have a real parliament with really elections, real power, and there is nothing like that in bahrain. that cannot last. of course, what you want -- we have seen disaster. whenever you say about the ruling family, it cannot survive like that. all it is doing is defending and radicalizing the she at committee. some moderates in the shia leadership will have a harder time with the radical elements of the community. i do not think all is yet lost. i hope that the united states is vigorously engaged with trying to bring all the influence we can bear on both sides. for the shia groups, i would say the government of iraq and the ayatollah. on the arab side, there are some people that i think are much more reasonable about this than

the saudis are. but it is very late in the game and we couldn't up with a real tragedy. >> i think you're right, to see very late in the game. and the reason for that is because, said arabia has taken never bahrain and taken over control what happens there on the government side, on the side of the ruling family. and made it clear that it will not broke the kind of process leading to a constitutional monarchy that elliott has talked about. because from their point of view, that would lead to a shia government in bahrain. that will be a catch four for the persians who are already in the setti view of taking over the government of iraq. and there is a next step, for the shia's, saudi arabia, who are a minority but happen to be

located in the eastern quarter, next to bahrain, or most of saudi arabia's oil reserves are located. that is something that the saudis will simply not counter. they look at what is happening not in terms of the market seek versus autocracy. they see it as sectarian, as iranian vs saudi. suny versus portia. if they're not prepared to go down that road, be on that they're not prepared to talk to us about it. because they have now come to identify the united states is a threat to their internal security. they rely on us for their external security in alcs as a threat to their internal security. we have a real problem. they're not telling the people of bahrain, do not you dare. but they're telling the king of jordan, do not dare. i would not be surprised if they're telling others not to give in either. if you look at the map, the

flames are leaking at all of saudi arabia's borders. yemen in the south. bahrain in the east. iraq and jordan and syria to their north. and egypt to their west. you know, at to see inconceivable that they are not going to be affected by that. but they are determined to direct the war against the tsunami. we saw that with japan. i do not think it is going to work here. but we should not imagine that in the part of the middle east that is most sensitive to our vital interests, you know, instability in the saudi arabia can put the price of oil up to $200 and stop our economic recovery and the global recovery. you should not imagine that this is going to go well -- yes, these kingdoms have got to get on the path towards constitutional monarchies. the king of morocco gave a far-

reaching speech two weeks ago. very few people noticed, which is promising the process to his own people. the sultan did the same thing. unless we find a way to reestablish some trust between the obama administration and the king of saudi arabia and find a way to move them forward, i am afraid this is going to come to end.ry bad an >> michael from the new yorker. i would like to come back to the idea of bold initiatives, whether it is bilateral or unilateral. and put it in the context we were just talking about, and try and set the time line. we have been watching policies developed on the fly. we have been talking about events in july to terms. tsunami is, tectonic shifts, earthquakes. it seems that is the time where we should be looking at the

reset and the audi rating and then -- and evaluating and then looking at the timelines, the real ones and artificial ones. whether it is the demographic clock that is ticking, whether it is the general assembly clock that is ticking. and it tried to put in context what you see as realistic timelines for assisting, making major policy it decisions which could have existential ramifications for israel. >> well, i will start. the changes in the middle east are going to play out over a decade or two. i agree with the description of the situation, and you can see that that is both extremely complex and unlikely to be resolved in short order. but what strikes me is that the

israelis, in a certain sense, have decided, have agreed, the direction in which they wish to go. separation from the palestinians. they do not want to have a state with 5 million palestinians in it. they want to have a jewish- democratic state, and the palestinians in another state. so if we know the goal, why can we not take steps to move toward it? that is my suggestion. >> i think we all know what the end game is. we have been through this so many times. we all know what it looks like. we all know that there is going to be -- if there is going to be an israeli-palestinian solution, we all know there has to be a palestinian state. we all know that the palestinian state is not going to be on the move. it is going to be in the west bank. and we all know that palestinian state is going to be, dare i say the words, based on the lines

1967 with the great swaps. will that cause the demise of the jewish state? no, it will not. what is holding us up? by us. not just israel. at what point are we going to say, this is something we are going to support? and we want to see happen. to the best interest of the survival and well-being to the jewish state of israel. i express a sense of urgency in terms of your point about the timelines. time is not on israel's side. israel is strong today. economically, militarily, and you can see the way in which alliances and relations with the rest of the world, which have grown so formidably over the

last two decades are now beginning to fray. angela merkel is having a huge shouting match with binyamin netanyahu, let alone the relationship between barack obama and netanyahu. so we can see, the rating is on the wall. and i just wish that in these circumstances where we have an opportunity to actually do something, that we would get behind an israeli government. then decided to try to resolve it now. >> well, it is lucky that yes or ethically bound not to cover this, because my headlines would be nobody in the middle east trusts obama. flames are living in saudi arabia and the economy is about to lapse. [laughter] so i leave you to the next section which is about the collapse of civil rights in america. [laughter] and thank you all for being here today, and to what to our panel.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house is in recess. representative -- members return a 6:30 p.m. eastern to talk about a bill that would cut 10% from the pentagon's printing budget. this week, the house considers a bill to considering the sec's net neutrality rules. and another prohibiting bpa. work continues off the floor on an agreement to keep the federal government funded past friday. live coverage of the house always here on c-span. coming up live today on c-span3,

charles murray, author of a "the bell curve," is addressing an audience about disparities in white america in the areas of economics and a class distinctions. that is live starting in about 20 minutes from now at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> tonight on "the communicators," michael cops on the proposed at&t-t-mobile merger. >> this kind of sucks the oxygen out of so many issues that are pending before the federal communications commission. you know, we can chew gum and a work of the same time, i guess, but this affects so much of what we're doing. >> "the communicators," tonight on c-span2. >> pauline is the british minister -- minister for security in counter-terrorism. friday, she talked about british

domestic initiatives to combat terrorist threats coming from the muslim community in your country. her remarks the part of a daylong forum on islamist radicalization hosted by the council on foreign relations in washington, d.c. it is 45 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. on behalf of our president of cfr and our partners, the georgetown university center for peace and security steady, and the international center for the study of radicalization and a political violence, i want to welcome you to our symposium here today. united kingdom and the u.s. approaches encountering radicalization. in putting together a conference like the one we have today, we have a big debt of gratitude and thanks to give to a number of

people. i would like to single them out here. on behalf of georgetown university, i would like to thank thomas colaris for his unwavering support for today's symposium. and the george t. colaris fund for comparison studies at georgetown university. it is named in honor of thomas' father, an unsung hero of u.s. intelligence services. cfr would also like to thank longtime member and supporter rita houser, deeply involved in intelligence work through her service on the president's intelligence advisory board. rita, thank you very much for all your support. i would also like to think georgetown university's bruce hoffman, ellen mchugh, henry,

and peter for the international center for the study of radicalization. also, thanks to my colleagues here at cfr. ed and steveed. in addition, it takes a lot of people working the background to make an event like today happened. my colleague, nancy, heads up a truly outstanding meetings team here. i want to thank nancy, chris, emily, jeff, alison, and kate for polling today's conference together. i have a couple of housekeeping details to go over. first, today's sessions all on their record, with two exceptions. the exceptions are session two on the violent radicalization keep trends in development. and sessions 6, new frontiers countering online radicalization. total supply of a request that

if you have a blackberry, pda, any other electronic device this center receives signals, if you could please turn it off right now so it will not interfere with our sound system and put out very painful sounds over the speakers. i would appreciate that. why are we having today's symposium? the answer is fairly straightforward. the u.s. is experiencing a significant increase in a violent islamic extremism, both abroad and at home. ongoing events in the middle east are a cause of concern about the probable rise of islamic radicalism, at least in the short term. at home, we have more and more instances of americans either plotting attacks against fellow americans or attending to travel overseas to receive terrorist training. the fort hood shooting in

november 2009 and the near successful car bombing in times square in may 2010 are the most dramatic illustration of this trend. we're seeking in today's event to bring together leading officials and experts from the united kingdom and the u.s. to take stock, to exchange best practices, and develop fresh ideas for tackling some of the most important issues in the current debate. iowa great debt of gratitude to our british colleagues who have traveled a considerable distance to get here this morning. i only had to take a metro subway ride. they had to fight a long way. we are honored to begin today's conversation with a truly distinguished keynote speaker pauleen, jones. responsible for security and

counterterrorism in the u.k. the minister has had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat, serving in posts around the world, including the former rhodesia, singapore, washington, and she was also part of the european commission. she has held her current position since may of 2010. with that, i invite the minister to come to the podium. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you very much for that kind introduction. as was just noted, i spent time in my past in washington. and i cannot say what a pleasure it is to come back. i think that anybody who has spent time here seldom goes

away feeling that they will ever entirely take off the of the lure of this town. it it is good to be here. and somebody who has had some experience in this subject, and i understand that the administration is actively pursuing a strategy in this policy area. i hope i can shed some light on the u.k. experience. i shall be talking to the point of view of the u.k. experience and everything we have done and everything we have experienced that is necessarily relevant to the american context. i think they're probably some problems, some common problems and solutions that we might be able to share and respectively benefit from. it is with that that i will talk.

as was well said, a bear this pretentious title of minister of security in counter-terrorism as a result of that, i have focused quite considerably, since the coalition came into office last may, in our approach to radicalization and countering its. it can be regarded as a key part of any successful strategy. it is that that i will now focus on. starting,that we're of course, where the story begins. one thing is very clear. terrorism is not just a threat which is external to western countries. it is not simply a foreign menace that comes from overseas to strike our cities. it can, and it does, as we now know, come from within our own countries and from inside our own population. i think it is fair to say that

every single country in the west needs to wake up to what is happening within our own borders. this means that we must strengthen the security aspects of our response, the capacity and capabilities of our intelligence agencies, and of our law enforcement officers, all part of the picture. but it is only part of the solution, and we have to go to the route. we must tackle the ideology that feels that address radicalization. and what gives that ideology an appeal. we need to act against the existence of a pervasive, perverse political ideology which is islamist extremism. at least as emphatically that this does not mean it tackling the religion of islam, which is one of the great religions of the world. those on the right-wing extremist fringe fee that is exactly what we should do, but

they had it wrong. who is to sit in the west and islam are internally irreconcilable? they have more in common with the islamist extremist than they might like to think of this is the same argument advanced by al qaeda, and they do have it wrong. we need to work with mainstream is long. part of the events of last week in north africa and it tunisia and egypt and libya have demonstrated the the populations of muslim countries themselves have no incompatibility. they crave the freedoms that they see as in the west and joining -- enjoying. it should be a cardinal tenet that domestic, democratic freedoms, and islam are companions and not opponents. the british prime minister made

clear in a recent speech which he gave at the munich security conference that islamist extremist ideology is the problem. islam is not. that brings us on to the question of, what is it about islamist extremist and theology which can lead all to the lead to terrorism? clearly, rejection of democratic values need not lead to violence itself. by no means all is molests are terrorists. how does the process of credit goes asian work? there has been a great deal of academic research on radicalization. and the intelligence agencies use their knowledge and a covert information to try to come up with an answer. what emerges is the u.n. remarkable conclusion that there is no single cause.

our workers in britain suggests that radicalization is driven by an ideology which claims muslims around the world are being suppressed, and it legitimizes this, and that is often coupled with the political vision. it is based on a purported reading of scriptures. this is a revolutionary message. it is broadcast and amplified by a global network of influential propagandists and make extensive use of the internet to penetrate societies across the globe. it finds an audience among individuals which seat that ideology as attractive a compelling. whereas individuals are part of

the community where extremist views are widely accepted, the legitimization of violence becomes heated and we know in the u.k. from our own citizenship service -- i will give good example, that in situations where people believe that ethnic should not mix and where people are segregated from the rest of society, they're more likely to accept extremist arguments. this is then liable to become an enabling context in which violence is made easy. the online to codis messaging has contributed to the perception of a single global terrorist campaign, which is quite often carried on by other terrorist groups, not always with the same interests or identities. winter estimate such an

infrastructure and such superficially powerful ideology. as our prime minister put it, we must confront and we must undermine it. this will be a concerted effort for all governments, institutions, and a citizens, all of us. in the u.k., we have had for some years a strategy to counter this radicalization, to stop people from becoming terrorists. there are parallels with the countering violent extremism programs which are being run in this country, by which i think we will hear about later in the day. our strategy, which is called prevent, is to keep component of a broader strategy designed to handle all aspects of terrorism. it is said to say that these days in many places, the police and of the local muslim

communities are now more willing to talk to each other frankly and constructively than previously about the threat of terrorism, the dangers of radicalization, and how we should try to reduce them. and the level of awareness of the dangers is much greater and there is greater sense of shared purpose. our information and understanding is slowly getting better. the police have a mandate in their community policing role to locate harmful individuals and to intervene to help them, along with the cooperation of local government and voluntary community bodies. community-based groups have been engaged to provide and try and do radicalization services. we can support in at stopping people from being radicalized are drawn into terrorism. however, there is a however, we do think that the mistakes have

blotted out a good deal of the progress. accusations of stigmatizing and the police spying on muslim communities, and a perception which has been lent by the legitimate role of the police and personal conventions. you can see how easy it is to mistake one for the other, either willfully or unwittingly. the government has also been accused of only interested in british muslim as they represent the terrorist threat and that their mainstream needs, like health, education, or housing, were of no concern. the government, it was said, was securitized in its approach to muslim communities. the result of this is that prevent has lost the trust and goodwill of many and the very communities it was designed to help. more widely, it is criticized

for trying to do too many things at once, for wasting money, and spending it on the wrong projects. it was clear that compared to the parts of our counterterrorism strategy, when the incoming coalition came in, that we had to do something about this. because prevent was not working and could be vastly improved. so that is what we have been focusing on. our first conclusion was that the segregation of communities was becoming more pronounced, and prevent was the wrong vehicle as it was designed to counter this. indeed, unless said in a wider policy context, i think it is clear that special programs will have the effect opposite from that intended. far from uniting, they have a tendency to isolate, leading to isolations are stigmatization. we reckon that we needed a unity strategy, a strategy of integration in its own right,

for which prevent would then be a component part, rather than the other way around. in his minute speech in february, the british prime another said, "we must build a stronger societies with stronger identities that home kirkcaldy criticize past government policies of state will recall journalism which incurs differentiation between communities, which we see is the task of actively posturing a sense of what we share with what we value. to give you an example of the kind of things we think we need to do, and part of the program, the government is introducing the national citizens' service, in which 16-year-old from all backgrounds will spend two months living and working together. we want to create a vision of a society to which all, including young muslims, feel they want to belong and to participate in.

we believe that there is and we can learn here from america. you have created in your country a powerful sense of national identity, the american dream, to which all can aspire, and acceptance of immigrant communities as americans. it is the task of the british government to get the sense of shared identity in our country. we need this anyway, and it stands independently of counter- terrorism. it is, however, the framework within which we will challenge non-violent and violent extremists. if our values mean anything, there must be equal to taking on opposing opinions, however hostile, and those in debate. we will not discriminate. we will confront all forms of extremism, from the far left to far right. to near fascist to militant separatists. the government will work actively on this task with those

who share our values. we will not rely on extremists to combat violence merely because they do not espouse the violence themselves. at the same time, we will not not commit the advocacy of violence. we have laws against this which we will enforce. we will exclude from the u.k. those from abroad who have a track record of preaching are advocating violence. preaching are advocating violence. since what is at issue is people and networks that they work and live in, it will be more granular in its approach to dealing with people. we need also to remember the threat we face from terrorism is

constantly evolving and we need to be flexible in our response. at the core will be three ideas -- ideology, institutions and individuals. the ideology that promotes terrorism and those who prevented. the institutional swear radicalization might occur -- the institutions where radicalization might occur, and the individuals who are vulnerable to radicalization. i want to say a little more about each of these and why they are important. first of all, ideology. when challenging extremism, it is part of a normal functioning of democratic society. it finds a wider place and our integration strategy. but when it comes to violence, a concerted response is required which must be more focused and specialized than can be the case in the normal democratic

debate. the sustained anti-terrorism message is accounted for. much should be done at local level by communities themselves and prevent our focus on this. as i mentioned at the outset, the exploitation of the internet also needs to be at the center of our attention. this is a serious issue. the internet plays an ever more significant role in the promotion of terrorism. we know that in the u.k., groups gather to review the preaching of violent men located many thousands of miles away and this has an effect on young minds. we know individuals have been radicalized to the point of being willing to kill and have tried to do this as a result of eating websites carrying such material. one british and he suffered a serious injury in this way from a woman who came to see him in

his constituency offer. this is not just a stab at the man, it's a stab at open democracy. we must take action to stem this flow of poison which comes across borders. it requires international action. child pornography on the internet stimulates evil activity in evil -- in real life and we go after it. we believe we should go after websites and other internet activity that enables or fosters terrorism. we welcome the increasing awareness on the part of internet providers of the dangers of such materials and we look forward to working with partners for affection act -- for effective action. google has added a referral flag on youtube for content that promotes terrorism and we applaud this. the government also carry out activities directly like those

who are campaigning to build on the awareness of moderate organizations and encouraging the creation of website that offer online topical advice for young muslims and engaging in an on-line debate about extremist narrative and ideologies, doing it at the local level. my second point -- institutions. our experience suggests that institutions like prisons, universities and colleges and indeed mosques may be vulnerable to the influence of charismatic radicalize years. our universities and colleges are conscious of their dedication to unfettered academic research in the feet -- and the freedom of expression. the government respects this and will defend of rights of free

speech as we defend all citizens' rights to free speech. we believe that alongside this, there's a responsibility which universities carry to ensure these freedoms are not exploited or perverted by speakers on or off campus and that the care of students is taken seriously and individuals needing help and guidance are spotted and assistance is available to them. the training of english speaking imams is a fundamental to bonding the face of young muslims to the western context in which they find themselves. the u.k. has a school sector which offers some of the best education available. that includes muslim schools which receive public funding, and we will not stop that. but we will seek to maintain

national standards in the schools as well as all others. they are disproportionately represented in our prisons. we to make sure prison does not become an incubator of violent extremism. the u.k. is developing programs for prisoners both inside and on release to increase the likelihood of successful disruption that tens of radicalization and recruitment. and the chances of successful rehabilitation into society. i would not like to claim this is easy, but it is important. mosques have often been seen as part of the problem. there are instances of this. today, the issue is less one of mosques harboring preachers

being suspected of fostering violent extremism, let alone being guilty of it, it is more of a gap of confidence that still exists between the mosques and local authorities and the police. this is a gap that will be vital to close if we are to be successful in dealing with my third point which is individuals. you can see that cooperation between local communities and local authorities is very borden. individuals -- those individuals who are on the path to radicalization do not exist in a vacuum. they live in neighborhoods, they use businesses and come into contact with local community sector workers like police officers. these are individuals who will be trained to notice changes in

behavior. it is with working with local community organizations or groups to can provide interventions that we get some of the best results. this is an invaluable route and it is crucial to have the support of local muslim leaders, vital, frankly to long-term success. we already have quite a bit of experience of this sort of work and we find it to be helpful and cost effective. hundreds of people have been referred to our flag ship channel program. this type of multi-agency intervention is more cost- effective than maintaining and mi5 investigation or dealing

this is about helping people and drawing them back from the danger of radicalization and the espousal of violence. in conclusion, the agenda at a bus is a full one. we have to be determined and not expect lots of quick winds. what we want to do to turn the propaganda tied and get from the back foot to the front foot, we have to create a valiant -- the values and institutions excepted at home and abroad. we believe it can be done and in that u.k. calling them a broader program, there is a key role to

play and dissuading people from being drawn by the message of jihad.t [applause] >> thank you for a thoughtful set of remarks. i would like to begin with an issue raised in your remarks about the role of integration and the importance of national identity. you complemented americans on a strong sense of national identity and the great pride americans have in incorporating immigrants into society. because of that, americans thought they were immune from home grown radicalization. but recently, we have been forced to grapple with this problem. why is it america is facing this challenge given added has this this link --

-- on't have >> this is the framework you can't deal with specific problems. that is why there is a lot of emphasis on that necessary for a mark. as i tried to make clear, a healthy democracy will develop a strong cut and thrust. of livingportant part your beliefs. if you get to people preaching to closed communities and have successfully drawn people away from listening and participating in that democratic

debate, being willing, being components of society, it's very important to carry out and design to get at that kind of community. that is where we feel we have to have a specific program and it works best when conducted by muslims themselves. one of the things we have to do is gain the confidence of the muslim community so they're willing to leave these programs. we have gone of it down this road. we have pilot tested what we need to do. we know it works but it's got to be much broader. if they're going to do that, they must feel they're part of a broader society and they have rights and duties and are

regarded as equal. what they're doing is valued. it can give leadership and it is getting into that corner that you have to get into which is important. i don't know of that response to the american experience, but you have to underpin the volume of democracy by doing a special program. >> i take it there's a challenge in doing that and doing it well. in the american context, this issue has emerged with a great deal of fear of what americans are going to do and what americans will do could actually make the problem worse rather than better.

could i get a little bit about your thoughts -- your perspective the british perspective of the lessons you have learned and how do you avoid committing the error you know you should not commit? >> we had this problem and i will give you one example of where different parts of the strategy do damage to each other. we have to have a very vigorous pursuit which deals with counter-terrorism. it's not too difficult to find those things untangled. that is one danger. the second danger is -- there have been mistakes.

there is a police force without a lot of closed circuit television cameras. it gave rise to the accusation that this is big brother. you have to be transparent about what you are doing. the government has to constantly explain what is happening and it's why at the end of the day, you can only do it locally. one key component in all of this is trust and confidence. we have to rebuild that because there has been an erosion. if you start again, you can't just accept that you abandon the objective, but we have tried to reshape the from work and put what we believe to be the dominant thing which is getting the country together as the overall framework.

we have changed the away the money is spent and put the integration strategy into the hands of a different government departments so it is clear this is a different activity. but i come back in the end to saying we have to gain confidence and work very carefully at the business of personal and individual intervention. i believe this is a granular thing, you're dealing with people and individuals. the best people to deal with individuals are those who are close to them who they think have some regard for them. it's there we have to go and we have to build a strategy. >> you talk about building and gauging individuals and families. can i find out more about how that works in practice? >> it literally works in long

sessions with individuals, debating issues and are giving, coming back to the issue. it is hard and mines stuff, but particularly hearts. goes to the absolute fundamentals about what people think they're there for. if you start getting somewhere with someone, what you want to ensure is they've got a job and they see their family actually has a future. there are a series of other things that need to up company that. you have to change the mind-set and reintegrate. malty agency working can be very important in this. >> at this point, i would like to bring the audience into the conversation. i would ask you to please wait for the microphone and when you get a microphone, please speak

into it. state your name and affiliation and i asked to keep your questions concise and short- term. i promised the minister i would keep her on schedule. >> what can you tell us about the 400,000 pakistan is to go back and forth between the u.k. and other parts of pakistan and how does one persuade those people -- those who live in england permanently and never go back to pakistan? >> the single largest muslim community in that u.k. is sub continental. there is a lot of modern communication and that means a lot of coming in going. we should be quite clear that it's a tiny tiny fraction of those people who travel backward

and forward to are up to no good. if you ask the average pakistan a brit, they will give you an answer that they don't want anything to do with this. what we have to establish is the willingness of individuals to come and say there's a problem. we have a problem in the local community and that's the gap we have to bridge. some of the most important pieces of information have come from individuals in the pakistan community. that is precisely what we want to encourage. it is the feeling that i can be on site. i'm not going to be neutral and i'm not going to be against these guys. i have to say i think we have a real opportunity at the moment,

if you look what's going on in the middle east, there's a huge tide there we ought to be able to do something about. it is preaching to the kind of messages we want to get across. i think part of the way we go about it is the way we interpret the world to our own societies and how they see how they fit in. i think foreign-policy and how government explains and defends its foreign policy is quite an important part of the overall mind said, particularly when it comes to an issue like pakistan. the british government is clear we have a relationship with the government of pakistan when it comes to terrorism.

it is a difficult task. but i think we've got our messaging right. we just have to get a link-up of where people say i think there's something wrong here and i'm going to talk to the imam and they will do it is necessary. >> i heard you say to things that sound like they might be in tension with each other. you talk about the narrative that bauxite and other organizations put forward that muslims are embattled and under attack around the world and the proper response is a valid one. now you have talked about the fact that britain has a strategic relationship with the government of pakistan.

how do you take apart the narrative the talk about for those who believe the government of pakistan as part of what is of pressing muslims in that part of the world? you say you have day -- and explicit policy of backing the model number of issues. how these sort that out and explain it? >> having a relationship with the government does not mean you endorse or back every single thing that happens under the roof of that country. on the other hand, i would defend very vigorously the government of pakistan in its attempt to deal with terrorism on its own soil. i think it is a very difficult problem and the difficulties are not going to be dealt with easily and it is part of our policy to try to help.

the situation in pakistan is obviously very complex. because it is complex, it is precisely why you need to try to help, including helping the underlying structures of society. we put a lot of money into education and trying to make the underpinning of the pakistan such that both education and economic activity are available to more people. these are absolute fundamentals for getting a stable society in that part of the world and it is an important part of our policy. i don't think we see any contradiction between that kind of long-term support and working together against violence.

>> i think we have time for one more question. i want to remind everybody that this session is on the record. i'm going to go to the back of the room and the young lady at the end -- the last row. ofi'm with the department state. what is the uk's approach to it in gauging with moderate voices in that muslim community or maybe not so moderate voices but leaders who do support the ideology? >> it is a question about the attitude of of nonviolence -- clearly what we are concerned with is violence and it is there we will focus money. i did make clear -- and this is

the difference between ourselves and our predecessors -- we do not believe its right to try to work through the agency of those who are on the separatist tendencies or extremists and their views and use them as agents simply because they are not violent. we believe you can only do this effectively with people who share your values. we do believe the resources are available and muslims who share our values will help us and we will be together on this. but there are emotions that somehow you can easily get the right results by trying to work through the agency that shares your values systems. it goes to your analysis of how you think the relationship between values and the actual

espousal of violence works. we do not trust the notion that somehow you can effectively deal with preventing and discouraging people from violence working with those not in the current value system. >> i know you have a very busy schedule today. i want to say on behalf of all sponsors of today's event, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house is in recess. members are expected back in 30 minutes from now for votes on measures debated earlier, including a bill that would cut 10% from the pentagon's printing budget. later this week, the house

considers a bill repealing the net neutrality rules from the sec and other preventing the epa from prohibiting greenhouse gas emissions. work continues to keep the federal government funded past friday. you can watch the house here on c-span. this morning, a senior congressional correspondent with the christian science monitor was talking about federal budget negotiations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gail russel chaddock, the senior congressional correspondent for "the christian science monitor." open quotes europe: a gambit," that is the headline today. guest: these are as close as any negotiations i have ever seen in congress.

a bad thing for my profession and a good thing for the public. host: have they been continuing over the weekend and headed into this week? who is talking? caller: -- guest: right now the appropriations committee is trying to sort out whether or not the figure of $33 billion was accurate. senate democrats said that it was. the vice-president said that it was. john bowler said he was not convinced. we will have to figure out where the cuts come from underneath that number. that is a very difficult question. senate democrats would like to see the cuts go beyond domestic, non-defense discretionary. republicans say that we have to stick to domestic discretionary.

host: let's talk about lines in the sand. house republicans, there are probably a couple of them there. where do they stand? as part of that, people here $61 billion. can you explain those numbers? guest: it will be eclipsed this week by trillion. the house republicans are releasing their budget for 2012 this week, which claims to save more than $4 trillion. the momentum of that number could sway votes on the other side. to get to your question, $100 billion. when republicans ran to take back the house, $100 billion

from what the president wanted to spend. halfway into the fiscal year, the first question was -- cut half of what we said we would. cutting $100 billion from what president obama wanted. what we arelk about actually spending. it is really $30 billion. at that point, house conservatives are boosted by an 87 member freshman class. you said $100 billion, we said $60 billion, and we want to see the full cut this year. as each month goes by there have been more cuts, even with these temporary measures, to demonstrate even $2 billion in cuts per week.

so, here we are. the house passed $61 billion. the senate passed nothing. the compromise appears to be $33 billion. but we do not know. we will see. host: said democrats are saying what? caller: interestingly, they started out from the position of saying that they had already cut $40 billion from what the president said that he wanted to spend. their position has basically been no new cuts. the fact that they are now talking enthusiastically about $31 billion is huge. host: house republicans are saying what? you have to differ between the conservatives in the republican study committee and leadership? what do they say? caller: what a wonderful question right now. speaker boehner was asked

directly about that. he had said it -- no, he is looking for the deepest cut that he can get. might i add to those considering a primary challenge to the tea party members who are not quite the party enough, they are pushing for a full promise of $61 billion up to $100 billion and more. that is what is important. and more -- it is not just a debate. who would think that it is a rounding error, $30 billion, trivial? let's get this out of the way. let's take what we can and move on to the next issue, the budget for 2012.

host: is this a strategic move by house republicans to say paul ryan, we need to be talking about trillions so that we can sway the conservative republicans? guest: i wish that i could tell you. i wish i knew that that was the plan for sure. the timing is about right. host: paul ryan and is expected to announce more of the details of his plan tomorrow, tuesday. sunday he was on the news shows talking about it, laying out medicare as the heart of his proposal in what he wants to do with that. going forward this week, is there likely to be a seventh continuing resolution? of a stopgap measure while they negotiate something long term?

guest: that would be difficult. even with the last continuing resolution, 64 house republicans are saying -- no way. the only reason that it passed then is that you had 185 democrats that supported it. everyone that i spoke to voted for that last continuing resolution, saying -- speaking of the line in the sand, i will not vote for another short-term resolution. which is tough. we are not going to drop a bill on the floor with only three minutes to look at it. they are not going to cook up something and dump it in your lap. they have got to go forward with this by tuesday night. host: because of the 72 hour rule, they have to put something

together by tuesday night. it does not give the senate much time to act. guest: and that is where delaying is hard wired into the coating of the institution. one member that does not like how things are going has the power to slow things down for a couple of days. host: aides have floated the idea of breaking the 72-hour pledge, but such a move would be risky, given that the rule was offering to the tea party activists, who accused democrats of creating deals behind closed doors. caller: we have got to give more money to the schools and the met -- less money for the wars. now they are saying that teachers cannot have unions.

this is really eroding our entire system. firefighters, police, teachers, they are being looked at as if they are some kind of sucking off of the system. it is gutted. this country is completely down hill. these are the traditional jobs that have served the middle class, the barrier between the lower class and the elite class. when you take away the middle, it was run by the corporate elites. which is fascism. we need to stop the war in the military industrial complex.

guest: every time that i talk to democrats about the bottom line in this budget, almost a first issue raised by the people is always education. that we cannot cut brigitte we cannot cut back on that funding. -- that we cannot cut back on that funding. the other thing that has really interested me, if you look at the votes in the house there are more in the first few months of this house on important issues than in decades. the 87-member freshman class that we've tended to characterize as the tea party class or very conservative

class. look at their votes. there is a surprising things. you mentioned police and fire. 30 of those freshmen voted to increase spending for police. i think 24 voted to increase spending for fire. a number of voted to support the national labor relations board. there is some surprising switch -- is not the modernist. host: maria, a democrat, washington, d.c. caller: they say they want to save medicare and they want to create social security. we all as taxpayers pay to those funds. i feel that the war's is completely -- to use the funds

to countries. g.e. does not pay taxes. once they got tons of money, -- the middle class is becoming a class like other countries. obama when send and he at least -- this country has no money. i think it is ridiculous. people are not working. you go to other countries. manufacturing -- we're privatizing the waters and the utility and the basic needs for the humans, for everyone. host: we got your point. guest: where does were spending

fit into a context that is focused on cuts? especially as we appear to have expanded into a third war, in libya. could drag on for some time -- this could drag on for some time. the main support comes from republicans. democrats that opposed the war do not have an interest in embarrassing the president who is about to announce running for a second term. it is not the sharp test eds anti-war movement we have seen in past wars -- is strongly bipartisan at this point. it will be difficult for point that you're making. to drastically cut defense spending, we need that to support the middle class. you're not going to see that argument. in the next two years in the

run-up to this election. host: ""the wall street journal ," a front-page story. there is more details about what this will include. on taxes,, some conservatives expect a temporary tax change that will let u.s. multinationals bring home as at aas $1 trillion greatly reduced tax rate. they expect a fundamental overhaul of the tax system. host: we will go to a republican in boston.

caller: i think if you look over this past decade, both republican and democrats have placed a tremendous amount of debt on the backs of old people and young people in this country. i think funding for any program, social, will be dramatically decreased not because of republicans or democrats but because of the markets. it is low on its way to collapsing. there is nothing that hurts the middle class more than the collapse of the purchasing power. there is no coincidence that a collapse from purchasing power and that wars are breaking out. look for continued collapse of the purchasing power of the dollar. host: do you have any thoughts? guest: it is a tout -- a subtext everything going on

now. what really is coming out this week is a debate you can cut on every possible line. it is not about age. the cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid, -- let me rephrase that. republicans would say it is not cuts. is reducing the rates of growth. changes in medicare and medicaid and social security. there will be a share from older people to a younger people. they have a difficult job prospects and are bearing the brunt of this. it is a very big question. it is hard to imagine the scope of change on capitol hill right now. every previous budget cycle has involved talking about investments and growth and arguing about the point i stumbled over. an increase that is left really

a cut? what we're talking about now is not that issue. there are deep cuts that affect the whole notion of what our government is and does. go back to a new deal debate. we have not had one on this level since the 1960's. but this one is more severe. host: we have a tweet. host: after the end of this week, if there is an agreement over funding for the rest of this fiscal year, what happens next? guest: you would think that when the main event of this event is what happened on friday, when funding for the fiscal year runs out, will the government shut down?

will the consequence they predict who will be out of work? this is an easy discussion, what to do with fiscal year spending. the hard one is coming up with the budget for 2012, which goes into entitlement spending. traditionally, these third rails of american politics. but that is not even the toughest issue. the toughest issue is what to do when the spending bumps up against the debt limit. is the issue that so many republicans ran on. "i will not raise this debt limit." "this is as high as it will ever be." that is what i ran on. they have every incentive in the world to stick to what they said they would do.

that creates a dramatic situation. this is only one of three. the second one is harder. host: ohio, an independent caller. caller: i have a comment and a question. i'm trying to fall this going on. host: join the club -- -- guest: join the club. caller: the senate is not agreeing in passing anything. i'm wondering, are they going to be able to get their act together and pass this to move on to the next to its big steps they have to take care of? up.ill hang n host: before you do, as an independent, what does this do for you prove it was rethinking

as you look to 2012 and have you may vote over this issue? caller: we have a severe problem, especially with this debbt. the only ones who seem serious are the republicans. they are haggling over something that the democratic house senate and white house should have taken care of last year. the push this problem on to the republicans of this year. it seems like everyone just keeps pointing at the republicans. i cannot see where the senate is attempting to get anything done whatsoever. they keep pointing fingers. they peer down what republicans want. they are not saying what they are for cutting. they are not saying what they are willing to cut. host: let me get your reaction

to this. this is from "the washington post." this is an editorial. you're dealing with environmental protection agency and planned parenthood. they have to a tangential relationship to a deficit- cutting. at a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. -- not a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. what do you think? caller: i would like to know what compromises they have made. what are they? host: we will talk to gail about that.

guest: they are letting the other side come forward and then the lead. that is how the majority's switched in the last two campaign cycles. republicans said no to everything that the democrats said in the last campaign cycle. democrats -- and so i think i just repeated myself. host: vice versa. guest: are things now so serious that the president will take a hit for not taking more leadership on the cut side. senate democrats will take a hit for not engaging republicans on foot -- on friday, they passed an unusual bill still have no affect, a symbolic attempt to make their point. the bill

said if the senate does not act on our spending bill for fiscal year 2011 by the sweet, -- by this week, our bill will have deemed to have pass. that is foolish on one level. it would require the senate to agree, which was not going to happen. it was away to say, we're doing something and they are not. both sides are watching closely how the public response to this. does the public still think that cutting deficits and debt is important? is a more important than the possibility of losing programs they value profit that is the dialogue that is going on at this point. but the waiting has to end on friday. you either agree or not. the government shuts down or it does not. i think this one will. host: we have another twitter

comment. chicago, matt, a democrat, your next. -- you are next. caller: it appears we have a race to the bottom. $30 billion cut here and $60 ,illion ko'd here and the house gop do not want to talk about what they want to cut. the only thing i would say as a democrats, i would say that things need to be cut. as your guest said, this is a debate that we're having that we

probably have not had in 40, 50 years. i would say to my conservative friends, when the government's invests money, spending money, it is not a bad thing. how do you think the highway system came here? how many jobs did the highway system creates? how many -- how much money did the government spend on putting the stuff in place to fit i can go on my pc and find out news from around the world. that did not drop out of the sky. that was a result of investment spending. all spending is not a bad thing. that is the trouble i get when i listen to my friends on the other side. thank you for your show. it has been good. guest: 80 an important point.

what is the difference between an investment and waste, fraud, and reduced profit that is what it comes down to. republicans are trying to couch their changes as, let's look were there is waste. the government accountability office came out with a report that said there is $100 billion in programs in government that could be halved, most republicans jumped on that and said this is where we could get some cuts. we don't have to cut into critical investments at this point. programs waste, fraud is another's critical investment. take a small example. speaker boehner in a speech last week defended the vouchers for d.c. it is a program that democrats got rid of. it was important to republicans

to see education reform as links to choice for parents, including funds to go into a parochial school. democrats said, what is the evidence that parochial schools do better than d.c. public schools put it to kids see gains in improvements that are significantly that is a factual debate. what is the evidence of it i think you'll see that on a whole range of issues. it is not enough to say it is waste, fruits -- fraud, and abuse. on the house side, you have committees that are now focused on a piece by piece going through government spending with lawmakers raising questions and bring in witnesses to answer that question. is it critical or is it not? host: we have a tweet from gary .

host: does go to john, a republican in florida. you're next. caller: i agree with what the person just tweeted in. republican stock about making cuts. we hear from the left -- republicans talk about making cuts. it is to the point where how they play the race card. we have to put more into education in this country. we rank near the bottom. money is not the issue. look at all schools. they operate most on a shoestring budget. they produce kids that are more than prepared for the upper level education. we need across-the-board cuts, probably 20% and a flat tax.

host: is that part of the discussion? guest: absolutely. republicans were trying to figure out what the plan was. of the votes said let's cut $61 billion. but what to cut another $22 billion in across-the-board cuts. some did not support that. they did not like an across-the- board concept. they thought it was mindless. are some things more important than others. you cannot just do it with a meat cleaver. have to do it with a scalpel. host: we have another tweet from maverick. guest: a computer service. that is a very big issue.

i remember in the 9/11 commission, one of the discoveries was the fbi did not have search capacities on their computers. they have been working at this for years to improve this. computers -- that is not like high point of the government in its current form. i think you should send that letter to your member of congress and urged all of your friends to do the same. there is a great savings if the government can figure out computer technologies. host: president obama sent out an e-mail announcing he is running for reelection. at do you think any impact that would have on this week's budget -- what do you think impact that would have on this week's budget discussion? guest: and think the president is missing on action, that he did not embrace the need to make budget cuts. his budget does not go far

enough and includes trillions. is focused on the campaign suggest he will not be there at all. for democrats, the idea that their best spokesman will be using the bully pulpit to make a case for government. why we need it, what is a critical investment? that can help the kind of case they are trying to make back here. host: sandra, an independent caller. caller: what happened to $30 million that was set aside for the orphan program that they never used but they still love -- $30 million. -- $13 million. i would like to also know --

michele bachmann has a loophole in the tax were surely pays $100 a month for property -- where she only pays $100 a month for property. what ever happened to the tax break for all the rich when their houses get washed away and everything else. we continually repeat to use that funding, to give it to them, and yet, we're hurting ourselves. i watched john stossel and he was talking about that. we need to find out why. guest: i do not know the specifics of the first case you mentioned. what was the expenditure? host: she is not with us. guest: any detail like that, getting this kind of tax break, it is not fair. let's fast-forward to a campaign

ad for 2012. -- i did not catch what you said the first time. host: we will move onto a democrat in buffalo. we are with gail russell chaddock with the "christian science monitor." caller: i appreciate >> we are leaving this live now for the house to come back on a bill that would cut back on the pentagon's spending budget, live on c-span. ed. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1246, a bill to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the department of defense for printing and reproduction. the speaker pro tempore: will e

bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask for unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor from h.r. 1323. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 200, resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 37, disapproving the rules submitted by the federal communications commission with respect to regulating the internet and broad-band industry practices.

the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i rise to convey to the house the extremely sad news that our former colleague from new jersey, john adler, passed away earlier today. congressman adler underwent emergency heart surgery in an attempt to resolve a staph infection. he was 51. in congress, john served with distinction on financial services and veterans affairs

committees. john served as chairman of the senate judiciary committee and sponsored laws requiring pension forfeitures and mandatory prison for corrupt officials and required smoke-free workplaces. and addressed environmental and health issues. john adler had a razor-sharp witt, ten asity and a great big smile and we will miss him. i along with our colleagues express our condolences to shelly, his wife and their four sons. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i can't believe that john's life was cut so short. i really want to reach out to

shelly and his children and his friends, our heartfelt condolences go out to the adler family. my wife was a friend of his wife and my daughter with one of his sons. it is amazing to me he was able to accomplish so much in the short time that he was here. he grew up in real adversity. he is the kind of person, not ration to riches, but someone who had a hard life growing up and at a young age, went to harvard undergraduate, harvard law school and became a successful attorney and then became a member of the state senate for many years and chairman of the state senate judiciary committee before he was elected to congress. beyond that, he had a great sense of humor. we know many times you are on the floor and you would ask him about something, he would tell you a jeek or make fun of

something -- a joke or make fun of something. and i will never forget that. he decided at a young age that he was going to make a life in government and could have done so many things, made a lot of money, but instead, decided to devote his life to politics. and my heart goes out to him. i want to remember him as an admirable example for so many of us. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise this evening to express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the former congressman john adler. my sympathies go out to knew him best and loved him most, shelly and four sons, jeffrey, alex,

jon than. he fought for the causes in which he believed. his legacy of public service includes council member in cherry hill, new jersey, tenure in the new jersey state senate and representing new jersey's third congressional district here in the united states house of representatives. words fail to accurately reflect the true measure of one's life, but i hope that shelly, their sons, extended family and friends may take comfort in john's many accomplishments and knowing that his lifetime of public service has left a lasting legacy for which they can be most proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> ask to address the house for one minute, revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. recognized for one minute. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i, too, rise in shock and sympathy at the loss, death of john adler, send my sympathy and condolences to shelly and the family. i won't recount his many accomplishments or paint a full picture of john adler, a truly wonderful public servant. i hope there will be occasion for the testimonial and memorial here at another time. but i do want to express to his many friends and many admirers the sympathy and condolences. john adler was dedicated to the service of the people of new jersey. and you will hear again and again if you didn't know john,

about his wonderful cheerfulness and humor that he showed in good times and in bad. a good friend to many of us, a friend to the people of new jersey, a real loss. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute. without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i am shocked and saddened to learn of the passing of john adler at the age of 51. john was a friend of mine for 20 years. we served together in the jersey state senate for seven years, sitting next to each other, divided only by the center aisle. when we arrived in washington in 2009 john and i were the only freshmen members of congress from new jersey. we worked together on many issues here and served together on the financial services committee. i believe john adler worked for the best interest of new jersey

and more recently for the entire nation. my wife and i are friends with the adler family, including john's beloved wife, shelley, and their four sornings jeffrey, now at harvard, alexander at cornell, andrew and olver. hidey and i extend our deepest sympathy to the adler family. mr. lance: today our hearts are broken and we are devastated. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. for those of us who have known john for a long time and who have loved and cherished him, this is a very tragic and difficult occasion. i hope that shelley and his boys know in the depth of their

grief, the breadth of love and respect for john that people feel tonight. his loss is tragic beyond words but we can for a moment celebrate a victory over tragedy tonight, is that one person in 51 brief years could touch the lives and achieve the achievements that john adler did in his life. his life was far too short but it was rich, it was filled with laughter and achievement and those of white house have been touched by his friendship count ourselves richer for the benefit of that. may god bless his family and rest his soul. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to recognize the success of a local group of ninth grade students from my congressional district in south florida, our lady of lords academy. guided by their teacher, susan

fleming, these four young ladies, gabriellea, christina, lauren and diana have been selected as regional winning finalists at the national science teachers association exploreavision competition. this group of intelligent young laidies envisioned an innovative proposal for medical technology, a surgical procedure that would treat patients whose vocal chords have been paralyzed, allowing them to speel speak again. their groundbreaking idea was selected from over 4,000 entries and over 13,000 students. innovative students like these four impressive girls will help lead our nation into the future and i wish them much success in the upcoming national judging phase. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, before i talk about the bipartisan local tax relief ability to re-authorize impact act, before i go to that, i too would like to add my condolences to the family of john adler. john and i used to do yoga and tai chi together. he much more often than i. at 6:30 in the morning. and i got to know him and to really admire him for the commitment that he had to be of service and the times that i would miss the tai chi sessions, he would say, we miss you. we miss you, john. impact day. most public school funding comes from local property taxes. however, in areas where federal property indian lands or military bases, school districts cannot collect these needed revenues and would relieve taxpayers in these federal impacted areas would need to pay more to support the same level

of education as other districts. the bipartisan bill that i'm introducing today would make sure that these districts would have the kind of federal support through impact aid that they need to ensure that all of our students are are, our children, have the kind of good education they deserve. impact aid supports over 12 million children in more than 1,300 school districts in every single state, plus the d.c. and u.s. territories. i want to acknowledge the work of the national association of federally impacted schools who worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today for one reason. to expose the democrats' carefully designed plan to shut down the federal government. this friday the short-term

continuing resolution expires. but the democrats have yet to offer any real solutions for our budget mess. they just want to keep on spending, taxing and borrowing. i believe they're dodging their responsibilities on purpose. the democratic leadership is trying to bacchus into a corner -- back us into a corner with only two ways out. keep spending money at their outrageous levels or shut down the government. we're in an economic emergency and neither of these options will do anything for america's financial crisis. i believe they actually want to shut down the government for their own political purposes. mr. speaker, i implore my democratic colleagues to do what is right for america, to get serious about cutting spending before we find ourselves so deeply mired in debt that digging out becomes impossible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, we will all breathe easier if we are able to reach a bipartisan consensus about this budget impasse that we now have. but we will not all breathe easier if the republicans succeed in essentially eliminating the ability of uncle sam to enforce the clean air act. now i know it seems pretty shocking but the fact of the matter is tonight as these discussions are going on the republicans want to put a writer, one of these noxious viruses on the bill, a writer that would make it illegal for the environmental protection agency to protect our children's health against asthma in enforcing the clean air act. now this is pretty amazing, it cannot stand.

we're encouraged that the majority leader has said they won't allow these writers. let's get a compromise to deal with this deficit, not make it harder for our kids to breathe, not make it easier for asthma to ravage our kids and let's preserve a bipartisan success in the clean air act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berg: today i'd like to recognize the 10th anniversary of microsoft having invested in fargo, north dakota. since coming to north dakota, microsoft has helped create hundreds of jobs and it's increased the economic opportunity in our state. 10 years ago tomorrow microsoft acquired great plains software in fargo, a local home-grown company. at the time great plains employed 800 people. today there are more than 1,500 people working in fargo for

microsoft. and the microsoft campus continues to grow. in fact, today there are more than 60 open positions at microsoft looking for people. this is what our country needs all throughout all the states. i'm pleased that companies like microsoft have felt confident in investing in our state and our people. congratulations to fargo microsoft employees on your 10-year anniversary. and thank you for the positive work you've done for the fargo community. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. it's on days like this in the house when you lose a colleague, john adler, who passed, served in the previous congress, that you realize how many good men and women come and serve in this house of representatives and what an honor it is to serve with them and to spend time with

them while they're here on this earth. it's all a reminder how sometimes good people pass early. so we need to all enjoy each day and the opportunity that god has given for us to live. john adler was a fine man, he served honorably in this congress and he cared about human beings. he was my friend and i'll miss him. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. tonight i rise to celebrate an american family in colorado. steve and aingey patterson inden, colorado, have three wonderful children, cade and measure inand tonight we pay special tribute to their son jake, celebrating his 10th birthday. they will soon be the next generation of americans leading this country and making choices. the choices that we make in this

place will impact their lives and their future. they're counting on us to do the right thing. mr. speaker, tonight i wish that they have a very happy celebration together for the family and we wish them the best. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i too am here to acknowledge the passing of a wonderful human being and my friend, john adler. congressman john adler served in the house of representatives representing a portion of our state of new jersey. john was hysterically funny guy. brilliant, he was a loving husband, a loving father to four outstanding young men. he was a leader in the new jersey state senate, recognized for his intelligence and his

contribution to the people of new jersey. i am still in shock at his passing. he did not deserve to die young. he was such a good man. i want to convey my thoughts and prayers to his wonderful wife, shelley, and to their four sons, jeffrey, alex, andrew and olver, on the passing of this great and good and wonderful man, john adler. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. shimkus: i want to congratulate a native southern illinoisan and a living legend in the sport of basketball, mr. jerry sloan, who retired recently as head coach of the nba's utah jazz. jerry never forgot his humble

roots. throughout his playing and cofling -- coaching career, he a down to earth demeanor and an unassuming style. he ended what was the longest tenure of a same team with an active head coach in the four major sports leagues. is he third on the all-time nba wins lists with 1,221. jerry was an outstanding athlete, played college basketball at the university of evansville, leading the purple aces to consecutive national championships, he was drafted into the nba by the baltimore bullets and then went to the chicago bulls in the expansion draft. he played 10 years with the bulls and has his number four jersey retired by the team. in 1979 he was named head coach of the bulls. he resigned in 1982 and joined the jazz as an assistant coach in 1984. he became the jazz head coach in 1988. jerry led the jazz to the nba finals twice, he was inducted into the naismith basketball hall of fame in 2009. jerry's a gracious, honest, tractor-loving guy. he will be missed in utah, but those of us in southern illinois

will welcome the chance to see him more often. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: john adler was in the class just after me and i got to know him well because of the freshmen and sophomore classes went through learning how to serve in this congress together. i also got to know him because we happened to have our lockers in the same section of the gym. and i'm stunned, as we all are, but what was so amazing to me in my getting to know john adler was i learned about his harvard education, the college and the law school, i had some assumptions about him that he had a much more prosperous early life than he did. he to earn everything that he got. i also learned about the challenges that he faced and

what was clear to me, as it was to all of us who got to know him, is that he was a person who made a decision that whatever the challenge, he was going to face it with good humor, with optimism, with a sense of doing the work because it was worth doing for in and of itself. i also remember many times asking him about his weekend and what he always responded with was something about his family. it wasn't about the speech he gave, it wasn't about the press release or starring in the paper or tv. it was always about his family. john adler was a good friend, he will be missed, wonderful, wonderful servant in congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any more requests for one-minute special orders? seeing none, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. sloipleeves of absence requested for mr. black -- for

mrs. black of tennessee for today, mr. frelinghuysen today through april 6, mr. poe of texas for today and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. urn the speaker's announced policy of january 5 20 11, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you very much and what we're going to do here for the next hour is talk about why we feel so strongly the need to repeal and if not successful to defund so many provisions of patient

protection and affordable care act. but mr. speaker, before i get started in the subject at hand, i do want to join my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, in remembering our colleague john adler. i didn't realize that he'd been sick. i didn't realize he'd had surgery. i didn't realize until just moments ago that our colleague from new jersey had died. and as i sat here listening to the new jersey delegation on both sides of the aisle talk about john and it helped me understand a little bit better about him and all i know about him is that he was a great guy and a really, really nice member of this body and someone that i respected an i got to

know him, mr. speaker, in the house gym. at 6:00 in the morning, usually. he would be working out and i'd be working out. i'm 15 years older than john was and we just struck up with good friendship. i truly will miss him as well as my other colleagues as they express their sympathy to his wife and four sons. it reminds me, too, mr. speaker, that as we do our work, as we do our work with one minutes and we do our work with five-minute special orders and now this leadership hour talking about a very important issue, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the most part, almost 100% of them, feel very differently about this issue. we differ on a lot of things and we'll continue to do that. it's gone on forever. but the point i would like to make, and i'll conclude with this, is that there are 435 in

this house of representatives. sometimes we republicans in the majority -- are in the majority, sometimes the democrats are in the majority, the world turns, nothing is forever. we have good, decent men and women serving here, representing their districts, doing the work of the people, god bless them, god bless each and every one of them, god bless a member like john adler, who died much too young, as my colleagues said already, but we always need to keep in mind as we argue and debate and make points and feel strongly about an issue that doesn't mean we don't love one another. i lovedon adler, he was a great member of this body. mr. speaker, i -- again, here we are getting right back to the business at hand and this is a hugely important week as

we try to come to some conclusion in regard to how much money we need to cut out of not this year's -- this fiss ka -- fiscal year we're in right now, but the last fiscal year, which started -- well, actually we're in the fiscal year but it started on october 1 of 2010 and here we are, what is it, the 4th of april, 2011, so half of the fiscal year has already expired and we have not funded the government except in this piecemeal fashion. we didn't have a budget, we didn't have spending bills, we put these lit twol-week band-aids, two or three weeks, a little bit of cutting, but from my perspective, from my side of the aisle and our leadership, not nearly, nearly enough and we're faced with this tremendous issue of trying to reach a compromise and an

agreement to lower spending and the american people certainly gave a mandate, i think, to 87 new republicans and nine new democrats to come up here and quit all this spending. let's not have $1.5 trillion deficits year after year after year. that's how you get to $14 trillion worth of debt. that's what we're facing right now. indeed in a month or so, we're going to be able to -- going to be asked to raise that dealt ceiling, saying we're going to continue to borrow and kick the can down the road. these are times that try men and women's souls and we all feel very strongly about our position but i know my leadership and members on this side of the aisle and i hope our democratic colleagues feel the same way, we hope and pray

we can do the people's work and cut this spending and get this country back on a sound fiscal footing so that as we go forward, the 2012 budget, which will -- weal hear about tomorrow that we will continue to work hard to finally balance this budget and get our country out of this significant debt. speaking of debt, mr. speaker, the reason i'm here tonight, i represent the caucus on the republican side of the aisle known as the house g.o.p. doctors caucus. there are, i think, 21 of us now, doctors and nurses on this side of the aisle with just years and years of clinical experience, as an example, i

spent 26 years practicing my specialty of obstetrics and gynecology, we have registered nurses that are part of the doctors caucus, we have specialist general surgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, family practitioners, gastro interologists, some of them hopefully will be with me, join me this hour, and talk about our concerns, their concerns, mr. speaker, with the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010. this was a bill a law that was timely passed and signed by president obama on march 23, 2010, after about a year and a half of debating the issue on both -- in this chamber and in

the senate chamber and when it finally came down to the reality that there weren't enough votes on the senate side, it was passed by something called reconciliation, which to this day i don't think the american people understand. but mr. speaker, i'll tell you this, what they do understand is they don't like it, they didn't like the process, and they don't like the policy. now, i have heard the president say, and i have heard the democratic leadership in the 111th congress when this bill was passed talk about how congress and particularly the democratic members have been trying to pass a comprehensive, massive health care reform law for almost 100 years. they talked about franklin delano roosevelt and they talked about john fitzgerald kennedy and they talked about,

of course, president bill clinton, saying, you know, we finally got there, finally did it, finally accomplished what we've been trying to do for almost 100 years. they miss the point, mr. speaker. the reason why that type of legislation was not passed in 100 years is because the american people back then didn't want it any more than they do today. and some 62% still say very loudly and very clearly in poll after poll after poll, we don't want the federal government taking over health care. 1/6 of our economy, lock, stock, and barrel, we don't want that. we want improvement in our health care, no matter how good something might be, there's always room for improvement.

clearly our health care system is too expensive. we agree with that. i think members on both sides of the aisle can reach that conclusion pretty clearly so there's agreement to try to do everything we can to continue to provide the best health care in the world. it's not true when people say our health care system is like that of a third world country. nothing could be further from the truth. we have the greatest health care system in the world. some of the doctors in the house g.o.p. caucus will be with me tonight to talk about that. so, you know, the old expression don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, i think that's what we have tended to do here. we've enacted into law on march

23 of last year, it's already had its one-year anniversary a couple of weeks ago, we have done something that i think that is not only opposed to what the american people want, you should never do that, but it's bad. it's bad medicine. it's bad for consumers, it's bad for patients, it's certainly bad for corporate america, and it's absolutely bad for the taxpayer. and it's a top-down sort of system where a bureaucracy comes between, literally and figuratively a doctor and his or her patient. that's not a prescriptions for improving our health care system. i've got a couple of posters here with me, i want to reference these to my colleagues, in fact, i'll have several more but i'm going to

keep this one up on my far left, that one that shows the picture, i forget what his name was, maybe one of my colleagues will remember. boss hogg -- i remember that, i was trying to remember the actor's name, i don't think he's still living, i think my colleagues remember boss hogg from the dukes of hazzard was one of my favorites, poking fun at ourselves really, sort of like archie bunker and "all in the family," those of us who have been around a while can look back on and get a chuckle out of it. but boss hogg represents the boss. the bureaucracy, if you will, of the government, big government, running health care. under boss hogg's picture,

there he is with that cigar in his hand, you can have whatever you like, as long as the boss approves it. that's really the way it's turned out. we talked about in the house, i think it was h.r. -- house of representatives bill number 3200. it was senate bill 3590 -- h.r. 3590 a shell bill that came over from the senate that was passed into law and became known as patient protection and affordable care act but that law has so much bureaucracy and i'll get into some of the numbers on that in regard to all of the new folks in the government that would control health care but all under this giant government takeover in boss h -- and boss hogg

represents that to me as a way of communicating with the public. in my regard, before i continue with some of the statistics on the bill, i see i'm joined by my cheeg from georgia, a fellow physician and a member of the house g.o.p. caucus, who is a family practice physician, from the athens area, where the great university of georgia is located, dr. paul broun is actually a doctor who makes house calls which is really unique and refreshing and he's been a welcome addition to not only our georgia delegation but this body, and i'm proud at this time to yield time to the gentleman from athens, augusta, and my hometown, dr. paul broun. mr. broun: thank you. dr. gingrey, i have taken a

history and physical of obamacare and i have looked at all the laboratory results, i've looked at all the x-ray results and i've got a diagnosis. obamacare is a destroyer. it's going to destroy jobs in america. in fact, already it's destroyed jobs. i've got a lady in my district that right now today has eight people in her employment. she desperately wants to expand her business, she'd like to hire at least one or two more people for her small business, but she's not going to do it because of the onerous effect of obamacare on her business. so it's destroying at least one or two jobs in that one lady's business. i've got another business man in my district that wants to make a $31 million expansion of his business. he has the cash in the bank. he doesn't even have to borrow it, with all the regulations and

problems that we're facing with the financial problems that the frank-dodd bill has placed on banks as well as small business, he wants to make a $31 million expansion of his business. but he's not going to do it. because of obamacare. and because of the increased taxes and also the increased burden that this is going to place on him. that's killing hundreds of jobs. just in two businesses within my district. so it's going to destroy jobs, but it's also going to destroy budgets. it expands medicaid. in fact, the state of georgia has a balanced budget amendment to our state constitution, our general assembly, they're just going through the process of trying to balance its budget with a $2 billion shortfall because of the downturn of the economy, downturn of the economy naffs created basically because -- that was created basically because of policies that were put in place by democrats.

barney frank was a big part of that, too. but obamacare expands medicaid markedly. in fact, the state of georgia is going to have to add about half again as many people to the medicaid rolls in georgia and the state budget's going to have to pick that up and it's going to shore the -- destroy the state budget and it's going to destroy every state budget in this country and it's going to destroy our budget. it's certainly not affordable. in fact, we see this administration already i think it's 1,168 waivers that they've already given to unions and businesses and different entities, just because of the onerous financial affects it's going to cause to all those people. and it's going to destroy family budgets. i had a lady tell me about her 26-year-old son recently that his insurance doubled from last year to this because of

obamacare. he's paying for his insurance himself. he's self-employed. and he can't afford it. so it's going to destroy budget, it's going to destroy family budget, it's going to destroy state budgets, it's going to destroy the federal budget. not only is it going to destroy jobs, it will destroy budgets, it's also going to destroy the quaflt health care. in fact, -- the quality of health care. in fact, we were told and i'm sure you're going to bring this up, the american people were told by the president, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. nothing could be further from the truth. the american people need to understand it. the american people need to understand obamacare was designed to force everybody out of their private insurance and into a single-payer socialized health care system that the president himself said that he wanted just before obamacare was passed into law. so my diagnosis is, it's a

destroyer. it's going to destroy jobs, it's going to destroy budgets, it's going to destroy the quality health care. and also how they -- plan of action. so i made the assessment so we need to have a plan of action. and our plan of action, dr. gingrey, and the american people need to understand this, it's absolutely critical that we repeal obamacare and replace that law with something that makes sense, that truly lowers the cost of health care. there have been numerous republican bills introduced here in this congress, in the last congress, that would lower the cost of health care. i introduced two that would appeal obamacare and replace it with something else. someone a comprehensive bill. i call it the patient option act. it's 106 page, not almost 3,000. and then i introduced another act that democrat after democrat colleague told me, paul, this

makes sense, moreso than obamacare. it's a good first step. the american people want us to do it in a step by step process. it would allow purchases for individuals and businesses across state lines. it would allow anybody in this country to buy insurance through an association. they'd have multiple insurance products. at a much lower cost. it would stimulate the states to set up high risk pools. several states have already done. that mississippi, i talked to governor haley barbour about his plan, their high risk pool that they have in mississippi that's been very successful, colorado's done the same thing, i understand. and the fourth thing it would do is allow everybody to deduct 100% of their health care costs off their income taxes. that will change the dynamics of health care. so, dr. gingrey, i've done that physical examination, history and physical, my subjective objective assessment and a plan.

the plan is we must, absolutely must repeal obamacare and replace it with something else. a market-based system that literally lowers the cost of health care and keeps all decisions in the doctor-patient relationship. obamacare does none of those. it's not affordable for the government nor individuals nor businesses, it's certainly not going to preserve the quality of care because it is a destroyer. so i have made that diagnosis, dr. gingrey, and i will yield back to you for our further discussion. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his contribution and for being with us this evening. i've realized there are conflicting things going on on capitol hill this evening, very important things, but i really appreciate dr. broun being with us and i know that we have also been joined by another member of the doctors caucus, that's our good friend and new member,

freshman member, from the great, great state of new york, where my daughter and seasonal reside and -- son-in-law reside and ms. buerkle is a registered nurse by profession and certainly knows of what she speaks in regard to health care, representing the angels of mercy, if will you, and it gives me great pleasure to yield time to ann marie buerkle. she is concerned, mr. speaker, about the health insurance industry and the complexity of such and maybe even wants to discuss some ways that we can change and improve certainly -- improve, certainly improvement is called for and it doesn't have to be within a 2,400-page bill, as dr. broun was mentioning obamacare entails. so at this time i'm proud to

yield to representative ann marie buerkle. ms. buerkle: thank you. and thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, it's good to be here. i thank the distinguished gentleman, my colleague from georgia. i am very honored to be here to speak about health care in the united states of america. as was said, i am a registered nurse, i've basketball been a registered nurse for -- i've been a registered nurse since 1972. a time in our nation's health history where the physicians and the patient had a relationship and the government had not injected itself into that relationship. and then after a while i went into law and for the last 13 years, mr. speaker, i have been a health care attorney for a large teaching hospital in upstate new york, for the last 13 years. and what we did in that hospital and in my role as an assistant attorney general was we looked at money, money that was owed to the state of new york and so i had a very upclose and personal

look at the complexity of health care in our country today. and i contend that this bill, this piece of legislation that does anything but reform health care, will only increase the complexity of health care in this country. it will only make it more complicated. it will once again take -- put the government right in the middle of the patient-physician relationship and i contend that's not what the united states of america is about. we need to let the free market play here in our health care system. i've spoken in the district to many, many people. i've done all kinds of talks, but there's nothing more upclose and personal and of great concern to me as the health care system in our country. it is an issue that affects every american in one way, shape or form.

this health care bill does not improve the health care system in this country. i came to washington with a wide range of goals as a freshman, as my colleague has mentioned. but nothing is more important to me than repealing this health care bill, this 2,000-plus-page bill that does anything but reform health care. it adds to the complexity of an already complex system, it puts the government in places where it shouldn't be, it doesn't protect that patient-physician relationship. last week when i was in the district i had my very first health care advisory council meeting and i spoke with a group of physicians, a group of health care providers, hospital administrators, and we had a conversation and i said to them, what are your concerns as health care providers? you're on the frontline, what can we do down in washington to

make health care, the delivery system better, the delivery system more affordable? and they looked at me and interestingly enough all of the people on the frontlines came up with different solutions. because, as you can imagine, doctors and health care providers are good at diagnosing , the question is now about the solution. what are we going to do for health care in this country? and we're here tonight to say, this bill is the wrong bill for this country. but we're not willing to leave it go at that. we understand that true health care reform will include medical malpractice reform, we needer to the reform in this country -- we need tort reform in this country, we need to increase the use of health savings account, we need to make insurance portable so we can, when a person loses their job, they don't necessarily lose their health care coverage. we need to allow for the purchase of health care across

state lines. we need to put the patient back in the center of health care. and i contend that this health care bill does not do that. so as we sat around and i said to my group of health care advisors and i said to them, what is it that concerns you most regarding health care in this country? and the first thing was, our health care this health care bill that was just passed. and when you get into why did does it concern you, because it adds so many layers of bureaucracy and regulations to an already ladened bureaucracy and already an industry and system that's ladened with regulations. if you talk to a hospital or a physician, the regulations and the impediments they have to access that patient for health care is incredible. and so the concern with this bill is it adds so many more layers, it takes this health care bill and one of the biggest

problems with this health care bill is that it takes a piece of legislation and it hands it off to the regulators and then with the regulators they're left to interpret and to deal with and come up with regulations that affect our health care providers. beyond that they recognize the need for tort reform. we need medical malpractice liability reform if we're going to talk about reducing the cost of health care, we must consider that. and then they talked about the increased regulations on the health care profession. what we all agreed upon in that meeting was that the health care in this country, it's a good health care system, we have good health care, the quality of health care is not the issue. the issue is the system of health care. that bill that was passed in 2010 does nothing to make that health care system better. it only economy compli cates it,

it only ladened it with more regulations and once again puts the government back in between the physician and the patient relationship. i thank my colleague who has an esteemed history of being a medical provider in the health care industry and he understands these issues, he understands what good health care, what a good health care system would look like, so i commend him and i thank him for this opportunity to speak. i think that with what we need to do here in washington -- that what we need to do here in washington is to repeal this health care bill and we need to put our heads together collectively and talk to the professionals, talk to the health care providers, talk to the patients and get together and come up with a systemic plan that will reduce the cost of health care, help to improve access to health care and not,

not affect the quality of the wusm health care that the united states of america offers. in my years in the attorney general's office, as representing a large teaching hospital, i know how many people wanted to come to this country for health care. i know people from canada and from europe, because they knew they had access to good, quality care. they knew they wouldn't have a six or a nine-month wait. i think with this system, if we allow it to go on, this health care bill, we will see those six and those nine-month waits while patients are waiting for the government to make a decision about their health care access. so we need, we need to repeal this bill and we need to enact true health care reform so that we can improve access, we can reduce the cost of health care and we can maintain the fine quality of health care in this system. thunge my colleague, and i yield back. mr. gingrey: i than the gentlewoman from new york for sharing her thoughts.

certainly, i agree completely with her. she clearly knows of what she speaks. this law is no longer a bill. it is now the law. patient protection, affordable -- patient protection and affordable care act, it's been the law for a little more than a year and of course the congressional budget office that estimates the cost of laws that we put into effect, they give us an estimate when it's in the bill form so members can decide whether or not what we're about to do is something that is affordable. and the estimate of this law costing $900 billion, mr. speaker, the true cost over the next 20 years is probably in the neighborhood of $3 trillion.

not $900 billion. but i do want to just talk about that number and remind my colleagues about the pay-for provision that the democratic party, the former majority party in the 111th congress had in place at the time this bill was passed. everything had to be paid for. so you had to figure out a way to come up with the money. in passing this bill and paying for it, mr. speaker, some $570 billion was taken out of the current medicare program. the medicare program, which serves something like 47 million of our seniors, five million or six million of them are younger people who are on disability, that are covered

under medicare. and we literally, to help pay for this new entitlement, this new entitlement has very little to do with medicare except that half of the money, half of the pay-for in this $900 pl was taken from -- in this $900 billion was taken from a program, medicare, focused on our disabled and elderly, providing them health care, half of the money was taken out of that system and the act warnes an medical trustees tell us that over the next 75 years the unfunded liability, mr. speaker, of medicare is something like $35 trillion, with a t. $35 trillion. yet we took the money by cutting medicare advantage, something like $120 billion. we cut money out of hospice.

we cut money out of long-term care. skilled nursing homes. we cut money out of home health care. we taxed everything that even looked like it has anything to do with health care, durable medical equipment, supplying oxygen for people that were, and are continuing to struggle from chronic obstructive pull mo anywhere disease, em-- obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema is a term we use a lot. finally they can say, we paid for this. at the same time, mr. speaker, we did absolutely nothing in regard to medical liability reform. something that probably, if we enacted, if there was something

in this bill, because ma care, as the president did promise that there would be, could save $200 billion a year, according to rand corporation and other think tanks, from the overall cost of health care, 1/6 of our entire economy, gross domestic product in a year. that's how big this industry is. so nothing, essentially nothing in the bill about medical liability reform. why do i say that, mr. speaker? my colleagues, i think you understand that it's not about the high insurance premiums that doctors have to pay on an annual basis so that they can practice and be protected from liability if something goes wrong. obviously they need that protection.

and those health insurance premiums for the high-risk specialties like the one that i enjoyed for 26 years, ob/gyn, neurosurgery, mr. speaker, think about that doctor, the tucson medical center, that was there in that emergency room when our colleague, representative gabrielle giffords was taken there literally near death. and i think dr. reed was his -- dr. rhee was his name. i learned later he was a graduate of the great school i went to georgia tech, the georgia institute of technology. dr. rhee spent his career after completing medical school in the military, served his country for something like 22, 23 years, and he happened to be in that emergency room as head of the trauma center with all

that specialty training and all those years of treating our wounded warriors in many conflicts, i'm sure afghanistan and iraq, mr. speaker, if he had not been there our colleague, gabrielle giffords, god bless her, we would be talking about her today as we were talking earlier about john adler. our former colleague who died today from the great state of new jersey. but that doctor was there. he was there. i fear, as i talk about this new health care law, there's hardly any provision in there that would provide for doctors, even primary care physicians, there's some attempt but when you take all the additional medicaid eligible patients,

increasing the minimal eligibility at 138% of the federal poverty level you add just millions of additional patients to be seen and literally hundreds of billions of dollars of additional cost on the backs of our states that have to have a balanced budget, unlike here in the federal government where we just keep borrowing money and we're now up to $14 trillion worth of debt. so we have a huge problem. in regard to this law that the c.b.o. says costs $900 billion over 10 years. i say, and this poster points it out, true cost, the last bullet point with the red dot, $2.2 trillion and counting. but as ms. pelosi said, and i

quote her in the third bullet point here, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. and that was before the bill passed and clearly we're finding out now, unfortunately, what the true cost is. mr. speaker, i want to yield additional time to the gentlelady from new york. ms. buerkle: my colleague brought up the cost of the health care bill. i think it's interesting to talk about and insert what i've heard from the health care community throughout the course of this discussion. for many hospitals who have a high level of indigent patients, there is what was called a disproportionate share of money that was paid to those hospitals to help them offset the cost of treating folks who are on medicaid and who are not able to afford their own health care coverage this health care bill repufes the

disproportionate share and phases out the payment to hospitals so that they can afford to treat indigent patients who cannot afford health care. i think that's a very significant piece of this bill and this law that was not discussed and how it will impact and how it will hurt hospitals. i think beyond that, we need to talk about seniors and the choices that this health care bill takes away from seniors, again, that wasn't discussed. the medicare advantage programs and all the disadvantages that this bill will cost seniors. we need to keep our health care system intact so those who need assistance, such as the seniors, have access to good health care and their coverage is not hurt this bill does hurt senior coverage. i yield back. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right. as i pointed out in that

$500-plus billion cut out of the medicare program to help pay for this new entitlement, patient protection affordable care act, $20 billion of the $500-plus billion was taken from the medicare advantage program. the medicare advantage program enrolls about 20% to 25% of our medicare beneficiaries. why so many? we're talking about maybe 11 million to 12 million sign up and decide that rather than the traditional fee for service and just pick a doctor out of the yellow pages that accepts medicare, it's more like a health maintenance organization that emphasizes wellness, it emphasizes prevention, tests that are not typically covered under traditional fee for

service medicare like colon cancer screening, breast cancer screening, mammograms for women, especially between the ages of 40 and 60. prostate cancer screening for men, annual physical examinations, followup from a nurse practitioner within the doctor's office, maybe even on a monthly basis to make sure that the senior is taking the medication that was prescribed by the primary care doctor. all of these things are included with medicare advantage. that's why it's called medicare advantage. it is an advantage. with very little additional cost. in fact, people that, mr. speaker, that are under those programs don't have to buy supplemental, typically don't have to buy supplemental

insurance to cover co-pays and deductibles. and hospital care after you've exhausted your benefit. and so that's why so many choose that. and yet what we've done is we've stripped -- we've gutted that program so badly that those 12 million it's estimated seven million of them will lose that coverage under medicare advantage and have to get it under traditional medicare and pay $130 a month extra for that supplemental, whether they get it through a plan that's endorsed by the american association of retired persons or some health insurance company, but that's the average cost, it's going to be an additional $130 a month for most folks. so as we talk about the cost, i do want to shift, mr. speaker, do want to shift, mr. speaker, to the cost to