less of the district than jason a altmeyer is challenging the position. chris's campaign manager actually used to work for at t altmeyer. democrats have more of these contests amongst themselves than republicans by a count of seven races to four races. there are two that features a democrat versus a republican. a lot of democratic money is being spent fighting other democrats. that's good news for republican. >> what does this tell you overall about the state of congressional redistricting and what we've seen ten years ago and what we're seeing today? >> well, this is a more turbulent redistricting cycle than we've seen ten years ago. it's more like 1992 in terms of e the turnover. we currently have 15 member versus member races. we have headed for the exits. overall there are so far 20

newly created seats. altogether the number to have districts with no incumbent is somewhere between 55 and 60 which is a pretty high number for this point in the election cycle and should only go higher. that's by any count a pretty high turnover level in the house. but doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to lead to a large partisan wave that allows the democrats to take the house back. >> the l.a. times indicating with the retirement, he is the sixth house member to announce stepping down at the end of this term. its impact on california politics, the clout it currently has. david dreier was first elected in 1980 when ronald reagan was going to the white house. >> that's right. california actually has twice the clout of all other states even controlling for its large size of the delegation. 53 members. and that's in large part of result of the incumbent pass

that allowed so many members to in congress than defending back home. this time is the rug pulled out from under many of california's incumbents. a lot of them are deciding it's a convenient time to retire. >> are you keeping track of what impact this has chaired by congressman dreier. if the democrats regain the house this year, one would presume she would be next in line to take over as the chair of the committee. if the republicans keep the house, who takes over? >> that's a good question. i wish i had that off the top of my head. but slaughter is actually trying to figure out where the lines are going to be. because new york is kind of the state in this mix to embark on redrawing its lines. there are any number of ambitious new york lawmakers waiting for an opportunity to

move up. but slaughter is certainly hoping the democrats can take back the house so she can become chair. >> i know you're focusing on the house but the announcement that olympia snow is stepping down. she a self-described moderate republican. prassed from president obama. he doesn't send out statements with republicans retiring but he did so yesterday with news olympia snowe is leaving. your thought on the impact it will have? >> it impacted the senate mass. one seat means so much when you only have 33 senate seats up for election every two years. and what this has done is essentially set up a list of every main political name under the sun that's not susan collins as a potential candidate for this successor to snowe.

and so both democratic members of the house remain are taking a look at it. they have very different styles. they may not be the only democrats who jump into the race. they may not both jump into the race. question about whether republicans can take -- convince a good candidate to enter the race or whether an independent candidate since maine has a strong independent streak enters this race and makes it more difficult. >> david wasserman who is the house editor for the cook political report. someone who knows more about every congressional district nationwide. thanks for sharing your expertise. >> thank you very much. >> pete sessions is the ranking republican. so -- but there's also the scrambling going on. thanks very much being with us. david wasserman. meanwhile, democrats say that

the vote this week -- the debate in the vote this week on birth control may help their candidates among women in the elections. reporting from bloomberg news. planning to vote tomorrow friday on a republican proposal that would let insurance plans refuse that violate their religious bleaches. it would cancel the rule from president obama's administration that requires health insurers to cover contraceptive without charge of affiliate institutions. we'll begin with senator blunt of missouri. >> this is an amendment that would allow religious belief or moral conviction to -- we have

long had this exemption for hiring mandates. and when i served in the house of representatives, i'd been a president of a southern baptist university. i understood the importance of these institutions. as part of why they provide education and health care and day care and other things. and so i have long been an advocate the supreme court held up just a few weeks ago 9-0 that there is a difference in these faith-based institutions. and now that we have health care mandates for -- that could apply to the institutions, all this amendment does is to extend the same privilege to them, and others who have a religious belief or moral conviction that

would lead -- that would they would be able to defend their moral conviction, and we don't do anything about the mandate, itself, and it is important to understand, mr. president, that the administration, this one or any other if the affordable health care act is still in force can issue ale of the mandates that the act would allow and in fact, if you don't comply with the mandates, you'd have the penalties that the act would allow, but the difference is that if the government would not recognize your religious belief or moral conviction as i think they would likely do. for example, the archdiocese of washington, d.c. saying this is something we have long held as a tenet of our faith. we don't want it to be part of the insurance policies of our schools or hospitals. my guess is if we pass this amendment without any question, the justice department would say well, you're certainly going to be able to defend that.

that's been your belief. this amendment doesn't mention any procedure of any kind. just this morning we had a reporting call the office, said we can't find the word contraception in this amendment anywhere. how is this a vote on contraception? we were able to say the word contraception is not in there because it's not about a pacific procedure. it's about a faith principle that the first amendment guarantees. >> the statement on the senate floor earlier today by senator blunt. mitt romney of massachusetts and rick santorum have accused obama of -- reacting without outrage. when the president is part of the health care plan. include birth control as part of the required elements of any

health care insurance plan on february 10th earlier this month the white house announcing a compromise requiring insurers, not affiliated colleges and institutions. more debate today on the senate floor. this from senator barbara mikulski. >> this is an amendment to the highway bill in which we could if we passed the highway bill we could create thousands of jobs in construction and get america rolling. instead we have to deal with the blunt amendment which again is an attempt to derail the ability for the american people to get the health care services that's deemed essential by their doctor. the blunt amendment is a

significant overreach in terms of a new power to employers to deny health care. now, make no mistake. this is politics masquerading as morality. politics masquerading as morality. what does the blunt amendment do? it allows any health insurance company or any employer to deny coverage for any service they choose based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. what's a moral conviction? where does a moral conviction come from? i have moral convictions. you have moral convictions. we have different moral convictions. and let me repeat. any employer can do this. any insurer can do it based on a vague abstraction called moral con conviction. what would this mean? yes. does it mean that women could -- if you have a moral conviction,

that you want to have children that you know you can care for and afford, you have a moral conviction that you want to have access to birth control. if you have a belief that you need to have the health care that you need based on what society says, you should. under the blunt amendment, if an employer has a conviction against smoking, they can refuse treatments for lung cancer or emphysema. if an employer says i don't approve of drinking and i refuse to cover any treatment program for alcoholism or substance abuse, they could do it. there could be an employer who has a moral conviction against blood transfusions and refuse to cover that. it puts the personal opinions of employers over the practice of medicine. the personal opinions of employers over the practice of medicine.

we must remember that the preventive health services insurers are to require, the preventive health care package was not developed by politicians. it was developed by the institute of medicine, a learned society that said what would be the key benefits necessary to do this. i urge the defeat of the blunt amendment because we cannot provide this wide latitude to disrupt, derail the ability of people to get health care. >> the comments of senator barbara mikulski as she spoke earlier in the day. again, the vote on the blunt amendment is expected tomorrow. watch live coverage on c-span2.

urging passage of a bill aimed at reestablishing water access for thousands of california residents, farmers that were blocked by some policies put in place by the obama administration. speaker boehner also urging that the white house should support the bill because it would help reestablish farming jobs in california. even though as the hill newspaper reports issued a veto threat against the measure earlier today. we'll begin with comments of representative grace napolitano, a representative from california. >> hr-1837, the san joaquin water reliability act is anything but. it repeals state law as written for the use of the water from the san joaquin river in california central valley. it reallocates water in a way that elevates agricultural uses above all other water needs. that's municipal, fisheries, environmental uses. if enacted, this would -- bill

is mostly aimed at california. believe me, mostly california. but it would set an unprecede unprecedented standard of state preemption, privatization of a public resource for the benefit of a select few. and it could be in my estimation be renamed the barrister employment act. this is the california state legislature. 1837 is almost breathtaking in its total disregard for equity and its willful -- my colleagues on the other side have asked for less intrusion of government control. let the locals handle it. this would do the reverse. it would put it in the hands of the federal government to be able to determine the state's rights to enact its own water laws. despite amendments to the bill by the majority, it seems to

make sweeping negative changes. amends the state constitution and undermines california's ability to manage its own resources. it would repeal or overturn nearly 20 years of environmental protections under the central valley improvement act. and the endangered species act which is normally on the attack by my friends on the other side. >> grace napolitano. she is from california. more background on this san joaquin valley water reliability act. according to the hill newspaper, it is a republican response to the obama administration's regulations which essentially restricted water flow to some farms and communities in order to protect the delta smelt which is a small fish. the republicans and some democrats have argued this decision created a man-made drought. favoring species protection over food production and economic growth. more on the house floor today

with tom mcclintock. he's a republican also from california. >> i thank the gentleman from yielding. stating the opposite of this bill with remarkable precision. it does not repeal 20 years of california water law. it restores it by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a coalition in 1994. in fact, at the time the democratic interior secretary assured all parties that this agreement would be honored at the state and local governments. his promise was broken first by his own department and most recently when a federal government deemed the delta smelt to be more important than the livelihoods of farm workers. hundreds of billions of gallons of water that these communities had already paid for and depended upon were simply expropriated and cavalierly

dumped into the pacific ocean turning much of california's fertile central valley into a dust bowl. this bill redeemed the promise made to the people of california and restores the allocations that were agreed to. we hear well, that was then and this is now and the science has changed. what they're referring to is not science. it is ideology masquerading as science. in 2010 their claims were thrown out of the federal court which cited ideological zealots to mislead and deceive the court into accepting what is not only the best science, it's not science. >> the comments of representative mcclintock, a republican from california. again, the house taking up this measure today. you can watch live coverage on our network at c-span and on the web on c-span.org. the house speaker making a rare appearance on the floor today

urging for passage of this bill which essentially would reestablish water access for thousands of california residents along the san joaquin vally. you're listening to "washington today" on c-span radio. david gregory. >> chris wallace. >> bob schaffer. >> hear five talk shows replayed each sunday afternoon on c-span radio. starting at noon eastern, nbc's "meet the press" "state of the union" and "face the nation." key political figures and the round tables brought to you by c-span and the networks. replays of the sunday tv network talk shows. sundays starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. c-span radio channel 119.

the actions that you take in the short run whether they be infrastructure or education or tax reform or whatever they may be, i hope that they're considered and wisely chosen. but it's also important that we keep in mind the long-term necessity of making fiscal policy sustainable. so you need to think about those two things together, i think. >> the comments of the fed chair ben bernanke as he testified on capitol hill throwing cold water on the economic outlook today saying further significant declines in employment. welcome to hour two. i'm steve scully. thanks for being with us. also tonight at the white house, the president hosting more than a hundred veterans of the iraq war, commemorative of the more than million that served over the last nine years. a way to pay tribute to the

troops. we'll speak of one of those in attendance later in the program. and north korea has agreed to s enrichment nuclear program. the north koreans and nuclear officials making the announcement earlier today. in exchange, the u.s. will provide food. the announcement from here in washington and the capital of north korea pointing toward an easing of nuclear tensions. it could also clear the way for the resumption of multi-national disarmament talks and also points the way for inspectors to head into north korea to determine what exactly is going on in that country. well, let's begin with our discussion on jobs and the u.s. economy. the chair of the federal reserve testifying on capital hill. he does so twice a year saying that the fed retains modest expectations for the american economy this year. ben bernacke telling the house committee services that the recent rise has not affect how

the u.s. views the economy with about 2.2, 2.7% this year, that is about the same as last year. so we're going to begin with how this testimony unfolded. congressman ron paul among those with some tough questions. we'll hear more from him in just a moment. up next is republican from new york, questioning the fed share about debt and economic growth. >> you have many, many times, including here today, pointed out how important it is to have federal policy that reflects the impending crisis that we face in terms of managing the debt and how that weighs on economic growth. do you have feel as though you're talking passed your administration and congress? that, you know, we're talking passed each other and somehow, you know, how can we make your message resonate? people like me are very

sympathetic to it, obviously. >> well, i -- these criticisms are easy for me to make. i don't have to deal with the politics. and i know they're very, very difficult. it's always hard to explain to people why you have to tighten your belt one way or another. i think, on the one hand, that educating the voters is an important thing. and making sure people understand what the trade-offs are. and i think if they understand it, they'll be more sympathetic to the tough choices we make as a country. but i also think that there is some scope for bargaining within the congress. we've had some very close calls recently. we have, as i mentioned before, this fiscal cliff on january 1st, that might prove an opportunity to negotiate a better, longer-term outcome. we'll see. but i think those are the two directions. one is trying to create a framework in congress for debates, maybe a set of goals, for example.

and the other is to get the voters on our side by education. >> i sympathize very much, sir, with that point of view and have said so myself, as well, that it is about education and awareness. the fiscal cliff to which refer would be the enormous tax increase that we face? that will place -- >> we have a number of measures, including both tax increases, the expiration of the payroll tax cut, the sthings are hittin on the same day. and it's quite a big impact. >> thank you for emphasizing how great that is, sir. >> congressman van heyworth is a republican from new york as he testified before the house financial services committee earlier today. i guess the word would be cautious, cautious optimism,

we'll hear from him in just a moment. but as the fed remaining cautious in part because, in the past, the fed has overestimated the pace of economic recovery. ben bernanke again today reiterating a list of reasons for his own cautious optimism, including the compressed division of the housing market and the economic turbulence in europe. again, the uncertainty of oil prices putting a big cloud on the future of economic recovery and also expectations somewhat lower today about the long-term jobs out look. among those posing the questions, ron paul who is in springfield virginia last night with an eye on super tuesday. he is a member of the house financial services committee with questions to the fed chair who he is often a critic on issues rising, including inflation and rising prices. >> but i do want to make a point about prices because prices go up. that, to me, is not the inflation. it is one of the bad

consequences of the inflation, which comes from the increase in the money supply. and is one of the bad effects. but, you know, you took over the fear in 2006. i have a silver ounce here. and this ounce of silver, back in 2006, would buy over four gallons of gasoline. today, today, it will buy almost 11 gallons of gasoline. that's preservation of value. and that's what -- that's what the market has always said should be money. money comes into effect in a natural way. not in an etic. why is it that we can't consider the two of us an option. you love paper money. i think money should be honest, constitutional, still on the books, gold and silver, legal tender. why don't we use it? but why don't we allow

currencies to run parallel? they do around the world. one of my options, you know, as much as i would like to do something with the fed, i say the fed is going to self destruct, eventually anyway when the money is gone. but why -- why wouldn't we legalize competing currencies? why can't -- couldn't people save -- put this in a mattress and get four or five times as much of the value in a few years. so the record of what you've done in the last six years is destroy the value of real money, of paper money. at the same time, real money is preserved. but a competing currency, we already have a silver eagle. it's legal tender for a dollar. and some people say, well, it's legal tender. it's a dollar. it's on the books. and they use it and they get into big trouble. the government comes and closes them down. you can get arrested for that. but what would be wrong with talking about parallel currency and competing currencies? this is something that i talked about, something that i think would be a compromise and that

we could work along those reviews. >> first of all, good to see you again, congressman paul. [ laughter ] >> just one word on the inflation. of course, those numbers constructed by the bureau of labor statistics, not by the fed. they're independently constructed. i think they're done in a very serious and thoughtful way. on alternative currencies, nobody prevents you from holding silver or gold if you want to. it's perfectly legal to do that. and you're also happy -- it's also perfectly fine to hold other currencies. euros or yen or whatever else. so, in that respect, you can do that. and i'd be happy to talk to you about -- >> but, mr. chairman, that's not money. i mean, when you pay taxes to buy a coin or you have capital gain's tax, if you have to settle a lawsuit, it's always settled in depreciating federal reserve notes. it's never settled in the real contract. so that's nothing near money. when it's illegal to use it.

but to do it, you'd have to repeal the legal tender laws, you'd have to legalize this, you'd have to get rid of sales taxes, you'd have to get rid of the capital gains taxes. even in mexico they're talking about this. they're trying to have competing currencies. they've been wiped out too many times with inflation that wipe out the middle class. they're allowing people to start to save in a silver currency. so i hope we move along in that direction because there shouldn't be any, you know, overwhelming changes all of the sudden that there could be a transition. people could vote on it. maybe they'll give up on the federal reserve and vote for real money. >> i'd be very happy to talk to you about it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> complete with the silver coin, ron paul >> twice a year before house committee and its counter part, the senate banking committee for a formal review of the fed's

management of the nation's monetary policy. the senate hearing, by the way, will be taking place tomorrow here in washington. and, as we said earlier, the overall tone of the hearing today was one of caution. caution optimism. >> you know, they've been burned a couple of times in recent years by being overly optimistic about the condition of the economy by predicting that things were about to take a turn for the better. and then when things, in fact, flat lined or took a turn for the worse, they looked kind of foolish. i think what you're now hearing is a greater caution on their part about finally pronouncing that the economy has turned the corner. >> let me announce one of the looming concerns and that is the potential of higher gas prices, oil prices and energy prices, overall, and the impact it would have on any economic recovery. >> the higher gas and oil prices go, the greater the impact on the economy. you know, there's an