"slate" has a great article. host: joseph cirincione, thank you for being on "washington journal." . guest: thank you. host: thank you to all who participated this morning. we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] "the wall street journal . . >> you are watching c-span --

bring new politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting with policy officials and journalists. during the week, watched the u.s. house. every weeknight, congressional hearings and policy forums. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs, "the communicators." you can also watch our programming anytime at c- span.org. is all searchable on our video library. c-span -- the public service greeted by america's cable companies. on c-span, speakers of the -- speaker of the house nancy pelosi and the congress lit the national christmas tree. later, on the 50th anniversary of the 50th televised

presidential debate, michael dukakis and charles gibson talk about the preparation for presidential debate and their impact on the campaign. christmas day, former prime minister tony blair and author christopher hichens on the role of religions -- hitchens on the role of religion. four justices will discuss -- former justices will discuss life on the high court. >> it should not take financial calamity to summon from each of us and from this body collectively the greatness of which we're capable. nor can america afford to wait. >> as the 111th congress reaches its final days, search for farewell addresses and other programs on c-span.org. it is all on line, all free. it is washington, your way.

>> about one hour ago, president obama sign the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays and lesbians serving in the military. the senate bill passed yesterday, but the implementation will take several months. these remarks are over 20 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> yes, we did! yes, we did! yes, we did! yes, we did! >> thank you! yes, we did! mr. president. >> you're welcome. this is a good day. >> yes, it is!

>> [inaudible] [applause] >> thank you, thank you, thank you. [laughter] i am just overwhelmed. this is a very good day. i want to think -- thank all of you, especially the people on this stage, but each and every one of you who have been working so hard on this, members of my staff who worked so hard on this. i could not be more proud. 66 years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forest of western europe, allied forces were beating back a massive assault in the what would become known as the battle of the bulge. in the final days of the

fighting, a regiment in the 80th division of patton's third army came under fire. the men were traveling along a narrow trail. they were exposed and they were vulnerable. hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy. during the firefight, a private named lloyd tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. and dazed and trapped, the was as good as dead. but one soldier, a friend, turned back, and, with shells landing around him, amidst smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this

friend, scaled the icy slopes, risking his own life to bring the private to safer ground. for the rest of his years, lloyd credited this soldier, this friend named andy, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. it was a full four decades after the war when the two friends or united in their golden years -- reunited in their golden years that he learned that the man who saved his life, his friend, was gay. he had no idea. he did not much care. [laughter] lloyd knew what mattered. he knew what had kept him alive, what made it possible

for him to come home and start a family, and live the rest of his life. it was his friend. us lloyd's son is with today. he knew the valor and sacrifice -- that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race, religion, gender, or creed. what made it possible for him to survive the battlefield of europe is the reason that we are here today. [applause] that is the reason we are here today. [applause] so, this morning, i am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to don't ask, don't tell.

it is ala -- a law -- this law that i'm about to sign will strengthen our national security. it will uphold the ideals that are fighting men and women risk their lives to defend. no longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic americans who were forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance, because they happened to be gay. no longer will tens of thousands of americans in uniform be asked to live a lie or look over their shoulders in order to serve the country that they love. [applause] as admiral mike mullen has said,

our people sacrificed a lot for their country, including their lives. none of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. [applause] that is why i believe this is the right thing to do for our military. that is why i believe it is the right thing to do, period. many fought long and hard to reach this day. i want to thank the democrats and republicans to put convictions ahead of politics to get this done together. [applause]

i want to recognize nancy pelosi. [applause] steny hoyer. [applause] and harry reid. [applause] today, we are marking an historic milestone, but also the culmination of two of the most productive years in the history of congress, in no small part because of their leadership. we are very grateful. [applause] i want to thank joe lieberman. [applause]

and susan collins. [applause] and i think carl levin is still working, but i want to add carl levin. [applause] they held their shoulders to the wheel in the senate. i'm so proud of susan davis. [applause] and a guy you might know, barney frank. [applause] they kept up the fight in the

house. i have to acknowledge patrick murphy, a veteran himself, who helped lead the way in congress. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] i also want to commend our military leadership.

ending don't ask, don't tell was a topic in my first meeting with secretary gates, admiral mullen, and the joint chiefs. we talked about how to end this policy. we talked about how success in both passing and implementing this change depended on working closely with the pentagon. and that is what we did. two years later, i am confident that history will remember well the courage and the vision of secretary gates, of -- [applause] of admiral mike mullen, who spoke from the heart and said what he believed was right. [applause]

of general james cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, and get the dairy -- and the deputy secretary, william lynn, who is here. [applause] also, the authors of the pentagon review, who did outstanding and meticulous work. [applause] and all of those who laid the groundwork for this transition. finally, i want to express my gratitude to the men and women in this room who have worn the

uniform of the united states armed services. [applause] i want to thank all the patriots who are here today, all of them who were forced to hang up their uniforms as a result of don't ask, don't tell, but who never stopped fighting for this country, and who rallied and who marched and fought for change. i want to thank everyone here who stood with them in that fight. because of these efforts, in the coming days, we will begin the process laid out by this law. the old policy remains in effect until secretary gates, admiral mullen, and i certify the military's readiness to

implemented the repeal. it is important for service members to remember that. i have spoken to the service chiefs and they are all committed to implementing this changed swiftly and efficiently -- this change swiftly and efficiently. we're not going to be dragging our feet to get this done. [applause] with any change, there is some apprehension. that is natural. but, as commander in chief, i am certain that we can effect this transition away that -- in a way that only strengthen our military readiness. people look back on this moment and wonder why it was ever a source -- people will look back on this moment and wonder why it was ever a source of controversy. i have confidence in the

professionalism of our service members. just as they have adapted and grown stronger with every other change, i know they will do so again. i know that secretary gates, admiral mullen, and the vast majority of service members themselves share this view, and they share is based on their own experiences, including the experience of serving with a dedicated, duty-bound service members who were also gay. as one special operations warfighter said during the pentagon review -- this is one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of lloyd, "we have a gay guy in the unit. he is big. he is mean. he kills lots of bad guys. no one cares that he is gay." [laughter] i think]sums up 0-- i think that sums up, perfectly, the

situation. [applause] finally, i want to speak directly to the game men and women currently serving in our military -- gay men and women serving in our military. for a long time, your service has demanded a particular sacrifice, asked to carry the burden of secrecy, isolation, all the while putting your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you. you're not the first to have carried this burden. what today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two -- while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades, this has been a century in the making. their service has been obscured in history. it has been lost to prejudices

that have waned in our own lifetimes. at every turn, at every crossroads in our past, we know that the americans fought just as hard, gave just as much -- gay americans fought just as hard, gave just as much to protect this nation and the ideals for which it stands. there can be no doubt that there were gay americans who fought for the revolution, who consecrated the ground at gettysburg, who manned the trenches along the western front, who stormed the beaches of iwo jima. their names are etched into the walls of our memorials. their headstones dot the grounds at arlington. as the first generation to serve openly in our armed forces, you will stand for all those who came before you. you will serve as role models for all who come after.

i know that you will fulfill this responsibility with integrity and honor, just as you have every other mission with which you have been charged. and you need to look no further than the service men and women in this room, distinguished officers, like former navy commander zoe dunning. [applause] marines like eric alva, one of the first in iraq. [applause] leaders like captain jonathan hopkins, who led a bullet --

platoon into northern iraq, quelling ethnic riot, earning a bronze star with valor. [applause] he was -- he was discharged only to receive letters and e-mails from his soldiers saying they had known he was gay all along and thought he was the best commander they ever had. [applause] there are a lot of stories like these -- stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service of all who are willing to fight for this country. that is why i hope those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsman who have been discharged and this discriminatory policy will seek to reenlist once the repeal is implemented. [applause]

that is why i say to all americans, gay or straight, who want nothing more than to defend this country in uniform -- your country needs and wants you. we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military this world has ever known. [applause] some of you remember i visited afghanistan just a few weeks ago. while i was walking along the road, there was a big crowd, about 3000, a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand. other people were grabbing and taking pictures. she pulled me into a hug and she

whispered in my ear, "get don't ask, don't tell done." and i said to her, "i promise you i will." [applause] for we are not a nation that tell."on't ask, don't we are a nation that says "out of many, one." we're a nation that believes all men and women are created equal. those are the ideals that generations have fought for. those are the ideals that we uphold today. now, it is my honor to sign this bill into law. [cheers and applause]

[applause]

[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> u.s.a.! >> the president signed the don't ask, don't tell repeal this morning at about 9:20. we will go live now to the white house or remarks from spokesman

robert gibbs -- for remarks from spokesman robert gibbs. this briefing started about 20 minutes ago. >> if you look at any assortment of public polling conducted by many of your news organizations, i think it is clear to see that the attitudes of americans about who should or who could serve in the military has really changed over the course of the past several years. what that leads to in the future is harder to tell, because some of this stuff, obviously, have to go through a divided congress. yes, ma'am. >> harry reid expected that s.t.a.r.t. would be ratified by 2:00. can you tell us any more about that? >> we'll have more on that when

the bill is -- the treaty is ratified. >> on north korea -- south korea announced they would be doing a large military operation. what is the white house thinking in terms of whether it might provoke a response from north korea? will there be an escalation? >> obviously, the exercises have been well-publicized. are announced well in advance. everybody, i think, in the world is aware that they are happening. they are exercises that are defensive in nature. the united states is obviously supportive of the republic of korea. >> given the climate lately,

with pyongyang and the bombing of the island -- excuse me -- is there concern that there might be more of an escalation? >> again, i think exercises that have been announced well in advance, that are transparent, that our defensive in nature should in no way -- are defensive in nature should in no way to engender a response from the north koreans. yes, sir. >> what is the fundamental principle underlying the presidents of repeal of the don't ask, don't tell being such an important policy? >> the president believes it was not just. we had a number of brave men and women that were willing to sign up for the country, willing to

serve their country, willing to die for their country. i think the story that the president opened his remarks with today was one that was quite moving. i think the president is glad to see this day come on the grounds of both greater equality and an enhancement of our national security. >> is it any less unjust those same troops cannot get married? >> that is not the bill we were signing today. >> i understand, but if that principle is important to the president about those brave troops having a quality, should they have marriage equality also? >> i would refer you to his remarks on that. >> his remarks are that he thinks marriage is between a man and woman. >> and that he supports civil unions. some of the military does not recognize those. >> you did not ask me what the

military recognizes, but what the president believes. i am not here to make news on that issue. >> i am just trying to point out that the principle seems to have a border. it does not apply to everything. >> i understand what you're trying to point out. >> can i ask a question about israel? >> sure. >> is there anything going on with their constant disagreement on the settlements? >> our government has had a position that dates back, i think, probably to the administration of lyndon johnson about our views on housing. we will continue to make our

position known. again, as we have for many administrations. that does not stop our efforts to remain engaged in comprehensive -- in a comprehensive peace process. we understand, as a country -- i should say, as the world, what happens when our country is not engaged in the process of actively working with each side to bring about a comprehensive peace. that is a long and bumpy road, but the president will continue to do it. >> is the same idea at play with pakistan and saudi arabia, that we continue to engage with them even if they do things that we do not like that harm what we proceed to be against -- perceived to be our national interests? >> i am happy to address -- i do not know if you are trying to

link a series of those things. obviously, we have important bilateral relationships where we agree and disagree with in those relationships. >> can you give us as to when the policy will be certified? i know the president wants this to happen without delay, but -- >> the president discussed with mullen and others yesterday that, as a group, they think the time frame is a matter of months. >> nothing more specific? >> i do not have th anything have tan -- have anything more specific than that. >> what is the president going to do -- >> he had an interest with the chiefs and the chairs.

both gates and mullen played a big role in seeing this day happen. you can watch the testimony of the chair of the joint chiefs say that this policy should be changed. it was a historic moment. they are now charged with the job of implementing this change. their commitment to the president is that it can be done in a very timely manner. again, i think you have seen -- there has been conjecture about when that would happen. i think the president was very clear that this is not something that needs to or should drag on. >> anything more on whether we will see the president today? >> if you can tell me when congress leaves, i can answer the above question.

i anticipate, at some point, you will see the president today. i should start a pool as to when that will be. i would like to do it now, then we can go about christmas shopping and whatever things we have not been able to do. regrettably, you and i hold very few cards in this long process. i anticipate that you will, at some point, see him. i will say, as a pure housekeeping measure, we are not likely to have a ton of time in terms of when you see the advisory. to help, when you see the advisory, please rsvp. if there are people who need to come into the building who are not here on a regular basis, there will be very limited time. please tell your organizations and give them that heads-up. that is my hope.

again, a news conference, but i got out of the prognosticating business around health care. >> so, the president and you and others have made it clear that, even though the dream act failed to pass, you will continue to pursue that in the congress -- the next congress. the debt is now stacked much more heavily against you -- deck is now stacked much more heavily against you. >> i was waiting for the questio mark. -- question mark. >> how do you propose to do these things when it was hard enough to do the things that you were able to do when it was nearly impossible? >> how do you expect us to get

it all done? somebody put that on my vcr so i can save this tape. >> you have a vcr? [laughter] >> i am talking to bill. >> merry christmas. [laughter] [cross-talk] >> i think -- again, i think the president will have the opportunity to discuss what has been accomplished over the past six weeks. the path for how we can work together and accomplished stock that is in the national interest 0-- accomplish stuff that is in the national interest next year -- i would start with your question, no pun intended, in noting that many people probably would not have thought we would of had a free-trade agreement

that enjoys the support of the chamber congress and the united autoworkers -- the chamber of congress and the united autoworkers. it allows unemployment benefits to laughter out all next year, provide certainty in tax rates -- to last out all next year, provide certainty in tax rates, that we have begun the repeal of don't ask, don't tell through a congressional process, and, knock on wood, the likely ratification of a start agreement whose obituary has been written more times than i could care to remember -- none of that was easy. none of what has happened going forward is easy, but i know the president believes that there are -- and i think those

milestones that just mentioned, i think what they show the president is that, when people get together and understand and believe what is in the best interest of the american people, certainly on tax rate, repealed policies that people believe are not just, or something that protect their nationals most -- our national security, we have far more in common than in opposition, and working together gets things done spirit that is what emanated him to run for public office -- get things done. that is what animated him to run for public office and for president here that has animated his actions for the past six weeks. >> but what about getting republicans to cooperate with him in the next congress? >> we will write this down.

they control part of government. a budget will originate in the house of representatives. some of these bills are going to originate in the house of representatives. the incentive that they have as less of an incentive and more of our responsibility. they are charged with having to run half of the legislative branch. i think, as i said yesterday, that has kicked in -- that responsibility has kicked in to some degree a bit early. you have seen all of what i just mentioned happen -- the free trade agreement has not yet gone through congress -- but use of bipartisan support for that free trade agreement -- you saw bipartisan support for that free trade agreement. you saw this all done by not just the votes of one party, but by both parties. it is a path that the

president thinks will not be easy to follow, but provides a path for how we can get things done that are in the interest of the american people. that is what the election was about. the election was not about, how do we grind this place more to a halt? how do we play more political games? it is about, how do we get things done better in the interest of the american people? track in a couple of months. >> i thought you were still on reel-to-reel. [laughter] he makes fun of me. >> part of the issue is the prisoners at gitmo -- the president has ordered treatment -- as ordered changes in the

treatment of the prisoners at gitmo. >> are you talking about the draft executive order? >> you are right, because it is not ityet. -- it is not finalized yet. >> that document has not begun the process of the deputies' committee meeting. has not been read or looked at by the president. i do not think it is or should be surprising to many of the speech he gave in may, 2009 -- off of the speech he gave in may, 2009. there are inmates at guantanamo bay that, for whatever reason, are not going to be able to be tried in either a federal court or in the military commission that are going to have to be indefinitely detained.

the president was clear on that in maine -- may. i have no comment on the draft executive order, largely because it is a long way from ever even reaching the president's desk. >> i am wondering if that process is intended to make a facility in guantanamo bay somewhat more acceptable to the president. >> not to mess with the premise of your question, but he said that because al qaeda has used it as such. they have used it as a recruitment tool. our generals and commanders see them using it as a recruitment tool. obviously, the president is -- again, i refer you to the speech in may, 2009. it seeks to do -- broadly, the

president does not believe that our national security and protection of our homeland asked to be in contradiction with our values as americans -- has to be in contradiction with our the use as american spirit that is what animates him in this process -- our values as americans. that is what animate him in this process. i do not want to divorce this from the draft executive order. again, it is a process that is certainly not -- has certainly not worked its way through even to the deputy committee procedure. as the president said -- i do not think anybody finds it surprising that the president and his administration understand that there are those who have been evaluated by our intelligence committee -- community, and we understand

that there are some who will require indefinite detention. >> is the president still committed to closing guantanamo bay? when is that going to happen? >> i do not know the answer to when, but i know that remains the president's goal. let me make one other announcement. i do not have the timing on this. the president did sign the continuing resolution to fund the government through early march this morning. i will try to find the time. can you go back and find e-mail? >> on the start treaty, mitch mcconnell has said that his priority is to stop the president for reelected beauty is now losing apparent control of this caucus. is this a one--- stop the president from being reelected. he is now losing a parent control of this caucus. is this a one-off?

>> we have to work with republican leaders in congress more closely than we have in the past couple of years. as i said earlier, they have the responsibility to the governing of this country, unlike they have had in the previous two years. i think -- again, i think what -- i think the result of what has happened over the past few weeks is less somebody losing control of their caucus and more those in that caucus understanding that the message is work together and get things done, do not read litigate the

-- relitigate the fight said yesterday. there is plenty of time. focus on our future, not your political future. that is the message that the american people are sending and i think it is the message that those in congress have urged in everything from a tax agreement -- heard in everything from the tax agreement to the hopeful ratification of the start treaty. >> did mitch mcconnell not get that message when he said he would try to defeat the president? >> again, i think that is a broad and fundamental misreading of what the election was about. do not believe that, regardless of your vote, people went to the polls thinking, let's extend gridlock and political gamesmanship for

another two years. if that is what some up there believe, then have at it. >> robert -- >> i like the tie. it must be an important day. >> it is christmas. senator mcconnell said he was supposed to start. -- opposed to start. do you think he has made a miscalculation in taking to party lines to appease the tea party vote? >> i think, certainly on the issue of stark, he miscalculated that there are those that believe -- start, he miscalculated that there are those that believe that we can use partisan political interests to do something that is in the best interests of our national

security. i think that is why the treaty will be ratified today. again, i think people want us to put aside the way washington has traditionally worked and to work together. >> can this hold the -- is his ability to hold his caucus in tact -- intact over? >> there are 58 on one side and 42 on the other of the 9/11 bill. i do not know how that might change if that were considered next year or not. but i still think, and i think the president believes, there will be times in which we will have split along partisan lines because we're fighting about something we all hold deeply.

i do not think those days are gone. i think that is the reason we have two-party spirit at the same time, i think the president believes -- we have to do parties -- i think that is the reason we have two parties. i think, at the same time, the president believes we ought to be able to decide some of those differences to get what we agree -- be able to set aside some of those differences to get what we agree on done for the american people. >> the president thanked nancy pelosi and harry reid and talk about the productivity of the first two years. do you think that was a corporate to -- a corporate to be doing -- appropriate to be doing at the signing of a

landmark civil rights bill? >> it was a victory for many people in that room and many people who could not be in that room. this was something that a lot of people, men and women, those in congress and out of congress, those in the military, those out of the military that have fought a long time for -- i do not see anything inappropriate for the president to discuss what he believes and has been a very productive two years in washington. >> that was not a reference to the don't ask, don't tell repeal -- >> i think it was a reference to don't ask, don't tell, financial reform, economic reform, credit- card reform -- a whole host of things. >> is that something he will take up this afternoon? >> i think he might get his toe

in that water, yes. >> did you see the joint chiefs were -- say the joint chiefs were here yesterday? >> he spoke to them on the phone. >> general amos? >> yes. >> robert, you addressed this the other day. i want to see if there is any change. will there be any staff changes over the holiday? >> not that i am aware of. >> [inaudible] >> i thought we signed that on monday. the food safety -- food is obviously close to our hearts. i will find out the answer. the continuing resolution was signed at 9:50 a.m. >> ten hours without funding the

government. >> i ask this question last night because we were getting pinged by a number of you all. we were told that we had until fairly late today to sign. >> who told you that? >> the guys at omb. i called my bank. [laughter] i have one of them on the phone if you need to vouch for an impending direct deposit. i will find out on the food safety thing. >> what is the president looking forward to in hawaii? >> sleep. >> i think the president is -- i think he is, as much as

anything, anxious to spend time where he grew up with his family and to see his sister, to see his nieces. he -- i should get a rundown of which childhood friends -- normally, a bunch of them come back. it is an opportunity for the president to spend some time with them. i think that is what he is most looking forward to. >> will he be looking at this reveiw and -- review and the state of the union address while he is there? >> i anticipate he will take of a take of stuff -- take a good amount of stuff with him.

he will have his daily intelligence briefing as well as probably a novel or two. >> will the focus on education reform -- he focus on education reform next year? >> i will anticipate that does not happen until post-dated the union -- post-state of the union. >> some of the republicans were working on a bill that requires the service chiefs to sign off. were you guys on the phone last night to try to persuade -- >> i think that would have required unanimous consent. i do not think that senator re ed had that in mind. this has been true since the president told thie -- the chiefs, secretary gates, and

admiral mullen that his goal was to see this policy repealed, not if, but when, in one of the very first meetings that was had about this. obviously, implementation is enormously important to him. that is why he reached out yesterday. i will say that, regardless of where any individual has been in representing the views of themselves or, representing as part of the joint chiefs, some views of their branch of the military, all told the president before the repeal was voted on and have said since that they will implement allot of the land -- the law of the land. that is what the courts would expect.

that is what the american people expect. i think that this can be done in a matter of months. >> did the white house invite any other congressional our -- republicans and those who came this morning -- than those who came this morning? >> i can check on that. >> have been complaints from the new york congressional delegation that the white house has not taken and -- an active enough role in the 9/11 legislation. >> we have been - we c -- we came out for this bill in august. we detailed those views both publicly and in statements of administration policy to the house when they voted and the

senate when they voted. have heard me say for the past more than a week or so -- you have heard me say for the past more than a week or so that we are supportive of this. they are all there. there is nobody to convince. they are there. when this bill is brought up for reconsideration, there are those on the reconsidered -- the republican side that we hope will reconsider. >> thank you, robert. two questions. robbie a formal ceremony for the promulgation of the start treaty with -- there will be a formal ceremony for the promulgation of the start treaty with the president and medvedev, right? >> do not know the schedule. as i understand it, the treaty is ratified once the senate does it. do not know if there are plans

to do the ceremony that -- i do not know if there are plans to do this ceremony that you are speaking of. >> you gave a lot of credit, this week, to the secretaries of state and the republican administration -- >> i'd likely left out dozens of people who had been helpful. >> you mentioned admiral mike mullen and general cartwright. will the administration count on more identifiably republican figures? >> i think, as is true on a number of issues, not just issues of national security, there are those that share an interest in different policies. when the president talked to them, or the vice-president, or people in the edited -- the

administration are to them, they have a desire to be helpful, we think it is helpful to have democrats and republicans, those that are currently serving, and those that have served our country, out to discuss why they think this is an important priority for the american people. we do not -- we have done that in the past and we hope to continue. >> on the question of indefinite detention, you said that the order is "a long way from reaching the president's desk." in one of these stories, there was an intimation that it would be sometime in january. i am not asking you to confirm -- >> it is hard to know the process. it is not one step away from the president's desk. it is many, many meetings. this has not been brought to him. i think it is at the deputy

committee level. that will likely lead to a series of things before the principles committee -- principals' committee which would include the president. >> we are leaving today's white house briefing to go to the coverage of the house. . tehhey will consider bills for federal responsibility for stormwater. the senate debates tehe s.t.a.r.t. treaty today.

and now, live house coverage.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, monsignor

stephen rossetti, catholic university of america, washington, d.c. the chaplain: good and gracious god, as the year draws to a close, we reflect upon all that has taken place. it is easy for us to thank and praise you for the many good things. it is more difficult to see your hand in the hard times. help us to treasure each event, each moment of our lives. help us to know that your all powerful spirit brings life and grace out of everything in our lives. may we embrace the joys and the sorrows. may we embrace the signs of new life and the crosses. as we look forward to a new year, may we look to it with expectation and hope knowing that you will guide and direct our lives in everything that comes our way. may we praise and thank you for the year that is passing and for the year that is to come.

we pray this in your holy name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the jurent of the lal day's proceedings and announces to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. mr. skelton: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: one minutes on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> permission to address the

house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. polis: i just returned from the signing of the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. the president spoke wisely and strongly and welcomed those who were discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to consider re-enlisting. president obama said there will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay americans in service to this country. he continued, as the first generation to serve openly in the armed services you will stand for all those who came before you and role models for those who came after. today is an important day not just for gay and lesbian members of the military but all of us who are gay or lesbian, to our families, to our friends. for they all know that today we hold our heads a little higher as americans. we are closer to equal treatment under the law which is all we ever asked for. our government will no longer be an instrument of discrimination against us and all america will see and be told of the patriotism of the gay and lesbian americans who proudly defend their country that today is one step closer to considering us equal.

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 22, 2010, at 9:41 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 5470, h.r. 4445. that the senate passed senate 3903. that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 6523. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i am grateful to welcome the addition of a new congressional seat to my home state of south carolina. one of america's fastest growing states.

the census bureau announced the state's population has grown enough to merit one more representative in congress. our state has been enhanced by transplants through the midwest and northeast and from people across the world due to a mild climate and lower tax rates. after 80 seats it appears we will regain a seventh house member. the people of south carolina will now have another advocate on their behalf in washington and another electoral vote for president. growing our representation on capitol hill is a key factor in achieving goals for the people of south carolina. our state will have another voice fighting for conservative principles with the new district on the grand strand with florence. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. godspeed to marine captain kay hunter who successfully accomplished her service and now will be in the office of the marine corps.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri seek recognition. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 6523 with the senate amendments thereto and concur with the senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 6523, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: reserving the right to object. i take this moment --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. bordallo: i take this moment to express great disappointment at the situation the house now finds itself. it is very unfortunate that before us is an amended version of the ike skelton national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. last night the other body struck title 17 of the version of the bill that this house passed last friday, december 17. title 17, madam speaker, was the guam world war ii loyalty recognition act which the house has passed on multiple occasions with strong bipartisan support. several senators objected to its inclusion in the bill. they express concerns over its budgetary impact and indicated a willingness to work toward identifying an acceptable way to authorize and pay the claims. i regret the inability to

resolve this matter at this time. and i am very appreciative of the strong support from chairman skelton and incoming chairman of the house armed services committee, mr. mckeon of california, for their strong support of this provision. the unresolved nature of the guam war claims has serious implications for the military buildup on guam. and i appreciate the administration's strong support for this provision. the administration recognizes the connection between resolving this issue and successfully im-- implementing the military buildup on guam. we will continue our work to bring closure to this matter of justice for the people of guam and to act on the legislative recommendations of the federal guam war claims review commission that reported to congress pursuant to public law 107-333. it was not for a lack of effort from this body and we will

continue to build on the progress we have made. the underlying bill is important for our national defense and for our men and women in uniform and their families and therefore this body is left no other choice but then to concur with the senate amendments at this time. and again i want to thank everyone who has assisted me, both the leaders and to the multiple staff members who have helped us through this process. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman withdraw her reservation? ms. bordallo: i withdraw my objection. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further members seeking recognition? without objection, the senate amendments are agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, i

rise today to say goodbye to some dear friends and colleagues. four years ago we arrived in this body over 40 of us, and we were called the majority makers because we brought control of the house back to the democrats. and now 18 of us are leaving for other endeavors. they have become more than colleagues and members and great americans, they have become part of a family. so i salute baron hill, paul hodes, carol shea-porter, patrick murphy, ron kind, brad ellsworth, charlie wilson, chris carney, zach space, harry mitchell, mike arcuri, travis childers and ciro rodriguez. although their faces will not appear in this body, at least on a frequent basis, the memories and legacy that they have left will live on forever. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, this lame duck session is rapidly descending into farce. i believe the house is now in danger of becoming a caricature of everything the american people rejected in november, incompetence, arrogance, and a complete detachment from reality. . nearly two months ago the american people said very clearly they don't want this congress legislating for them any longer and instead of graciously cromwell to the rump parliament, in his words seem appropriate to this rump congress. you've sat here too long for any good you've been doing, it is not fit you should sit here

any longer. you shall now give way to better men. demart in the name of god, go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. purpose the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized. >> thank you, today does end the 111th congress which norm ornstein said was the most historic and productive congress since 1965. i'm proud to have been a member of this congress that gave us health care which this country yearned for for over 100 years, that saved us from the precipice of economic decline with the stimulus act that has done much good for this country and saved us from a great depression, gave a law for women discriminated in the workplace, gave us don't-ask, don't-tell. that also gave us credit card reform, student loan reform and additional pell grants, tobacco regulations and food safety

legislation. mr. coen: this 111th congress did more than lyndon johnson's and did it under the effective, passionate, honest and remarkable leadership of the most historic speaker in the house of representatives history, the honorable nancy pelosi, who i'm proud to have voted for and served with. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise andextend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. 3 >> madam speaker, the lady volleyball team brought home a christmas present to their school, penn state university. they won their fourth straight ncaa division one championship. while the team was undefeated the previous two seasons they were 32-5 going into the championship year and the golden bears went into a match

with a 30-4 season. mr. thompson: they've dominated for two consecutive years. this was coach russ rose's championship and the ladies gave him a ring for his thumb. the first coach in division i volleyball history to win five national titles. the most outstanding player was deja mcclendon. the legacy of the leave is the program's history. it's the tradition of work hard every day in practice and going hard because that's how you get here. congratulations to the team, the coach and the school for this outstanding record. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise andextend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. mr. payne: this is my country, land of my birth. this is my country, grandest on earth.

i pledging my allegiance, america the bold for this is my country to have and to hold, the land of my choice, this is my country here, my proud voice. i'm pledging my alebron jamesance, america the bold for this is my country to have and to hold. as a youngster in elementary school i sang this song proudly many times. and nearly a decade ago 9/11 responders embodied the american spirit proclaimed in this song when they dropped everything to help this country. these americans paid the ultimate sacrifice and risked their relt health and lives when our country was attacked unfortunately many have developed health issues as a result of their service. but my republican colleagues believing rr this treatment is too costly. the 9/11 health and comprehensive act would provide monitoring and specialized treatment for those responders who were exposed to toxics in

9/11. no responders questioned whether they should go in. so those -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. payne: those american flag lapel wearing senators should vote for this act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise to express my hope that the 11th congress will continue this congress' record of successful job creation. mr. carrson: we have taken the necessary steps during this the most productive demong years to as a long list of important legislation. from middle class tax relief to the small business jobs initiatives to teacher and health care jobs to programs helping to keep americans in their homes, the 111th congress has succeeded moving the american people agenda forward. we have already created millions of jobs and spurred 11 months of private sector job

growth but this recession cannot be corrected overnight. next year we must all focus on building the next generation of workers, increasing access to quality education, remaining competitive in the global marketplace, and reducing the deficit. together we must all continue moving our country forward. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the next congress. thank you, god bless and happy holidays and happy new year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: my colleagues are absolutely right. this has been be the most astute and conscious congress in the history of our nation, the 111th congress led by the very astute and courageous nancy pelosi, the historic first woman speaker. iing thank her and the leadership, thank you for wall

street reform, for the reform of the g.i. bill to provide more opportunity and as well thank you for moving and pushing compassionately the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell, the ceremony was powerful. thank you again for recognizing that the 9/11 heroes must be rewarded and i ask the other body to act now and do not go home without doing so. yet the omnibus bill that will help so many millions of americans with resources directed to them has been imploded and i call upon the senate and this house to be able to return america's resources back to them. we negotiated that omnibus, it is time to make sure that those veterans and those who need ptsd recovery and those who need health care are rewarded or given it in the omnibus bill. happy holidays, merchant marine and happy new year's. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentlemanis recognized. >> madam speaker, what does the congress owe the american

people? mr. himes: i think it will owe a person who will agree to sacrifice his or her life the right to serve. the republicans all but a handful of courageous republicans disfree. i think that it owes a child brought here by their parents by a country they don't dorpte know who speaks a language they don't speak the opportunity to serve to get a degree, to ultimately become an american. the republicans disagree. but i know, madam speaker, that we owe those brave responders who went to the site of 9/11 and risked their health and risked their lives to serve others in this nation's moment of pain, we owe them health care. the republican party disagrees and it is to the shame of this institution and it will be to the eternal shame of the republican party if they do not allow us after helping the banks, after helping the auto companies, after helping

americans if they do not allow to us help the volunteers of 9/11. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. >> i don't think there is any doubt this one of the most productive, but i want to talk about the lame duck. mr. pallone: we've had the biggest tax cuts, child tax credits, payroll tax reduction, education tax benefits. the list goes on. in addition to that we did the fix for medicare for another year, rerepealed don't-ask, don't-tell and yesterday we did the food safety bill, one of the most we could possibly pass. there is no question this has been a productive congress and a very productive lame duck congress. and i'm also hopeful that today

in the senate and here in the house we'll pass the 9/11 health bill for first responders and that will complete, again, one of the most productive lame duck sessions and productive congresses in american history. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks members and insert extraneous material yuss material on the senate amendments to h.r. 6523. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1 the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

trying to find the best time for the president to host his news conference. we are planning live coverage on the c-span networks. a discussion on the information revealed yesterday from the 2010 census. from today's "washington journal."

host: david wasserman is here to talk about the census numbers released yesterday and how it will affect congressional reapportionment for 2012. who are the big winners and the big losers in reapportionment? guest: christmas came early for texas, which gained four seats. texas is in a jolly mood. redistricting is the holy grail for states with seats to lose or gain. we will see a round of musical chairs in a lot of states that are losing seats. there are 10 states that will be losing representation in the house, including ohio, and new york, losing two each. texas is also gaining two seats. florida is gaining two seats as well. this is a changing map, as it is every 10 years, and a very contentious process. host: one of the headlines this morning in "usa today" -- "the

shift of 12 house states will be in some states." as far as not having all the pieces on the chessboard, what do you think is missing at this point? guest: we do not know what accounts are for the actual counties and localities. every 10 years, we see a changing reflection of the american population in the census, but changes in the way the process takes place. this year, there's no shortage of twists.

in states where republicans control the process exclusively, there are 196 house seats, compared to 49 house seats where theocrats will have the 4 authority. democrats could not have picked a worse year to lose a lot of seats and then 2010. host: we're talking with david wasserman of cook political report about congressional redistricting. if you would like to give us a call, go ahead. again --

in "the atlantic" jim o'sullivan writes -- what is this overreach he is talking about? guest: over the course of history, we've seen parties tried to spread themselves too thin over a variety of districts with the goal of winning as many as possible. for example, in pennsylvania, where republicans had control of the process in 2002, they tried to draw 12 seats that would essentially be republican from the seats. nine seats were up for grabs. they ended up losing five of

those seats over the course of the last decade. course, they gained many back in 2010. it's possible for parties to overreach. in contrast, in california, the last time democrats were in control of the process and now it will be the commission. essentially, it decided to say -- we are going to have 33 seats for ourselves. we will have republicans with 26 seats. democrats held on to every one of those 33 seats over the course of the next five elections. it was a very successful map. we will see what parties in each state decide to do. host: our first call comes from surely in new york, new york. on the line for democrats. caller: i'm talking about how it has changed in our community. i am in new york city.

[inaudible] all the sudden, the stores -- it's all in spanish now. you go to the laundromat and the television they have in the laundromat is nothing but spanish programs on. so many of them have come to the united states. they're having so many children. their children are citizens of the united states. so many of the mothers and fathers -- they get over because they can get all the assistance from their children. and you see it everywhere. they get food stamps. they get everything. [inaudible] this is, you know, you can get

benefits and everything. host: we're going to leave it there. significant changes ahead for new york's? guest: absolutely. new york is losing two seats in this process. if you look at where new york's population has been in decline over the last 10 years, it has been in decline in upstate new york. last time around, new york also lost two seats. democrats and republicans who had divided control over the processing 2002 managed to squeeze two seats from upstate new york. it's likely that new york city will lose one district that will be a democratic district. legislators will decide to carve out a seat in upstate new york and maybe call it a fair deal. this will be heavily litigated in a lot of states. the increasing population of immigrants in cities and other places across the country --

remember, we are counting all residents, not just the sense. it will affect what is happening in the redistricting phase. host: for folks who want to see how the census will affect them, we suggest you go to their web page 2010.census.org/2010census /data. you can click on the apportionment tab to see how the census numbers will affect the political situation or the house representation and some of the state representation in your area. our next call comes from north carolina. on the line for republicans, bill, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. my question is for david wasserman. the redistricting in north

carolina district 12 -- watt is the representative in the house of representatives. that district runs from one city to another city and goes down to i-95, and there's nothing to the right or left. it goes right down the highway. it goes from greensboro to winston salem. i'm kind of wondering how that will be affected by the new rules and regulations or whatever the census -- also, the fact that the north carolina state legislature is now totally republican. host: bill, thank you for your call. david wasserman, in answering that, can you also address the district of brad miller and how those districts may be reapportioned? guest: district the caller is

referring to is probably the most heavily litigated throughout the 1990's. in 1992, democrats passed as many -- if you could drop a minority minority district, you essentially had to draw it. the old joke was that you could drive down i-85 with both car doors open and be in three districts at the same time. the district lines are still a little bit smoother. it's still extends from charlotte to greensboro and winston salem. it is oddly shaped. there are no shortage of inkricts that eat look liklooke blots. this is in compliance with the voting rights act. it has actually benefited republicans. it has created odd bedfellows

with legislatures who have an advantage of attacking democrats in the heavily minority districts, and having districts to run and win. republicans have control over the process of north carolina for the first time. this is really interesting. ordinarily, having a democratic governor in the state would be a real consolation prize for democrats. they would have some veto power. north carolina is one of the few states where the legislature has complete authority over drawing boundaries. republicans picking up the north carolina legislature is a big deal. they could redraw the map to their favor. they will likely preserve those minority-majority districts to

protect themselves from receiving the no-verdict from the justice department. while republicans have an unprecedented authority over it line drawing, this is the first time we have had a democratic justice department oversee the process. very few people are aware the department of justice gets to essentially clear all of these maps before they go into effect in southern states where there are protected classism of minorities. host: our next call is from paul online for independents. caller: good morning. you can hear me fine, right? -- what is yet heard the new population of the united states of america, hypothetically if every human

being weighed the same amount? it used to be in eastern missouri, right? after the 2000 census. i am wondering how much it has moved. guest: that is one of those questions that should be on "who wants to be a millionaire?" i suspect it has moved a few miles west from where it was an missouri. host: back to the phones. david is on a line for republicans. caller: it seems like it is rife with corruption. why is all this redistricting necessary? it seems like there is a lot of gaming the system going on. guest: according to our

constitution, we have to put out a census every 10 years. by law, states have to redistrict every 10 years to reflect changes and shifts in population in their states. this is an undertaking that becomes a political wrangling that is very alien to other countries. it is going to cause a lot of bickering over the next few years. host: you mentioned before the justice department has to sign off on redistricting. it is that just in states in the south or across the board? guest: that applies to southern states, where history of discrimination and voting rights is clear and evident. when the voting rights act section 5 was passed, i believe it was in 1982 or some point in the 1970's, what we began to

see was the voting rights act and the justice department signed off on any change that was made to voting procedures in southern states. that is still in effect today, but this is the first time a democratic justice department has overseen the process. we will see what differences are in store at this time. host: our next call comes from indiana on a line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a question for your guest. what safeguards are they going to put in place to ensure that gerrymandering still does not occur? it is like the republicans are going to pick up seats that it will have control over for the next 10 years.

guest: some states have taken measures to prevent maps that virtu oddly shaped for voters common sense. we have seen a ballot initiative passed in florida that was really the only silver lining for democrats in the state of florida. this ballot amendment, 5 and 6, requires legislators who are redrawing boundaries to conform to existing and political geographic boundaries when drawing lines. there are some districts that [unintelligible] much like michael jordan defied gravity. when you look at these districts, you think how did legislators come up with them? sophisticated computer models is what they used to produce these maps have gotten increasingly

complex and have enabled them to choose essentially who will get certain voters. a lot of voters complain that this is like politicians choosing their voters. the amendment will really throw a lot of doubt to the republicans' ability to craft boundaries to their liking. just that definition of what constitutes this in this process has been at issue at court hearings for years and decades and there is no mathematical standard for determining what is a compact and what is not. which will likely see this end up in court include a and in other states. geographic information software -- i am sure i got that wrong.

we are increasingly saying these products are used by legislators, some with a very high price tag, to be able to use the software to draw districts and can actually split census blocks to choose blocks of residents to add to these districts. one thing that is unique compared to past generations of a redistricting, do-it-yourself redistricting -- a lot of folks who are really geeks' on this have gone to a new application out there which you can search on google. it is a web-based freeware or you can actually a draw districts based on the census estimates to your liking. it is a really cool way for outsiders to get an insider's view of the process and to

advocate for maps they would like to see in public hearings and other places. as the face of america changes, so too does the process by which we approach redistricting, and that is exciting. host: does the public have access to this geographical information system? can they do their own reapportionment systems in their home? guest: you can do it in your pajamas. and what of advocates on both sides and even a lot of hill staffers down the street have been using them to craft them to their bosses of liking. it is not sophisticated enough where you would be able to draw exact, precise districts that conform to the standards of population and quality. there is a computer programmer who lives out in seattle, washington, who has devised this

in his free time, and it has the potential to open up the process to a lot of folks who would normally have to pay five figures for a software programmed to do similar types of things. host: let's get back to the phones regarding the census and congressional redistricting with david wasserman. our next call comes from washington. go ahead. caller: my name is natural. i am stationed up here in washington -- my name is nigel. what i have been noticing is that the recent man who one county commissioner is a republican, and historically, not too favorable toward mining towns. our mining town it is a scraping by and they need as much as they

can get. do you know how many people live there? it is just me, nigel. i am telling you, there is gold up in these hills. host: nigel, we are going to leave it there. guest: washington is gaining a house seat. washington has a bipartisan commission for redrawing the boundaries. washington will be drawing a new district somewhere in the state. eastern washington, which there is a lot of rural washington state, have enough people for 2.5 districts. some of eastern washington, rural washington, will gain some

representation in this process. it is likely that republicans and democrats will be able to come to a compromise, because republicans have two members who were elected in 2010, a new member of congress and the republican who was elected in 2004 who would like some additional protection in a new map, and democrats could conceivably drop in new districts to their liking what protecting the republican legislators as well. that could be one compromise. it is not that easy in a lot of states that are losing seats. it would be better to beginning seats and having to squeeze someone out. host: next up is pittsburgh, missouri, on a line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a quick

note that there has been an improvement where i live. i live out in a rural area, so that is good news. upon the other note, what would like to say about redistricting, i am confused about the process of how -- is it based soleely on republicans and democrats? with the tea party thing, i have a feeling that the democrats are going to do the same thing. i am wondering if another party will come into affect redistricting. guest: many of the questions that a lot of voters have is why are independents and third-party

is left out of this process entirely? this is a way that both parties can sustain their monopoly over the states. we are seeing an increasing trend of creating these a fair fight districts where independent voters cannot really decide between democrats and republicans. we are seeing a lot of districts -- we have half the number of swing districts than we did 20 years ago. part of a is also that legislators have every depicted these boundaries to create seats for democrats and for some republicans. in those districts, the primary elections basically pander out to the election, so there is very little competition. gov. arnold schwarzenegger

passed through a city commission that will be redrawing the state boundaries in 2011. it is why voters in florida passed amendments, 5 and 6, to tie the hands of legislators to be able to gerrymander. it would not cause wholesale changes in the number of competitive seats we are able to draw in this process. host: saginaw, mich., on our line for independents. 54,000 people have left michigan. go ahead. caller: i did not read that article but i watched a public access show about our state government. it is the only way i know about what goes on in our state government. re, running forei

the rnc chair, and he said metro detroit is probably the seed that will be lost. i am not knowledgeable on this redistricting at all, so can you explain what happens? it to me, that is a densely populated area. do these representatives are represent the same number of people? so, would these people -- they would go into other districts, right? so they would be represented by other people? guest: this is a pretty confusing process for a lot of citizens. when the state loses a seat, one district is usually parted out to a lot of other seats, or a

couple of seats are merged into one seat. it is likely that seat will come from the metro detroit area, if only because the republicans are in control of the process. there are two african american majority districts in the metro area, and there are likely to be protected. it is likely we will see republicans combined a couple of legislators into one seat. one scenario would have won merged with the 12th district and create one district. another scenario would be if a retires, if we saw one of those old bulls retired, it is possible we could see

republicans and draw their districts and two other democratic districts and reserve action -- reserve as much strength. host: each congressional district has to have a certain number of people in it. correct? guest: yes. each district has to have put the number of people that every other district has. so in a lot of states, we end up splitting census blocks to achieve it that quality, which is part of the reason why we see some nine gold maps out there. -- mangled maps out there. oftentimes there are counties that have too large a population for one district. or necessities like protecting minority voting rights which require counties to be split in

the regular ways and shapes in order to achieve opportunities for minority candidates. host: stephen from idaho where the number of representatives is going to stay the same. caller: if i remember correctly, there was quite a bit of controversy about moving the census office to the white house. what effect could the executive branch have on the redistricting from the census? guest: to the extent that the executive branch is going to have a say over this process, it will most likely be enforcement in the voting rights act provision which allows legislators retro-aggression, which is the decline of the voting strength in a district.

minority voters, in some states, have moved out into the suburbs. it gets harder to draw them into one district. the obama administration is going to have a very difficult job to do in enforcing this. they have to decide which battles to involve thenmselves in. in south carolina, for example, republican lawmakers love to put that nude seated in north carolina -- south carolina that would benefit republicans. democrats might argue it would be possible to create another african american majority district in the state. " we are likely to seek some wrangling caught between the obama administration and state

regulators in a few small isolated cases. host: richard in arkansas sends us this e-mail. guest: that is actually something that a lot of computer programmers have tried to do. there are programs out there that do redistrict automatically, but state legislators who have the power over this process would argue that a computer would not know where communities of interest libe.

so legislators, in addition to that argument, would also be reluctant to give power to someone else or something else in the process even though it might be beneficial to the overall fairness of the process. host: we are talking to david wasserman, the house editor of the cook political report. charlie, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. it in the presentation yesterday, he mentioned that the five most populous states -- he mentioned that illinois was one of the most 5 populous states, but yet illinois loses a seed. -- a seat. i am just wondering how did that happen?

where would that seat be likely to occur? with a have to carve up one of the existing seats to get down to losing that one seat? i would like to get your take on the situation in illinois. home: president obama's state is the wednesday that democrats wield power a powerful redistricting knife in this game. illinois lost eight seats because its population is not growing as fast as some of the other -- illinois lost a seat because its population is not growing as fast as some of the others. republicans picked up a couple of seats in illinois in 2010.

they are at risk of being forced out of their districts. one of the likely seats that we will see alter substantially is the 17th district of illinois, which is in western illinois. this is a seat to pack as many democrats as possible into the district by having it based on that border that had a political -- that had a little tentacles that stretched out to other parts of the state. that district was not even successful for democrats in preserving their hold on it in 2010. the republican pizza shop owner one that 17th district. democrats might say if they did not elect them in 2010, why should we even bother? or create one seed that is very favorable for them, rather than

merging two into one. keep in mind, the chicago district would have to expand as well. it is not just as simple as eliminating one seat in one part of the state. you could see chicago districts which have inner-city populations move out into the suburbs. it is possible these districts could become more suburban, and some of the members of congress there will have to shift their priorities in a district that looks a lot different than it did in the last decade. host: the overall population rank in illinois has stayed the same in 2010. the word no. 5 in the country back in 1980 and also no. 5. you are seeing -- you are saying

they will lose a seat because their population has only grown 3.3%. theguest: if you were below that 7%, you were at risk of losing representation. primarily, in the sunbelt states away from the rust belt. we are seeing illinois, iowa, missouri, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan all lose seats in this process. it is like n.c.a.a. selection, that illinois was in the one of those states that lost representation. if you adjust to the tally in two dozen aid to the new reapportionment, president obama would have won that election with fewer votes, and that is

the equivalent of losing a state the size of arkansas or kansas, so he has some ground to make up in 2012. that is favorable to republicans, but just because they have picked up some strength in the sunbelt at the electoral college level, it does not mean this process is going to generate a gain of 10 seats for republicans in the house. the minority requirements that we went over before, but also because it is not as clear-cut as simply as arizona and texas gaining seats so they will be republican seats, because some of them will have to go to democrats. republicans will stand to gain about three to five seats from redistricting alone in 2012, not the 10 or 15 that you hear from some republicans.

host: we have about four minutes left in this segment. our next call comes from taxes, francis is on a line for independents. caller: texas is picking up seats, but is not so clear-cut. 12 years ago, there were four caucasians, one hispanic, one vietnamese family, and one of mixed african american-white on my street. two of the hispanic families now have multiple families living in the homes. no matter how they draw the lines in texas, the voting is necessarily going to change. guest: where in texas are you calling? caller: just outside of dallas.

guest: absolutely. in some districts in texas, the minority population has grown immensely. one represents -- one person represents a district that has no longer the majority of anglo residents. a lot of that population is non- citizen, so it is still a republican district in terms of voting patterns, but demographically it is changed a lot. what republicans might do is carved a new hispanic majority district in an area like a state like dallas. it is possible republicans will decide to create that district and short out others for republicans in the next decade.

host: is the population growing faster with the democrats or the republicans? how much of an influence will that have over redistricting in texas? guest: primarily democratic areas of the state -- south texas, dallas, houston, and some other areas where we are seeing an enormous population growth. democrats are likely to take two out of the fort seats if republicans are smart and decided we have maxed ourselves out when tom delay was in charge of the redistricting last time. maybe take two new seats of our own. if republicans are aggressive, they might decide they want three or all four of those

seats. it is subject to more court challenges, more difficult to defend, and they are spreading themselves send across the area. this is the fun of the game. host: brad is on a line for republicans. this morning in the boston globe -- caller: the question i have is the representatives are represent over 700,000 people. congress has not increased the number of representatives since 1929, since suffrage. 18-year-old got the right to vote. my question is basically, how does that affect when we determine when congress should

increase the number of representatives? host: brad, which district are you in it? caller: i am out of cape cod. guest: you are in the 10th district. host: thanks, brad. guest: that is a point that a lot of voters are making, that the size of congress has not changed in almost a century. this has profound implications for the way that congress represent citizens in a country. when you have the congressional district that is 710,000 people, compared to what it was originally, 400,000 residents, it is a lot harder for those members of congress to engage in retail politics. he gets easier and easier to stay in washington to raise the

money it takes to communicate with a block of voters that is that large. that is increasingly what we are seeing happen. the problem with reforming that and decreasing the size of the house of representatives to make congress closer to its citizens, the counter argument is obvious. why increase the number of politicians in washington when washington is so dysfunctional? so i don't think we will see that happening anytime soon. massachusetts is going to be a thorny state. democrats have all 10 seats in massachusetts, including the 10th disistrict where

>> the house was in session and recessed shortly after passing the defense off addition bill that sets pentagon programs and policies for the next year and includes military pay raise and it goes to the president for his signature. the house is waiting for the senate to send over a bill to create a funds for 9/11 and emergency personnel. we will have live coverage when the house returns here on c- span. on c-span2 you can save lives senate debate on the start arms treaty with russian. several senators want to amend the treaty. russia's farm ministers said it will not accept changes. a vote on final ratification is expected later today. president obama signed a stopgap spending bill into law keeping the federal government opened through and of next year -- the end of the year. republicans will have to come up with a spending bill when they control the house next month.

the president also signed today and law repealing "don't ask, don't tell." before it goes into affect military leaders have to complete plans and certify it will not hurt combat readiness cuts and establish guidelines. president obama is hoping to make year end remarks and take questions from reporters as congress wraps up a busy post- election session. they are watching the congressional schedule to determine the best time to have that briefing. >> it shouldn't take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack or financial calamity to someone from each of us and from this body collectively the greatness with which we are capable. >> nor can america afford to wait. >> as the 111 congress reaches its final days, searching for a farewell speeches in the c-span

video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours of on line, all free. it is washington your way. >> on c-span, christmas eve, speaker of the house finance a pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree and president obama and the first family attended the annual pageant of peace. and the 50th anniversary of the first presidential debate. talking about the preparation and impact on the campaign. christmas day, former british prime mr. tony blair on the role of religion. radio host garrison killer talks but humor in public life. and sandra day o'connor and david souter discussed life on the high court. listen to historic supreme court cases on c-span reappeared saturday, the constitutionality of displaying christmas decorations on town property.

>> with the possible exception of the cross, the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious symbols and the country and most certainly one of the most powerful christian religious symbols in this country. >> listen to argument on c-span radio, in washington, d.c., 90.1 fm, nationwide xm satellite 132 and nationwide at c-span radio.org. >> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius announced this week new rules on health insurance premium increases. health care law passed last year says insurance companies have to justify so-called on reasonable rates increases. the regulations announced in this event define the term and reasonable. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you for joining us. i want to first introduced the folks you will be hearing from in a few minutes. our director of the office of consumer information and insurance oversight.

next to him, insurance commissioner chris kohler and finally jenny bass who joined us from connecticut who agreed to share her story about how the hours we are taking today have already helped her family. today we are announcing the latest steps were taken as part of the affordable care act to hold insurance companies accountable for their actions and put more power into consumers' hands so they can make the best choices for themselves and their family. under the proposed rules that our department is releasing today, health insurance companies that tried to make unreasonable rate increases will come under tremendous scrutiny. working hand-in-hand with our partners at the state level, we want to make sure the increases are fairly reviewed to determine whether they are based on

accurate information. when rates are determined to be unreasonable, insurers will be required to publicly report and justified those increases. for too long it has been all too common at this time of the year as plans are ready for renewal, to open your mail box and find a letter from your insurance company saying your rates are about to go up 20%, up 30%, 40%, often with little or no explanation. whether it is insurance for an individual or a family or a small business, it is not the kind of news that you want to get. it spoils your holidays and also can endanger health care coverage for the following year. and even as health insurance products have reached record levels, i continue to hear -- hear from countless americans who feel helpless in the face of the premium increases. a woman from california who has seen her premium rise over 30%

recently wrote to me and said as a self-employed hard working christian i have no good options for health coverage. a small business owner in florida, his premium just went up more than 23% growth, near the breaking point. with a guaranteed annual increases at 10 times the 15 time inflation, eventually we will go out of business or be forced to cancel insurance altogether. either way, it is a lousy set of options. many of them wonder how the increases could possibly be justified. often, they were right. for example, when california's largest insurance company raised rates by up to 39% earlier this year, the state insurance commissioner investigated and found that the hikes were actually based on faulty data and got them revised and reversed. but too often there has not been enough accountability, and certainly not enough transparency. while some states aggressively

review rate increase it -- increases, others did not have the resources or authority to do that and consumers often do not have the information they need to know whether or not they are getting a bad deal. as a result, as the cost of health insurance for the average american more than doubled over the past decades, many felt they were at the mercy of insurance companies with no control over what the next exorbitant rate -- a rate hike was the clinton. in fact, over the last 10 years, as consumer price index was up 29% for other goods and services, the cost of insurance went up 131%. a disproportionate increase. under a new health-care law, that is already starting to change. i am a former state insurance commissioner, one of my former lives, and i know states can be highly effective consumer advocates when they have the

right resources and the necessary legal authority. we saw that earlier this year in california, we saw it again in connecticut recently when regulators rejected a 20% premium hike that was not justified by an underlying cost trend, that could have been devastating for jenny and her neighbors and friends. that is why earlier this year are department issued the first round of grants from the $250 million provided by the affordable care act to help 45 states and the district of columbia strengthen or expand their rate review process. for consumers, those funds means that states have powerful new tools with which to keep insurance companies honest. then last month we announced new rules that would lower the share of premiums that insurance could spend on administrative or overhead cost like marketing, executive bonuses. under the rules, most insurance plans will be required to spend

80% to 85% of premium dollars for medical care and quality improvements. if they don't, they owe their consumers a rebate. and all insurers will how to publicly display how they are spending your premium, so you know what you are getting for your money. today is at the next step to put consumers back in control of their health care. under in the proposed rules, in 2011 insurers and -- in individual and small group market that wants to raise rates by more than 10% will have to publicly disclose their rate increases and their justification. these increases will then undergo a thorough actuarial review, either by state or here at hhs. the state does not have the resources or authority to conduct the review, our department will step in to make sure americans gets protected. allow the don't

federal government to deny insurers -- a growing number of states have that authority and use it. when our department does identify an unreasonable rate increase we will post of the findings on our website and insurers will be required to be the same on their website. ultimately, we know that the bright lights of sunshine convinces more insurers to think twice and check their math before submitting large rate hikes, which means the benefit of these rules will be felt by millions of americans. this is our latest step to but consumers back in charge of their own health care. the reform we announced of the last nine months have begun to shift the power from insurance companies to patients and their doctors. now americans can see how their premiums are being spent and why they are going up. and using the insurance finder on our new web site, health care.gov, they can compare

prices and benefits of all of their insurance options, public and private, in one place for the first time. because of the new law it is easier than ever before to pick the health insurance plan that is best for you and your family. and by making the health insurance industry more transparent, we are also creating a more competitive market. the more information consumers have about their coverage choices, the more motivated insurers are to improve those choices. we are committed to working with our state commissioners to crack down on unreasonable premium increases and bring more transparency and accountability to the health insurance market. in the months to come with are going to continue that work, to make sure that we implement the law and do just that. now to talk more about the new rule i would like to turn it over to be director of our office of consumer information and insurance oversight. j?

>> thank you, madame secretary, and thank you everyone for coming and that would like to thank in particular the fine team we had working on this regulation. i am sorry i did not have time to mention everybody's name but i would like to mention three people, the former insurance commissioner of indiana, and a former general counsel to the california insurance department and, third, the former actuary for the washington, d.c., insurance department. there are a lot of people, too. but this is just an illustration of the expertise we are using that we have gotten from the states and we will continue to work -- we worked with the states in the past and with many state people on our staff, and we will continue to work closely with them in the future. madam secretary, as you noted today's proposal would establish critical protection. i did not want to overstate or

understate the significance of this role. on the one hand, the proposed rule does not give hhs the authority to disapproves -- disapprove rates. on the other hand, it does do something that is arguably more important. it requires insurers to make public both their proposed increases and the assumptions on which of those increases are based. we believe if insurers know their rate increases will become public and in of the assumptions supporting those increases will become public, they will make sure their assumptions are reasonable and they will moderate their increases. a greater incentive to improve quality and drive down both their on administrative costs and underlying health care costs, rather than simply passing them to consumers. under the proposed regulation, insurers will be required to file any proposed rate increase of 10% of the -- or greater, along with justification of that increase with hhs and the state.

i want to emphasize that the regulation does not automatically in such a rate increase, that is, 10% or more, and reasonable. rather, it simply provides that either hhs or the state, depending on whether the state has an effective rate review program, will review the increase to determine whether it is unreasonable. if hhs with state conclude it is unreasonable man hhs will inform the insurer of that finding and posted to the hhs web site, along with the carrier's final justification for the increase. the carrier will also find depose the finding of on reasonableness and a justification to its own the website. the regulation does create a two-step process. carriers must file a preliminary justification for any increase of 10% or more and, if based on its analysis, hhs where the

state finds that that increase was unreasonable, the carrier must file a final justification for the increase. importantly, the regulation leaves state law intact. if state law provides insurers must file approval for rate increases, then that is the process insurers will continue to follow in that state. on the other hand, if a state permit insurers to raise rates without state approval or without even filing their rate information with the state -- which is the case and some states -- then the proposed regulation does not interfere with those state laws and procedures, it does not prevent such increases. it would, however, require insurers and those states to file rate increases of 10% or more with hhs, along with the data supporting the increase, so hhs in those cases can determine whether the increase is unreasonable. whether hhs or review it --

state will review will depend on whether the state has an effective rate review program in place. if the state does have such a program, and of the state refuses the rate increase for someone to state law, then hhs will adopt the state find a bit of the state does not have a problem -- program, then hhs will do its own review. today we believe the substantial majority of states -- in addition, hhs awarded grants to strengthen rate review procedures and 46 states and many said in their proposals that they would speak -- seek legislation establishing or strengthening rate review laws, as well as hiring additional staff and update technology to review rates. a number of states with an effective review programs would increase over time. this regulation is not a final

regulation, it is a notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed rule making. that means we will be taking comments. based on those comments the regulation could change. but we believe that it maximizes the consumer protection and transparency without unduly burdening the industry. importantly, it leaves state law and procedure in tact. we therefore believe it strikes the right balance and we are pleased to release it today. i am also pleased now to introduce the commissioner of a state that is really a leader in rate regulation throughout the country, a small state but they are a leader in this area, chris kohler, health insurance commissioner of rhode island.

>> thank you, jay. small state, big regulators. inro islands we concur with the federal -- in rhode island, we concur. rate review is absolutely essential for meaningful health- care reform. without it, you have on fairfax on individual consumers -- as we are going to hear about in a moment -- and no predictability for purchases. no accountability for health plans. and what ultimately no change in a system that is becoming increasingly unaffordable and injuring fewer and fewer people. in rhode island we have comprehensive rate review across all lines of business, including large groups. we reduced rates when appropriate to protect consumers. we have increased the transparency associated with the

rate review process so most information gets published on our website. we find that this both hold insurers accountable and it increases the public that the awareness of what is driving health insurance rate increases. lastly, what the rick -- we have used it to focus insurers on the underlying cost drivers. that health insurance rate review should not simply be about shifting costs between groups of risk, but it should be about getting at the underlying cost drivers. so we are working with insurers to increase investment in primary care, increased investment and health information technology, and meaningful payment reform to providers. in doing this, we can combine the commercial insurance sector with the moves that cms is making in medicaid and medicare to get true alignment across bears and the delivery system change. it is in ports and to note road

island is not alone in this effort, that other states are working equally hard to strengthen the rate review process and hold insurers accountable. i have a number of colleagues, as madame secretary talked about, that has an effective rate review processes and working toward the same goals. i think in general what states are looking for in these types of the regulations it is a deference to state authority when it exists, to create national accountability and consistently -- consistency so there are common expectation across different markets. and to ultimately help consumers and improve the system. it seems to me from first review that these regulations accomplish all of those measures. it is all about finding the right balance. as i was speaking to madame secretary beforehand, if there are concerns about people about having too much federal authority or too little federal authority, you probably hit it at the right place.

i also want to highlight the role -- making funds available through the rate reprocess to help states meet the standards and strengthen the rate reprocesses but there have been helpful in rhode island, as well as other states. thank you for coming out with us, for trying to find that balance. on behalf of rhode island and my colleague insurance commissioners, we look forward to the comment period and to continue to strengthen de relationship between the federal government and states as we work to protect the interests of consumers and insure adequate oversight of the commercial insurance market. thank you. >> thank you very much, commissioner kohler. nice of you to come and join us today. i look forward to this partnership. when we hold insurance companies accountable and scrutinize rate hikes, it really impacts people across the country.

to talk about her experience with a rate situation i would like to ask jenny bass to come to the microphone. she is with us hear from the state of connecticut. if she could come and share -- you could come and share your story, it would be helpful. >> my name is jenny. i am here to talk about rate increases and how they affected my family and our family business. as our family navigates in these very challenging economic times. our family business is a farmer. we have a family farm located in scotland and windham, connecticut it has been and our family since 1710. we were a dairy farm. i am not sure if any of you are

familiar with the dairy situation, but in 2008 the price of milk dived and it would cause of the dairy farmer twice as much to make the milk as you were getting for the milk. at that time, our credit was maxed out and we had to face the tough decision to sell all of our cows and find some sort of transition. part of my job was as a bookkeeper for our family. and my primary goal was to balance all of our expenditures so that we could, from the sale of the cows, so that we could keep up the mortgage payments and stave off foreclosure on our farm. in 2008, our business health insurance plan from primarily my brother and his family, kids,

and workers when they work for us -- and then they left -- and sent as notification that the following month our premiums would increase by $500. we were pretty shocked to get that letter, that all of the sudden the rate would just go up to $500 and there was nothing we could do about it. my brother and his wife and children were essentially hostage to their insurance plan because of pre-existing conditions. i had already transitioned myself to an individual plan offered by another company to try and save some money. with this increase, our monthly health insurance payments now were on the same level as our monthly mortgage payment, our monthly tax allotment for property taxes, building

insurance and equipment insurance -- all of which we have to keep up in order to keep our mortgage -- and workmen's comp, which we were maintaining with my brother as we were continuing activities. those were all on the same tier and those costs were all before any kind of operating costs -- fuel costs or electricity costs. fuel costs for running a farm are through the roof. i learned about an office in connecticut, wonderful office called the office of the health care advocate. and i gave them a call to see if there was anything i could do to bring down our insurance payment for our farm. i spoke with a woman there and she said, no, there was not essentially anything they could do, and should -- could they help me with anything else. she did help me and i received tremendous benefit from the office of the health care

advocate. later in the year, oha called me and told me that my individual plan, which is separate from the business plan, was scheduled for a rate increase and she wanted to know how that was going to affect me. essentially i had started out playing under 300 -- paying under $300 a month. the next year my rate was about $350. and then with the rate increase that they were proposing at that time, december 2009, for 2010, would put my rate to around $500. the company that year was granted an increase -- not as much as they wanted. and then the office of the health care advocate called me again this year and said the company once again wanted to raise their rates, which would place my personal premium well

over twice what i had originally started paying in the year 2007 or 2008 -- 2007, late, like october of 2007. so, more than doubled in four years' time. at this time, making the mortgage payment so we do not lose the farm -- i did not take a salary anymore, i'd rather know logger take a salary. we are just getting by, quite frankly, and we are trying to keep our farm. we made another year. looks like we will make next year, too. and i just think that people are facing very difficult times right now and really struggling. it is hard to keep your health insurance going. hard to justify that. i am very happy to hear about the rate increases.

i know the office of the health care advocate in the connecticut help us by keeping rates down, and i really appreciate that. so, thank you very much. >> thank you, jenny. and i am happy to answer some questions if you have some questions. if you wait one second will bring you weigh mic. >> thank you for doing this. only as you said, hhs does not help at the right of refusal, and states also, there is not that authority. did you talk about why you think this could still be effective in terms of actually -- not simply publicizing the increases but preventing it from occurring? >> well, i think, two things -- and i will ask jay and the commissioner to comment. first of all, we know transparency helps. just lining up the rates side-

by-side, publicizing what is going on as the underlying cost -- cost drivers. we have already seen a movement in the markets just with the website that lines up a -- lines of the rates so it is the first time consumers have a chance to get a snapshot and compare the rates side-by-side. we know we have companies that said, wait, we want to submit that a little later because we are making adjustments. that has not been available before. actually publicizing the fact that these rates cannot stand up to actuarial review and not based on underlying health trends, and giving consumers on the website and through the offices of the insurance commissioners of options for other possibilities i think it's a huge step forward. because we are really talking about a small group market and individual market where people don't have said -- significant -- sophisticated purchasing team spirit of the often do not know

what their choices are paired -- with the choices are. they are often at the mercy. putting tools back in their hands can be enormously helpful. >> what i would add in addition to transparency is the process of having rates formally examined. often there are a set of assumptions put into rate calculations that are frankly never questions. and someone from the other side, whether a state government or federal government needs to question those assumptions on behalf of people like jenny. and just the act of questioning those assumptions, having some balance, create accountability for insurers, in addition to transparency. so you have this public awareness, but you also have a direct dialogue with the insurers on behalf of people -- saying what are the assumptions, what kind of trend rates did you

assume, what kind of enrollment demographics did you assume? often we have found, whether at the state or now the federal level, that not a whole lot of effort was put into the assumptions, or were made deliberately cautiousness -- in the best interest of the insurer's but not necessarily the state or individual consumers. >> yes. >> from bloomberg news. next year and in 2014, one of the options going to be for states in terms of leverage against insurers, either in terms of access to exchange, denying rate reviews? what we -- can we expect as the kick -- stick on the other side of the carrots? >> what we are seeing are a number of states actually seeking additional authority, which is one step in the right direction. right now there is a mixed bag around the country. some states have full review authority and some have limited authority.

many of them lack the actuarial resources or the staff. so, there is a funding stream in the affordable care act which actually enhances resources at the state level. the notion somehow that this is the federal overreach is absolutely at the wrong lens. this is really in -- the states taking the lead in this and other areas, so we know states are looking to increase their authority. so as we move toward 2014, many more states will have full review authority. and i think it will be demanded by a lot of consumers in that state. there will be a response -- a lot of people did not know they had an insurance commissioner's office, much less what another office and another state was able to do that there is was not. the more consumers are aware of the fact there could be somebody on their side, could be somebody, as commissioner kohler

says, review the rates and not just in the company word for it, i think there will be increased demand that that happens. that is step one, more resources and authority at the state level. then i think the states -- it the department of health and human services, whenever exchange functions we and up running, will certainly look at patterns of insurance company practices in terms of selecting companies to participate in a future exchanges. i know commissioners do that right now in various efforts. market conduct reviews, rate reviews, and making judgments about which insurers, sort of the good public citizen's and which ones you want to keep an extra eye on or don't want to enhance and the marketplace is something that goes on right now and i'd think that is a bid that will be done, again, to look at the exchanges.

i think what the director talked about was, for the first year there is kind of a 10% trigger threshold -- anything 10% or over will be reviewed. but what we will do is gather data in year one, and year two and beyond, toward 2014, there will be more of a state-specific threshold. looking for trends across the marketplace. at some states, having a 7% review may be excessively high. this year we had to start someplace. moving into the double digits seemed like an appropriate place to at least start the enhance review but will be more nuanced in the future based on what is happening within certain states. yes, sir. >> health reform week. the proposed regulations -- who

determines whether the state has an effective review system and what criteria will you use for that? >> hhs will determine whether a state has an effective rate review process based on four criteria that are set up -- set out in the reg. generally, the state must actually review the reg, it must collect -- review the rate, it must collect data for analysis and there must be a state standard. importantly, the state does have an effective rate review program in place. hhs does not interfere with either the law or procedure. all if it does not have an effective rate review program that hhs do its own review. >> just as a follow up -- jane

from congressional quarterly. does it mean states that do have effective review programs essentially are determining what is unreasonable or reasonable for a rate increase? >> if the state met the criteria in the statute, then the state does the review, hhs doesn't second-guess the state. hhs would make a determination in the first place and wants the determination is made, as i said, the state of the review and hhs does not second-guess the state. >> sarah with politico. wondering if you could talk about the thinking on what is defined unreasonable. it seems like it is left to the states. i know we all had a little time to look up the regulation -- but how you went about defining what

is unreasonable? >> i will take a crack and i will also let my colleagues answer. you are absolutely right, it is a bit of a difficult definition. particularly, when you begin to apply that terminology to specific cases. a temper -- 10% increase for a company that has not had a rate increase for five years and is looking at a very narrow profit margin may be very different from a 10% increase which was the third in a row for a company that is posting record profit margins and a splitting risks. it is very difficult to even get to a threshold, and i think we made the determination that this year as a start year and a year to collect more data, we would start somewhere, and 10% was chosen as not the definition but -- of unreasonable but the

definition of enhanced scrutiny that would be applied. there may be rates well above 10% justified by underlying cost trends, that the company is meeting the medical loss ratio, totally within the actuarial guidelines. and there are others that are likely not to do that. so, the attempt was to take that definition, apply it in the practical world but also recognize rate review is really the job of the states. this is a framework in private insurance market with state regulators in every state of the country. a but it also recognizes that there is a variety of authorities -- but also recognizes that there are a variety of parties with and the state law. some with full rate authority and some really did not review rates at all, that the companies do what is called file in use,

they said the rate in and simultaneously send a notice to jenny and her family and there is no review, there is no hearing, there is no at -- analysis or discussion. consumers have no recourse. again, i think bowl tries to take into account both of those situations. -- again, i think the rule tries to take into account both. we will not do review of rates where there is a farmer process at the state level. we will not sit on the insurance commissioners shoulders and question what it is they are doing. on the other hand, it is an attempt to make sure every consumer in the country has some confidence that their rates has been looked at, has been questioned, has been justified before it is implemented. >> if i could jump off of that from the perspective of the state.

i appreciate the madame secretary's comments. rates review remains essentially a state-based function. when i read you a set of rates i have to balance a set of competing concerns. and statutory obligations, standards, from solvency of insurers, affordability, an adequate rate to providers. i would maintain that appropriately done, both considerations are better balanced that the state level than any single federal standard. i think my initial reading of these regs is to provide a backstop behind states that acts to, sort of, if you will, catch processes that have not been in compliance with the new federal statute that the state level. provide a backstop to protect the interest of consumers and to enact the federal law.

>> let me give you just a practical example of how this might work. in california last year, what you saw is a company sent out notices of up to 39% increases. california has a lot that doesn't have a prior approval. so, those rates have not been reviewed prior to the notice of going out by the insurance commissioner according to california law. there was an enormous outcry around the state and really across the country about that kind of increase, posted by a company that may file a record profit, and seemed a little out of sync. the california insurance commissioner chose to open a very rigorous exam of the rates, which he had the authority to do once they had been filed. went through an actuarial analysis, found the company actually was using, in this case, really the wrong data. they used a long trend line to

project what appropriate increases would be. the company subsequently we begin with and through the entire 39% increase, refiled at about half that rate of the process went on. in that case, really the transparency of what was happening, that the state using the authority that they had -- and california is one of the states seeking prior approval, recognizing that the backstop may not be the most effective, that they really would like to have done the review in front of the consumer notices. but it was a very effective mechanism. we were not involved at all in that process, but if california had lacked that authority, that review would have been done by hhs, and hopefully the conclusion by our actuaries would have been the same and caused the company, again, to rethink those rates. but i think it was an effective

mechanism at the state level, it drew a lot of public attention. there was an enormous amount of attention and transparency and i would say it is different for most of rates that go up -- for jenny and her family, she gets a notice and who knows if that company is out of step or instep if all the rates in connecticut are going up at the same time. right now, most consumers are operating entirely in the darkened this would be a very bright light. thank you all very much. good to have you here.

>> on this wednesday afternoon, president obama signed a stopgap spending bill into law keeping the federal government open through early next year. it freezes agency budgets at current levels. republicans will have to come up with a spending bill for the remainder of the budget year when they get control of the house next month. the president also signed today the law repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. before it goes into effect military leaders have to complete implementation plans. they also have to certify it will not damage combat readiness and draft guidelines to cover a host of practical questions like how to handle sexual orientations when making barracks assignments. the president is hoping to take

-- make year and remarks and take questions as congress wraps up a busy post-election session. robert gibbs said officials are watching the scheduled to determine the best time today to have the briefing. the house came in this morning and recessed shortly after passing the defense authorization bill. includes a military pay increase. it goes to the president now. the house is standing by waiting for the senate to send over a bill to create a fund to pay the 9/11 emergency personnel who responded to the world trade center collapse for health care issues. live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. on c-span2, you could see live senate debate on the start arms reduction treaty with russia. several senators want to amend the treated. russia's foreign ministers said russia will not accept any changes. its final vote on the treaty's ratification is expected later today. >> on c-span christmas eve,

speaker of the house need to pelosi and other members of congress light of the capitol christmas tree and president obama and the first family attend the annual pageant of peace. on the 50th anniversary of the first televised present debate, michael dukakis and charles gibson about the preparation for a president to debate and their impact on the campaign. christmas day, former british prime minister tony blair and author christopher hichens on the role of religion. radio host garrison keilor talk about humor and political life and sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss life on the high court. >> listen to historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the constitutionality of display christmas decorations on town property. >> with the possible exception of the cross, the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious symbols in this country and most certainly one of the most powerful christian religious symbols in this country. >> listen to argument on c-span video, and washington at 90.1

fm, nationwide on the xm satellite channel 132 and online at c-span radio.org. >> it is that and now on the state of the home mortgage market in the u.s. hosted by the new america foundation, efforts to regulate foreclosures. this lasts an hour and half. >> i wanted to walk off for joining us and those watching on the webcast and gene wanted to thank you offer joining us and those watching on the webcast. thank you for letting us to this event today. thanks for the director of assets program. it was really his brainchild and could not have gone on without

him. the program has a lot of great material archived on the website that you should check out if any of this interests you. we are here today to talk about the mortgage mess which is tough to define, but sort of return to form. when the financial crisis happen, when the housing bubble popped, we almost immediately got distracted with what went on and on wall street. the last years we saw a big financial reform effort that culminated in a regulatory overhaul, but there has not been a ton of attention or, frankly, and attention devoted to what is happening on the ground with homeowners, troubled borrowers facing a huge foreclosure crisis. but those problems have not gone away -- one in 10 residents of mortgages in foreclosures, one out of four is under water, and as many as 11 million more foreclosures will come before 2012. we have already seen 2.5

million. it is a huge issue, and it is a costly one, too. the center for responsible lending estimates of 91.5 million households affected, the average loss is $20,000 in assets. if you look at a cost to local government, the urban institute says $20,000 just forcing year -- singled foreclosure. this is killing its economic recovery. as long as consumers have huge debt overhangs, they are not able to start spending, as long as banks have uncertainty about balance sheets we will not see more lending. and obviously we are building up a huge shadow inventory and of market, keeping recovery from spreading. in the last six months we sort of received more clarity about a new economic problem did i say knew what some irony because we have had anecdotal reporting from legal aid lawyers and from legal aid lawyers and consumer