the rating rules that we operate under because those are a lot of the rules we are talking about federally in both the house and senate bills. we can give you the lessons that we have learned over time and some of the opportunities. we introduced our program in january, 1995. is an employee-taurus model. what does that mean? we have -- and employee-choice model. what does that mean? we have employees that we contract with with a range of benefit levels from the companies. we have over 500,000 members in connecticut that participate. one of the things that we talked about is looking at the adverse selection one of the hallmarks of our program when we first started as we sat back and try to standardize the benefits between the four health plans so that we could avoid adverse selection.

we have come very close to having standardize benefits between the four health plans starting on day one in 1995. . . >> the employee's trust their employers. they want to buy their insurance through their employer and they

trust them, but we have to make sure we add value to the marketplace to each individual, company, -- each company, so it is a win-win. there has been an evolution of where we started it. we tried to set specific rules but we have had to change dramatically over the last 15 years we have been doing this. health insurance is very personal, it touches each individual. it touches their families and each situation is different. you need to figure out how you can attract and make sure you are marketing to each of those individuals and satisfy their needs. we have stayed true to our mission the entire time and only focused on small business. we did not get distracted and go into the non-group business.

we stayed true to keeping our objective straight forward and making sure you concentrate on those objectives and not get distracted. from the private sector, and i will be biased because i come from the private sector. from our standpoint, innovation is the key. you have to be able to set out to change and adapt. when we started this we hired employees so that we could administer our program. i said tip of the things to those employees. number one, i guarantee you two things, change and that we forgot something. that was the only two things they were told. that has come true because we have changed dramatically. we have to have the ability to change as we go forward. the selection issues, adverse selection is ripe in this. when you're competing with the outside market it is absolutely

critical that adverse selection is avoided. i will talk about the background of that in two slides. what we do -- what we do from our standpoint is we look like one large employer to the health plan, but we do everything. one of the differences from our exchange is we are the exchange in the sense that we have designed the program and negotiated the contracts of the health plans, but we are also the administrator. we are actually doing the day- to-day operations in the sense that we will do the proposing of what the rates would be and benefits, if a company is looking for a " we will sell it and roll it and hold enrollment meetings and handle billing problems. we sent eligibility to the plans on a day-to-day business. there is one bill that goes out

to employers, so we are trying to provide everything needed per all the communications to all the different segments we are servants -- everything needed for all the communications for all the segments we are serving. what have we learned? we have learned that -- i think i skipped one slide which was critical. let me come back to this slide for one second. that is the rate basis. the basis for connecticut is we've passed small case reform laws in the early 1990's. what that did was it gave us adjusted community rating so there was art no decisions that could be made based on claims. -- there were no decisions based on claims. we have guaranteed issue, we do have some rating factors being age, depended status, that can

change some of the race. we do have a reinsurance pull behind-the-scenes -- a reinsurance pool behind the scenes. it has been very important. as a backdrop, that has been very important for us as a lot of things are included in both the federal and senate bills. some of the lessons as we move forward. i talked about the adverse selection. we have tried to avoid adverse selection from day one. one of the problems is if you are looking for administrative expenses and just to save the expenses, we have a real

problem. even in the bills -- in the group market place they're looking for 8% group loss ratio. even if you save -- they are looking for 80% group loss ratio. how can we change the risk profile underneath to help look at the claims side? i have a problem with putting the loss ratios in there because it stifles innovation and the ability of companies to invest in what they would do to help manage the care or help drive down some costs we are talking about. i can comment later on some of the broker compensations, but we have not allowed any in our program. we also look to make sure we are consistent with what the market does outside of the change. some of the things do that about, there are some unintended consequences.

we use the unintended consequences all the time for what may take place if we make certain decisions. i really think some of the age pieces -- the house has a 2-1 rate bands on pricing. the senate is talking about 3-1. that can be a problem unless there are strong individual mandates. if individuals or small businesses dropped out of the marketplace, the ones that will drop out car the healthier risks. we will end up with a higher risk pool, higher rates and that will leave us in a major problem. there will be problems in trying to figure out these subsidies, and when you look at multiple funding sources and where the dollars come from and how to handle part-time employees, those will be situations. the risk adjustment premium

redistribution becomes an issue because if you are reid dispiriting -- if you are redistributing because -- they could be reducing risks. they are helping them reduced their price. there is focus on wellness and behavior change. that is a big piece john and i were talking about prior to was coming up here, but the culture of moving forward -- we have to look at this. how do we bring something to the small business in the non-group market that large companies are doing tonight? they are trying to figure out how to make a healthier population, how to invest and reduce risks within their population. it is very difficult. we have companies in connecticut we talk to all the time that are

doing this. the large companies -- trendlines have flattened. if we don't bring that into the small business marketplace we will just exacerbate the problem. i have a couple of questions for you. i guess i want to a show of hands but they are touchy questions. i would expect everyone here pretty much knows -- if i said how much of you know how much you weigh? most of you would say i know that. how many of you know your numbers? the numbers be and how many of you know your blood pressure? how many -- the numbers being how many of you know your blood pressure? how many would know your bmi? the question is, as we go forward we cannot just look at administrative expenses and say it will reduce expenses. it needs to do more than that. it needs to move forward into

how do we change the underlying population, the health of the population. if people have multiple risk factor is, how do we do that? -- if people have multiple risk factors. that is very important as we go forward. >> now you get a chance to join the conversation. you can go to one of the microphones. you can fill out a green card. let me take the occasion while we are waiting for our audience to do either or both of those to invite any panelists who would like to make additional comments, to do that now. we have tim jost. >> three quick comments. i agree with john that the small business part of the exchange in both the house and senate bill is problematic as to how that will work. other than the very obvious things like the size of the

groups that participate, when you start getting into the details of how this will work? it gets very complicated. in particular, the senate bill seems to be poorly fleshed out. the problem john identified of the premiums being paid to the company rather than through the exchange is an artifact of the budget process. the cbo put out a memorandum in the spring as to how it will score health care reforms. one of the things it said is that if premiums are paid through the changes, that becomes revenues of the federal government. that means any money that gets sent -- all of a sudden the cost of health care reform has gone up dramatically. i am sure congress did not want to go there. it will be very problematic, particular they because every individual as i understand it in both the house and senate bill will be individually underwritten with respect to the rating factors that remain, which means small businesses

will be paying a different premium for every one of its employees based on age or other factors. just to respond to that, i agree that is a real problem but that is why the problem is there. with respect to the medical loss ratio, under the house bill and under the senate bill as well, medical loss ratios are defined to exclude the costs of improving quality of care. things like disease management programs and chronic care programs will not be considered to be part of the administrative costs. there is some room there for flexibility and innovation. with respect to wellness and when it -- wellness incentives, the senate bill includes a number of provisions to encourage plans participating through the exchange to provide

various quality incentives, including prevention programs. one of the things at it by the manager's amendment to the senate bill was provision -- one of the things added by the managers and then it was -- added by the managers was -- focusing excessively on title one and for getting the rest. there is a lot on prevention will this -- and for getting the rest. i wanted to thank the other participants because -- >> one of those participants has a comment. >> he first point about the cbo ruling on the impact of premiums on the federal budget [inaudible] i was reading it on my way down because it is a critical piece

of technicality that i and a noted -- and in no position to dispute. -- i am in no position to dispute. there are a lot of senators who have looked at the exchange to be a bit of a panacea for small groups suffering with rate increases. i would read this as suggesting has clearly indicating that under the senate version where states are given the option to run premiums to their exchange, and where there is a broad range of benefits down 2/6% actuarial value, under that construction the -- of benefits down to 6% actuarial value.

my larger point is that the cba reading is -- however this is resolved, one cannot look to an exchange to be a vehicle of competition and choice course small employers. >> there is language in there that says even though expenditures are run through the state's, if they are administering the program under federal direction the states may be considered as agents for the federal government. i am not sure the senate can avoid this, but i think you are right that they will probably have an easier time avoiding it running it through the states. i would hate to see the whole program driven by that. >> cbo runs a lot of things. >> i know. >> i put that up this year -- i picked that up this year. we have folks at the microphone. identify yourself and be as

brief as you can so we can get to as many questions as we can. >> how do the changes affect the public and private funding for abortion coverage? >> under the senate bill exchanges have to provide at least one plan that does not cover abortion. beyond that, and other the -- under the senate bill there was a provision they had to cover at least one that did and one that did not come up but i think that came out in the amendment -- one that did not, but i think that came out in the amendment. the exchanges are not very much involved in this. >> kevin. >> the only comment i would add

is -- this is a perspective of the retailer. the requirement to resolve this fundamental moral issue that the store packed two products for everyone real product and -- go into a supermarket. the most critical resource is shelf space, " so when the issue is take two products -- so when the issue is take two products, you have made it twice as hard to shop. probably not a major consideration for people who care about abortion, but if you're thinking about exchanges it is actually a real problem. >> we have tons of questions on carts which leads me to tell you that -- questions on cards, so if you have an urgency with your

question we may have done a bait and switch because you might not get your question asked of the green card. -- the question asked off the green card. can you compare administrative costs to states in the senate and house bills? >> the administrative costs to states in the house bill are minimal because if the state wants to run an exchange it can. it will have to pay matching funds, but it the state chooses not to run an exchange it has no costs involved. in the senate bill pete states are responsible for enforcing the law and -- in the senate bill the states are responsible for enforcing the law and running the exchanges. the cost of running the exchange will be borne by the insurers who will pay some kind of a surcharge, as they do in

massachusetts, don't they? but the costs of enforcement will be borne by the state. it is an unfunded mandate. the administrative costs to the state under the senate bill will be considerable. >> i would take issue with that term unfunded mandate. clearly in the house version, the state does not offer the service it does not have to pay. it is politically unclear what level of federal subsidies will be available to states from the federal budget to pay for the exchange. on the other hand, having the states that run exchanges surcharge the transaction and have to manage the cost of their services in a competitive market is a reasonable way, and focuses the objectives of the local

exchange on its fundamental objectives. that is to get people injured in the most and portable web. -- get people in short in the most affordable way. -- get people insured. >> i was not talking about the cost of running the exchange. >> let me follow up with a related question here that notes health insurance is regulated at the state level today. if the exchange is created at the federal level who would staff the federal exchange, and how much would creating that new structure cost? does anybody have any notion about that? i don't remember seeing anything in the cost estimates. >> the federal exchange would be run by the commissioner of health choices, which is a new administration that will be created under the house bill. the costs of running the

exchanges is to be appropriated by the federal government based on funds collected from the penalty for the employer and individual mandate. i don't know what the cost is that cbo put on that. i am not sure there is a cost put on that by cbo. >> we have some cards -- >> how will the senate approach the 50 state exchanges work and the 10 small states under the -- under a 1 million population? >> if i can magnify that, there is a new paper i don't think we had in time to put into your packets of that economic development. it asserts that you need at least 100,000 lives in an exchange to make it viable.

>> a further problem is that since under the senate bill the exchange is not exclusive, and since the presumption is that a considerable number of people will stay outside the exchange, i think you will be dealing with some very small exchanges that will have a problem with providing insurers with viable risk pools. the senate bill contemplates the possibility of regional exchanges. a state could always forgo the exchange and let the government run it, but i think that is part of the problem i was pointing to with respect to the size of a viable risk pools. >> if you take a business approach you have three sets of issues. you have the business functions that are variable, you have the fixed costs, and you have some

of the mandated functions, the unfunded mandate. these are the regulatory functions and subsidy distribution functions. i would draw your attention to the fact that it is the fixed overhead costs of the business functions that are largely where the economies of scale can be from having [unintelligible] when phil's folks are on the phone with employers explaining why they have to file this new form and why they cannot pay somebody more for health benefits and some the else under federal regulation, or what the difference is between a ppo or an hmo, or any other questions involved, that is largely variable costs. you could have at centralized

and somebody in washington who would not understand the connecticut market trying to understand this question is -- trying to answer those questions over the phone. what you will have the scale economies on and some of the enforcement things are all so variable. the web site, corporate overhead, and i don't know about the 100,000 as a reasonable trigger point for adequate risked pooling, but our experience is somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 is where you get a diminishing returns on scale. if they turn out to the super stuff you could do with 10 million people, which is bigger than any state in exchange, you could have a national utility

exchange run by the feds. they could and should make that available to states with their own exchanges. >> go right ahead. >> i am with a national partnership for women and families. to go off to what you mentioned with the regional exchanges, it the senate language prevails and reform regional exchanges, how they reconcile the difference with trading rules and other regulations? will they have to harmonize -- the difference with rating rules? >> that is a really good question, and it is in a minor scale compared to the same question for 50 states. it is a very good issue. to be perfectly frank, maybe it has happened but i have not in one year of discussions heard an

in-depth discussion of hamas as in -- in-depth discussion of harmonizing exchanges with state insurance regulation. i know in massachusetts we work hand to hand with the state division. if you want to take an existing product of the market because we are standardizing benefits, that directly impacts the regulations on preserving access for the existing members of that product you would like to subset. that is something we will work out in conjunction with the massachusetts division. were the new england it exchange want to do something similar, they have to deal with -- were the new england exchange wanted to do something, they would have to deal with many roles. >> i will agree with that.

any time we are making changes within our exchange, even though we are in the private sector we are looking at the insurance law and talking to insurance departments and sometimes meeting with them to determine what we can do going forward. as i said earlier, it touches everybody. is local, -- it is local, so it will play out more at the state level. >> one response to that is, i anticipate considerable standardization of state insurance laws under health-care reform probably under both bills. the house bill -- the way it works is that it does not nationalized insurance regulation as such. what it does is it says that the national government, we are doing national health care reform.

the commissioner for health choices is accountable for the enforcement and implementation of this law. then there are lots of language about coordination consultation, joint efforts with the states to try to implement the law. a lot of the issues currently addressed by state marketing and consumer protection laws are addressed by this law and will become fairly uniform. they do not preempt state law, but they do cover a lot of the areas that are covered by state law. to the extent a state law would prevent the implementation of the law, that law will be presented. a lot of the difference -- that law will be pre-empted. if the state wants to mandate coverage beyond the essential benefit coverage it will have to pay for that coverage for anyone receiving a premium subsidies.

my expectation is that will create a race to the door to get rid of a lot of state mandates that vary from state to state. my response is that we will see more uniform -- seymour uniformity between state and federal -- we will see more uniformity. the house bill has this attitude of cooperation and coordination that will help work through those problems. that will be an issue. the fear i have is the reverse of that. if you go with the senate approach, a lot of states are pretty work on inch -- they are pretty weak on insurance regulation and they will stay that way. i think some states will just sit there and see if the government will call their bluff. that will be a real disaster.

>> i agree with some of the things that will come together, the guaranteed readability and indeed the -- the guaranteed ratability and the -- connecticut has a high list of mandates. i have never seen one mandate reversed. >> will they be willing to pay for them out of their own pockets? i don't know. >> let me jump in. i am shocked to realize that my 10-member board will seriously begin after enactment to debate whether we should have our own state assessment penalties for violation of mmc in addition to the federal ones. that is how states think the way

they do things even if there is a lot of good will and federal legislation. >> [unintelligible] >> minimum credible coverage. there will be under these bills federal irs foresman of national standards. we have our own in massachusetts. i have begun to realize how difficult that conversation will be with our governor and my own board about, do we see it that to the federal standards? after all, it is a revenue source for our state treasury. >> go right ahead. >> i have two questions. you mentioned undocumented workers would not be allowed to purchase an exchange. when you talk about what options may be available if they want to go for private insurance? the second question is, if the

tax exemption for health benefits went away and that market was forced into the exchange, how do think their benefits might be better or worse off in exchange verses a large group? >> could you repeat the second question? >> are the tax benefits for employers going away and people in large group markets lost their benefits and went to the national exchange, how consumers might fare in the exchange purse is getting benefits through employers? >> with respect -- the exchange versus getting benefits through employers? >> the hope is that they will go home. [laughter] >> which i think they are unlikely to. if they don't, then under the senate bill they can continue to buy health insurance in the non-

group market. if that were incorporated into the house bill and its market is only available through the exchange, i suppose they would not legally be able to buy health insurance. i think that is a real problem. i might be missing something there. >> the seventh part of that question is what happens to large companies when benefits go way and each individual was buying their own individual coverage, i think that is what the question was. if you look at what many of the large companies today, their benefits are richer than what individuals would purchase for themselves in an exchange, said they would probably be in their benefit to be less. the costs would probably be slightly higher. >> i cannot imagine that

happening, although the cadillac tax bothers me because that will grow and grow. at some point we will see a very high percentage of the market subject to that. that will mean a dramatic cut in employee benefits, if not their elimination all together. none of the democrats right now are talking about abolishing -- that will not be in this legislation. >> two-thirds of the population is buying through their employer. where showing the employer-based staying in place. i cannot imagine that much dislocation. -- we were showing the employer- base. >> what happens under this legislation to undocumented immigrants who are now covered under employer-sponsored plans? are they legally going to be

able to continue? >> they are not supposed to be employed. [laughter] but the legislation does not address that. >> fair enough. >> i wanted to ask john but any of you can answer, my assumption is that these small group market which shrank dramatically, most small employers might give workers a little bit more money and go shopping in the exchange as individuals, as opposed to trying to preserve the small employer groups. so you are hard on the house bill on the small employer pays , -- on the small employer peace, so could you speak to, would that be so bad to grow the individual market? >> i am glad you asked that

question because i probably miscommunicate it. i don't have a problem with the house merchant focus in on non- group. when you -- i don't have a problem with the house version focusing on a non-group. that is a huge undertaking and inappropriate task for a national exchange. i think that can work -- a huge undertaking and an upper brit task for a national exchange. -- and an appropriate task for a national exchange. i know massachusetts is exceptional, but there are a lot of small businesses around the country. when they are competing for your services, whether they offer health benefits as opposed to somehow we can prove we pay you

$1,000 more a year for you to go off to this exchange to buy at, there is not much of a comparison. -- go off to the exchange to buy it. he, i would not expect that to significantly diminished, -- and i would not expect that to diminish because now you have your employees being required to buy it. they are really looking for you to organize the choice and give them to -- give them money to buy it. i don't see small group insurance going away. >> both bills include provisions for tax credits to small businesses to cover their employees. they are short-term and not that huge, but the cbo sees them as having a significant effect. >> could you go into how

difficult it would be to administer a risk adjustment plan outside the exchange? at the senate bill work to cost as is, would hhs be the best system to do this? >> under the senate bill there are three different risk adjustment mechanisms. two of them short term and one long term. one is a reassurance program -- one is a reinsurance program. this ended up in the wrong bill because it talks about hhs paying premiums and they do not. the third is a risk adjustment program that will take -- that will be operated not through the exchange but some other kind of

entity. i guess the problem that i see with that is -- what the house bill does is it simply risk adjusts the premiums to account for risks. that is pretty doable, you will be dealing with in the exchange and will have a lot of data. it seems that is doable, although it does not address the problem of small groups, although it may be john is right there will be no problem because in the house bill you have a small group in and out of the exchange. with respect to the senate bill however, with this risk adjustment program, it can be done. there are many states to have risk adjustment pools, but it

will require collect in a lot of information the states do not collect. >> i want to thank the alliance and commonwealth and panelists for a great session. i would like additional clarity on how exchanges can help small businesses which is maybe a little odd, but i feel like this is not clear at all. there are big differences between the bills. they can purchase within and outside the exchange. i think i heard a panelists say there is no other way to do it. in one bill tax credits are available on both sides and the other can only get them within the exchange. in the senate bill the exchanges are a separate. -- the exchanges are separate. another thing that is very other is in the house bill -- another

thing that is very odd is that individuals and groups are put together in a separate exchange. could that possibly make rates higher for individual non-group participants? in general, i would like to know the panelists thoughts on what is a good way to help small businesses with respect to exchange design? thank you. >> let me start with the exchange itself. the question is, why is it good for small business? if you think about it and let's say -- typically i do a much smaller crowd and say we are one small business, but if you think about it the exchange brings simplicity and brings the choice for an employee based on their specific needs. we offer four a different health plans and a range of benefits,

-- we offer four different health plans. why is that important? if a company is choosing benefits they will choose from one carrier and they will have not what -- they will have one network, and typically in a small business the decision is based on where the owner wants to go. either the owner decides where their doctors are in their network -- now the employee can choose not to go to the owners' side, even though they are trying to provide a good benefit. they can now choose based on where the pediatrician is, based on anything they know even from a satisfaction side. hopefully at some point will have transparency of provider quality and rates so they can make those decisions.

it leads to a high satisfaction rate. we do a survey of the companies that participate in our program every year and we get high satisfaction. we go into a lot of different questions and what they -- what their experiences are. that is an explanation of why a small business his satisfaction to the business and employees, because it makes it simpler. there were also several other questions. >> it is a great opportunity to come back to my theme of humility. tim explained the theory of choice well and i would throw in the idea of employees deciding to buy up, maybe it is a better plan. if they are using their own money as the difference, god bless them. presumably that is our experience, most buy down and it

adds price pressure. that is the theory of managed competition. you asked a lot of other questions. i want to be humble and ask other people in this room to be humble, we don't know the answers to most of those questions. that is why i think you need to delegate to whoever was doing at some real expertise and latitude to adjust and figure it out and make changes as you go along. >> i am interested in what happens to the role of insurance agents and brokers with the exchange's, but if there are provisions in the bills and what the experience has been in massachusetts and connecticut. >> i think we both use brokers.

there were no brokers in massachusetts and that is where we focused, so we have not changed marker -- have not changed market practices. i want to give you an example of california where brokers dry the non-group market. there are 3 million uninsured in california. the broker it typically gets 10% or more of a premium in the first year. very different brokers situations. if washington were to dictate how to deal with brokers, on day one you would have two different outcomes. very possibly chaos in both states, so hard to know but when brokers are there they play an

important function. we can argue about how much they are paid, but there is a real function there. one of the reasons is no brokers in massachusetts -- we have [unintelligible] and other states brokers are critical to finding a carrier who will take you. it is different state to state. >> in the current marketplace the broker plays an important role. our average size company is seven or eight employees. they don't have a human resource department, some don't have access to the internet. there are so many different aspects to it that the broker typically is meeting with employees and helping them through complex -- they are personal decisions, said that play an important role for us.

-- they are personal decisions, so they play an important role for us. go back to california for something, it was a public- sector a change in 1995 as well. they came up with a program where the employer can determine if they want to use a broker, and here is what the cost would be. 75% had at the beginning used a broker and their sales were not as robust as when they said they would meet the market -. there are adverse selection issues where they had to do things the open market did not come up which created a real problem for them.

-- the open market did not, which created a real problem for them. >> originally the house bill said nothing about it and part of the blue dog amendment said the role of brokers shall not be adversely affected. the finance committee bill originally said the secretary shall come up with the rules for setting commissions for brokers, and that this appeared in the manager's amendment. the brokers have been following this closely and are interested in making sure they continue to work. in respect to hit the small group market, brokers will continue to have a role. -- with respect to the small group market. if you implement any change in the non-group market is hard for me to say a broker will -- it is

hard for me to say. there is an insurance agent in every lions club, every pto. some of my best friends are insurance agents. this is one of the most powerful groups in the united states. it is hard to imagine they will go away, and they serve a useful function in the group market. i would hope one of the things the exchanges can do would be to figure out exactly brokers are contributing in terms of value added, and make sure they are compensated. i don't see any need for 10% origination fees. it is like if you could buy through web-based travel

platforms and still had to pay a travel agent -- you have heard me. >> we have time for questions from folks standing at the microphone. first in the back of the room. >> thank you to the panelists and the commonwealth fund for putting this together. my question is about the state exchanges. in terms of going to scale, this health care reform is proposing to put 30 million people into an exchange and that is a large scale. in terms of having it happen on day one, i wanted to ask you what have been the obstacles for more states taking on a running an exchange that would move us towards that scale, and looking at what those obstacles are, if you could look through the senate bill which puts it on tuesday its first. if they default or refuse, the

feds step in. what in the senate bill helps states overcome that obstacle so we get -- of 20 million show up on day one it will work -- if 20 million show up on day one it will work? >> most state. the local exchanges failed because the value proposition -- most state and local exchanges failed because -- for the exchange to step in and improve, the affordability and value for small employers, and phil has done a great shout, -- i have an expert in insurance who runs a business and connecticut. he loves the concept and is very

enthusiastic. it is hard to believe, as i know. you can get the same product for 20% less. his association. the value proposition has been -- allah have tried this and found it was not sustainable. -- all lots have tried this. what is different -- a lot have tried this. that is all the difference in the world. that gives you the scale economies and the opportunity to develop what has taken phil 15 years to create the value, which is still a couple of points on the premium. people move for a couple of

points on the premium. it is great work, so what is the value for our unsubsidized exchange? it is the difference between spending a half hour on our web site and be unable to seek comparable products and make an intelligent choice, to having to spend a day on the telephone to read your notes as a decision making process. is the price any different? absolutely not. we are dealing with a fairly marginal differences except if you have a mandate to pay for the insurance. >> now the bottle. -- now the rebuttal. >> a lot of states looked at trying to bring up exchanges. a lot of it came to what was happening outside the marketplace and how they would have to run an exchange.

the rules are different all over the country. many of the state's we talked to will not be able to get critical mass -- many of these states we talked to will not be able to get critical mass. they have not been able to overcome that barrier of the market forces outside the exchange. they need to be similar to what is inside the exchange or there will be problems in be unable to run that exchange. it would take me longer to exchange what those pieces were, but that is where the states had to be careful and why they have not been able to become alive. >> i think someone mentioned that standard benefit packages would be in the house and senate bills. i see them as crucial, and would like to ask this question. as far as standardized benefits

packages, do you also need standardize co-insurance rates and co-payment rates as well? would that be included? who would design these packages? who would be responsible for leaving in kiev to care, dental care -- leaving in psychiatric care. >> there is the concept of the central benefits. it lists the things that need to be covered, like a physician services, pediatrics care and vision and oral healt. it leads to a process which is lined out in great detail in both bills. it is a process that would run through hhs in the senate bill

and it run by the commission of health choices with a representative advisory board in the house. then it would be updated through a process. that is the essential benefits package. both bills tier packages in terms of actuarial value. the senate has four tiers and a catastrophic plan available to some people. i forget what the other category is. the house bill has four tiers. cost sharing is then determined by those tiers. tiers are defined in terms of actuarial value, so they drive cost sharing. cost sharing is standardized and there are a maximum amount of

out-of-pocket limits in both bills. there are also maxim and deductibles, but there is a lot of flexibility in both plans. -- there are also maximum deductibles. if you want to have a high deductible health plan, you can do it. >> will that be a way of avoiding high-risk individuals? >> one concern i have is under the senate bill every insurer who participates has to market but the silver and gold plan, but they don't have to market the bronze plan, which means they can do it outside the exchange and higher cost sharing plans tend to attract healthier people. i see that as one of the wrinkles in the senate bill that makes me nervous. >> one of the things tim was saying worth emphasizing is well

these actuarial tiers project a level of cost sharing, we have used them with a $2,000 deductible. they can be very different kinds of cost sharing that have the same overall value from an actuary's perspective. your point about non- standardization, which is one of the reasons we have moved toward standardize benefits so that you do have comparability -- the range of cost sharing in massachusetts -- what we think of as minimum with the middle of the road in texas. these preferences and affordability issues are very different across the country and will be a real issue in the house version which has a floor at 70%, above what most small

employers provide. they provide more cost sharing than 30%. >> standardize benefits has been one of our key is. if we had not had this between the four -- one of our keys. it is very concerned. across the country it just varies tremendously. . .

they dropped to the system at that point, so this is the fixed to those markets if we do not build on the existing system and the issues that are raised in tim's paper and in this panel are critically important in terms of deciding on the provisions in the bills, federal vs. state control, and also implementing their bills and provisions over the next few years. >> thank you, sara and to our friends at the commonwealth for supporting some of the research and. thank you for your fortitude and listening to a lot of actuarial terminology over the last hour and a half. the me ask you to help thank the panelists. if the insurance exchanges in

whatever form run as well as this exchange has run -- [laughter] -- the country will be well served. thanks to all of you. [applause] campaignnetwork.or[captioning py national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] but house speaker nancy pelosi told rank-and-file members

yesterday that unless negotiators do not accept the overall in its entirety, she will find four key provisions in the overall plan. the house democratic leaders spoke to about 175 members during a mass conference call, which lasted over an hour. cq talked to multiple lawmakers on that call. they say the session was a chance for members to talk -- to ask questions about the state of negotiations, but for the senate and the white house to voice concerns about specific parts of the bill. president obama will be talking this afternoon, planning to announce more government spending to create tens of thousands of new green jobs. this in the wake of an announcement today by the labor department on the unemployment rate remaining virtually unchanged from last month at 10%. 85,000 jobs were lost from november to december. the president is speaking this afternoon at the white house. we will have live coverage of

his remarks beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern. also coming up this afternoon, secretary of state hillary clinton will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the u.n. agreement on the global reproductive health policy. nearly 100 nations agreed to reduce infant mortality and increase in reproductive health care. the 40 on c-span2 @ -- that will be on c-span2. premonitions questions is back. house of commons ask prime minister about spending, debt and tax policy. that is every sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific aren't c-span. -- at 9:00 p.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. pacific on c-span. the house and senate are beginning the second session of

the 111th congress. this morning, "washington journal" talked oto michael steele about prospects of midterm elections of the end of this year. he also talked about some controversy surrounding some of his recent comments to the media. this segment is about 45 minutes. committee and a 12 step program for defeating the obama agenda. politically, if you were a betting man, how many seats do you think that the gop will pick up or lose in the 2010 congressional election? guest guest the challenge with january as we continue the primary process. there's still a number of important districts around the country where individuals are considering running. we're having folks who are in, you know state legislatures decide together go to congress.

there's a lot of moving pieces. it's hard to say exactly but the way the trend is going it bodes well for the republicans in the house and senate as well. retirements and fact that i believe there may be a few more blue dogs that decide to come the republican way because it's going to be hard to go back to their districts and argue for the spend and the growth of government in districts that have no toleration for it. so i'm looking forward to some significant pick-ups. i don't know what thats. i can't put a finger or number on it in january. but i think that the work the,nrc and the national republicans congressional committees have been doing is going to yield some really good results in november. host: you going to have the money? guest: absolutely. and that's thing. it's an as speblth of last year that really has not gotten a lot of focus and a tension but hen

you consider the fact that, we came into - i came into this job in february first. that was my official first day. the wave of legislation. president barack obama picked up 13 million new donors and the democrats are flying high and so over the course of the next year we're thinking we're the little engine trying but we've wound up raising over 80 million dollars. we beat the democrats in fund raising on a number of reporting periods and at the end of the day i've had 8 - 9 million dollars to carry into this year, no double and i or debt. and i feel good about it. 14 million in virginia and new jersey and there's money going to build apparatus for operations on the ground and technologies that are going to be important for us this year and feel good about that. the budget i inherited had zero

dollars at the end of the year in debt and i felt that was an irresponsible way to run the committee and it was not physically improved to start january with nothing. we did what we had to do to make sure we met our obligations to campaigns and our state parties and had money in reserve to begin the new year and i feel good about where we are. host: you outline some of the mistakes you believe e republicans made particularly in the last 8 years. guest: yes, and i think the party is in a period recovery and some people don't wanted to add mitt that. well that's not what a lot of folks in america say. i think the last rasmussen poll had in popularity, we were 22%. tea parties 35 and democrats 32. so we clearly have a gap between the american people and party. and i think it's the

responsibility of the national chair and chairs around the country to fix that. and the way you begin to do it is to acknowledge this is where we've made mistakes when you grow government and spend money and go against the principals so important to defining the party for generations you walk away and create problems and we sought results in 2006 and 2002348 losses at the pole and loss of confidence and faith in the party and so i think now we have an opportunity once we acknowledge where we've gone wrong and stand firmly on principals and lead into the future with positive ideas and a new direction. the american people will come to us and i think we've seen that in new jersey and virginia with their elections. host: you talk about the tea party groups in your book right now. are they the future of the republican party? guest: they are to the extent

that they're part of a conservative network of activist. some of my friends there are former republicans. they're independents. they were identified as reagan democrats. it's a cross section of america. our opportunity as a party is to open arms and well come people that want to be part of what we think is a principals leadership that takes america and helps us build infrastructure and empower people. so, i have reached out my and and said let's work together. we're fighting the same cause and fighting about the same principals of free market and free enterprise. lower taxes. a confidence marketplace and not trying cow down to those that do not have our best interest in line and with that kind of message - but then following it up with action, where we

actually follow through and act on those things and make sure we control the spending in washington, that we lower it's influence in businesses in our daily lives i think we'll turn an important corner. host: is that part of a national platform for the republicans? guest: i think so. it really will come down to what individual candidates can do in their communities and how they translate the message and principals. you saw in virginia and take the principals that define them and they're leadership and translate it into economic and transportation policy and people understood where they wanted to go and decided that was better than where they'd been. that type of relationship needs to be re-established. newt gingrich and dick army gave us a contract with america and they understood what america was

looking for at that moment and they were willing to put their names on the line for the party because of those principals. what happened is since then we've strayed a way from the things we said we would do, and that's about coming back and doing something. host: if you'd like to talk with the chairman of the national republican committee marilyn geewax. iraqi want to show you a chance to respond to articles. this article is about you. about the republican national committee. don't know whether or not you consider him a friend of yours. guest: not really. host: says fire him or shut up. guest: little bit of a hot head. i'm very passionate about this job. i'm very passionate about this party. i gr grew up in this town and me a decision to become a republican because i heard a man

talk about in america that recognized my potential and recognized what i could do as a black man in this city. surrounded by democrats talking about a whole lot of other things i couldn't connect to. programs and institutions. no one was talking to me about what individual cans do and how freeing sit to be able to access the american dream. my mother had a fifth grade education and worked in a laundry material in this town for 45 years before retiring makes 3 dollars and something an hour. she understood why the american dream was denyd to her it would not to her son. she created that pathway and when i heard ronald reagan speak, he sounded like my mother and things she was saying to me that i could do. that connected me to the party at that moment. here i am some 33 years later

sitting at the chairman of the chairman of the republican committee. that was apart of when i ran for the united states senate. i feel so passionately moving this party forward. i like to call it turning the elephant and embracing this new platform and ground. larkly created by abba rock obama that came on the scene and shook it up. how does the party reach out and touch this generation of voters and tell them that this party wants to empower you, not the institutions of government? this party wants to help you create a pathway to have that relationship from the bottom up. i get a little hot headed sometimes because i don't understand all the noise. i know it's part of the job but i want us to focus on helping mitch mcconnell and john baneer in the congress push through the legislation to keep america moving in the right direction. and the folks out there in the

grass roots feel this party will be true. it's principals and lead from the principals during this century. host: there was a new poll saying who was the face of the new party. john mccain came out on top. do you agree? guest: he's one of the many headers in this party. i remember the july when john mccain was up against the wall. i remember july seeing him in an airport in 2007 by@@@@@@@ @ @ to come out as the nominee is something that a lot of people admire, or should admire. he represents so much that this party has to offer, along with mitt romney and sarah palin and governor pawlenty and governor general, my good friend, haley

barbour. we have the leadership that is out there. over the course of this year and early next year, individuals are going to begin to emerge that will contend for the presidency, who want to represent the principles of this party nationally for the presidency. we do not know who that is going to be yet, but i think people should not be surprised that leadership is there and we will get the job done. host: "washington post" this morning, philip brecker's story. wrightwood house of the democratic national committee wrap the gifts.e the reality is look, this job is tough, it's important, but the more important thing that we do is that we build the team and put the resources in place, we

run good candidates and they reflect the principals that define this party. if we don't do that it doesn't matter what michael steel says or congressional leaders. we'll not garner back the su part is in the face of the american people. we'll remain at 22% or worse in the poles in terms of popularity or identification and we'll have lost our way permanently and i don't believe that will happen and i don't want it on my watch. i remain to get out there and spend time on the streets. i've you downtown halls. i try to reflect back to the hill, what folks out here are saying. their frustration when people are told they're un-american to disagree with what the government is doing. the republican party will step in and say that's wrong, we know better how to lead but we need to demonstrate that every single day. these people are watching and

they're ticked off. it doesn't matter. remember people used to say i don't know about your congressman, but mine is a good guy. you know what they're saying right now. not only does your congressman stink, but so does mine. they're looking at this thing from both houses. leadership better pay attention and not take it for granted, otherwise we're going to be in a world of hurt in november. host: finally before calls, there's been criticism in the press about you're going own a book tour pro moiting right now while serving as chairman. guest: i wrote this book and you know in 2008 before i became chairman. and due to publishing circumstances at that time, and then, you know, got into the chairman's raise, it didn't get published so the reality is i updated it to include things that have happened since then.

then of course, sarah palins book came out and you didn't want your book on the shelves when that hit so this is something that's been in progress for a long time. i think it's an important way forward. i really do. i see it's a blue print to move forward. taking important steps. saying we have a br problem and owning them. we're the conservative party in the government. to try and stop the liberal, democratic party is a good political exercise and this is one way for that. host: marilyn geewax is author of, right now, a 12 step program for defeating the obama agenda. first up. republican line? caller: good morning mr. steel. i'm going good. i'm a small businessman. been in business 34 years and i'm one of the 70 percent of the population or businesses that

generate the jobs that everybody talks about and all they talked about as far as initial administration. finding a way for me to borrow money that i can't pay back to grow my business. my customers don't have jobs or they're not spending money. that's probably the problem 70 percent. small businesses have. we're not going to do the business because our customers are not spending the money because they don't have the money. my concern with the republican party s the fact that now we talk about poles and it's conservatives democrats and independents. the last pole i saw, we had 40 percent of the nation is conservative. 20% in there is democrat and 36 independent. it bothers me the republican party doesn't even go into the poles. if guest: well i think that's point - we're getting blocked and tackles out of the frame. our responsibility right now as

leadership, political leadership. activists around the country, is to figure how to put ourselves back on track. i've said from the beginning the way you do that is to talk about the issues that are attached to our principals if we're a party that believes firmly as we do in creating pathway for entrepreneurs then let's talk about that and fight for the fact that this is not the way you grow jobs into what's obama and nancy pelosi is on the hill. how do you do that when your layering more regulation and taxes on top of them? why don't we cut the capital gains tracts and eliminate it. get rid of it? why don't we cut the unemployment tax or at least give a break in time for small business owners to be able to regain they're fiscal strength. create real pathways to credit

and capital with not a lot of string as attached to it? there's proactive steps that should have been taken and can be to get small business owners back in the game. you're absolutely right. you're the one to turn this economy around. not these institutions and government and if we don't trust you and have faith in your ability to do it in the past, we're not going to get it done and everybody will wind up looking for the government to find the solutions. host: bob, democrat. florida. you're on. caller: good morning mr. steel, in case you didn't know. racheled byo invited you on her show and i hope you go. you can demonstrate to the public how to officially the tea bag a person. host: try to keep this a civil

conversation. please don't call in just to make cross remarks. tom independent line. please go ahead. caller: good morning mr. steel. okay. i got two quick questions for you. first, when you were running for senate, back in 2008. guest guest 2006. caller: did you not have a democrat bumper sticker on your car? and number two question, why after criticizing rush limbaugh pretty severely one day, did you do 180 degrees the next day and apologize to the gentlemen? i can't understood that. host: tom who did you vote for in 2006?

caller: the incumbent. mr. steel? >> there was no incumbent in the i raise. the incumbent retired. there was - i don't have bumper stickers on my car and certainly wouldn't have a democrat one on my car and with respect to rush limbaugh we're good friends there was no need to apologize because there was no offense taken. host: is rush included now in the book? guest: no. i don't focus on personalities at all. i have a lot of people saying why isn't sarah palin in the book? this is not about a personality in the party but just about the party. those of us who are out here fighting every day to grow the party. in fact, the book is dedicated to the grass roots. everyone that's licked a stamp or stuffed an envelope and had a role to play in fighting for our

issues so this is a very much a grass roots book written from a grass roots perspective because that's how i began. knocking on doors and having my face with doors slammed on it. but it's tough but it's important work and a lot of people do it every day to help us and i appreciate it. host: mr. steel, what are your expectations of the upcoming tea party convention with the former sara palin as headliner? guest: that's going to be exciting to watch. i'm not unfortunately, have gotten all the background what that event will be like, but i expect it'll be across section of america coming together to express strus administration and also aspiration that leadership will do one thing and that's listen to them. and that's something i've tried to emphasize in my book right

now. listen. my mother used to tell me when i was a little boy. the first thing you got to do is shut up and listen to people. when i ran for office in maryland and so forth, you know we took the time to listen to people and that's what these folks are going to be gather the information and hear. i think it'll be exciting to hear sara talk to them. host: gary. baltimore. republican line. caller: i want to take a moment to thank you for the work you're doing and there's a lot of republicans out there that have been on the fence and we appreciate the work you're doing and direction. all the effort. my question for you is this, in the next run of elections when hopefully we do get a little more control back we're not going to be the party and will continue to push healthcare reform. there is lot of good work that

needs to go on there although what we're seeing is not the best route to take. i want to hear we're going to continue fighting that good fight. guest: my goodness. absolutely. you have to give enormous gratitude to the leadership on the hill who have fought valiantly to get those issues before the american people. we've watched mitch mcconnell and john baner and team on the floors of the house and senate propose, measure after measure, tort reform. how do you do healthcare without tort reform? i don't understand that. so small businesses can pull their businesses and get competition going. reforming the healthcare saving as count provisions to expand them to allow great eer flexibility. there's so many aspects of what needs to be done in healthcare that i'm not in the bill that's

before the congress right now for consideration. that we'll continue to fight for and be able to close the gap or indeed take control of one or both chambers. you bet we're bringing those issues back to the floor. host: you see similarities between this year and 1984? guest: that's good question. i think some aspects are similar but the environment is different. the attitude is different. your seeing, almost like it's accelerated. newt gingrich and i were talking about this and he's such a phenolal understanding of - not just history, but where we need to go and he was talking about how in 1994 he and dick army were able to bring the contract with america to america in september of that year. a lot of people think it's long and drawn out but it was a short period of time part of the political discourse. now we're at a point where

something like that is relevant. people looking and they're hungry for seeing what direction they're going to go in and what the leadership will be doing and where the stakes are. this is a very much an accelerated process. people are much more energized as we've seen over the summer with town halls and 91 event last september. there's a level of activism two years out and certainly out from this fall's election that we've not seen before. that's why i've been very direct with elected officials around the country. don't look past this. don't take any of this for granted. you better calculate that people are watching your votes and actions and they're taking note and they'll come after if if you don't get it right. host: gary, indiana. randall, democrat. caller: yes, i have a couple of

quick meant comm comments. i hope you bear me out on this. i never understood why educated people have the views that there are really black and white people. if the premise is wrong in the beginning, the conclusion ultimately is always wrong so i they say i've never met a black or white person. they're political tools. republicans have stateed so many phoney arguments over the@@@@@ z the political discourse has been so phony around, such serious arguments in this country that i cannot even really take the republican party serious as an alternative. even though i will grant you

this, there are things you say your party stands for but i do share. cutting capital tax gains, helping small business, but because the political discourse is so phony -- you understand what i'm saying? . guest: i do, and let me try to explain what i think randall is saying. when people have disagreements, the kind of lump it all on the republican party. they assume that it is us. we get a lot of that back traffic and that is fine, you have to deal with it. i agree with randall that the political discourse in this country right now, and i think he is a reflection of the attitude that a lot of people

have, which is, can we have a debate about this? what are you going to do? let's be creative in our process. and what i think certainly what the republican leadership is trying to do is get those issues in front of the people to show, this is what we think a better alternative is. and i think that's where people want to see the debate ultimately come down. what are our choices? i hear people say, what do the republicans stand for on health care? what are you going to do? i check off the list that members of congress have proposed or whatever, and what i realize was a lot of it was they didn't know. so we need to educate, we need to inform, we need to be out there in the community sharing these messages but not doing it in the context that randall discussed where you're doing hot rhetoric and making a lot of noise, talking loud, as james brown said, and saying nothing, but really focusing on what people are trying to do.

that's what kris christy and bob donald did in their races. they talked about the issues that they were concerned about and then people responded. host: one person in "the washington times" said that the traditionally large donors were not giving -- they were dissatisfied with your leadership. newt gingrich was quoted of saying, some old timers in the party are uncomfortable with you because you come from a different background. i'm paraphrasing quite a bit there. but i just wanted to get your response from that. guest: i do come from a different background. i come from this background. i grew up here in washington, d.c. i'm an urban kid. i cut my teeth on the politics of this city with the likes of david clark and john ray and marion berry and eleanor holmes norton watching them maneuver and fight for this city. and so my experience is very

different that most state chairman and certainly national chairman. but with respect to, you know, our major donors, you know, ralphie boyd doesn't know how this works. i don't know who he's talking to. in typical fashion, you know, a lot of things are gotten wrong. if you have a major donor for the republicans or democrats, those individuals run businesses that got socked by a recession that was one of the worse in 20 or 30 years. so they didn't have the resources, the extra cash, if you will, to play politics. and there was a lot of slowdown and a lot of, you know, lack of access to those dollars to do the things that you would normally do. however, we have put in place some creative strategies to bring our donors back and

beginning in july or so we started seeing major donors coming to the table and being a part of the game again. whether they were old-timers or whatever, it doesn't matter. my goal is to create the environment so that people want to give and support the party. we're also targeting a lot of young donors and new donors who can help us and want to be a part of this. last month we made our budget for our major donors, we were 262% of budget. so we were well in excess of what we needed to raise in december, the same in november, the same in october. so a lot of that is a ruse that some folks want to put out there, he can't raise money, but i raised $80 million and i broke a lot of r.n.c. records. i have cash reserves going into this year when my predecessor had a budget of zero dollars that the committee passed.

so i think before people write stories they need to maybe talk to me and get the facts right. we've been very proud of our donors who have given of themselves at a time when it was tough to give. i have, you know, respected those dollars very much because i don't want to waste them. and we spent them wisely. we won elections with those moneys. we invested in the party with those dollars, and we saved. i was banking 50 cents on every net dollar i brought in the door and i beat the democrats five or six months out of 12. now, how are their major donors doing? because if their major donors are doing that well then i shouldn't be beating them. major donors are major donors. these are individuals that have the wherewithal in good times to give. in tough times they are concerned about their businesses and their families like everybody else and politics becomes a luxury and they don't give or don't give as much.

so you need to be creative and find ways to incentivize them and i think we've found ways to do that. host: independent line. you are on the line for michael steele. caller: good morning, mr. steele. guest: how are you? caller: i am in a hospital. i am so glad to be able to talk to you. i have a few quick statements. some that you may not be familiar with. i was a tea partier before tea partier was cool. i'm a conservative. i'm a constitutionalist. and for years, you know, we're the people that supporting ron paul and protesting against the taxes and the taking of our constitutional rights and so forth. and what happened was when it grew and began to get attention and the people started coming out was when the democrats began to see that obama was just like bush.

guest: uh-huh. caller: i wanted to make a statement just quickly. the fact of the matter is we were called patriotic because we did not, conservatives did not support the war in iraq. iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. and now we're still called unpatriotic because we don't support obama. but i want to tell you -- excuse me -- i'm so sorry. host: can you wrap this up? caller: mccain is a republican. ron paul is a conservative which means the protector of constitutional rights. guest: well, i appreciate that. i think she reflects -- hopefully you feel better, by the way. i think she reflects again a growing sentiment that's out there in the country that's reflected in a new kind of activism. as i said, it's accelerated. it's moving beneath our feet. the question for both parties -- are you prepared to move with it and how do you capture these moments? not capturing these individuals

saying, be a republican, be a democrat, but capturing the spirit of what they're talking about. this constitution of ours means a lot to a lot of people. and while we may not jump up and down and wear it on our sleeves every day it's in our hearts and it's in the things that we do. and so when we see it threatened and see it undermined or when we see it being used in a way that is not reflective of its purpose we become concerned. and i think when you look at, for example, the fact that we're going to be trying terrorists here in the u.s. courts, that has real concerns to those who see the constitution being used to wrap around and protect the very men who want to destroy that document and destroy the principles and the foundations of this nation. and so individuals like dani and others are very concerned and leadership has to address that. you know, you can't sort of gloss over it and say we're doing this to show that we're

better, that we're standing up to what we say we are as americans. well, i don't think that does that. i think that that is looking at a national or an international situation through a criminal justice system and not what it really is. terrorist acts against the united states. and so you need to treat that differently and you do not give the people that want to undermine the constitution to use it against us. host: if president obama gets health care legislation and signs it, will that be one of the issues that you use in the election? guest: absolutely. health care will be an ongoing issue until it gets resolved in the way when the government doesn't stand between the doctor and the patient and

you're looking at a system that is bottom up. the situation is you've created a bureaucracy to solve cost problems. so if cost is the issue, if that's the driver, then what do we need to do to address the costs, to bring those costs down that creates greater competition in the marketplace so insurance companies, there are not only three insurance companies you can go to in my state. i can go to the four over there or the seven that are over there. you create competition. and you do other things. the other thing is if you have 40 million, 33 million, 10 million people who are uninsured, look at the systemic reasons as to why they're uninsured and begin to address that. that again does as the republican leadership has been saying eight or nine months doesn't require a whole cell takeover of 1/5 of the economy. you have to figure out how to bring those people in that is

consistent with your effort to lower the cost does not increase the cost. and yet this administration wants to bring in 33 million people and has yet to tell us exactly how much it's going to cost and how do we pay for if. host: time for a couple more calls for the r.n.c. chairman michael steele whose book is "right now: a 12-step way to defeat president obama and the democratic agenda." caller: i'm a bit of an amateur media junky. i'm not terribly political. i call myself centrist with a little right leanings. abc comes first and then nbc comes second and then i watch some of the fox guys and cnn guys just to see how the tone is different. back in the day the news media

tried to stay in the middle. even though you could tell they were leaning a little to the left. guest: right. caller: now it seems to me they are not even trying. they were pretty much entrauveraged in the left. and i'm wondering as a political person, how you can -- how we can call them out on that and try to get them to at least come back to the middle? guest: that's a good question. if you figure out how to dabble in this area let me know. it is a conscious decision by the network or the individual sfation and how they want to project the news. that is why you find now, you know, folks relying on programs like this where they have unadulterated access to conversations and hear directly from individuals' perspectives that they've not been exposed to before and they go fought internet. and they can then more freely decide where they want to go. if i want to see a particular

piece i can download it, look at it and move on. i don't have to be indoctorated to a whole other things. the media is going through a whole enormous transformation. the political parties are trying to figure out what it means. certainly at the r.n.c. we invested a significant amount of money and beginning to upgrade ourselves to get at least the parody with in new landscape. getting rid of websites and creating web platforms so we can more intertangably connect people to events and issues. we can create the social networkings that are important out there to carry on the conversation and more and more importantly listen to what's being said. so i think what we found right now is while you have, you know, fox, you have msnbc, you have all these other networks that are doing their thing, people are realizing, i have a little bit more freedom and a little bit more choice here than a lot of people think i have. and they're beginning to access it. so i don't know if that will

necessarily change the behavior of some networks, but i think in the long run it will because they will want to be more of a spot that will draw people in, not the ones that will always agree with them. host: james in maryland. go ahead with your question. caller: good morning, mr. steele. host, what is your name? host: peter. caller: i'm a first-time caller. host: welcome, james. caller: i was calling to ask mr. steele where he said -- listening to the people. if he listened why does him and governor earle lose the race? he would have heard what they were calling for, the republicans weren't doing the jobs that needed to be done. for eight years they were in charge more or less. and nothing was done about

health care except for the part d medicare which me snuck through in the middle of the night. i watched it all night. i am a democrat but i listen to fox. i listen to glenn beck, hasity, o'riley, chris matthews, keith observerman. i christen to it all -- keith olbermann. i listened to it all. i didn't graduate high school. i went back and got a job and they sent me back to school. the constitution says -- i hear you saying about the constitution says this and says that. the constitution never said that you had to have firemen to take care of anybody's house to take care of a fire. the constitution never said you have to have insurance on cars. if you have a car you have to have it insured. host: james, what would you like michael steele to address?

caller: why did they lose the race in maryland if they were such a great listener? guest: well, governorer lick and i did -- governor erlich and i did the unthinkable. the last republican governor before governor was speer agnew. and the people of maryland decided they wanted to take a different course. i think when you look at governor erlich's record and think of my responsibility on behalf of governor of small business reform and certainly dealing with a number of other issues, we met, i think, what we were asked to do. and we were able to reach people and talk to them. we, like so many others, got caught up in the political climate of that day. there was a general mood, anything republican was a

problem for folks. what you have to understand, james, is that governor erlich was retired from office with a 62% job approval. and it had very little to do with what the governor was doing but had everything to do with the fact that people wanted to send a message to the republican party and he was the only republican governor that year to lose. we are still a very democrat state in maryland. and they -- and they felt that they wanted to send a message. and i've had a lot of democrats since then say, boy, did we get that wrong in 2006. but my hope is that the governor comes back. my hope is that the republicans come back and re-establish the opportunity for maryland to be a two had been party system where the voters get to decide and competition is a healthy thing. so governor erlich was not unelected nor did i lose the senate race because of our views on the issues. we did listen to the people and they responded. but i know the governor heard,

i heard many times, i just couldn't vote for you. i had to send a message to the party. you know, that's what happens in politics. people find ways to get a message through. sometimes their casualties in that process. host: what would republicans do different this time? guest: donna, what would we do different? i think what we would do different first and foremost is acknowledge that we've learned the lesson, that we have -- we have made the mistakes that have put us on the outs, if you will, with the american people and that we will now step forward with a bold vision in bold colors, as reagan used to say, that reflects the concerns of the american people and that are addressed through the policies and the programs that we think will empower you and uplift you. the government is not -- should

not be in the business of managing and controlling and deciding. the government should be in the business of creating pathways so that you can access the american dream however you define it for yourselves. and so our party, the leadership of our party, elected on the hill, our governors around the country and certainly the political leadership in the states wants to create those pathways to empower families and communities to achieve the american dream. and we're going to fight for that but we're going to start by listening and definitely stay true to what we believe, the principles that have grounded us for generations. host: michael steem is chairman of the republican national convention and autho

>> congress returns next week, the u.s. house meeting on tuesday to debate legislation. live coverage here on c-span. and the senate meets january 20 to consider its judiciary nomination and the federal debt ceiling. live on c-span2 beginning the second session of the 111th congress. in fed we trust, from wall street journal economics editor, david wessel, and fed chairman ben bernanke and the role he -- the role he played after the economic collapse in 2008. he will discuss his book with the former federal vice chair and first director of the congressional budget office. >> now available, c-span's book "abraham lincoln: great american historians on the 16th president." from lincoln's early years to

his life in the white house and his relevance today. abraham lincoln in hard cover at your favorite bookseller, and now in digital audiopc, availabe where digital audio downloads are sold. >> president barack obama plans to announce more government spending to create tens of thousands of green jobs. this morning, the labor department reported an unemployment rate virtually unchanged at 10%. we will show you what we can when the president -- the briefing with the president is under way scheduled at 3:00 p.m. >> i forgot the week ahead, so we will e-mail letter around at the conclusion of today's activities. yes, ma'am? >> you report a bus night that robert gates will stay home for another year at least. would you give us some of the

back story? >> i would have to look at the day, but several weeks ago, the president and the secretary of defense had a conversation about this. obviously, the president is deeply grateful for the service he has provided, for the pentagon, the people in uniform and the entire country were glad that he was staying on at the helm of the pentagon. >> is he thinking about leaving? but not anymore. >> he is going to be staying on for at least another year. >> i think in a confirmed that and i will also confirm that, yes. >> two questions on the economy. the announcement this afternoon has to do with the recovery act. does the presidency a need for

new money at this time of year? [inaudible] >> right, but today's announcement is, the award recipients for tax incentives for the creation of renewable manufacturing jobs. i think it is a $2.3 billion program in the recovery act. but it is also an example of something the president believes we should do more of. the number of applicants for the money we have is roughly three to one. in a speech to -- in a speech on jobs at the brookings institute in december, the president actually called for increasing this type of investment in the private sector to create that environment for additional hiring, an additional $5

billion. the president believes that there are things that have worked and are working well, targeted money that should be increased. >> is there a need this year for additional spending to boost the economy? >> i do not know if we move forward or remind you backwards, but the president outlined some very specific examples of exactly what he would like to see. today's program being one of the examples. infrastructure spending, things like that. i think the president has been quite clear on that. today's jobs report is obviously disappointing.

85,000 people last month lost their jobs. we are in a very tough economic environment. since this recession officially began more than two years ago, 7 million jobs have been lost. i honestly doubt, jeff, that had a report showed 20,000 or so jobs created, i cannot imagine that the president would say, well, what i thought we should do in december is now wiped away because of the jobs report. we have got a long way to go, and as we talk about this last month -- and i think as you will look back, as we have talked about it each month. we knew it was going to be a long road and along that road there would be put bombs along the way. -- there would be bumps along

the way. i think if you look through and analyze some of the numbers, there are some bright spots which i think are at least encouraging, understanding that there are, as i said, millions of people that have lost their jobs and are hurting. if you take the average of what we were losing in the first quarter of 2009, january, february and march, we were losing on average in those months, 691,000 jobs per month. if you take the average of what we were losing the last three months of the year, october november-october, november, and december, that number was 69,000. that is one-tenth of that job loss. that trend is moving in the right direction. but if that was above the ledger on the positive side, i doubt you would find anybody in this administration because i doubt you would find anyone in this

country who would think that our problems had vanished. >> with gasoline getting close to $3 per gallon, how will that affect the economy? >> obviously, anything that is perceived, or believed that will do damage to our economy, that will choke off some positive trends to economic recovery, that would be a concern to the president, yes. >> how worried is president obama about his double-dip recession? >> i would say the president is worried about today and worried about the future. >> does he think that is likely? >> i would say that the president wakes up every day concerned about where this economy is, understand that millions are hurting, whether they are in last month's job losses or the job losses

stretching past those two years since the recession officially began, but understand that people were hurting long before anyone said there was a recession in this country. >> do you expect another contraction of the economy coming up as opposed to the line we are on right now? >> again, i refer you back to what the president talked about in december, not been satisfied with where we were and wanting to change the direction of that line. >> so he is preparing as if there is going to be a contraction? >> no, no, he is not an economic prognosticator. the president is concerned about the economy, concerned about the stories of people hurting that he has heard for many, many years. and he is working to do all that we can to create an environment for businesses, small and large,

to hire more people. >> the administration this week announced that it was going to temporarily, for the time being, suspend the transfer of detainees from guantanamo bay to yemen. you did transfer 6 in december. do you know where those six are? >> i am not going to get into -- i think christie asked these questions the other day. i'm not going to get into discussing transfers. >> ok, given the need to talk to congress and get them on board with the transfer to the thomson correctional center, due date -- and that they need to convert that to a super maximum security prison, if you have a timetable? >> i do not have a timetable. we will work with congress in the upcoming session on many of the things that you talked about, not just retrofitting, but purchasing a prison in

thompsoson as well as other isss related to moving prisoners from guantanamo to thomson. . .

>> i want to ask you about timothy geithner. there was some evidence suggesting that under his leadership, then you're far reserve pressured aig to conceal information about the counterparty payments that were made with taxpayer money. they are suggesting that he was hiding information from regulators. i wonder, does the white house believe that secretary geithner should testify on the document he has to clear this up? >> i pointed to the treasury department. i am sure you of already talked to them. secretary geithner was not involved in any of these e- mails, these decisions did not raise it to his level in the fed. these were e-mails and decisions made by officials at age -- at an independent regulatory agency. >> he was the leader of the new york fed.

>> he was not on the e-mails that have been talked about and was not party to the decision that was being made. >> there probably thousands of more e-mails and he may not be on sound that some have looked at. in the interest of transparency, -- >> i would point you to the department of treasury. >> you gave me the treasury department. what do you believe? do you think that more e-mails will come out? >> i do not know what the story is about the e-mails. i would tell you that's -- that there are not e-mails that involves secretary geithner. these are e-mails and decisions that were made by two people. that decision did not rise to his level. >> various liberals have jumped on this and other stories,

saying that secretary geithner is not fit to serve as secretary. does he still have the president's full confidence? >> of course. >> will give be -- will he be dealing only with the job issues or will he talk about the christmas day incident? >> the last time i saw his remarks, it was just about jobs. >> he has spoken about the christmas day incident. do you think he might entertain some questions about that? is it unusual that in an event this big, he would not open himself up to questions? >> he is not taking questions today about that. >> he has not had a press conference since july at the white house. why can we get him to respond to questions? >> we did this before. the last time we talked about the president's media schedule

and you all reminded me of our schedule. >> i appreciate at least that we have isolated the flip-flops. >> mr. reed added that he is now going to change the subject. >> it is a legal thing. admiral mullen in a speech yesterday said he had looked in regard to iran, we have looked to make sure that congress does not bring out their errant forces as they do for many contingencies. is that preparation with forces with regard to iran per a presidential order or just something that the pentagon, are

there presidential forces with regard to yemen? >> i would point you to his spokesperson at the pentagon. i believe the pentagon plans for many different types of contingencies based on many, many different types of scenarios. the trap that the president has aggressively pursued related to iran deals with the engagement in hopes that they will live up to the obligations internationally that they have signed on to be responsible for. we have gone through are asking them about the research reactor and making a proposal that would prove to the world that their

intentions were peaceful. they declined that offer. we are, as we have discussed in the past many days, working with our partners on the next steps in not letting up to those responsibilities. >> what are these kind of contingency plans? >> i will not get into discussing details of the plans. >> the number of administration officials have said that they expect positive net job growth within the first quarter of this year. >> i believe if you look at the numbers in terms of weekly unemployment claims, if you look at the trajectory, it will lead you to believe that we will see

that positive economic job growth. >> on sunday, mr. brennan was on "meet the press." and he said -- six are in custody of the system. they are potentially in jail in yemen. given the fact that one of the reasons the president stated he would close guantanamo is at -- is that it has been a black eye on this country. are there any guarantees that the government will treat those prisoners up to the standards that the administration believes prisoner should be treated? >> we have not discussed that. i am not going to start today. the terms of transfers. >> what is being accomplished by sending them back to yemen if there are no guarantees that they will be treated up to the standards? >> i do not want to get into a public back and forth.

>> mr. brennan himself says they were in custody -- >> again, i am not going to get into that. >> the president and democrats on capitol hill hoped to be talking almost exclusively about jobs and the economy within the first part of this year. do you believe that the focus on terrorism has somehow clouded or derailed that effort and could you give us a little peek at what might be coming up later this week or the next few weeks to try to focus washington's attention on the job issue? >> i think washington's attention is focused on jobs. i think the attention is focused on our security situation. in all honesty, each day, washington has to be focused on

many different things. you have for the president say, if there were just one problem to focus on, maybe that would be nice. that is not what he ever assumed would have been given the type of environment that we had coming into office. i doubt there will ever be a day where we are only focusing on one issue. each day the president has spent this year has worked on a multitude of issues ranging from getting our economy back in order, finishing up health care, working on the security situation and investigation that he spoke about yesterday, afghanistan, iraq. there is honestly no end to the number of issues i think he has

spent time working on over the past eight days. >> what about -- is there anything you can tell us about -- >> i walked out of here without having the week ahead. let me get some more information on that. >> is the matter involving the billboards been resolved? >> it is-standing that we spoke with the company and the company is supposed to take that ad down. >> anyone offer you a billboard to endorse any product? >> i better not make any jacket jokes here. the boss might be watching. >> he said he felt he let the president down. does the president feel he was let down? >> i think john was speaking not just for himself, but john was speaking for all of those who

had been represented in that situation room meeting on tuesday and the president heard from each of them. accepting responsibility for their part, what went wrong, i think as the president has talked about, there was a systemic failure that went across agencies and departments that no one person, no one agency or department was fully and wholly to blame. the president is focused on identifying what went wrong and how to fix it. that will certainly be johns chart moving forward, as you heard the president discussed, hearing back from him in 30 days about our progress on filling those gaps. >> the president said yesterday

that we are in a war with al qaeda. does he regard the attempt on a flight -- flight 253 to be an act of war? >> i think the president and white house certainly said quite quickly after the incident that it was a terrorist -- i point you back to what the president said in the fourth paragraph of his inaugural address. about our nation being at war with al qaeda. >> this just raises the question of again as to whether he is prosecuted as an enemy combatant or as a criminal. >> he has been indicted in our criminal justice system. >> robert gibbs from -- robert gibbs from earlier. we go live to the white house for president obama. >> before i announced the investments we're making a clean energy, i want to give an update on a matter of concern to every american.

that is our employment picture. the road to recovery is never straight. we have to continue to work every single day to get our economy moving again. for most americans, that means jobs. it means whether we are putting people back to work. job losses for the last quarter of 2009 were one-tenth of what we were experiencing in the first quarter. in fact, in november, we saw the first gain in jobs in nearly two years. last month, we slipped back, losing more jobs than we gained. the overall trend of job loss is pointing in the right direction. what this underscores is that we have to continue to explore every avenue to accelerate the return to hiring. that brings me to my announcement today. recovery act has been a major force in breaking the trajectory of this recession and stimulating growth in hiring. one of the most popular elements of it has been a clean energy

manufacturing initiative that will put americans to work while helping america gained the lead when it comes to clean energy. it is clear why such an effort is so important. building a robust energy sector is how we will prepare for jobs in the future and jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. it is also how we were broke reduce our dangerous dependency on foreign oil. it is how we will combat the threat of climate change and leave our children a planet that is safer than the one we inherited. new forms of energy will be one of the defining challenge of the 21st century. right now, the united states, the nation that pioneered the use of clean energy, it is being outpaced by nations around the world. it is china that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy- efficient. we spearheaded the development of solar technology, but we have fallen behind countries like germany and japan in producing.

in almost all of the batteries that we used to power our hybrid vehicles are manufactured by japanese companies or in asia. we're beginning to produce more of these batteries here today at home. i welcome and am pleased to see a real competition emerging around the world to develop these kinds of clean energy technologies. competition is what fuels innovation, but i do not want america to lose that competition. i do not want -- i do not want the industry's to yield the jobs for tomorrow to go overseas. i want the united states of america to be what it is always been, a leader, the leader, when it comes to a clean energy future. that is exactly what the clean energy manufacturing initiative will help us do. it will help close the cleves energy -- clean energy gap

between american and other nations. we are awarding $2.3 billion in tax credit for american manufacturers of clean energy technology. companies to produce solar panels and a symbol cutting and batteries. the initiatives we are outlining today will likely generate over 17,000 jobs and move roughly $5 billion more that we will leverage in private sector. at the same time, this initiative will give a much- needed boost to our manufacturing sector by building new plants and upgrading old ones. it will take an important step for meeting the goal of doubling the amount of renewable power we will use over the next three years. put simply, this initiative is good for middle-class families, security, for our planet. over 185 projects and over 40 states will receive these tax

credits. one is based in iowa, one of america is leading wind turbine manufacturers. it would not only be able to expand -- expands an existing facility, it will build a new facility in nebraska, they will also be able to hire 200 new workers. it is my hope that similar stories will be told in cities and towns across america because of this initiative. this initiative has been so popular, which had far more qualified applicants that we have been able -- then we have been able to find. we've received a question -- request three times the funding that we could provide. i am urging congress to act. it calls for investing in other $5 million in this program.

in the letters i received, many of you know that i get about 10 letters per night that i take a look at, i often hear from americans who are facing hard times, who have lost their jobs, who cannot afford to pay their bills. they're worried about the future. i am confident that if we harness the ingenuity of companies, we can tap the talents of our workers and innovators and aunt partners, we can gain the lead in clean energy worldwide. that is a future we are now closer to building because of the steps we are taking today. thank you very much, everybody. >> as you heard from president obama, the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10%.

even though employers shed 85,000 jobs, the monthly report says that is mainly due to the way the jobless rate is counting. reaction now to those jobless numbers from npr's a business reporter in about half an hour. >> 85,000 jobs in december. 85,000 lost. that is terrible. ,000 lost is a surprise. i think that takes everybody by surprise. gosh, that's a lousy number because we had 11,000 lost in november. there was real hope there the economy was gaining momentum. and really in recent days there's been a changing in attitude of a few days ago people would have said, well, maybe we lost 30,000 jobs in december. and in recent days optimism has risen so much that people thought it was up to zero or maybe even a gain. if we lost 85,000 jobs in

december that's not encouraging at paul. host: what effect will that have? what will we see happen? guest: it's important that these things bounce around a little bit. maybe you just had a little bit -- we got a little alead of ourselves in november. maybe there was too much hiring done in november and people decided to lay off again in december and wait and see how the economy was shaping up. so maybe this is -- the trend is good but this is a one-minute blip. still if we go to the capital right now and we went to some democrats' office there are hairs being yanked buss this is not a number you want to come into the state of the union address with. it's definitely -- i think will be seen politically setback. besides politics but people's lives. 85,000 jobs were lost.

host: and isn't holiday hiring makes it high? guest: the labor department tries to take that thing -- that noise into account. you know, what you really were hoping for there is we would get some momentum, a springboard into the new year where if we had -- if you had come out and said, you know, we picked up 10,000 jobs, that would have i think caused a little bit of euphoria on wall street. and this is just going to be a bit of a downer. host: ok. as the report comes out from the labor department, we're getting the associated reports in real time. a sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. kept the unemployment rate at 10%, the same as in november. analyze that for us. guest: again, when people start feeling more optimistic they actually come into the labor market. so if they're not hearing that

their friends are getting jobs, if they don't see any help wanted signs, then maybe you say, maybe i'll stay home. even though we lost 85,000 jobs we didn't get a higher unemployment rate because the job pool -- the labor pool didn't grow because people are still that discouraged. and, you know, sometimes people just think, you know what, i am going to shovel drives for the winter. i don't feel like leaving the house. gas is so expensive. i am not going to drive around looking for work. host: it actually effects the national economy? guest: it helps hold down the unemployment rate. but -- so we have a better looking number. when you talk about how many millions of people are sitting at home underemployed, unemployed, working short hours, not getting raises, not getting bonuses, you put it all together, it's a grim picture for workers. it's a real -- you know, ongoing problem that the administration has to address.

host: revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in november, the first gain in nearly two years while it lost 16,000 more than the previously estimated in october. guest: in is back to what i said. these things can bounce around. so we thought that in november, if i'm hearing you right, we thought in november we were still losing jobs and in fact we had perked up a little bit in november but, see, that could contribute why december was not a good month for job creation because to the degree that anybody was going to do any hiring maybe they did it in november and now they're just taking a wait and see attitude so they're not really adding jobs. and then you get to the end of the year and maybe some businesses just decided, small retailers might think, this turned out to be a not great christmas season and we will give it up. people may start close down some businesses and that's why

you're seeing some job losses. host: bob, independent line, franklin, indiana. you are on with marilyn geewax of n.p.r. caller: thank you for c-span. this is a government of the corporate, by the corporate and for the corporate. and also our national news media is owned by corporate. and that's why -- the real problem is nafta, unfair trade practices. we shipped out all our manufacturing jobs and government jobs create debt, manufacturing jobs create wealth. guest: you know what, one of the things about nafta, though, is that initially a lot of manufacturing did go to mexico. that's the north american free trade agreement that joined together canada, the united states and mexico into a trade zone. initially it did seem that some manufacturing was going to mexico, but a lot of those jobs in mexico actually ended up going to china and other parts of asia. i don't know. i guess it's argue ble -- argue

-- arguable, those would have an impact on manufacturing in any case. and certainly technological change as factories become more automated they just use less workers. there are all sorts of arguments in that. host: minnesota, lynne, democrat. caller: my name is duane. host: are you from minnesota? caller: yes. how comes the government don't want people in poverty to get out of poverty? host: what does that mean, dwayne? caller: i'm a disabled veteran and live with my mother or my mother lives with me. if i make any money over -- basically if i make any money, they're going to cut my veteran

pension completely. ok. i'm also on social security. ok. if i make over $800 a month they're going to cut my social security. so you can't make any money at all if you're sitting in a place like i am and me and my mother can't make it right now the way it is. guest: well, first of all, i want to thank you for your service if you're a vish. we appreciate what you did for the country. on the issue of government benefits, i think that's what needs to play out this year. there are big decisions to be made on deficit spending. on the one hand government doesn't want to spend too much because they have we have this deficit problem. on the other hand we are frying to take care of vicious, take care of people who are disabled. so congress has some tough decisions to make about how much government funding we can

afford for social causes like that. and when do we just focus on debt reduction? i think that's going to be a tough issue in the coming main. host: maine, joe, independent line. we are talking about the economy with marilyn geewax. caller: yes, hi. do you hear me all right? host: please go ahead. caller: i just want to make the point here that seems like this -- no one seems to bring up the fact that 40 million, 50 million jobs have been lost to communist countries. they are basically doing all the work now that we did here. secondly, that all of the jobs we had on this green, they are all going to be made in china. there are no jobs coming back to this country. they're gone. i've been watching them go since 1977. even earlier than that we've been setting these things up. and the point is our country is basically been taken over by the stock market. they just wave their hand and it's an economic devastation. communities, cities, everything is being wiped out.

you've watched it being tosh down and ripped apart just so the more they devastate the bigger beamer they drive. guest: that's another issue that again congress and the white house will be dealing with is anger about the bonuses we're starting to see for bankers again are coming back. wall street's been making money and yet we're seeing these very dismal jobs numbers. so there is -- the economic argument is that if wall street makes money and companies are makes money and companies are expanding there is more money for companies to invest in workers. a good stock market is good for the country, but there is this real lag between employment and profits on wall street. jobs are always a lagging indicator. i went back to look at what happened in the early '89 because when we lost so many jobs in manufacturing.

it really took four years to get back to a fairly decent labor market. once the stock market started perking up again by late 1982, it really wasn't the job market that perked up until 1986. you always have this real loud between good times on wall street -- a real lack -- lag until the job market catches up. that is a real political problem. the pass legislation that cracks down on legislation for bankers or do you get out of the way and help the market works quickly and the successes on wall street fairly quickly translate into jobs for average people? host: what congressional action? you talk about lifting bonuses. what does -- what effect does that have on job creation? what else can congress do to further job creation? can they do anything?

guest: you can make an economic argument in different directions. if you were to say in -- to bank of america that they had to cut back on the bonuses, but they will say that they need to pay these people or else they will go to shanghai. capitalists. they feel mobile. they can pick up and leave new york and move to shanghai and have a very good life and maybe they do their work over there. there's some fear if you crack too much down on bonuses and wall street that people will pick up and move to elsewhere and we will lose even that. so that's one argument. but other people are making a strong argument that really the problem in this country is the unfair distribution of wealth. that there's so much wealth concentrated in the stock market, in these bonuses, and the highest paid executives have done quite well and you

look at the average wage and it's weak. the average person has not gained a whole lot in the last decade or so. what we're seeing on n.p.r. and our facebook page, people are writing in, there's a sense of -- we've had more than 3500 people gone to the facebook page talk about their experiences. as i've read through these things i see people saying, we just downscaled. we just adjusted. we're living in a smaller house. we have less stuff. we have one car now. whatever. they are just adjusting their expectations to lower. and meanwhile on wall street they're not particularly adjusting their expectations. they want those big bonuses. so i don't know. you are at an interesting point in the economy where there's this big gap in the for funs where a lot of people on -- fortunes where a lot of people on wall street are making money. politically how do you respond

to that, hew will people feel about it? these are tough questions coming up in the 2010 elections. host: where there surprises on where the new jobs are? fwoip i think if there's -- guest: i think if there's a surprise in there it's maybe -- i guess -- how can i put this? one of the things we're concerned about is the jobs are growing in places that you would think. health care, education. you know, a lot of those sort of service sector jobs that will start to come back. i guess the thing -- i looked at it, hmm, i hope there's stiffle a lot of innovation out -- still a lot of innovation out there because we can't all be nurses and teachers and go for the safe jobs. we really need people to be the next microsoft. we need somebody to creates a new google that ends up hiring 10's of thousands of people. we need more innovation.

one of the sections was the tech sector. will we have new ideas coming out of that sector? i think the thing to worry about is, are we going to -- so many people have been so harmed in this recession in terms of their jobs that we hunker down and say go for the safe jobs, i will do what i know will lead to a job. instead of saying i want to be an entrepreneur to go out and start a new business that someday will hire fens or hundreds of people. -- tens or hundreds of people. when we keep going, hunker down and take the safe jobs, and i certainly understand that, but we need to spur that entrepreneurial spirit to create the microsofts of the future that will hire tens of thousands of people. host: do you foresee given that the report, the labor department's reported 80,000 jobs lost in the month of december, 2009, do you foresee federal reserve doing anything?

do you foresee a statement by the president? do you foresee the stock market dropping today? guest: likely things to happen. maybe if you were someone who was wanting to get a loan, it's hard on the people that aren't getting jobs. for you, maybe this is good news because it probably makes it less likely that the federal reserve will raise interest rates. the fed has been sort of hanging back, keeping interest rates very, very low. and waiting to see what happens with the economy. if we had had, say, 85,000 jobs added, the fed might say, time to start to inch up interest rates a little bit. so this news tamps down the desire to raise interest rates. and so if you are somebody, a small business, someone who wants to, you know, borrow money for whatever reason, lower interest rates are in your best interest. so that's good. i think probably plit -- politically, yes, the white house will respond to this news. and for the stock market, you

know they're crazy. who knows. the likely thing is they anticipate so much. it's always hard to make predictions before the markets open. the futures was waiting. everybody was waiting to see what this report would say. and my sense is i think this is going to be disappointing and that it could harm the stock market. however, having said that, if you talk to economists long enough you know there are two hands. on the other hand, some people might interpret this as good news because there is a little bit of a growing fear about inflation coming back. as i was talking about gasoline prices. if the jobs market takes off too quickly then maybe we drive up inflation. the demand for energy increases. the demand for, you know, gasoline to drive to work starts to increase. so some people who are worried about flaring up inflation and rising interest rates, we had

already seen some interest rate hikes in china, maybe the market will interpret this as good. we can have lower interest rates and less inflation for a longer time while the economy more slowly builds towards a turning point. host: portland, oregon, gene, republican. you've been very patient. you are on with marilyn geewax of n.p.r. caller: yeah. i just feel like the media, there's such a divide in the way that people believe now. you have the democratic belief system, you know, as i can see it is that government is the answer. and then you have the republican belief system that the private sector is the answer. or the entrepreneur spirit is the answer. what i -- i've been in business for 30 years. and what i see happening now -- i have friends across the u.s. there are so many businesses that are on the verge of

closing even just from the fear of new taxes like here in oregon we are going to have a new tax that's going to be what they call like a gross income tax or something that because all the corporations aren't paying. and so the thing is when you have that kind of media that's promoting a certain belief system on most of the networks and then you have the other side which maybe is the glenn beck side which is giving numbers that are saying these things and then these people are saying these things, isn't there a fact that in the government today that there's a socialistic view which means the government is better to run things, and there's a capitalistic view -- guest: on this controversial about taxes -- on this controversy about taxes, i hear from both sides there are some people that are very concerned about rising taxes and that could discourage business. that could prevent people from wanting to earn more because they don't want to hire

marginal -- higher marginal fax rate or higher property taxes. taxes are obviously a burden on individuals and businesses. but i also hear from businesses who are worried about things like infrastructure. they also want government to keep spending because the roads are too crowded and the bridges are falling down. so some businesses and some people say, no, we really do need to keep up those -- increase our tax revenues because otherwise we have this terrible crumbling infrastructure problem. and ultimately a failed transportation infrastructure system is going to hurt the economy more than higher taxes right now. so again that's something that politically people have to work out. right now, what do we need more? spending for infrastructure, to improve our roads and to create jobs, or do we need lower taxes? key debate. host: associated press story, stock index futures tumbling after the government reported they cut more jobs than

expected. the labor department said the unemployment rate stayed at 10%. 85,000 jobs lost last month. more than the 8,000 expected that you talked about. the report signals that many jobless people are giving up on their search for work. dow futures are down 34 or .3% at 10,511. what does that mean? guest: well, the psychology matters. back to what i was saying. even though this number is -- when you look at a job market of 131 million jobs, 85,000, you know, sometimes they revise these numbers, they're not -- host: as we saw earlier. guest: statistically, if you're one of the sfistics, if you are one of the people that lost your job, it feels pretty painful. if you stand back and look at the big picture the economy, maybe they'll revise it next month and it wonet quite as bad as we thought or whatever, but psychology -- won't be quite as

bad as we thought or whatever. do they want to buy appliances this year? time to buy a new washer or drier. people are so discouraged they are not looking for work, if employers are still laying off people, that's bad psychology to start the year off with. so i think that's what the stock market is going to respond to, is that there's this real concern that, oh, man, we are not out of this yet psychology and that's not good for investors. host: what other numbers besides the jobs lost or gain, what figures do investors and economists look at? guest: now the big attention will turn to the corporate earnings season. the year ended december 31 for most companies. not everybody is on that fiscal year. but most corporations will start reporting what happened in the fourth quarter.

and again this is that kind of complicated scenario where it may be that all those job layoffs will boost profits. maybe companies made money in the fourth quarter because they're squeezing so hard. we've seen tremendous increases in productivity. corporations are just literally telling people, work harder, work faster. and because of the fear of losing your job people do work harder and work faster. also, there's new technologies to help you become more productive. so we may be seeing that even though they're laying off employees they aren't necessarily having less output. so if we continue to have these productivity gains where we're -- we have a lot of output, that may lead to profits for corporations. and that would spur wall street and they'd be happy and then maybe that would eventually trickle down and all that. it sets up a cycle. you need to look at when the corporate earnings start to come out in coming weeks we'll

have a better sense of the overall direction of the economy. host: just a few more minutes left with our guest, marilyn geewax, who grew up in youngstown, ohio, close to cleveland, ohio, where loretta is on the line. please go ahead, loretta. caller: oh, good morning. host: hi. caller: hi. it seems as if the republicans that are calling in they want to blame obama and the administration for the problems that we are currently going through. but these problems were based on the eight years of fiscal nonoversight, the wall street golden parachute pay scam where the more executives screwed up the higher his pay was, we gave away all of this tarp money that was supposed to save the little people. guest: well, again, these are

political arguments as to what started this, but certainly in the midwest, the trouble began a long time ago. i grew up in youngstown. the steel mills started going down in the 1970's. and it was hit by that recession in 1981, 1982. things got better for the region in the 1990's. in the recent years, you know, it's political arguments as to who was at fault. the thing was the midwest, the area around cleveland, detroit, those areas have really taken a lot of manufacturing hits with job losses. and probably still more to come. so there's a lot of good reason for people to be angry in those areas about, and whoever you want to blame, well, that's a political argument. it's certainly true that there are just real problems with employment in the industrial

midwest. host: missouri, carl, independent line, you are last for marilyn geewax. caller: i am last. and i'm going to -- you there? host: we're listening. caller: be short on time. first, let me say this. i'm 75 years old. i have masters in three business disciplines. my i.q. is at genius level. i built businesses, sold businesses, worked for multinational corporations. . caller: that is 100% right. we are just exactly in the united states like we were in

the 1930's. if anyone -- if anyone wants to see what direction we were heading five years ago, all they needed to do was look at mexico. in 2008, the united states became the no. 1 country in the world in in, and equality. when that happens, the methods of people -- the masses of people did not have enough money to buy services. guest: this inability to purchasing is lack of demand, it is really one of the key factors to watch here. it is going to be gasoline prices. every time the price goes up 10 cents, they say $14 billion come out of consumers' pockets. that is money you could have spent at a restaurant.

instead, you are putting it into your gas tank. boost demand, that is the work -- the worst thing we cannot is rising gas prices, and yet that is what we're seeing. it may be the same scenario as the w, that the economy took a fall, it will bounce up, then go back down again. if we have a lousy job market and rising fuel prices, that could increase the likelihood of a w recession, a double dip. into the new year, the estimates are that it is a 10% chance of a double-dip. maybe the chances have risen. host: if people want to see your work on line -- guest: we would love people to go to npr.org and get comments.

and also at npr's facebook page, you have an opportunity to tell us about what happened. there are great stories out there. host: to use them on the air as well? guest: we also follow up on the stories and just listen to the conversation. i've done a great deal of reading those comments. it gives you a great chance to look what happens around the country when you hear what people are saying about the job service. host: is your website easy to navigate? guest: npr.org -- just look at the jobs think it is right there on the front, i hope. >> british parliament returns

this week from its holiday break. house of commons members act prime minister gordon brown about government spending and energy policy. see it sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. congress returns next week, the u.s. house meets tuesday to debate legislation. you can see live coverage here saturday, president obama was ambassador at large for global women's issue. the changing roles of women in the law. the rights of women around the world at 7:00. >> american icons, three original documentaries from c- span, now available on dvd. a unique journey to the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the explicit detail of the supreme court. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours of the white house.

explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital. a three disk dvd set. it is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. >> at his first press conference of the new year, japanese prime minister yukio hatoyamam told reporters on monday that his top priorities are preventing another recession and balancing the budget. this event from tokyo is about 25 minutes. i offer my heartfelt wishes that this will be a wonderful year in politics. thanks to you, we were able to realize a once in a century change in administration.

the reality is that i think at this point, we are now just standing on the starting line. we saw to create a new kind of politics that are not run by bureaucrats, but where the citizens played a leading role. with your support, our new administration is ready to achieve reforms. our efforts have just begun. it is now been just over 100 days since the new administration started. i know that in many ways, we have not come up to your dictations. we are in a difficult process of trial and error, but i believe that the people feel that politics in japan have begun to change. i sincerely believe it. my determination is to maintain my original focus as prime

minister and to work together with all citizens to create a new kind of politics, a politics that would serve them. this year will be the crucial year in fighting success of our efforts. -- finding success. on new year's day, i visited the temporary shelter that was put up -- there are people there in difficult situations. everyone in japan should be able to enjoy the minimum standards guaranteed by the constitution. the government should be supporting people in -- who need a place to live, who want to work but can find jobs. -- but cannot find jobs. during the course of the next year, i hope to create the kind of politics that safeguards people's lives. many people are concerned about

the economic and unemployment. i know that many people feel these concerns. we cannot permit this to become a double-dip recession. we will not allow that to happen. with this determination, at the end of last year, we put together an emergency economic policy response that included 24 trillion yen budgeted to projects to promote future security and growth. based on this, we developed a second supplementary budget for fiscal year 2009. we hope to pass this budget as quickly as possible so that the citizens of japan can regain, even to a small degree, a sense of prosperity. we promised many things during the election campaign in our

manifesto and in the three governing parties. these include a child rearing allowance, a free public high school education, as well as individual household support -- support for agriculture. we have created a budget to reflect our solid commitment to the kinds of politics that protect people and their lives, whether this be employment, including small businesses, child rearing, or retirement pensions, health care, long-term care, education, and the environment. when this budget is passed, i am confident that people will appreciate how epic making it truly is. we will make every effort to ensure the earliest possible passage of this budget.

this is our determination. at the end of last year, deputy prime minister led efforts to develop its growth strategy. the purpose of this was also to empower people with hope and enthusiasm toward their work so that they can manifest their full capability. it is easy for issues such as the environment or the aging of society to be viewed in a negative light as a problem to be dealt with. i think that we have to turn this around and see these challenges in a pot positive forward-looking of light. to -- in a powerful positive forward-looking flight. -- light. help people maintain their health and to make japan the best place in the world for

seniors to live. we believe that our growth strategy reflects this kind of forward-looking perspective. we need to shift the emphasis from the supply side to the demand side of the economy. until now, people have -- many people feel that this is backwards. the economy should exist to meet people's needs. this is a change in thinking that we want to implement for this year. this is why it is crucial to empower local communities to meet their own needs and challenges. the idea that the central government should do everything is out of date. whatever can be resolved on a local level should be. the answers should come from within. this is how we hope to change japanese society. this is what we mean by politics in which citizens take the lead.

this is why we established a strategic committee for regional sovereignty which i chair. one of the priority objectives is to create regular venues for deliberations between the central and local government. we also want to effect the change from conditional subsidies to lump sum grants given to local communities. we will budget funds specifically for use by localities. over the course of the next year, we want to fundamentally change the relationship between the central and local government. what people to be able to feel this change. to -- we want people to be able to feel this change. it has to be done under the leadership of the elected official and it has to be done speedily. we are laying the groundwork so that elected officials can work effectively.

we feel that revamping the system in preparation for this is extremely important. this is why we abolished the conference of unelected administrative ministers. people in the three political level in the bureaucracy have worked hard and we have been able to initiate politics driven by elected officials. we want to keep moving forward, step by step, in this direction. our efforts to review government programs have been very well received. we want to further expand the scope of this to include regulatory systemic reform. we would also like to include the reform of independent administrative organizations and public interest corporations in this process. we would like to hear people's ideas about, for example, independent administration organizations that are no longer necessary or that can be

reformed. it is my belief that diplomacy and security are among the most important responsibilities of the central government. in my first 100 days, i traveled outside japan on eight different occasions. it was especially important that i met with many of the top leaders of asia -- in asia. i think i was able to convince them that with the new administration, japan has started to change. i felt this a very clearly from their reaction. whether the issue was climate change or nuclear disarmament to non-proliferation, japan has something meaningful to offer. i think that people have started to feel this. i would also like to make next year's -- next year the year in

which, while maintaining the strong foundation of u.s.-japan security alliance, we emphasize the importance of asia and further develop our vision. this is one of the reasons why it is important to resolve the issue of moving the u.s. air base. we need to respect the feelings of the citizens of okinawa, but at the same time, there is an existing agreement between japan and the u.s.. . .

the coming year is not just a critical year for the democratic party of japan or the coalition government. it will be a crucial year in terms of what politics is returned to the people, whether or not people can truly feel confident in that regard. i want to make it a year in which our seniors can say that the world has become a safer, more secure place to live, where young people who have been looking unsuccessfully for work can say, "i found a job." i want this to be a year in

which young children can feel strongly that they are moving toward a hopeful future. over the course of the next year, the cabinet members under my leadership will work to the utmost of our ability. our cabinet exists for the sake of the people. we will continue to work, keeping that in sight. with that, and seeking your cooperation, i would like to close my new year's message. thank you very much. we will now have questions from the press. i will indicate the people who will be asking questions. please state your name and affiliation. please raise your hand, mr. reshma. >> please allow me to wish you a happy new year. it is clear that the biggest

political battle coming up in the new year will be the house of councilors election. i would like to ask you what your stance looking toward this election will be. do you intend to keep the same cabinet membership, or is there any possibility that you would reshuffle the cabinet in preparation for the election? and is there any possibility that there would be a simultaneous lower house election concurrent with the house of councilors election? and finally, i would like to ask how many seats you think you have to win in the house of councilors election in order to be able to declare that you have been victorious in that election.

>> as i mentioned earlier, our first priority is to pass the budget and to safeguard the livelihood and welfare of the people of japan. i want to break the accelerate the efforts of our administration in this area during the new year. therefore, i am completely focused on getting the budget passed and creating the kind of politics that will safeguard the well-being of the people. everything comes down to this. this is, therefore, not the time for me to be making statements about the coming house of councilors election. in other words, i am not giving any thought to the idea of what reorganizing the cabinet ahead of the election, nor do i have any thoughts about calling a

double election for both houses. i am not thinking about that sort of thing at all at this point. our goal is to do our best for the people of japan right up to the time of the election. through such efforts, we will naturally be able to see how best to compete in the house of councilors election. and i'm therefore, not in a position to start the year to tell you what number of seats would constitute a victory or defeat. next question, please. >> the aggregator session of the diet coke convene this month. there are number -- of the diet will convene this month. there are a number of seats that will become department status. when you think this might pass? at the regular session, your political responsibility for the incident involving political contribution records will become

a focus of inquiry. the opposition parties will seek further explanations about how the money will you -- was used. how do you intend to respond to their inquiries? >> first, regarding the diet session, various legislation will, of course, require coordination within the democratic party of japan and the other governing parties. this is something that still need to be worked out. in order to have bills that further promote the ascendancy of the elected officials over bureaucrats and to revise the law governing the with the diet functions, these are some of the things that we will be debating. there will all -- will also be debate regarding whether foreigners will be granted the

right to vote in local elections. but the first, most important thing will be to coordinate our views within the governing parties. once positions have been coordinated, we will put forward proposals for new legislation. the process of coordination is the most important thing so that we can pass the supplementary budget that will safeguard people's livelihoods. this is in the same case as the regular budget. this, of course, have to take priority. then we will start thinking about proposing and working to pass various laws. then regarding the question of my political contributions i rick -- surrounding this incident is just as i informed to let the end of last year when i held a press conference. i believe that i have explained everything as well as i can within the extent of my own knowledge of the events.

there are things that happen in the past that i, myself, do not really understand. so, i can appreciate why this might not be very convincing to the people of japan. as a matter of accountability, i will continue to exert my best efforts to explain these matters. as for the prosecutors, they have all it -- already reached their conclusions. in terms of the questions of falsified contribution records, i think that the matter has been settled. if this comes up in the diet, i plan to respond to this as fully and carefully as possible. this is my intention. in terms of how the money was used, there's a question of how much of the actual grasp of the matter i actually have, but i will do my best to explain the matter.

next question. >> you spoke in a moment ago about the u.s.-japan relationship. this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the revision of the u.s.-japan security treaty. i would like to ask you if you could share with us in some concrete detail your image of the ideal u.s.-japan relationship. >> i think that this year, marking the 50th anniversary of the vote revision -- of the revision of the u.s.-japan security treaty is very important. i hope that we can avail ourselves of the pot -- positive opportunities that it presents. in other words, security measurematters are at the hearte

u.s.-japan alliance, but there are many other levels of which japan and the u.s. are japan and the u.s. are no carrierringno carrierringcon0

ask your thoughts on this, in what way should the process of revision be pursued, how should debate proceed and do you have any intention to revoke the constitutional review committee? >> as a politician and a member of the diet i naturally have my views about the constitution. this is a debate that should be held among the members of the debate -- of the diet. in this sense i would like to

offer my ideas and proposals for what my ideal of the constitution should be. but more than security issues, my ideas are focused on my concern for increasing regional sovereignty. it is based on the idea of a fundamental change in the relationship between the central government and localities. at the same time, however, i am prime minister and, as such, obliged to follow and uphold the constitution as it presently stands. this means that my work must always be conducted from the position of upholding the constitution. when we think along these lines, we bring together the views of the three coalition parties, especially within the democratic party of japan as we further debate issues regarding the constitution. this is critically important. i think that as diet members, we cannot avoid debate on the constitution.

but at the same time, there are crucial real-life issues, such as the economy, issues of pressing importance that need to be resolved for the sake of the citizens of japan. this is the most important challenge facing the government. while upholding the constitution, we need to have debate on the constitution among the governing party's, ideally among all the parties, and this debate should be pursued. therefore, any question of invoking the constitution review committee should be decided jointly through discussions among the governing and opposition parties. this is the proper way to pursue this matter. this will be the last question. >> i believe this is actually a question that should have, perhaps, been asked when your administration was first launched, but i would like to know if you intend to maintain

the same cabinet line of all the way through to the next general election. was that your intention when you put this cabinet together? or is there any possibility that you would reshuffle your cabinet and is this required? >> this is a very important question. i believe that if the members of the credit -- of the cabinet are confidence not only domestically, but even more importantly, internationally. the cabinet is the face the country presents to the world and it becomes a obscured. this makes japan less of a presence in the world. therefore, it is my hope that each of the cabinet appointments that i have made will be able to continue in their posts for as long as possible. i would like for them to work in those positions as long as possible. i do not think it serves the

national interest to continually and casually reshuffle the cabinet. >> we would like to close the press conference at this point. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching c-span, graded by the nation's cable companies and provided but -- as a public service. here is what is ahead, next to my discussion on possible elections in afghanistan. president obama talks about the latest unemployment figures.

that is followed by today's white house briefing with spokesman robert gibbs. >> darkness at noon was important on a number of levels. it offered an explanation for something that had been baffling westerners, in particular, for many years, and that was stolen's show trials and the success that he seemed to have. but sunday, the life of arthur koestler, best known for his 1941 anti-communist novel, "darkness at noon." sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> from wall street journal economics editor, david wessel on fed chairman ben bernanke and the role he played after the economic collapse of 2008. he will discuss his book with the former federal reserve vice

chair, and first director of the congressional budget office. next, members of the electoral complaints commission in afghanistan talk about the country's upcoming parliamentary elections and efforts to avoid allegations of fraud that plagued the 2009 presidential election. from earlier today, the u.s. institute of peace in washington, this is two hours. >> good morning, everyone. i would ask that you please take your seat. my name is john m.c. with the u.s. institute of peace based in afghanistan. -- john dempsey with the u.s. into to a peace based in afghanistan. i have the privilege of being here in washington for the first public event on afghanistan in 2010. i'm happy that we have such a good turnout. i recognize a lot of bases and i

see people that i have not seen around before. i look forward to a frank discussion with our distinguished panelists today on a subject that, clearly, has been getting quite a lot of attention in the last year during a difficult election season in afghanistan last year, but that also has not yet gone away. once we get through the difficult -- got through the difficult process of elections last year, there were people that read a collective sigh of relief that we could actually move on with governance in afghanistan and move on with strategic objectives in the country. but yet, we have another election seemingly just around the corner. we have to ask the question, what does that mean for afghanistan's political development, what does that mean for international programs in the country, and how do we ensure that the difficult problems that we faced last year in the presidential and provincial elections are not repeated as the district council and parliamentary elections go

forward? before i introduce our speakers, let me give you a bit of perspective, having lived in afghanistan for the past seven years, working on a rule of law and governance issues. in 2004, i observed the country's first presidential elections and then in 2005, i observed presidential and parliamentary elections and did the same thing for the presidential elections last august. i cannot overstate the difference in the mood in afghanistan between 2004 and last year. back in 2004, there was a sense of optimism, there was some energy that you could really feel in the air that afghanistan was going in the right direction and people were expecting that the promises made after the bond agreement were going to be made and that the institution of governments and democracy were being built and -- of governance and democracy

were being built. the 2004 elections were widely deemed to be an overwhelming success with high-tech -- high turnout, over 70%, and violence kept at very low levels, with voting irregularities, while they exit -- while they existed, they were kept at relatively low levels as well. and large numbers of women were turning out to vote. i think that people felt that they were going in the right direction. if you contrast that with last year with the high levels of fraud and the lower turnouts, it had as much to do with voter apathy as it did with fear of coming out on voting day or reprisals thereafter. it is a reflection of the fact that people are frustrated in afghanistan with the way the democratic development has gone. with elections coming up this year, we want to try to ensure that the mistakes of 2009 are not repeated. that said, there were some

bright spots last year, but one in particular -- to elect or complaints commission, two of whose members are here today on the panel, was able to maintain its independence from political interference to such a degree that they were able to pinpoint with some degree of accuracy the amount of fraud, discount the number of ballots and require that there be a second round runoff, thereby taking the initial iec countdown to 50% and having president karzai accept that. which i think was a good step for afghanistan. of course, the runoff never happened when the opponent pulled out, but they were able to maintain that the rule of law does matter to some degree in afghanistan. let me just briefly introduce our three distinguished speakers and turn it over to them to speak just for a few minutes, probably no more than 10 minutes each if you can keep it to that

so that we can have a frank and vibrant discussion in q&a after that. to my far left is scott ward iw who was on a leave of absence last year to work as one of the three international members of the electoral complaints commission. scott was also involved in the elections in 2005 for parliament when he was with the jemb. you have their bios in front of you, so i will not go into too much detail. isabel has also worked in afghanistan back in 2005 as a political adviser. she knows quite a bit about afghanistan's elections and has been following the process is very closely. finally to my left, grant

kippen, the chairman for the ecc both in 2005 and this past year in 2009 for the presidential and provincial elections. both scott and grant were at the center of this nostrum last year, so please be pointed with your questions and try to get some -- this nostrum last year, so please be pointed with your questions and try to get some specific answers about what was going on with this extremely difficult time in afghanistan. why don't we start with scott and move in this direction? >> actually, we had a meeting and we rolled -- >> you have a jurga. [laughter] >> we are going to switch it up. thanks very much, john, and thanks to usip for hosting this

discussion this morning. scott and i have a discussion last night about how we would go forward with this discussion this morning and i think what i would like to do is just leave off with a bit of an introduction to theecc. as many of you know -- an introduction to the ecc. as many of you know, the elektra complaints commission is a temporary body and is only in existence -- the electoral complaints commission is a temporary body and will cease to exist up to 30 days after the certification of final results. our understanding from a few days ago is from the final certified results released in the third week of december. our mandate and about the 25th of january. our mandate was described in

nevada, ecc's mandate was to investigate and adjudicate all complaints with respect to the electoral. we have a role both in the nomination timeframe when candidates come forward with their nomination papers as well as during the campaign timeframe as well as after the 10th -- the campaign time frame. the ecc in 2009 constituted some 260 people. we had a headquarters in kabul and offices in all 34 provinces are around the country. i would like to say that one of the things that i was enormously proud of and i think the commission as a whole was enormously proud of where the efforts of the staff around the country. of that number, only about 118 were afghan nationals -- and i do not think there was one individual on staff that had been with the ecc prior to 2005.

we were working with an entirely new group of people. in addition to our official role, which everybody looked on with great interest, one of the other major roles that we had was a professional development 1. and to bring a group of people that had never been involved in an electoral complete capacity prior and to get them to understand what their roles and responsibilities were and to have them actually undertake those responsibilities, those functions was an enormous undertaking wafor these electio. one of the challenges that we had in 2009 was that we were established quite late in the process. our first meeting, formal meeting as the commission took place on april 26. we were very quickly into the candidate nomination time frame. at that point, we did not have a headquarters in place. we did not have any staff identified, aside from a couple of people that had been seconded

to us and supported in the early going. we had an enormous task ahead of us, not just in discharging our responsibilities in terms of investigating and adjudicating complaints and challenges, but also getting an organization up and functioning. the other major challenge, as we saw it, was -- and i do not want to be too difficult on this, but we took on a lot of responsibilities that did not really rest with us. the iec in particular was willing to put the decision making on us, in one instance on the challenge timeframe in terms of candidates meeting particular criteria set out in a lot and

the constitution. these were activities that very easily could have been done by the iec, but for which they felt we should be the ones to make those decisions. that kind of relationship continued on through the entire process. which given the points that i made earlier about how late we were established, that we have a new crew learning as we went, it placed an enormous burden on the organization as we went through. in terms of lessons learned, i know that scott is going to get into this in more detail and i can add as we go along. but to me, one of the major lessons learned and looking for is how we as an international community did not use the time between the 2005 elections and the 2009 elections to do the ground work that needed to take place. if you look at the observer reports from 2005, you will see a lot of recommendations in

those, some of which -- one in

impact in opinion back here in washington. when i was here in may, there were few people who were questioning the direction the obama administration was heading in for support of karzai government. the levels of debate have shifted dramatically. huckabee put in troops for government who stole an election? this is fraudulent. they're not governing the country properly. we cannot carry out a military strategy in this and have a credible partner. of the elections certainly had an impact on western opinion and policy in afghanistan.

the afghans themselves are the view that their government with skepticism and saw it as illegitimate largely. with that, why don't we take some questions from the back of the room? way in the back, if you could come up to the microphone? thank you. >> i am formally from unama. i wrote the monitoring report for the campaign. . -- for the camp payingperiod. the media especially in the region was not very engaged. i was wondering if you could speak about the impact or lack of impact of the media particularly on the understanding of engagement and not so much in kabul but the regional media.

>> imf undp. i am wondering -- i am with undp. i wonder if you could clarify the various human institutions in this process. you think the division of labor works effectively and whether then would you, looking back, in each case there might be lessons each entity could learn from this process that would improve the next one? thank you. >> thank you for organizing this political and interesting meeting. you deserve to be commended risking your life working for afghanistan. i worked for the census in cambodia 17 years ago. it took me six years to heal from dodging bullets, but land mines, kedging malaria, and all

of that. -- catching malaria. iran an article about the lack of attention. most un special representatives from what i could find online and the reports from the security council did not report about how the board to include women in the process. i wonder if you could talk about how they are setting a good example for the afghani people. also how you and your colleagues are working to support the invitation of resolutions 1325. >> anyone care to tackle this? grant?

>> to the question about the impact of the media. i was in pakistan in 2007 and 2008 for the elections. earlier, i mentioned i was in afghanistan for the 2004-2005 elections. one thing i found interesting was the development of the media, the domestic media and the afghanistan between those two election cycles. my sense in talking to colleagues was that it was a very vibrant coverage. certainly, the proliferation of television and radio stations was a very lively time for the election campaign. one anecdote i could probably bring to the table, just before

i left i had lunch with the editor of one of the daily newspapers in afghanistan. he was telling me a story and about coverage of the iranian elections. they were getting 40,000 hits per day from iran. during the 2009 elections after they issued the order and the decision came that there needed to be a second round, they had created a special site on there website for the afghanistan elections. suddenly there was tremendous traffic of about 45,000 hits per day in the i read about what was going on in afghanistan. -- a 45 dozen hits per dayfrom

iran. it was about how afghanistan was now going into a second round and comments being made that afghanistan doing this is tremendous. our own country would suppress this kind of activity, oppositional activity. the government was forceful and leave hereon -- bob was for -- they were forceful and iran. it was tremendous to listen to the observations of others about what went on. even though it was a difficult time, they felt very good about the process. i think the media and in afghanistan is, from my perspective, relying on a

colleague's comments, i think it contributed to a lot of awareness about what was going on and had a positive impact. i will let isabelle deal with the question of the human institutions. in terms of gender specific activities, i know that the i.c. pad within their organization a group that looked specifically at this. they did not really see complaints or challenges breaking down on a gender basis. one of the problems, because we were late in setting up, we really did not have the opportunity to focus on more recruiting women to the organization, which we should have.

weaver operating against time constraints, advertising, etc. it worked against us. -- we were operating against time constraints. we did not have a commissioner, a female commissioner. in 2005 we had two out of the five were female. when the recommendations going forward will be to look at this and ensure that women are more inclusive in the organization and not just at the headquarters but around the country. we have one office that had two women commissioners and a male colleague. by and large we were underrepresented with women in the organization which was unfortunate. given the circumstances, we

really could not do much about it. >> on the question about the division of labor between the different un agencies, there are many models about how the un organizes itself in terms of supporting an election treat the afghan model is slightly unusual in the sense that -- in the sense that it is a security mandated mission that does not have a military component. i am not sure if this is a consequence of it, but traditionally when we have a dpa mission that entity is the one delivering assistance. in afghanistan, undp handles the assistance. at the same time, our partners

in 40 countries in delivering electronic experience, the un has adopted an integration model which helps all of the agency's work together towards a common goal. i think obviously we are reflecting on how we could have worked better. again, i think we need to be open with the problems and strive for themunama and we are aware of that -- the strife within unama. in terms of actual support, i say unama should continue to give political support and the policy lead. the undp is well equipped to

deliver assistance. the un is still reeling from the attacks we experienced at the end of last year. i think there's a lot of reflection being done and how we can best support the country while insuring that our personnel does not suffer or incur to unreasonable risks. too unreasonable. about women being involved in the election, women politicians, women voters, as a political advisor in the eastern region i was in contact with many of the candidates. i spoke to female candidates who

had undergone a tax credit their convoys were tagged for two hours -- who had undergone accacks on their convoys. they went back to work on their campaign with an energy and courage that you can only admire. i think, as much as possible needs to be done to support them. we should anticipate the same problems that we have had for the next elections. there will probably be a needed to encourage more female candidates. there'll probably be challenges in recruiting the appropriate amount of staff. it is extremely important, again, to emphasize the usefulness of having female staff. a lot of people ask me, is it difficult for a woman to work in afghanistan? i always say that it gives me

access to more than what some of mine male associates can do. i can go talk to men and women equally. . . the best way is through a peer support, 1 and support. >> i'll touch briefly.

those happen to be two of the success stories of the of the action. media has developed significantly in 2005 to 2009. we all the series of talks in the different regions. commissioners explained the media. it was very well attended. they seemed really enthusiastic bu. i think for it -- the room for improvement in media is content. there is a lot of rumor that is reported. that is to be expected to some degree. the access and coverages is there. being better informed would be a good way to go forward. there are stirrings about women who do choose to enter politics.

one thing i found heartening about the determination of women participating. there is a conservative area in the south. they said women were having difficulties campaigning because of the strictures on women. if their husbands do allow them, as the customs hold, to leave the house, the communities will be upset if the women are out campaigning or posting campaign posters with their photo on it so you can identify them on the ballot. this art of printing out business cards -- they started printing out business cards with their photo and a platform on the back. these could be handed out more discreetly. they could access their constituents without suffering harsh reactions and because their posters are up like the male candidates one small

innovation that allows them to overcome the structural obstacles that women face in all aspects of society. i thought that was encouraging. i hope that can continue. >> i should have known better than to think we might end the debate early. we only have about 10 minutes left. why do not we go through one more round of questions? if we could keep them relatively short, that would be good. you had your hand up. the three of you. introduce yourselves please. try to wrap up in the next 10 minutes. >> my name -- i was was a constitution building adviser. i do want to raise a question that is applicable to the elections and the constitution building. i think this is an issue i want to raise in terms of other full

conflict countries. one building up a constitution, we are overloaded with institutions and processes. it would of been server be [unintelligible] this is the when some -- wisdom of hine said. look at india bur. you need to grow into your expectations and aspirations but . >> my name -- i'm just a member of the committee. i would like to get your opinion about the dynamics among the people of afghanistan in terms of the ethnicity or religion regional differences. if you look at the divide, it is divided.

you had president's. this time around had similar weapons. -- ones. i would like to ask your opinion in terms of contracts of the election this year. is there any indication that the differences among people of afghanistan have improved in the past five or six years? we had these past discriminatory policies against members of certain ethnic communities. thank you. >> thank you.

i have a question specifically -- can you comment on give us an assessment of the political management process, specifically by washington? some of the political side that made your job by their or redeeming your job easier or harder. if you could all get what we could expect coming in may or october. >> if you can try to keep your answers relatively brief it would be helpful. >> the first point i think is a good one in terms of expecting putting on too much too fast in terms of institutions beg. there was some less than needed to be done -- there was so much

that needed to be done. it was recognized by many of the players that expectations of part of the international community or perhaps a bit high and that carried over to expectations by afghan that we should have a fully functioning institution of all these different levels at month. that did not happen, and there was a bit of disillusion and a letdown. that plays out in the in the torah world -- in the electorial world in terms of voters turned out. i think people are bearing in mind it needs to be communicated well. it was a great question about the ethnic interaction. i did not study it that much in 2005. it was certainly -- as we went

to the conflicts or the debate about fried and abdulla purses karzai --is will this take on an ethnic tone. there were rumors that some are unhappy and are preparing to protest and did things to not go their way with their candidates and so on -- i do not know how realistic those are. in the end, there was not any major incident. i did not feel being there that there was any point that was about to go off our was narrowly averted. mike and digital compression is that -- my anecdotal impression is that they are not ethnic divisions that came out of the public debate. i think it is a very positive sign. in terms of political management, it is minimal in

terms of the ecc's operation. there is tremendous support and the international community in terms of our profits and the decisions. we throughout were processed base. following our procedures and applying equal criteria to all complaint was our number one goal. i think that the acceptance of our findings closely reflect that people did recognize we were acting according to the law and according to procedures. and that sense, the support such a gut and saying -- that we got in sync the afghan government [unintelligible] that was all very constructive.

as people saw in the final days leading up to karzai's announcement that we should have a second round, the influence of international was shown to be quite limited. it was strong, the message woul have gone across more quickly. from the complaint saidide, the roles were quite respected but . afghan assertively resisted where they did not agree with the recommendations. >> on the question of the overload of protesters in afghanistan, a process was started. you can question whether that was the way to go. i think it is harder to go back on things that have now been experienced a few times.

from my limited experience in afghanistan, i think that in most countries in the world, the citizens like the idea of votes. it is a simple concept to grasp. it is quite appealing. i think the problem is the first elections raise a lot of expectations that cannot be fed build. to be frank, at the provincial level, most of the power is still held by governors who are not elected. i think the level of change that the citizens have experienced was obviously disappointing. i think there is a reflection on that that there is some conclusions that the people have reached on that.

i think this raises questions that are broader than the objection. on the dynamics -- ethnic dynamics within afghanistan, i find it interesting. i come from belgium, which is ethnically divided, particularly in terms of politics. in afghanistan, it is fair to say that voting is done largely along ethnic lines there is always a frustration on the part of the ethnicities that are lesser in numbers, because you have a sense that your chances of winning the top post is limited. that is where a lot of work has to be done in terms of power sharing, to make sure that every group feels include in and seize their right suspected -- respected. -- and sees their rights

respected. some ethnic violence could develop. i have not seen anything overly worrying. i think there is something to say about the responsibility of the government now to make sure that every ethnic groups find its place. >> in terms of the question on the constitution, we should not forget that we had international and afghan agreement on the bond process that had very specific activities, time lines, with in it. there was a lot of discussion afterward that maybe that was too much of -- that the process was too aggressive. it was a process that was stuck

to. the good, the bad, and the ugly -- we all deal with constitutions. there are parts of them that do not necessarily agree with -- that i do not necessarily agree with. we must move forward. i do agree that it is probably settled under heightened expectations by all parties in terms of how progress was going to carry on after it was fully implemented. in terms of the issue of the question on ethnicity, i would go back to the earlier question about political parties. i think this is where political parties are really necessary in a place like afghanistan. -- to get beyond the sell edification of merely belonging to one group or another -- self edification amid the long into one group or another.

we will look at what more people's needs are in terms of a country right or geographic basis. i think that is where political development in afghanistan is really required. in terms of the role of the u.s. government's, at least from our perspective, i would like to say that the u.s. government was extremely responsive to the needs of the ecc, as were other international donors. they were very engaged in what we were doing and made it very clear that they totally backed the work of the ecc.

specifically, we had challenges in terms of establishing our organization across the country. the un at the times is not the most responsive organization from some perspectives. the times for we had lags in getting things done, we turned to other partners to provide us with support. we were provided with that in an extremely timely basis. that is in terms of personnel as well as in terms of resources to help us get offices up and functioning. we had a very good relationship, not just with the u.s. government but with all international donors.

also on an individual basis with the organization. >> unfortunately, we have gone a couple of minutes over. we will have to conclude the discussion there. thanks to all three of you on an interesting discussion on a subject that is going away anytime soon. it will likely be on the news and in people's minds in the coming months. i want to thank you for all coming up to our first public event in afghanistan. it is the first of many. please, do sign up outside you haven't. we need your e-mail but just to keep you informed. please join me in thanking our three analysts. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> i am always concerned about the potential of unforeseen consequences of three deregulations of any kind. it acts as a tax. when you regulate something where tax it, you tend to diminish it. >> robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband planned, and net neutrality, and the wireless industry. >> the house will gather in on tuesday and the senate will resume debate on january 20. they plan to consider a judicial nomination and an increase of the federal debt ceiling brita . the senate passed its bill on christmas eve. it is done include the public option that is in the house a bill. they have to agree on the same

version before sending it to the president. the aim is to get a final bill to president obama's desk before the stated the union address in early february. live coverage of the house on c- span. you can see the senate on c- span2. >> over 157,000 hours of c-span video now available to you. if his past and free. -- it is fast and free. >> $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students. the top prize is $5,000. create a five minute video. it must incorporate sees their programming in show varying points of view. injured before midnight january 20.

the winning video could be shown on c-span. go to c-span.org 4 contest rules. >> earlier today, president obama commented on the latest unemployment figures that showed 85,000 jobs were lost in december, leaving the unemployment rate at 10%, higher than expected by most economists. this is just over five minutes. >> it means whether we are putting people back to where. job losses for to thousand 9 or 1/10 of what we were experiencing in the first quarter. in november, we saw the first gain in jobs in nearly two years. last month, we slipped back, losing more jobs than we gained.

it is still pointing in the right direction. what this underscores is that we have to continue to explore every avenue to accelerate the return to hiring. that brings me to my announcement today. the recovery act has been a major force in breaking the trajectory of this recession and stimulating growth and hiring. with the most popular element has been a clean energy manufacturing initiative that will put americans to work well helping america gave the lead when it comes to clean energy but . building a robust sector is how we will create the jobs of the future, and jobs that pay well and cannot be out source. it is also how we will produce our dependent -- reduce our dependence on foreign oil. it is how we will combat the threat of climate change and leave our children a planet that is safer than the one we inherited.

it will be one of the defining challenges of the 21st century. the united states, the nation that pioneered clean energy, is being outpaced by nations around the world. it is china that has lost [unintelligible] we spearheaded the development of solar technology. we have fallen behind countries like germany and japan and producing it. almost all the batteries that we used to power our hybrid vehicles are manufactured by japanese countries japanese -- japanese manufacturers or asia. i welcome and am pleased to see a real competition emerging around the world to develop these kinds of clean energy technologies. competition is what feels innovation. i do not want america to lose the competition. i do not want the industries

that yield the jobs of tomorrow to be dealt overseas. i do not want the technologies that will transform energy to be abroad. i want the usa to be what it has always been, at the leader when it comes to a clean energy future. that is exactly what is clean energy manufacturing initiative will do. it will help clean the energy gap that is between america and other nations. through this initiative, we are awarding $2.3 billion in tax credits for american manufacturers of clean energy technology but a they are companies that produce solar panels and assemble cutting edge factories. the initiative will likely generate 17,000 jobs and roughly $5 billion more that will leverage under investments that could help treat 10,000 additional jobs. it will give a much-needed boost to our manufacturing sector.

it will double the amount of renewable power with equipment built here in the u.s. a. this initiative is good for middle-class families. it is good for our security. it is good for our planet. over 185 companies will receive these tax credit. one of them is tpi inc that is based in newton, iowa. because of these tax credits, they will not only be able to expand an existing facility in newton, they are not only be able to build a new facility in nebraska, i do also be able to hire over 200 new workers. it is my hope that similar stories will be told across america because of this initiative. this initiative has been so popular that we have a far more

qualified applicants than we have been able to fund. we received requests from roughly three times as much in funding, some of 1 $6 billion, as we could provide. -- $7.6 billion, as we could provide. i have called for investing another $5 billion in this program, which will put even more americans to work right away building and equipping clean energy manufacturing here in the united states. in the letters that i receive that night -- as many of you know, i get about 10 letters a night that it again but at -- i also hear from americans are facing hard times. they lost their jobs and cannot afford to pay their bills. i am confident that we can have the talents of our entrepreneurs and workers, we can gain the

clean energy worldwide, and forge a future where a better life as possible in our country over the long term. that is a future where now closer to building because of the steps that we are taking today. thank you very much, everybody. >> prior to the president's remarks, robert gibbs spoke with reporters on the stated the economy, and the flight 253 report, and health care bill this is almost 50 minutes. >> i forgot the week ahead. we will e-mail that around at the conclusion of today's activities. >> we reported last night that robert gates said he will stay on for another year. could you give us some of the back story on that? >> i would have to look of the exact date. several weeks ago, the president

and the secretary of defense had a conversation about this. obviously, the president is deeply grateful for the continued service of that secretary -- that a great provided -- that secretary date provided. they were glad that he is staying on the home. >> he might of been thinking about leaving? >> not anymore. >> he is confirming he is staying on for another year? >> i will also confirm. >> the announcement this afternoon has to do again with money from the recovery act. does the presidency a need for new money any time this year? >> today's announcements is the

award recipients for tax incentives for the creation of the noble manufacturing jobs -- of renewable manufacturing jobs. it is a $2.2 billion program and recovery act. it is an example of something the president believes we should do more of. the number of applicants for the money we have was roughly three to 1. in the speech on jobs to the brookings institute, he called for increasing this type of investments in the private sector to create that environment for additional hiring. the president believes there are things that had worked and are working well.

the target of money that should be increased. absolutely. >> is this past the recovery act -- is there any this year for any additional spending? >> i do not know if we throw it forward or remind you backward? the president outlined some specific examples of exactly what you like to see. today's program is being one of those examples. investment in small businesses for additional hiring, infrastructure spending, things like that. i think the president has been quite clear on that. look, today's jobs report is obviously disappointing. 85,000 people last month lost their jobs. we are in a very tough econo