheers and applause] many in the audience tonight have heard the rumors, i am sure, about a number of scary things that health reform plan would do. i am going to relatively briefly address the most widespread myths still floating around on the internet and even on television, and even had been mouthed by some so-called

political leaders. let me address those because it will save time to address them now rather than have repeated questions about them. number one, death panels. many people feel apparently that death panels made up of so- called government bureaucrats will determine whether a patient is worthy of health care. i have seen on the internet, things like this. this is nonsense. [cheers and applause] the fact is -- the fact is that nothing could be further from the tree. this bill to extend medicare coverage to cover the costs of patients who voluntarily choose to speak with their doctors about their values and their

preferences regarding end of life care. it will empower older americans to take control of their lives. [cheers and applause] now these are deeply personal decisions that take very thoughtful consideration and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time. it takes time. doctors cannot be rushing to their next appointment or their neck surgery or whatever. so in order for them to spend the kind of time that is necessary so that patients understand all of the options that might occur when they start to lose control, that doctors should not be rushed. they should be compensated for the time they spent counseling their patients. that is all that it does.

[applause] there is no mandate in any of our bills to complete an advance care directive for a living will. it is not required. it is completely optional. now with a patient chooses to completed in advance directive -- to complete an advanced directive, if they prefer in order to sustain -- or for treatment that will sustain why, those documents articulate the full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited comfort care only. someone yelled out, we have now, and i am happy for them that they have that now but a lot of people don't. and it seems to me that it is a good idea for everyone to have

an enhanced care directed and even a living will. this is a provision that was included by relatively conservative republican senator from georgia, johnnie isaa kson. he felt it was important, we put it in, and i think it should stay. [applause] [booing] but this advanced care directed and living will is entirely customized by the patient themselves in concert with their doctor, and it is totally optional. myth no. 2. a second myth is then everyone will be affected by the reform

except members of congress and their families. the fact -- members of congress have the same health care plans as all other federal employees and will be subject to the same roles as all other employer- sponsored plans. there is nothing -- i am glad we have -- i what's your read this carefully. there is nothing in the legislation that exempts the plans available as part of the federal employees benefits from these reforms. we are subject to the same things that other employer- sponsored plans will be. more than 90% of all employer- sponsored plans today are likely to meet or to exceed the bills minimal standards of coverage under this legislation.

what a 90% will not be affected. that includes the federal employee health benefits plan because we have a minimal standard of care. it will not be affected in that sense. and in most large employers, 90%, they will not be affected. employees will not see any change in their plan as a result. and of course, they can choose whatever doctor they wish to and they can choose the care that they receive. the remaining plants have until the end of 2018 -- plans have until the end of 2018 to make adjustments. there is a mandate for a minimally all -- a minimal level of coverage. all of the insurance plans will have roughly eight years to make those changes. that seems to be a reasonable

period of time. now, myth no. 3. this will expect -- results and expanded -- this will result in expanded government control over your health. let me address this. in the current health-care system, insurance companies, not patients, not doctors, insurance companies hold the power. [cheers and applause] now many of those insurance companies are very good organizations. they are good corporations. i can name several. i like them and work closely with them. but it is day that decide whether or not to cover treatments or procedures are routine visits to doctors.

more so than the doctor decides. they can decide when to raise premiums, how much to raise premiums, whether to deny coverage, whether to delay care without any accountability. they are in control. and they can and collectively have a shot millions of people -- shut millions of people out of health care altogether. the reason that millions do not have health insurance is in large part health insurance companies do not want to cover them. and that is the system that america faces today. there is no industrialized nation that has given over the health care of its citizens to private, for-profit companies to make those decisions.

[cheers and applause] so this plan, all three bills that passed the house and the one that has passed the senate, is designed to put patients and doctors where they belong, in the driver's seat. the insurance company professionals whose job it is to maximize profit will not be able to stand between americans and their doctors and the care that american patients need anymore, because there will be competition if we are successful. myth #4 -- the president claimed the plan will not lead to rationing but the bill will

create a health benefits advisory committee that would make the determinations about what kind of treatments and services can be determined within certain benefit classes and what kind of cost sharing will occur. the answer -- there is no rationing of care under this bill. [cheers and applause] [booing] the health benefits advisory committee does not have any role in determining what treatment individuals are entitled to. its primary role is simply to recommend the minimum standards of care and benefits that ensures must offer under the bill. that is their job, not to ration care. they will determine what benefits are offered by insurance companies.

and its advisory committee is going to be made up of providers, of consumer representatives, of employers, of labour, of health insurance ensures, and others. yet as a broadly representative committee. myth no. 5 -- it will make taxpayers find health-care subsidies for illegal immigrants. you of all heard this charge. this could not be further from the truth. taxpayers under this bill will not fund health care for undocumented workers, period. in this bill -- and you can read it yourself -- section to wonder 46 states -- 246 states, and i

want to quote it -- nothing in the subtitles shall allow federal payments or credits on behalf of individuals who were not lawfully present in the united states. there is no subsidy whatsoever. now there will be some cases -- and the government cannot control -- some cases where some people who are not u.s. citizens are already included under private health insurance plans. though still not get affected and so there is no way -- those do not affected and so there is no way to get those changed. but that is not that government. that is because we are leaving both health-insurance plans the way that they are. without government involvement or subsidy. myth no. 6 -- i government-run public option would force employers to drop their

coverage and forced everyone on to a public plan. you have heard that. under this bill, no one can be forced on to the public plan. the only way that someone would be in the public plan is of the on -- of the person's own individual choice. furthermore, the congressional budget office projects that rather than the bill forcing employers to drop coverage, more employers are likely to provide coverage under this bill because it they do not, they would have to contribute 8% of their payroll -- their

cumulative payroll -- to provide coverage for their employees unless their total work force compensation is under $750,000. under $500,000, they are completely exempt. that is an average salary of $25,000 each, and na graduates up to $75,000. i am going to keep moving along quickly. all of these issues could be discussed further but i want to get through them all before we hear from you. myth no. 7 -- the passage of health care reform would mandate option in all public option, thus making taxpayer dollars available to fund abortions. that is the myth. the fact is that abortion is not mandated in any of the legislation that has been passed by congress.