so i think you'll see just after the holiday season a lot to put referenda on the ballot to repeal obama care in as many of movement. >> if we can go back really states as state law allows, quickly to the tea party. which is nearly two dozen. how do you keep the tea party in the republican fold without what that does is prepares us ooch appearing like you're for 2012 from a turnout trying to coopt it? perspective. but in 2011, it give soms >> i think there are a couple of specific ideas. number one, the next chairman constructive positive place for all the energy that exists in has to be absolutely serious about not participating in the grassroots and particularly in the tea party for primaries. and as chairman of the conservative change, someplace primaries i won't participate to go, something to do so that in primaries. what we will do is respect the we're not just talking about will of the primary electorate personalities, we're not as the r.n.c. just simply sitting on and support our nominees once the sidelines while the those primaries are concluded. presidential nominating contest is going on but instead we're and i think that commitment preparing around shared ought to be made by every mission, around shared principles to do something good candidate for chairman and for the country as well. ought to be respected once we have a new chairman. and so those are the kinds of as i travel the country and things that i think the next hear from people, particularly rnc chairman can do to make folks who are part of the tea sure that people who sympathize party movement, that was one of the chief criticisms, one of with the tea party see the republican party as someplace the chief complaints coming out that they can find a home in. of the tea party of the party >> and yet michael steel is one of those personalities. apparatus itself in 2010. so let me conclude with this

question. why is he not suited to be secondly, and i think probably more importantly, there are r.n.c. chair for two more years? nearly two dozen states in the >> i think past is prologue and i think the past shows us very country that allow for clearly that among chairman petition-based ballot steele's strengths are not initiatives and referenda to be put on the ballot. relationships with major and so what i proposed is that donors, funding the party, we at the rnc lead a campaign resourcing the turnout programs that are so critical to winning the white house. and while he's certainly a good and decent man and always treated me personally very well, he is from that perspective not been a good chairman. so for that reason, i think the r.n.c. needs new leadership in 2012. >> thank you for being with us here on c-span. >> thank you. monday on "washington journal," steven em everieson, head of

the investigatorive on terrorism talked about izzlalic radicalism in the u.s. dare el talks about his book brain game. and part of our week-long series on food policy, we look at new food safety legislation passed by congress. we begin with the day's news and your calls e-mails and tweets live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. in a moment, the signing ceremony to repeal don't ask, don't tell. after that, if release of new data from the 2010 census on population totals and congressional reapportionment. and a little later, new rules on so-called net neutrality and a vote by the federal communications now, the president signing the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the u.s. military.

in effect since 1993, the ban resulted in more than 13,000 people being discharged from the military. the pentagon's plan for implementing the repeal is expected to take at least several months. this 30-minute ceremony was held at the interior department to accommodate the large audience. [applause] >> how are you? it is a good day. a real good day. some of my colleagues can tell you, this was a long time coming but i am happy it is here. ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. it was a great five-star general and president dwight eisenhower

that said cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace. by repealing don't ask, don't tell today, and we adjust fairness and consideration. that is the real cooperation that president eisenhower spoke of. this was an important campaign promise that the president and i made. and many of you have fout for it for a long me. repealing the policy that actually weakens our national security, diminishes our ability to have military readiness, and violated the fundamental american principle of fairness and equality. the same set of principles that brave gay men and women will now

be able to openly defend around the world. [applause] >> it is both morally and militarily the right thing to do. it is particularly important at this result was fullyupported by those in the military who are charged with implementing it. i want to pay particular respect -- a point of personal privilege, admiral mullen. you're a stand-up guy. [applause]

i tnk they like you. [applause] he already has enough power. [laughter] it could not have been done without these men and women leading our military. it certainly could not have been done without the steady, dedicated, and persistent leadership of the president of the united states. [applause]

mr. president. by signing this bill, you will be linking military might with an abiding sense of justice. you will be projecting power by promoting fairness and making be indicted states military as strong as it can be in a time where we needed to be the strongest. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and commander in chief, barack obama. [applause]

>> yes, we can! yes, we can! >> thank you. yes, we did. >> thank you, mr. president. >> you are welcome. this is a good day. >> yes it is. [yelling] [laughter] >> thank you. thank you. [laughter] i am just overwhelmed. this is a very good day. [applause]

and i want to thank all of you. especially the people on this stage. but each and everyone of you that have been working so hard on thi i could not be prouder. 56 years ago, and the dense, snow-covered forests of western europe, allied forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the battle of the bulge. and in the final days of the fighting, a regiment in the east division of the third army came under fire. the men were traveling along a narrow trail. they were exposed and vulnerable.

hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy. duri theirefight, a private tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of the ravine. dazeand attract, he was as good as dead. but one soldier, a friend, turned back. with shells around him amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, the soldier, this friend scale down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring the private to safer ground. for the rest of his years, he credited this soldier, this friend with saving his life.

knowing he would never have made hot out alone. it was for decades after the war -- four decades after the war that he learned that the man who saved his life, his friend andy, was gay. he had no idea. indeed didn't much care. he knew what mattered. he knew what had kept him alive and what made it possible for him to come home and start family, live the rest of his life. it was his friend. his son is with us today. he knew his valor and sacrifi are no more limited by sexual orientation than by race,

gender, religion, hoare krieg. 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] this morning, i am proud to cite a lot that wl bring an end the don't ask, don't tell. [applause] -- sign a law that will bring an end to don't ask, don't tell. it will strengthen national security in double the ideals that men and women ristheir lives to defend.

no longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic americans that were forced to leave the military regardless of their skills. no matter the years of exemplary performance. no longer will they be asked to live a lie. or look over their shoulder and ordered to serve the country that they love -- in order to serve the country that they love. [applause] admiral mike mullen has said that our people sacrificed a lot fotheir country. including their lives. the of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. -- non of them should have to sacrifice their integritys well. [applause]

that is why i believe it is the right thing to do for our military, that is why i believe it is the right thing to do period. many thought long and hard to reach this day. i wan to think the democrats and republicans that put conviction 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 and the most producti years in the history of congress. in no small part because of their leadership. we are very grateful for that. [applause] i want to thank joe lieberman. [applause] and susan collins. [applause] and i think carl levin is still

working. [laughter] but i want to add car levin. [applause] they held their shoulders to the wheel of in the senate. i'm proud of susan davis. [applause] and a guy you might know, barney frank. [applause] they kept up the fight in the house. i have got to a knowledge patrick murphy -- [applause]

>> hi also want to commend our military leadership. and they don't ask, don't tell was a top in my first meeting with secretary gates, airal mollen, in the joint chiefs. we talked about how to end this policy, we talked about how suess and of passing in implementing this change depended on working closely with

the pentagon. that is what we did. i am confident that history will remember well the courage and vision of secretary gates. [applause] of admiral mike mullen that spoke from the heart and said what he believed was right. [applause]

of general james cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, a deputy secretary who was here. also, the authors of the pentagon's review. they were jt outstanding with meticulous work. [applause] and all of those that ld the groundwork for this transition. and 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 of the patriots that are here today.

all of them who were foed to hang up their uniforms as a result of don't ask, don't tell. but never stop fighting for this country into rallied and marched and fought for change. i want to thank everyone that 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 policy remains in effec until secretary gates, admiral mollen, and i certify the to supportreadiness that. it is important for everyone to remember that. they are committed to implementing the change swiftly and efficiently. we will not be dragging our feet to get this done [applause]

with any change, there is apprehension. that is natural. as commander in chief, i am certain that we can affect the transition in a way that only strengthen our military readiness. the people will look back and wonder why it was ever a source of controversy in the first place. i have every confidence in the professionalism and patriotism of our service members have just as they have grown stronger with each of the other changes. i know they will do so again. the secretary gates, admiral mollen, and a vast majority of the other's share this view.

including the experience of serving with her dedicated service members that were also gay, there is one special operations were fighter, this was one of my favorites. it echoes the experience decades earlier. we have a gay guy in the of it. he's big, he is mean, he kills lots of bad guys. volunteered that he was gay. and i think that sums up perfectly the situation. [applause] i want to the fate of the men and women currently serving in our military. for a long time, your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. you have been asked to carry the

added burden of secrecy and isolation. all the while, you put your lives on the line for citizenship that is not fully granted to you. while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost 20 years, this is more than two centuries in the making. there will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by americans. their service has been obscured in history had a loss to present -- prejudices -- and lost to present this is -- prejudices. gay americans fought just as rd and gave just as much. there can be little doubt there were gay soldiers that fought

for american independence. the consecrated the ground in gettysburg. amanda the trenches along the western front to storm th beaches of iwo jima. their names are etched into the walls of the memorials. their headstones got the grounds at arlington. as the first-generation to serve openly in the armed forces, you will stand for all of those that came befor you. he will serve as role models. five of you will fulfil this responsibility with integrity and honor, just as you have every other mission with which you have beecharged. you need to look no further than the service men and women in this room. distinguished officers.

[applause] marines like one of the first americans in iraq. [applause] leaders like captain jonathan hawkins had led the initial invasion following an ethnic riots and earning a bronze star in the valley. he was discharged only to receive e-mail and letters from his soldiers saying they had known he was gay all along.

and thought that he was the best commander they ever had. there are -- there are a lot of stories like these. stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service hall all who are willing to fight for this country. thats why i hope that those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines that have been discharged under this discriminatory policy will reenlist when this is implemented. [applause] that is why i say to all americans, gay or straight that was nothing more to defend is cotry, and your country needs you, we want you, it would be

honored to welcome yogh into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known. [applause] some of you remember i visited afghanistan just a few weeks ago. while i was walking along, this big crowd of about 3000, a young woman in unirm was shaking my hand and other people or taking pictures. she pulled me into a hug and whispered in my ear, but don't ask, don't tell the -- get don't ask, don't tell done. i said to her, i promise you i will. we are not a nation that says don't ask, don't tell. we are a nation that says we are

many, we are one. we welcome the service of every patriot. we are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. those are the ideals that generations have fought for, those are the ideals that we all pulled today. it is my honor to sign this into law. [applause]

[applause]

>> u.s.a.! u.s.a.! ♪ [applause]

♪

♪

♪

♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up, the release of new data from the 2010 census. after that, new rules on so- called net neutrality and a vote by the federal communications commission. later, queen noor of jordan. >> monday is the annual campaign institute, training students to work on political campaigns.

we will hear from political consultants and strategists from both parties, topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayoral race. we will have live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> a closing speech has an inevitable aspect of stature. an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. my dominant feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators are from every program on cspan since 1987. all on line, all free, washington your way. here is the release of the first set of data from the 2010

census. commerce secretary gsary locke and others look at individual apportionment which some states do to gain seats in the house of representatives. this is just over one hour. [applause] >> want to take care of a few housekeeping duties. with us today is secretary locke, acting secretary rebecca blank, and secfretay groves. dr. groves will have a presentation going to the numbers being released today. following that, secretary locke

and dr. blank will return to their duties at the commerce department and we'll open it up to wait q &a session. we will alternate between questions in the room and questions on the telephone and be accepting some questions via twitter. before we get started here, i just want to introduce a short video that captures why we are here and why this is an historic moment and what happened in the past year to get to this point.

>> the census is as old as the republic itself. we can watch the united states transform. we had a relatively sparse population scattered on the atlantic seaboard and we can watch a transform into this continental superpower that today is able to project so much power globally. >> and a decade, we are called upon to stand up and be counted. once a decade, the census bureau rises to that challenge. of everyevery day year the needs of your community are met. this decade was no different. the census bureau called and

america answered. the 2010 census. >> the u.s. census bureau is kicking off his portrait of america road tour. >> the u.s. census can make your voice heard. >> fill it out and mail it back. >> the census on campus, find it, fill it out, be counted. ♪ >> we did it. >> the census creates a snapshot of who we are in the community. >> it is about being counted in america. >> please answer the 10 ec questions.

-- tan easy questions. >> -- the 10 easy questions. ♪ >> i am your local census taker. >> open the door to your census taker. >> when we joined together as

one nation to improve the communities in which we live, we rely on a common knowledge that comes from the statistics we have assembled from the senses. the census helps our whole -- helps hold our government to account and it helps us make better choices for moving forward. in the words of thomas jefferson," whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government." in the process, the census tells us much more about where we have been and where we are going. the 2010 census, your new portrait of america. >> let me introduce our guest

today, dr. robert groves of the u.s. census bureau. [applause] >> undersecretariat blank will begin with a set of remarks and introduced the secretary. [applause] >> thank you, dr. groves and good morning everybody. it is good to get to this point. i would like to echo what dr. groves and i have talked about many times which is that we went into this with the intention of being a team. i am very pleased to say that in

the past 18 months, we have been 18 between secretary locke, between my office, and dr. gross and the census bureau. it has been an honor to work on this. the u.s. census bureau is in very good hands with dr. grove is at the helm leading a dedicated group of professionals, many of whom are sitting in the front row. i appreciate the work that thousands of employees have done to ensure a successful 2010 census as well as over 1 million americans who became temporary census workers and help collect the actual data. congratulations to you all. we are here to celebrate something that has only taken place 23 times in the country's history. this man days the actual enumeration of the population every 10 years. the founding fathers of our nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government.

the plan was to count every person living in the united states and to use that count to determine representation in congress. enshrining this mandate in our constitution marked a turning point in world history. there had been sent as before but they had been used mainly to collect taxes or confiscate property or and script residents into military service. that is not what the u.s. census is about. the genius of our founders was taking a tool of government and making it a tool of public -- political empowerment for citizens over their government. we cannot be a representative government without being able to apportion our house of representatives in a way that reflects the changing nation of the past few centuries and that requires us to know who lives where it requires a population census. the first census in 1790 at the start of the republic was managed under the direction of thomas jefferson, then secretary of state. james madison, called the father

of the u.s. constitution, recommended at least five of the six questions on the first census. u.s. marshals were charged with conducting peace 1790 census in the original 13 states and took 18 months to do the work. the 2010 census is a far bigger endeavor, it remains almost as simple in one respect -- for the 2010 census, we ask only 10 questions, just four more than in 1790 and very much for the same content as mr. madison had recommended perry the founders would no doubt be astounded and amazed at how the new nation they had created as the ball than change. they surely would be most pleased that our constitution and our way of government and tried in that document has survived and thrived. this is due in part because the founders invented a new use for a sense is that held regularly redistribute political power as the nation expanded. today, in reporting these first

2010 results, our great american democracy renews itself in the midst of a changing nation. today, in reporting these results, our great american democracy renews itself in the midst of a changing nation, peacefully, fairly, and openly. i am honored to introduce to you, the man charged by congress with making sure the department of congress conducts the census, the secretary gary lauck. he is interested in an envelope with key decisions over the past 80 months. bet is that an honor to serve with you and to serve you to make sure this meant it was completed. ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming the secretary gary locke. [applause] >> thank you very much for the introduction and for your remarks in the history of the census. it is a pleasure to be with all of you this morning. some important news must be about to be unveiled. this is an important day for the american people and earlier this morning, in accordance with law and fulfillment of a constitutional mandate, i

delivered the 2010 census of findings to the president of the united states produces a ritual that has occurred for only 23 other -- 22 other times in history. i included the national and state populations and the apportionment for the allocation of seats to the united states house of representatives, based on the official count of the 2010 census. i told the president also that the 2010 census was completed on time and under budget. before we get to the actual numbers, it is important to stress this achievement. it demonstrates that government can deliver a promise on time and within its budget. before this census began, experts inside and outside the government predicted that longstanding operational and fiscal problems at the u.s. census bureau would doom the 2010 census to cost overruns and diminished participation by the american people. in 2009, the commerce

department's: inspector general and accounting officer ranks the 2010 census as one of the federal government programs most likely to fail. that did not happen. earlier this summer, i joined dr. groves to say that we had spent $1.6 billion less than we were given by the congress for census operation in 2010. with the final accounting completed, i am pleased to announce that the number has grown to $1.87 billion. that was under budget which represents more than 25% of the total that congress allocated in 2010 for spending on the docennial census. this can be attributable to better management, greater productivity among our census takers, and our successful effort to get more americans to

mail back their census forms which reduced the number of census employees we had to hire to go door-to-door county. the other half of the $1.87 billion is from reserves we set aside to deal with operational problems such as concerns with our computer systems and other unforeseen circumstances such as severe weather, all of which, fortunately, never rose. 74% of u.s. households return to the census questionnaire by malcolm imagine what had been achieved in the 2000 census and the exceeding the predictions of the experts and halting a three-decade decline in mailbox response since 1970. these are substantial achievements that did not happen by chance. the senior management of the department of commerce and the census bureau ran a tight ship. we constantly demanded accountability, a rigorous internal management reforms,

and constant monitoring of performance. we made sure we stretched every taxpayer dollar as far as it could go. we also revamp our public outreach efforts and our advertising was marked more targeted than it ever was before. with concentrated advertising and hard to count communities, advertising in more languages, we also set aside resources to rapidly intervene if necessary with the targeted advertising and outrage in areas with lagging response rates. the impact of this targeting effort was measurable and the media. in late march of this past year, the census bureau had identified media markets containing a total of 17.7 million households that seriously flag in mail back response. after three weeks of more intensive advertising and public engagements, low performers were reduced to just 10 media markets with 1.6 million households.

we could not have realized these settings without the american public's impressive participation in the 2010 census. we would like to express' our deep end most sincere thanks to all those who returned the questionnaire or took a few minutes to answer the simple questions from the almost 750,000 census workers. all of you have helped us paid to this latest portrait of america. we will start showing you this in a few seconds. the 2010 census has been a priority of mine since my very first day as commerce secretary, perhaps made more so because of the pessimistic predictions. in fact, the first that i did as secretary before i even set foot in the commerce department building was to attend a kickoff meeting with 2010 census partners at a washington d.c. conference center.

for the 2010 census, there were more than two of its 57,000 partner organizations all across -- there were more than two of the 50,000 -- there were more than 257,000 partner organizations all across america. there were large and small and many of them are represented today. they deserve our heartfelt thanks for their support, commitment, and they're tremendously successful efforts. much is riding on these efforts. this will determine how more than $400 billion is allocated every year by the federal government and for the next 10 years to local communities for everything from education, to senior souter services, to housing, law enforcement, transportation. the 2010 census will help shape the makeup of all state legislatures and make the allocation to the house of representatives. our business colleagues will

also benefit enormously from the census data. this will provide valuable information that the business community will identify you -- will use to identify new business markets as to where to make capital investments and create more jobs and grow our economy. indeed, the 2010 census will serve as a backbone for our political and economic system for years to come. it has been a real pleasure to work with our great colleagues and professionals at the census bureau. it is a pleasure to be here on this important day for our nation. i am so very proud of our entire management team at the secretary's office, the department, is, the census bureau, the temporary census workers, and our hundreds of thousands of community partners. with that, let's get on to the news and statistics and information you have been waiting for. i will turn it over to dr. bob groves to give us that exciting

news. [applause] >> thank you. i am proud on behalf of all my colleagues at the census bureau to report to the american public the 2010 census national and state population council and the apportionment results for the u.s. house of representatives. as you have heard, this is the 23rd time this country has done this. at that time, we were just a nation of 3.9 million people in 1790. this is the time when all of us come together to count ourselves and make possible critical steps in a democracy. we begin this release with the revelation of the national population count, the official count of the u.s. as of april 1, 2010. the population on that date is the cumulative effect of

generations of americans are growing and moving throughout the country. this first graphic tracks the growth of the 50 states, even reflecting the populations of territories that later became states. 100 years ago, in 1910, there were 92 million people in this country. by 1970, the population had more than doubled. 10 years ago, the resident population, the population of the 50 states and the district of columbia, was 281,421,906 persons, 10 years ago. under a constitutional mandate, the census bureau was charged with the job of conducting the 2010 census to update that number. following that in early 2009, our staff visited every street

in this country to update our list of addresses. in 2010, we mailed or delivered 132 million forms. we worked with over 250,000 community and civic organizations to promote the census. we hired 600,000 staff members to knock on about 50 million doors around the country to collect data in person. and then we optically scanned 166 million forms. we built and reviewed very large datasets stripped of personal identifiers. at this point, i am happy and proud to note that we have finished the work required to produce our first 2010 census product and i ask that secretary locke and undersecretary blank join me in revealing for the first time to everyone in the country at the very same moment both here, on television, and on the internet,

the official u.s. april 1, 2010 population count. as of april 1, 2010, the resident u.s. population is 308,745,538 persons. [applause] that should do it.

this 2010 census population represents a growth of 9.7% over the official population count of 2000. i will provide more details including the 2010 state population counts and i will review the results of the reapportionment of the house of representatives. first, let's break down the national figures to see the variation within the country showing geographical variation in population growth. here we see the continuation of a multi-decade trend of growth in the southern and western regions. the ne group by a rate of 3.2% over last tenures. the midwest grew by 3.9%. the south, already the reason with the largest population, grew by 14.3%. finally, the west provide 13.8%.

if you look at the state map, we see large variations across the states. many different circumstances have combined to contribute to the population growth or decline in each state are the state with the largest rate of population growth in the last 10 years is nevada with 35.1% growth. i note that in the last census, nevada showed a 66% growth. on the other hand, mich. saw a decline of the 0.6% and puerto rico a decline of 2.2%. in census 2000, 10 years ago, no state experienced a 10-year decline. however, in the 1990 census, four states experience decline. let's go into each region. within three regions, you will see very asians across each

state. we begin in the northeast where we see rhode island with 0.4% growth compared to new hampshire with 6.5% growth. in the midwest, we again see the decline in michigan but we also see a 7.9% growth in south dakota. in the south, there was a great range among individual states. for example, louisiana with a 1.4% growth and west virginia with a 2.5% growth can be contrasted with texas with a 20.6% growth. in the west, there is even a wider difference between montana at 9.6% growth and again in nevada with 35.1%. i turned to the implication of the 2010 officials said its results on the membership of the u.s. house of representatives. as you know, the constitutional

purpose of the census is the redistribution of the membership of the house of representatives across state proportional to the population. since 1940, the law has specified that the census bureau used the method of equal proportion to assign seats to states. this method is based on the population of the 50 states and excluding the district of columbia and supplemented by the federally-affiliated overseas population. if we look at the congressional apportionment each decade since 1940, the trend is a growth for western and southern states and a tendency to lose seats from the midwest and the northeastern states. in fact, since 1940, there has been a net shift of 79 seats to the south and west. the effect of the official 2010

population count at the state level on congressional apportionment is a shift of 12 seats affecting eight different states. those states gaining seats include arizona, florida, georgia, nevada, south carolina, texas, utah, and washington, as you see on the graphic. those losing states are illinois, iowa, louisiana, massachusetts, michigan, missouri, new jersey, new york, ohio, and pennsylvania. for 32 states, there is no change. texas gained the most seats this decade, a total of four and indeed, that state has gained seats for seven consecutive decades. the next graphic shows a

national snapshot of the 2010 census apportionment of the house of representatives. california will have 53 seats. texas will have 36 seats. new york and florida will each have 27. seven states will have only one representative. the average population size of each house district will be 710,767 persons. this is up from 646,952 at this time in 2000. i might note, in 1790, each representative represented 34,000 people, roughly. we have grown. let's return to examining the pattern of population change. over the last 100 years, the

rate of growth of the u.s. population has gradually slowed. this is true in many developed societies. there is a lot of variation across the decades. as you can see from the red line in this graphic. there are two notable decades here. between 1930 and 1940, the small growth rate of 7.3% is thought to be related to the great depression of the 1930's. between 1950 and 1960, the high growth rate of 18.5% reflects the so-called baby boom. the percentage growth this last decade, as i stated earlier, 9.7%, is thus the second lowest of the past century. the census bureau also tracks the center of the population each decade.

in 1790, the center of the population was in kent county, maryland. it consistently moved west and in more decades, noticeably south. in the year 2000, it sat in southern missouri. we have not yet computed the new center. it is based on lower geography date. we cannot wait to see if the center will remain somewhere in the state of missouri or move south into arkansas. we will let you know as soon as we know. another way of looking at change in the population over time is to consider the relative sizes of the four major regions of the country. in 1910, the west region comprised only 7.7% of the national population. in 1990, for the very first

time, the northeast became our smallest region with 20.4%. the northeast and midwest regions consistently declined in relative size over the last 100 years. in contrast, by the 2000 census, the west was 22.5% vs. the early 7.7% in 1910. based on the 2010 results, we note that this is the very first decade in our country's history that the west region is more populous than the midwest. now let's look at states with the largest and smallest populations in the country. in 1910, four of the five most populous states were in the northeast and midwest with texas as a fifth.

starting in 1940, calif. displaced texas in the top five. by 1970, texas or rejoined the top five. in 1990, florida joined the top five. new york is the only state that is ranked among the five largest in each decade. in fact, this has been true since 1790. what are the top five most populous states as of april 1, 2010? they are california, texas, new york, florida, and illinois. you see there population counts there on the graphic. the identities of the five least populous states vary less over the decades. if we look at alaska, i note that it grew from 64,000 people as the territory in 1910 to

627,000 in the year 2000. yet it has always been among the least of the five least populous states. we know that delaware and vermont on the east coast are also consistently among the least populous states. today, according to the 2010 census, the least populous states include wyoming, vt., north dakota, alaska, and south dakota. i have been talking about the size of populations but let's turn to personage change, the rate of growth of populations over the decade. between 1920 and 1930, michigan grew at a rate of 32%, reflecting the growing manufacturing sector in the state. between 1950 and 1960, florida grew at a faster rate of 78.8%

reflecting migration from northern states, the prevalence of air-conditioning and economic conditions in the state. arizona has been among the five states with the highest population growth for nine of the last 10 decades , starting with a growth rate of 61.5% and more recently in 1990, 2040% growth rate. based on the 2010 census, the five states with the fastest growth rate during the past decade r nevada, arizona, utah, idaho, and texas and you could see their growth rates there on the graphic. there is also a story to tell for the states with the slowest growth or declines over the past century. the 1920's saw the great

migration from the south out of states such as georgia. during the dust bowl years in the 1930's and 1940's, many residents of the great plains were forced to leave. also consider west virginia where the population decline for two decades and rebounded strongly in the 1970's reflecting the changing fortunes of coal mining. losses there can be temporary. this decade, the five states with the slowest growth include michigan, rhode island, louisiana, ohio, and new york. geographical the dispersion of the population. we are a large country, geographically. our population is not evenly spread throughout. an important attribute is population density measured by the average number of persons

per square mile. i have been talking a lot about movement east to west but it is important to note that the five states with the highest population density have remains the same for the past 40 years in this country. they are new jersey, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut, and maryland, all of these were part of the original 13 states in the country. the five states with the lowest population density have remained the same for the last 20 years. the ranking varies somewhat over those years. they are alaska, wyoming, montana, north dakota, and south dakota. those are states with some of the larger land mass in the country. let me sum of -- is really complete our first look at the result of the 2010 census. there is much, much more to come revealing our our country has changed over the last 10

years at levels as small as a city block, as small as school districts and counties and cities throughout the country. i want to end his press conference with some thank yous to the nearly 309 million residents of this wonderful country. i thank you on behalf of all of us at the census bureau for your civic participation in the 2010 census. i want to thank the thousands of census bureau staff throughout the country and want to congratulate them for a job well done in the 2010 census. especially to secretary locke and deputy secretary blank, this was a team with a leader and secretary locke that allowed us to keep our eye on the price throughout this endeavor with his input and leadership

throughout this sentence, we have produced for the country wonderful sense is, in my belief. i want to thank you for the hundreds of hours, both of you, that you spent assuring that this sense as was the success. importantly for me, it was conducted in a non-partisan and professionally statistical way -- statistically valid way. i want to thank you for coming today and i know how to pack your schedules are and i thank you for your continuing support. this end my remarks today. [applause] >> a couple of announcements -- we will open on toq &a in a second. if you are on twitter, you can send a question.

if you are on the telephone, you need to o pressne. we'll start questions right in front. if you want to go to our website,c eitherensus.gov. the materials we are handing out are on our website now census.gov. please identify your affiliation. >> what do you attribute the slow growth of louisiana to and what impact with hurricane katrina? >> what attribute of these numbers is that we have looked at them only for a few days just as you have seen them only for a few minutes. the growth in any state is yet to be discovered in terms of

what the root causes are. >> we have a question on the phone? we will go to the front row. >> what is the significance of the population center and do you suspect it will be in arkansas? [laughter] >> the signals because of the population center is the added to the question if everyone always the same amount and we balance the country by geography, where with the center point be? the value of track and the center of population overtime is that it teaches us how we have changed as a country.

this opened south and west is really a simple way to know how we as a population have changed and moved over the decades. >> we will go to a question on the phone, please. >> thank you for doing this. i have a question about the rate of growth. since the 1930's, what is the main reason? is it because of the emigration issue or also because fewer births? >> growth in our country comes both from natural increases, fertility processes of the folks who live here, and part of the growth is due to that in this country and part of the growth is due to emigration. based to our demographic

analysis, it looks like about 60% of the growth over this decade is due to natural increases in maybe 40% due to emigration. >> we have a question from twitter. when and where do we get the count here? >> started in february, state- by-state, the census bureau will release data that will be used by the states for redistricting. that information gives counts down to the block level. you can assemble blocks up to county levels from that the data. that will be february through the end of march and then later we will begin to have profiles and other files released that will give results and all sorts of geographic information.

>> you spoke about the ways the population grows. can you specifically speak about california and how much of its population -- a group by 10% and how much of that was immigration. >> on december 6, we released estimates of the population based on birth and death certificates in migrants. that process does not allow us to go to the state level. our answer to your question, we don't really have. we have a wonderful tool in this country called the american community service that tracks over time where people reported where they lived in the prior year and that would be one way of going about answering that question.

i don't have that data with me. >> do we have a question on the phone? >> good morning, everyone. i would like to know the actual budget from congress for the 2010 census. what is the actual dollar amount? >> secretary locke referred to the 2010 fiscal year budget which was about $7.4 billion. that money was spent on census operations, data collections operations and the beginning of the processing activities. as he noted, of that $7.4 billion, we were able to return $1.87 billion.

we saved enough money to return that to the treasury. >> a new question from a twister. were undocumented residents included? >> in every census since 1790, following the guidance of the founding fathers, we have counted all persons who live in the country. we count residents whether they are citizens or not, whether they are documented or not, we did that in 2010 just as we have done it every 10 years since not a 1790. as you may recall from your census questionnaire, we did not have a question on whether you were a citizen or not and hence, from these accounts, we cannot answer the kind of questions that some have about the proportion of the population that is in new immigrants a based on the census data. >> the other side of the room, the gentleman in the back row. >> am i correct in remembering that 1910 was the last time that the number of members of the house of representatives went up to its current level of 435? since the district's keep getting larger, will there be a point where the census bureau will have to consider increasing the number of districts and does that require an act of congress? >> on the first question, the size of 435 seats was fixed for the 1920 census. i remind us that the 1920 census did not lead to a reapportionment of the 1920 house. that was the one decade where the census was not used for reapportionment.

on your second question, the size of congress is a matter for a. congress the census bureau has no role in determining or recommending the number of seats. that is a matter for the congress itself.

>> i think we have another question on the phone. >> i have two quick questions. in new mexico, there was an undercount. -- not an undercount but not many people answered the questionnaire. what did the census do to make sure that new mexico had an accurate count? >> this is a great question. it allows me to go over how we do a census. we do indeed mail out or deliver questionnaires but that

is the beginning of the process. you can think of that as the first half of a census. any household that did not return the questionnaire we sent them was followed up in what we call the non-response follow-up status. that amounted to about 57 million households. we knocked on those doors repeatedly. we visited as many as six times throughout the bat process. the relationship between the male return rate and a complete count is quite fuzzy because we follow up on every household. at the end of this process, for every household on our master address file, we have a resolution, we have a population estimate, we have a population count through all our processing and data collection. the census, as much as we can know from our operations, is

completed and all those areas. >> thank you. >> we have another question from twittered. is the female to male ratio changes >>? from this data, we have not released counts by. gender we will do that over the coming months. we can look at this ratio. this is an important ratio for us as statisticians because we have the ratio of males to females by age from the vital registration system. most people believe those to be pretty good numbers. as soon as we get the same sex ratios, male to female ratio, from the senses, we will compare those as a way to compare demographic analysis to the senses and that will give

us inside as to how good democratic -- demographic analysis is. so far, we don't have those gender ratios. >> the gentle man in the second row. >> can you talk about the variation in size of the ratios of constituents per member of congress under this apportionment? which states were next in line for seats? >> i am not prepared to talk to. leverrier -- i am not prepared to talk on the variation. i have not done that yet that that can be easily done. you take the population of the state and divide by the seat and you have the variation. the method of apportionment plans to reduce that variation. that is why it has been used since 1940. the 435th seat was assigned to

minnesota. they did not change their seats. the next state in line was, if we had a 430 6seat would have been assigned to north carolina. the population difference that would have switched the order between minnesota and north carolina was 15,000. i can tell you that is the largest discrepancy in half a century. so there's a pretty good spread between the 435th and 436th relative to past censuses. >> let's go back over here. >> i believe you said that the

decade between the 1930's, the decade of the great depression was the slowest growth rate, 7. 3 p.s.a.? >> yes, 7.3%. >> i wonder if you have calculated how this great recession affected the growth rate in 2010 and where does that rank with smaller growth rates? >> you quoted me right. if you think about this for a minute, had this is an assertion on the part of historians, that the great depression depressed growth rates. he about don't have anything to compare to it. i think the case is pretty attractive to make that the depression hurt the growth rate. but teasing out the marginal effect of the great depression versus all the other things that were happening in that decade is just as hard as trying to answer your question, what is the marginal effect of

the recession on our growth rate. i do note that a lot of developed countries around the world are slowing in their growth rate. this is a pattern that is a worldwide pattern. so a part of it is that, and part of it may be the reception. we will never been able to really tease those apart, i think. >> we will go to another question on the phone. operator? >> good morning, dr. groves, i apologize if you addressed this because i lost my phone connection at one point, but could you confirm or tell us whether or not the inclusion of the overseas military and federal civilian population in the state population totals affected the apportionment outcome as it did in the last two censuses? >> i cannot answer that question. i don't know the answer to that

question. we haven't done that, and i haven't seen it. >> ok. >> as you know, the federal employees abroad, state and other federal agencies supply to the census bureau counts of their personnel. we assign for apportionment purposes those counts to the home state. we don't have finer geographical data so those counts are not reused in the redistricting process, but they are used in the reapportionment process. those are the ones that if you pulled them out would have changed the apportionment process. >> we will go over here to the waving hat. >> my name is rita. i write for asian pacific american audiences. this is a very quick follow-up of the previous question. your answer was that the census

does not ask questions regarding citizenship. of course i am referring to those undocumented, and i write for those audiences here in america. what is the process after the count that -- would pursue to be able to have an estimate morals of the undocumented or the uncounted, especially those coming from asia? thank you. >> i refer you, first of all in thinking about the census to article one of the constitution, that congress specifies how the census would be taken by law. one answer is if you are talking about the census, this is certainly a matter where congress would need to weigh in. our other surveys that we do

ask about country of origin, and we ask other questions that get to this. none of the surveys we do ask about the documentation status of non-citizens. this is something that we haven't inquired into. >> that is a good segue into our next question from twitter. about what are the differences between the results today and the recent a.c.s. results? >> there are multiple estimates. this refers to a huge release of small area estimates that we provided just a few days ago. there are several differences. they reflect the period 2005 through 2009. the counts i just released are april 1, 2010 counts. there's a time difference between the two. the second thing is one of the benefits of the short form census was all of us didn't

have a lot of work to do. it took just minutes to filth out. the bad thing about that is there aren't many pieces of information in the census. the american community survey, on the other hand, is rich in characteristic data, socioeconomic data, housing data, travel patterns to work and so on. and so using those in combination is a wonderful way to understand this country, and that is how we use them at the census bureau. >> we have time for four or five more questions. the gentleman in this room and then back to the phone. do we have a microphone for you? >> we lost the mike. >> i write for began either newspapers in new york. going into today, there was speculation that new york might lose only one house seat

instead of two. how close was it, and the state's chloe population -- flow population? >> the second question is a little like other questions we have talked about today. piecing apart the growth or deadline is a complicated process. the census is a snapshot. so we have two portraits, 2000, and 2010. i focused your attention on the different between those two time points. a lot happened in those 10 years. as you can go through in your own mind for new york, and we

can all do this. piecing apart the marginal effects of those is very difficult. this is the matter of demographers over the coming years. they will analyze and reanalyze that data over the coming years and come to answers with those questions. today we haven't scratched the surface of answering them. >> the gentleman in the front row? >> at this point, what do you know about those without housing, those that would be considered homeless that you were not able to send a census form to their address or even deliver it to them personally? is there reason to believe this census would be more or less accurate than in the past, and is there any dramatic changes that you can notice at this point? >> well, this is the third

census that we have had a very deliberate approach at those who are homeless and so on. march 29th, march 30th and march 31st of 2010, we had throw separate operations that were the culmination of a lot of outreach to a lot of community organizations that helped us locate where the homeless tended to congregate either for the provision of services,ed food and shelter, so we went to soup kitchens and shelters, or we went to outdoor locations. so on those three days we made a massive effort to count the homeless. those counts were added in and were part of the numbers we just released. we don't public separately counts of the homeless, nor are there plans to do so. i can say with regard to your

question this is one of the toughest challenges of the census bureau. we acknowledge that. we believe we are relatively successful in counting homeless when there are groups together. an isolated homeless person who lives in a tent in the woods of wyoming we may not get, and we acknowledge that. this is a challenge for every developed country in the world, and we do the best we can. >> we are going back to the phones. operator? >> thank you. you talked closely about getting a fourth seat in the 2000 census and went to court over counting church mission areas overseas. i'm wond everything if you can speak to not counting those mission areas in this census -- mission areas in this census

and whether that may a difference? >> utah did gain a seat given its relative growth rate. the procedures used for counting residents in 2010 with regard to the missionary population were exactly the same as in 2000. those out of the country were not counted as part of the census operations. did i answer your question, first of all? >> what i was wondering is what the reason for that was? was that reconsidered for this census given the lawsuit last time and the concerns raised about those people not being counted, and whether or not that number might have made a difference in pushing utah toward a fifth seat for the 2010 census since we were so

closed to a fourth seat last time? thank you. >> i have only been in my job about a year and a half. to my knowledge, there was no serious reconsideration of the counting procedures for missionaries. with regard to whether had we counted them, the seat allocation would have been different, i can't speak to because i don't know how many there would be. one could go about that if you had that estimate, i guess. >> thank you. >> we will return to the room next after this question from our friends on facebook. dr. groves, how do we find out the results of minority group counts for each state? >> in the files that were released starting in february, as i said, we will have block level counts. those counts will be broken down by race and ethnicity groups. from those data one can derive

counts at all levels of aggregation for minority groups, and i expect there will be hundreds of thousands of people doing that as soon as those files are out. later on we will have more specific reports that will give you those breakdowns directly. >> two more questions in the room here, and then we will go back to the phones for our final question. >> just a follow up on the katrina question. there was a call, as you well know, for a recount in those areas since the victims have moved to other states. is that still likely to happen, and do you still support that as you did months ago? >> let me clarify what occurred. i actually visited the new orleans area several timeses because we changed our operations to address our

circumstances in those parishes. we wanted to make sure we kept up to day with the heavily dynamic population. people are moving back and rebuilding, and we wanted to county people as best we can. we never violated the principle that we count people where they usually live. i understand that some who are now living in baton rouge, or in mississippi, or in houston, think of themselves as new orleans residence. under the counting rules we have used since 1790, they must be counted where they live, and that is how we counted them. but we did attempt to count as accurately as we can through these extraordinary procedures that were used in that area. other parts of the gulf got the same thing.

parts of the galvestonston area were handled the same way. >> one more from the phone operator? >> i'm sorry, my question was answered already. thank you. >> one more on the phone? >> thanks for taking my call. regarding idaho's position among the five fastest growing states, do you attribute that to the population moving from the east and midwest to the west, or the bump in population that we have experienced? >> we can't wait to dive into the information about the patterns of my gration. there are tons of demographers working on these questions. >> thank you >> thank you for joining us.

as a reminder, you can go to census .gov. this recitation is on that site, and a transcript of the director's remarks, and we will have posted in 24 hours a transcript of the entire event today. thank you again, and thank you, dr. groves. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> come january there will be eight new members of the u.s. house from the state of florida. one of them is republican sandy adams from the 24th district along florida's central

atlantic coast. a member of the state house, she is a former deputy county sheriff and air force veteran. she defeated democratic first-term incumbent suzanne kasmus. another new member from florida, david rivera, a republican who defeated four-term incumbent joe garcia, 52% to 42%. he is representing the 25th congressional district, occurring southwest miami and the florida keys. congress resumes january 5th with live coverage on c-span. coming up on c-span, new rules on so-called neteutrality and a vote by the f.c.c. then queen jordan talks about the n n n n treaty, and then

a history of televised presidential debates. >> i think a lot of people that a lot of people who follow british politics makes is that they are broadly comparable to your system. your president is like our prime minister and that you have two houses of parliament, and we have two of ours. will, no. our prime minister has much more power than your president. >> "q & a" continues tonight with interviews from london comparing the british and american forms of government. as we talk with guests about elections, the impact of money in races, the power of the prime minister, taxes, social issues and the cost of living, tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q & a." >> monday on "washington journal," steven emer son, head of the investigative project on terrorism talks about radical islamism in the u.s.

and dress west talks about his book, brain game. and attorney sarah klein looks at new food safety legislation passed by congress. we begin with the day's news and your calls, e-mails and tweets, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. monday is day one of american university's annual campaign management institute, training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political consultants and strategists from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayor's race. we will have life coverage starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span-2. the federal communications commissions last week approved

new internet regulations to prohibit service proibders from blocking content. but they will allow it to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service. here is a look at the debate and vote. the three democrats approved the plan and the republicans voted against it. it is a couple of hours. >> today we are pleased to present a proposed order to preserve the open internet. >> as my colleagues and i will explain, this order would establish three basic rules to preserve the open internet. they are transparency, no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination. these straight forward rules are grounded and broadly accepted internet principles and taylored to differing technologies. correct cliffle they protect and empower consumers and innovators, helping ensure the

internet continues to flourish as an engine of commerce, creativity and civic engagement, and provide clarity for broadband 3r0eu6ers by ensuring noncontrols access, they cement the credibility of the united states as we continue to advocate for other nations to let the open internet flourish within their own borders. seated with me this morning in the order in which they will present are david ten obama, in the office of general counsel. paul, chief of the office of strategic planning and policy analysis, who will explain how the order would promote investment and innovation. ruth, chief of the wireless telecommunications bureau, who would explain how the rules would apply to mobile broadband services. and austin, general counsel, who will discuss enforcement and the commission's legal authority.

>> please know this draft reflects a tremendous amount of hard work from people who are listed on the screen. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, as you know, the commission has long recognizeded that open communication networks spur innovation and investment for the benefit of consumers, competition and economic growth. over the course of many years in many con text and especially through a series of decisions over the last five years, the commission has maintained its commitment to the openness that facilitateded the birth and the incredible growth of the intern. in 2005 the commission unanimously adopted a policy statement that sought to protect the rights of consumers

to access the lawful internet content of their choice and the freedom to use the applications, services and devices of their choosing subject to reasonable network management. the commission later made thee principles in the context of telephone company mergers and the c-block speck truck auction. they adepositted these measures with a shared understand a -- shared understanding that its authoritied extended to open broadband networks. principles that are the foundation upon which the internet was built. entrepreneurs, investors and innovators depend on these principles and major broadband providers have committed publicly to preserving the interpret's openness. at the same time, however, there have been incidents, some of which have led to commission action, to where broadband providers have blocked or did he graded lawful internet traffic without disclosing their actions to consumers.

the rules proposed in the order before you are consistent with the commission's history of protecting the sbesht's openness from such threats. >> since 1995, venture capital funds have invested almost $250 billion in internet related industries. the historical openness of the intent has made this massive investment possible by eliminating barriers to innovation and giving even the smallest businesses access to national and global markets. many online companies have gone from ideas to million-billion-dollar enterprises in a few years. they didn't have to ask per miss. meanwhile, thanks to the other growing command for access to online services, home broadband has risen from 3% in 2000 to over 60% too today. this growth has given broadband providers to earn a fair return on the billions of dollars they

have invested every year in developing and deploying technologies to meet brand width needs. we have promised these things to preserve that. the possibility that providers could interfere with the flow of internet traffic in ways that violate historical principles create unnecessary uncertainty for businesses and investors. tactics in the short terp interests of individual providers could have harm fum effects on the sector as a whole and once adopted, new practices could become difficult to reverse. by identifying the principles under which most companies have operated, we will bring increased certainty.

broadband providers, online businesses and investors will all know what to expect under these rules because they largely reflect the way the internet works now. among the greatest beneficiaries of this increased certainty will be startups and small businesses. some of them will become our country's next success stories. bringing new products to market, creating jobs and fueling new rounds of investment and infrastructure. >> the proposed order would establish three basic rules that are grounded and accepted internet principles as well as the commission's prior decisions. i will described the proposed rules taylored to fix technologies, and ruth with explain others. the first rule is transparency. broadband providers must disclose their network management practices and the commercial terms of their broadband services. this rule will ensure that consumers and innovators have the information they need to under the capability of broadband services while giving

providers flexibility in how they deliver that information. the second rule prohibits blocking. providers of fixed broadband interpret access service may not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices. this is based on the first three internet policy statement principles and consolidates three separate rules that were published in the notice of proposed rule-making in this pro. the no-blocking rule bars a provider of fixed broadband from charging for content, applications, services or devices simply for delivering traffic to or from the ep user customers. the third rule prohibits unreasonable discrimination. they may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic. the record in this proceeding convinced us there are some forms of traffic that are beneficial and some harmful.

the rules are subject to reasonable network management. a net management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and taylored to achieves a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the access service. finally, the order acknowledges the category of specialized services, which share capacity of broadband service over the last mile facilities. there may be benefits for consumers among thes, bithey present the ability to provide grower control. rather than taking action at this time, the commission would observe market developments to verify they promote investment, innovation, competition and consumer benefits without undermining or threatening the opening internet. >> openness is as important for

mobile broadband networks as for other broadband platforms. consumers are using mobile broadband at an accelerating pace, and access to mobile broadband is becoming increasingly essential to innovation, invehement and freedom of expression. as a result of moves toward openness by wireless providers, users are gaining greater access to diverse applications, content and services, and have more opportunities to use compatible third-party devices. at the same time there have been instances of mobile providers blocking third-party applications, and concerns have been raised. there are, however, important differences between mobile and fixed broadband. mobile broadband is an earlier stage platform and is quickly evolving. the significant and fast-moving change in mobile broadband

counsels for a measured approach, an approach that fosters openness without triggering unforeseen consequences in this dynamic area. we taylor certain of the principles to mobile broadband, requiring compliance with the transparency rule and a basic no-blocking rule. first, the transparency rule applicable to mobile is the same one applicable to fixed broadband providers and directs providers to disclose their third party device and certification procedures and clearly explain criteria for restrictions on use of their networks. second, it establishes that providers may not block access to lawful websites. the rule enabilities consumers to access content of their chiesing. third, the order prohibits mobile broadband providers from locking apps that compete with their voice and video tell

fonny services. this is intended to address situations in which providers have the strongest incentives to manage the business. the order specifies that the no-blocking rule does not generally play to mobile broadband providers engaged in the operation of app stores. as to the rules that apply to fixed broadband, all of these rules allow providers to engage in reasonable network management. and finally the order expresses the commission's commitment to continue to monitor and solicit input on furt developments, including the upper 700 making hurs c-block trance pigses. >> it also establishes enforcement mechanisms to addresses situations in which a private resolution is not

possible. they can use the website. after giving 10 days notices, any person may file a formal complaint alleging a violation of the rules. complaint may be expedited. the commission has the option of initiating investigations. i will now turn to the commission's legal authority. as the supreme court has said, congress game the commission a mandate to conform rules to the dynamic aspects of the communications industry. the open interpret rules respond to that challenge, and the office of general counsel is satisfied that the commission has statutory authority to adopt them. >> it directs the commission to advise on reasonable telecommunications. commission precedent and case law, including the case are

consistent with the view that section 706 directs the commission to takes actioning that one, involve interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio. two, encourage broadband deployment to all americans, and three, promote local telecommunications competition. the rules before you meet all three requirements. the commission also is charged with protecting competition of services. it has authority to ensure that over the top intern services can develop as a rival to phone is hises -- services. open internet rules help to do these things. the authority flows from its responsibilities to oversee broadcasting and advanced video competition. it limits the ability of television and radio broadcasters to offer their programming over the internet.

direct broadcast -- interference limits their ability to compete with cable and telephone companies in providing subscription services. finally, fixed and mobile wireless services use radio spectrum as the commission licenses. the commission and must place conditions on licenses that serve the public interests. in short, open internet rules promote efficient nationwide communications, which is section one says is the core mission. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, as you have heard this order would ensure the continued openness of the internet we enjoyed today. it would give three basic rules that are grounded in the precedent and existing legal authority. for all the reasons that my colleagues and i have given, we recommend that you adopt this

item, and we request editorial privileges. thank you. >> well, thanks to each of you and all the others who worked on this for your hard and excellent work. let's proceed to comments from the bench. commissioner? >> thank you. >> on numerous fronts in the open internet order before us today the commission is taking strides forward. in others i pray that our sometimes excessive caution will not undermine the spirit of the order that we are adopting. the internet was born on openness. it thrived on openness, and it will achieve its full potential only through continued openness. it is my fervent desire we

start to write the next chapter in the success story, one of continued openness, innovation without needed to seek permission from anyone, and expanded access for all americans. we cannot afford allowing special interests to relegate the awesome opportunity -creating power of the open internet into the sad history of what might have been. for many gigantic corporations, in many cases monopoly access services and unfettered control not only creates risks to technological innovation and economic growth, but it poses a real threat to freedom of speech and the future of our democracy. increasingly our national conversation, our source for news and information, our knowledge of one another will depend upon the internet.

our town square will be paved with broadband bricks that must be accessible to all, not handed over to a handful of gatekeepers who can control access. as i have long argued, and as many students of the medium have written, previous telecommunications also conceived in openness, eventually fell victims to consolidated control by a few powerful ininvestors, and fell victim to public policy that i sumed wise public policy was no public policy. we are supposed to learn from history. too often we do not. resemble those who sees the master switch of the last century's communication networks. in 2003 i cautioned, somewhat

dramatically perhaps, but not terribly inaccurately that the, "internet may be dying because entrenched interests were positioning themselves to control the internet's choke points." i called them, as i have repeatedly since for clear rules to maintain openness and freedom on the internet and to fight discrimination over ideas and content and technologies. two years later i was able to convince my colleagues to adopt an interpret policy statement that contained the basic rights of internet end users to access lawful content, run applications and services, connect devices to the internet network and to enjoy the benefits of competition. now we adopt at least some concrete rules to prevent gatekeepers to circumvent the openness that made the internet the nernt and from stifling innovation and job creation.

all we need to do is look at our fist at the f.c.c. as a cautionary tale. it wasn't all that long ago, at least when you are at my age i guess, that one network, at&t, ran the whole show. at&ted had the power to decide how the network would be used. when innovators showed up at the door with ideas and new technologies, they were often greeted with a usually curteous but quick go away. for a long time the f.c.c. fully s&ped this type of network and served and its network. it was thought that only through conferencey control by a single company could the quality, safety and scale of the economies of the network be guaranteed. bigger was better and uniformity and stability were thought to be worth the price of lost opportunities for innovation and consumer benefits. all of this began to change in the late 1960's when an innovator called carter

electronics corps developed a device that connected mobile radio telephone systems to the wirelessness work. it verted voice signals to radio signals without the need for a direct or electrical connection. the entrenched incumbent maintained that this foreign attachment would bring down the entire system. why? because the incumbent didn't build it, sell it or control it. sound familiar? over the complaints of a powerful special interest, the commission worked up enough courage to change tack, stand up to the network gatekeeper and do the right thing, requiring the network operator to permit attachment to the existing network. despite all of the alarm bells that this decision meant the end of network quality and the end of reliable service as we knew it, just the opposite came

to pass. the idea of having a network who couldn't discriminate against innovators final broke the choke hold that the gatekeeper had on the system. years after the carter phone decision as we entered the orally days of the intercept age, the commission reaffirmed its policies by protecting freedom on the acked layer and the architectural layer of the internet. earlier commissions mandated that common carriers that owned transmission pipes used to access the internet, must offer those pipes in non-discriminatory terms to other providers. the commission fostered competition through this. congress then moved in the telecommunications act of 196 to protect the architectural layer. they said that local telephone companies with choke point

controls would have to unbundle their transmission networks. sadly, these policies were in fairly short order decimated by the two commissions that served here between 2001 and 2009. over my strenuous objections and those of my colleague, the f.c.c. took american consumers on a dangerous deregulatory ride, moving the transmission component of broadband outside of the statutory framework congress had created to apply to telecommunications carriers. when those commissions stopped treating advanced telecommunications as telecommunications, they relegated american competitiveness to the sidelines. i don't like to see my country on the sidelines, and neither to both americans. and remember, this was a major flip-flop to the his tacoma and successful approach of requiring non-discrimination in our communications networks. because of the errors of those previous commissions, the corled told us earlier this

year that the legal freedom work upon which the f.c.c. built its action kens comcast was inadequate. since the decision in comcast, the good ship f.c.c. has found itself adraft without the tools necessary to keep things afloat in today's networks. today we finally try to patch the hole left by the comcast decision by adopting certain rules to preserve the openness of the internet. to be clear, we do not arning ourselves on what i believe to be the best legal framework, nor have we crafted rules as strong as i would have liked. but with today's action we do nonetheless appear to stare ourselves back toward a better course. i had hoped that we would move full throtter to restore the kind of policies that had worked in the past. i wanted to put those eight years of public policy

aberration, some may have called them years of abdication, totally behind us. so i pushed as hard as i could to get broadband telecommunications back where they belonged under title 2 of our enabling statute, where hard-won statutes built up over many years be able to do a great job of managing the process, making profits, while operating in a public framework and giving consumers the protections they needed and deserved. i wanted to go back to that balancing act that had worked for so many years for the common good. so yes, i continued to believe that reassertion of our title 2 authority would have provided the surest foundation for future action. i note with action that the commission's reclassification cocket will remain own. there is more that i would have

locked in this order. i would have preferred a general band to discourage broadband providers from engaging in pay for priority. prioritizing the traffic of those with deep pockets, and would consign the rest of us to a lower, second class sbencht. i would like to strip loopholes to prevent companies falsely claiming they are not broadband companies from slipping through. we have made some improvements on the definition, but i still have some worries. i also argued for real parity between fixed and mobile, wireline and wireless technologies. after all, the internet is the internet no matter how you access it. and the millions of citizens going mobile nowadays for the internet and the entrepreneurs creating access should have the same pre-doms and protections as those in the wired context. i had other areas of concern

about something less than a bright line nondiscrimination rules, keeping reasonable network management in bounds, and the substitution of monitoring for the certainty of enforcement in too many areas. so in my book, today's action could and should have gone further. going as far as i would have liked was not, however, in the cards. the simpler and easier course for me at that point would have been accident -- dissent, and i considered that seriously. but it became more clear to me that without some action today, the wheels of network neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years. so, reserving the right to dissent throughout, i spent the past three weeks in intensive discussions with all interested parties about how we might be

able to do something to ensure the continued openness of the internet and to put consumers, not big phone or big cable, in control of our online experiences. in the end, i believe we made some progress. not so much as i had hoped, but more i think than some people expected. the language in the order that we will hopefully approve today moves the item in my mind from unacceptable to something in which i can concur, and that is what i intend to do. among the many improvements to the order we achieve. we now at least conclude that pay for priority aircrafts would generally violate our no unreasonable discrimination rule. we have explicitly changed the text of definition of broadband internet access service to close a loop hole that while protecting residential customers would have jeopardizeded the open interpret rights of small businesses, educational

institutions and libraries. we insisted of providing greater context of definitions so they can not vead. we expanded transparency requirements to give con um tsunami respect the information they need to meac informed choices. in discussing the no unreasonable discrimination standard, we put particular emfads on keeping control in the hands of user and preserving an application blind network to keep part of making the interpret the innovative platform that it is today. given the importance of the open interpret, we have provided for rocket docket expedited treatment to address consumer complaints. rules on the books are simply a tool waiting to be wielded unless the commission makes a priority of enforcing them. >> while it is no secret i would have liked to see more in the mobile section of the

order, i believe the improvements we have made can start us on a path toward full parity with fixed broadband. after all, we clearly recognize today in the item that there is one internet which should remain open for consumers and innovators alike, although it may be accessed through different technologies and services. that is a quote. more narrowly, we have better managed to refine the actions we take today. for example, we clarify that a wireless broadband provider cannot block applications that compete not only with its own voice and telepona applications, but with those in which it has an interest. separate and apart from today's order, we as a commission must recognize we have much urgent business to address to ensure a truly exetity broadband environment. including resolving the pending proceedings regarding

termination fees. interoperability in the 700 massachusetts hers bands and others. it is not the job of the f.c.c. or consumers and skins or innovators and entrepreneurs to keep our infrastructure open and dine nick. it is the job of all of us. why is this so important? because we have in our grasp now, the most powerful and promising communications technology in all of history. if we allow this opportunity-creating technology the freedom and the openness that it needs to reach its full potential, we can prepare our kids for a future that our country is finding more and more challenging. we will give our schools powerful new tools to educate

us, young and old alike. >> we will be able to deploy these tools to improve our health, decrease our energy dependence, and create opportunities for whole communities that are being left behind in this new century, rural communities, the inner cities, minorities, indian country, and those with disabilities. the internet has to be accessible to all, responsible, responsive to all, and affordable to all. that is what this country worked for and largely achieved in building electrical and telephone systems for our citizens. if vigilantly and vigorously implemented by this commission and upheld by the courts, today's order could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safe guard

what i refer to as the awesome power of the internet. while i cannot whole heartedly vote to approve the order, i will not block it by voting against it. it is a first step in the right direction. not that first sturdy step my newest grand chilled will take, but at least forward, if somewhat hesitant movement. today's majority was crafted by discussion, consideration of one another's thoughts and give and take. i would have welcomed a little more give, but i suppose the chairman might see it more differently. in any event, i thank him for his engagement and commitment. i want to extend thanks to my colleague. her creative thought along with her work and heartfelt

commitment to make this work for all consumers had a lot to do with making this a better order. finally, i want to express a deep sense of gratitude to staff who worked to make this item better. mine was great in every aspect of this endeavor. john and mar gret worked creatively and tirelessly through nights and through long weekends. there are many folks in the chairman's office who sack pfizered similarly. literally dozens of people work. thanks apart, our job does not end today. we haven't finished any race here. we haven't guaranteed an open internet going forward. we will have, i suspect, a lot of new roads to build and some

other roads, even ones we lay in today's order that may require some repaving and repair before long. if that happens, i hope we will be fast off the mark to do whatever need to be done. better than lapsing into a year of postgame arm chair analysis, let's instead go to work on the job at hand. our challenge really is nothing short of historic. it is to ensure that the liberating potential of our 21st century communications tools are used to provide the opportunities our citizens, all of our citizens, require to be fully productive citizens of a fully productive country. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner?

>> in the spirit of the holidays and with good will towards all, i will present a condensed version of the statement, the entirity of which i respectfully request be included in this order. i would like to thank the selfless and tireless work of the career public servants who have worked on this project. sharron, thank you for putting up those names. it looks like the credits for a movie with a cast of thousands. although i strongly disagree with this order, i appreciate that all of you have spent time away from your families as you have worked through weekends, holidays of thanksgiving and hasan as well as deep into the christmas season. such hours take their toll on family life, and i thank you for the sacrifices made by you and your loved ones throughout. for those who might be tuning into the f.c.c. for the first time, please know that over 90% of our actions are not only

bipartisan, but unanimous. i challenge anyone to find a body with a more consistent record of consensus. we agreed today that the internet is and should remain open and freedom-enhancing. it is and always has been so under existing law. beyond that, we disagree. the contrast between our postseason could not be sharper. my colleagues and i will deliver our statements and cast our votes. then i am confident that we will move on to other issues where we can find common ground once again. i look forward to working on public policy is that more positive and constructing for american economic growth and consumer choice. women shakespeare taught us in "the tempest" what is past is prolonged. that axiom applies today.

in 2008 the f.c.c. tried to reach beyond its legal authority to regulate the internet, and it was slapped back by a court only eight short months ago. today the commission is choosing to ignore the recent pass as it attempts the same act. in so doing, the f.c.c. is not only defying a court but it is circumventing a will of a large bipartisan majority of congress as well. more than 300 members have warned the agency against exceeding its legal authority. the f.c.c. is not congress. we cannot make laws. legislating is the sole do main of the electricitied representatives of the american people. if the majority is determined to ignore the growing voices emanating from capitol hill in what appears to some as an

excessive quest to regulate at all costs. some are saying that instead of acting as a cop on the beat, the f.c.c. looks more like a regulatory vigilantity. more over, the agency is further angering congress by ignoring calls for a cessation of actions and choosing to move ahead just as members leave town. as a result of the f.c.c. has charted a collision course with the legislative branch. furthermore, on the night of friday, december 10th, just two business days before the public would be prohibited by law from communicating further with us about this proceeding, the commission dumped nearly 2,000 pages of documents into the record. as if that weren't enough, the f.c.c. home run loaded an additional 1,000 pages into the record less than 24 hours before the end of the public comment period. all of these measures, defying the circuit, and undermining

the comment process have deployed to deliver on a misguided campaign promise. not only is today the winter sole cities, the darkest day of the year, but it marks one of the darkest days in recent f.c.c. history. i am disappointing in these end justifies the means tactics, and the doubts they have created about the agency. the f.c.c. is capable of better. today is not its finest hour. using these use rules as a weapon, politically favored companies will be able to pressure three