what it has meant. refreshed that for us, and what are you looking at now? guest: yahoo! has this amazing reader base, and in the past, i had seen some of my colleagues tap into our reader base to develop a story. sequestration, i was interested i was hearing stories in local papers, reading about them, and i thought, what a great way for our national organization and for me, in d.c., in this community, to get a broader picture of what sequestration is doing to regular americans. we used a yahoo! contributor network as well as regular crowd source to all of our readers, asking them how they believe sequestration will possibly impact them, negative consequences there were about, and we got some amusing responses. we heard from folks being

furloughed, we heard from active duty military worried about tuition. just a wide range of stories from people, as well as a few people who said they were not concerned about sequestration. host: how does that ability to cross swords influence or reporting, how did you come away with that to use as a model in the future? guest: it is a unique thing for yahoo!. i know we have done another one on the long-term unemployed, another on student loans. both of these efforts have been fruitful. we get a whole range of readers, so we get a whole range of stories from them. i'm interested in doing more crown sourcing work. host: a question on twitter covering the white house. one of them wants to know, how hard is it to get information from your sources? how many sources do you try to get before you run with a story?

another question, whether or not the white house leaks or freely gives information. how much do you have to pull teeth to get stories? guest: the first question on how many sources i have, the question may be referring to how many sources you get to run with a story when you have no one on the record. i would say, it is up to the discretion of each story. whether a source is a strong source. you know perhaps you cannot use their name. sometimes we must ask them for their reason to want to be unnamed. as far as leaking from the white house, you will see in the morning paper, a store that only one news organization has. a story that only one news organization has. that is usually a leaked story,

helping to shape their message. a lot of the news organizations are on the receiving end of those. host: if you want to call an and speak with rachel rose hartman of yahoo! news, here are the numbers. alan is from michigan on the independent line. caller: thank you. thanks, rachel. since september of last year the most important question was where was the president during benghazi? we need a timeline of every minute of that debacle started and ended. once we get the answer to that, the truth about hillary clinton and others, will follow. the question was asked a week ago in the white house and the spokesperson said it was irrelevant.

it is not irrelevant. it is a simple question and we need the answers. just as we knew where he was when he ordered to take down osama bin laden. what is goose is good for the gander. we need the truth on this. if we get that, then the other question will be answered. that is the main question. thank you. guest: i think the white house tried to mitigate some of the controversy around this by releasing those benghazi e- mails, which we and other news organizations received. that gives a detailed picture of each minute and e-mail was sent. they did not disclose all the people sending and receiving them, but the content was designed to show the public what went on behind the scenes. as far as brenda president was or what he was doing, saying, that is up to the white house.

the way the administration handled the press on this is one reason they had to backtrack and continue to release more information because people were not satisfied with what was out there. host: we talked about this earlier with olivier knox. chris wilson created the benghazi inbox. it takes the e-mails one by one, and formats them as if they were in an e-mail inbox. host: where are we hillary clinton these days? : after her testimony

from congress, she left and is now actively -- and is no longer actively serving. she is on the perimeter of being of -- of the activity we are seeing in congress. congress tried to pin down more specifics about benghazi. not someone they are targeting, but they have questions for her. there are many people who would like to see her be more fourth -- more forthcoming about what happened. we're seeing the latest news stories from cnn this morning. eric holder is running into road box in his meetings on leak's.

host: someone who is still in the administration as the vice president, joe biden. we have not seen too much of him. the video we show on our screen as from many months ago. what is he doing, and what is his role in the white house? aest: his role now has been mediator between the president and congress. personally,ple being a former senator. washington has capitalize on the relationships he has. he was the front man for and control. biden was there from person on that. he is been active on other , and alsomen's rights

doing traveled this week. he is an active presence at the white house. he continues to be a source for a lot of people. joyce, florida, democrat. caller: my point is that even though it has been said that we how democratsk at and republicans get money from the lobbyists, i still consider our government is in a hopeless situation. n aristocracy as that of a democracy. they constantly state they will do everything they can not to make obama look good and have all the stalemates. we haven't uneducated

.opulation there is a majority that don't watch the news. people do not come out to vote. that is not enough to put people out. host: the color brings up a line of concerns about the way washington functions these days. guest: there's a big push for members of congress to reveal more about who they are accepting money from. there are places you can go online to find out where members of congress are receiving donations. but they do not disclose everything. there is some people who would like for senators to reveal all of their campaign finance information. stalemates inion washington. that is something that the white house and congress and the

public are frustrated by. it is up to members to find a weight to deal with that. , republican.vania caller: it is refreshing that yahoo has taught with the frustrations. i have been very disappointed that the mainstream media has not dealt with it. they were very dismissive. i have written to congressman. the responses don't even address the issue. aquestration is not a day or week off, it is a loss of pay. that is four plus days a month. for employees who also do not get a cost-of-living increase, but was turned down. this could wreak havoc on the and middle-class. if yahoo can do something to bring this to the national

attention, good for you. thank you. i hope the piece we did said lise on that -- shed some light on what is going on. aboutnow, we are hearing sequestration. yesterday at the briefing, it is an issue they keep pushing. but what republicans unwilling to find a new replacement for it, that is the way things are right now. the white house, you can see them the scale back their talks about the sequestration. host: tell us about your reporting on student loans. why is yahoo! news looking at this, and what have you been reviewing? guest: we did stories pulling .rom all of our great reporters

i did one on who is making money off of student loans. i hope our readers learned a lot from this. the federal government, who is now in control of the student loans, is making billions off of this. more than nexon made last year. -- more than exxon made last year. that happens because of the markets. congress and the white house are trying to figure out what to do about that. host: how much of a response do you get to your stories? do you read reader's comments? how much do you interact with social media? guest: i look at comments and received e-mails from people. i wrote a story a few years ago about comments because people were asking about other candidates.

they wanted to compare them to obama. we still operate independently with our editors and reporters here. -- our ideas can come from comets come -- can come from comments sometimes. i have a serious problem , if ihe media because were to draw political curtain, it would be a hamster on a wheel in the middle of a field. the media would be the wheel. all of the effects of the sequestration, and next to the will, would be a republican. when the hamster would slow down,. but there them a piece of something labeled benghazi, irs, or something.

the gop was awarded the lie of the year award for the assertion that that tamils were covered in obamacare. takeover ofernment healthcare. these lies were repeated gratuitously. they were repeated by the media. but it is factually untrue. a lie is defined as something is a statement that is made that is knowingly false. the media is not actually reporting the facts. if you read the papers, you see that obamacare is opposed by the majority of the people. the cnn poll showed that 59% of

the people reading supported it. 43% like it. 60% do not like it because it does not go far enough. that means that they like it, but they want more. but it is not reported that way. it is reported that obamacare is repost. he brings up a lot of important points. i think that it is natural for .eople to be skeptical , likek that at yahoo other organizations, we have a team of smart people working to be a fair and objective news source. i hope that the caller, if they check our website, feels the same. we do try to get to the facts. host: tell us about the federal healthcare lobby affordable health care act.

how will your to be covering that? behow will your team covering that? do you have a game plan? guest: i do not have details to reveal today, but we will be covering it from several angles. there are many components to a >> care, and a lot of stories to be told. people will see a lot of coverage on this. host: we see a lot of coverage this lasthristie week. christy wants to be president, and he has to be reelected as governor in 2013. all the things christie had to

do in 2013 will kill his chances in the primary of 2016. .his is on yahoo news tell us about the visit that the president had with the governor. >> there were some good photo op moments. you saw them play carnival games on the boardwalk. what reporters are looking for in this meeting and other ones is, yes, what christie is planning next. you mentioned things that he is doing now may hurt his future. chris christie is someone someone who does his own thing. he says what he thinks. he is blunt and cannot be told what to do. into how he ish

behaving today is not a great indicator of what he will do tomorrow. >> diane, go head. >> i have a comment about the that and about this trial has been going on, the hearings. if the first parts are not ,ubpoenaed, was not mitt romney the whole thing is a shaft to my because he was the first one to mention that it was an uprising because of -- information came from and that is where you will find the beginning of the scandal. thank you. i will listen to your opinion. >> what the recall are is referring to is the white house has pinned mitt romney as the first person to politicize the incident, and that is something that democrats have long pointed to him as being the first person

to make this an issue for a political issue. but that is something they are pushing back on, and the white house has said for a long time that benghazi is not something that should be politicize, and they are trying to turn it on republicans, republicans who protest about the situation. you are trying to lose size this, moving focus away from the tragedy, so they are turning it on its head or trying to buy thing during mitt romney in this. taking a look today d.c.e the yahoo! news bureau. this morning we talk to olivier knox. a recent story, jay carney says to the press, you are good at your, and you are smart. do you get to do some light or tongue-in-cheek reporting,

rachel, and tell us about this story. guest: there is a lot of opportunities at the white usse and the yahoo! enjoys doing that are lighter and fun. that story was about jay carney who had been very tough on the media in his prior days, calling one of the reporters petulant for asking questions. refuse of praise for the press, and it was his birthday. the chief of staff came down and doughnuts.ress there is lots of things that i give her yahoo! readers and all the public is finding out the human elements at the white house as well. why does the press secretary get to control who gets to talk at the briefings and calling on reporters? why don't you go down the line in their turn? secretary getsss

to decide how they do things, and jay carney has made it a practice of going to the ap first and the front row, and he usually moves to the second rope after that. that next other folks in the breed -- that makes other folks in the briefing room, that is they wouldaing that like. no one knows if he will change that were plans to change that. i for 1 am usually not in the hope thathe room with he spreads it around. caller: i was just calling to let rachel maddow that obama --rachel know that obama has been line for the last five years. guest: i understand the concern about holder, and that is why

we are seeing so much criticism directed at him. he is part of many of these scandals, and a lot of folks are restoreyes, how do you credibility for justice after fast and furious and other things that have happened, and id the administration has a lot work to do to build eric holder back up or find some way to restore the public lost trust in what they are doing there. on twitter, i comment, fixed problem with the media today is they operate as a packed. do youion onto that, out differentiate your porting? how do you make it stand out from what everybody else is doing? >> that is something i work for every day. you try to see the same story or reefing or new information come out as every book reporter, and you try to find your --, you try to find something you

can take out of it that you folksis unique and some would find informative, interesting, fun, whatever your name is. that is the challenge of every reporter, and like every reporter, that is what they are doing. let's hear from lawrence. make a like to historical comparison between some of the things our government is doing today and some of the conditions that germany.n prewar in 1930, it was 1932, esther hitler gave a speech to the citizens of munich. i will paraphrase because i do not have my notes. this is essentially what he said. ,e told them to vote for him to punish his opponents by going to the polls and vote for him. their enemies were his enemies, and they were the enemies of germany. i know who that sounds like, ok?

i want to tell you something. fascism does not pounce on a nation overnight. it involves slowly over the years. ,he techniques of isolation marginalization, and demonization are the cornerstones of fascism. it stinks up on you before you know what has happened. before you know what has happened, it is there. -- they never mentioned the final solution in any of their work. it was not until after they were in power that those ideas came into fruition. fascism slowly evolves. it does jump on you overnight. you had a story about obama. this is the code inc. activist

who heckled the president in a major speech he gave last week. guest: we covered that story, an important speech. he talked about drones. she decided to protest, and once that happened there was medea benjamin decided to protest during this and once that happened, there's a new element to the story so we decided to write a separate piece just on her protest. she was protesting drone strikes used by the government as well as guantanamo bay prisoners. that felt like a unique angle and interesting, an expected part of the speech. we both had an informative side to the speech as well as this offshoot piece on medea benjamin herself, the co-founder of codepink, which is a peace activist organization.

host: kentucky, republican. caller: i would like to see those look into the net worth of these politicians when they go into office and the net worth after they get out of office. it is just like harry reid getting at $150,000 politico contribution from this guy that supposedly was an illegal contribution. this guy could get five years in prison and harry reid will not get anything out of it. this stuff has got to stop. that is the only way -- the news are going have to stand behind what the people want, not with the politicians or hollywood wants. that is the way a used to be and that is the only way they're going to get any credibility back from anything they do now.

guest: there are a number of politicians and members of congress to either came into congress with money or have made money since they have been in congress, but their salaries are standard. they are not making money off of government dollars -- government dollars or not cutting into them. the caller brings up a lot of problems but congress has, people are not having confidence in their ethics or other things. that is something that is working against them. they want support from their constituents, support and the legislation they are doing. until they can restore some more credibility, it is difficult for them to operate back home, as well. host: on twitter, and our guest comment on the obama administration is unprecedented targeting of whistleblowers? is this making news gathering harder? guest: i have not experienced that. there is a real concern in the news media about whether there will be a chilling effect because the investigation and

the idea that the government is monitoring reporters phone records or comings and goings. we have yet to see exactly how this is one of play out, but there is a lot of concern about what kind of impact this will have on media gathering in washington and elsewhere. host: our guest is rachel hartman, reported for yahoo! news the attorney general is still planning to meet with the media bureau chief but there has been some pushback from the new york times and associated press because the attorney general has said it will be off the record. we will be watching to see what develops. joseph in florida, independent caller. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to make regarding what i consider to be a really important issue for our country, and that is the abuse of the filibuster. i think most americans are not aware of the fact the

filibuster, the word "filibuster" does not appear in the constitution anywhere. it is merely a rule written by the senate. the one political organization i belong to and support is common cause. common cause is suing the senate, claiming the filibuster rules are unconstitutional. i completely agree with that. the american public are really ignorant of this and it is a critical issue because it has frozen our political system. we all know congress is not working, but i don't think enough people realize how important the abuse of the filibuster is contributing to the paralysis of the government. there was a terrific article in "the washington post" around the time of the presidential debates of the last campaign.

the title was "it is the filibuster, stupid." i would ask people to read that, and for this young lady to also read it and maybe be moved to pay some attention to this really, really important issue. we are being controlled by tyrannt of the minority. this cannot go on, and the the republican or democrats should rule the country. -- nor the republican or democrat should rule the country. guest: i think a lot of the american public is still trying or requires new media to inform them of exactly what the legislation and we will continue to try to do our job to educate people about that, but the filibuster is a large reason why things are not getting move through congress and a lot of the source of frustration for both lawmakers as well as the administration.

host: richard, a democrat. caller: hello. i am going to ask you a question which is different from what you've been talking about today. in the constitution, it says there should be a freedom of church and state. this seems to be shoved under the carpet. we are governed by religionists in this country. there are people who want no part of religion have to abide by this. why is this true? host: richard, why does this matter to you? why are you calling about this? caller: i happen to be one of the victims that has to abide by mythology called religion. host: ok, any comment, rachel hartman? guest: there are a lot of folks that would like to see more

religion in their community, in their government, but there is a separation of church and state and that is the way things are right now. host: virginia, republican. caller: good morning. hearty thank you to c-span. from what i gather, most of the conversation is more about the media and media forces and their impact on the political process. an example of where the media stacks the deck is if you take a look at katrina, when that hit, it was up to the governor to allow or disallow the feds in. we could all bet our bottom dollar the media knows full well it is up to the governor, right there in the u.s. constitution, and media forces knew full well that the louisiana governor would not let them in. she delayed it for three full days. fema, michael brown, fema, their

manpower arm is the army corps of engineers and they were there two days before katrina hit, as has been their practice for decades. there was no delay. she would not let them in for three full days. the media pointed out michael brown and george bush and people fell for that. they swallowed it and pointed at the city of american president. contrast that with the bp oil gush. you had the governor screaming for help and you had holland and the dutch are number one in oil reclamation, they offer help instantly and president obama would not let them in. holland is going to attack as? come on. he put it in the hands of bp and would not help and later said they were a bunch of bumbling idiots. president obama took the worst environmental disaster in u.s.

history and put it in the hands of what he later called a bunch of bumbling idiots. what does that make him? there is your media bias. they never reported on any of this with the bp oil gush. guest: i think the caller is skeptical about the media, and that is understandable but there was a lot of criticism coming from the media of how katrina was handled and the administration handle it. but we're seeing in the last few weeks, like the tornadoes in oklahoma, there are a lot of opportunities the president has to show how they can help -- how fema can respond and the government can respond to national disasters. i think lately they're hoping that can build back some credibility for fema and the administration in general. host: rachel hartman, thank you for joining us this morning.>>

tonight, a discussion on the deficit, the economy, and the future of science research. at 8:00 we will show you his remarks where he talked about the growing debt and why he believes the u.s. is holding us back from latest scientific development. >> let's put ourselves out of discussing the deficit and start talking about things that are long-term trends. right now the debate is taking all the option out of the room. you have all kinds of fights about stuff, which is reasonable upper misys which have not happened. when you do that, what happens is you do not understand the truly important transitions taking place because you are focused all day, all the time, just on the deficit.

and you might be missing the big picture. here's what the big picture looks like. humans are the only species on earth to transmit data consistently to their kids across time. maybe a dog learns commands, maybe a parent learns words. there is not an animal on earth that writes on cables except -- on cave walls except human beings. this is how we cook. this is how we dress. this is how many of us there are. these are musical instruments. you just learn a whole lot about what was happening in argentina two thousand years ago. as you think about how we transmit knowledge, that is not for a tribe, but not enough for an empire. here you have to go to the cave to learn what is going on. an empire looks like this. two things have happened. you have standardized the language and put it on paper,

papyrus, or clay, which means you can transmit data across time and learned the lessons of why egypt fell. all of you clearly know that you can read that, right question mark it basically says cut the deficit. you do is you standardized language, put it in 26 letters, and it looks like this. you can have huge libraries and transmit data across time, and in this you can write little sentences that say cut the deficit. then what has happened over the last 30 years is you collapsed all language into ones and zeros. that is the single greatest creator of wealth humans have ever seen. it is the country that understood this transition because they were not focused all the time on current problems am a but were looking at the future, that generated an enormous amount of wealth. you the lives of silicon valley, taiwan, singapore, boston, or

india if that transition right there >> >> that was part of his comments at a fiscal summit in washington. you can see his remarks tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. red after that at eight: 30, we will take your phone calls, russians, and comments. 2, threek on c-span two books on partisanship in congress. olympia snowe on her book. then a panel discussion with michael steele and vicki edwards from the 2013 annapolis book festival. >> when the attorney general ,rranged after the extradition he indicated he wanted the death penalty on each of the three charges, that he wanted the

death penalty three times. that made me realize how serious they were. it made me realize it was not about me. i could not be killed three times. it was about the construction of this imaginary enemy and i was the embodiment of that enemy. >> she was not interested in talking about what happened. ,he crime, the implications being chased by the fbi. it was not the love story, she was not interested in talking about it. she was one of these people you do not necessarily go to directly, and i was trying to get her directly. i figured out that there were very important people in her at thend i chipped away people she knew and trusted. i was able to get them involved, let them see my previous work.

and slowly she came around him and she agreed to meet me. ,> the life of angela davis sunday at 8:00. a discussion on the recent elections in pakistan and a number of women participating in the process. we will hear about the unpopularity of the u.s. drone program in pakistan. this is a little more than an hour. our introducer, wendy chamberlain, a veteran diplomat who has served in the u.s. department of state, worked for the u.n. high commissioner on refugees, and now serves as president of the middle east institute. she has been there since 2007. a 29-year veteran of the u.s. foreign service, she was ambassador to pakistan from 2001 to 2002 when she played a key

role in securing pakistan's operation in the campaign to boot out al qaeda in afghanistan after september 11. as assistant administrator in the asia, near east east bureau of the usaid from 2002 to 2004, ambassador chamberlain oversaw civilian reconstruction programs in iraq and afghanistan and development assistance programs throughout the middle east and east asia. other assignments included u.s. --director of public affairs for the near east -- araberic raised to israeli affairs, so she is been all over. a graduate of northwestern university, ambassador chamberlin earned a degree from boston university and attended the executive program at harvard. she serves on the boards of the american academy for diplomacy

and the hollings center. she is a member of the trilateral commission. her pieces have been published ." " the washington post she has commented on pakistan and the middle east in hour,views with the news hou nbc, abc, fox news, and al jazeera. these have a warm welcome to ambassador chamberlin. >> thank you very much. that was far too generous and introduction for a mere introducer. we have a star performer today who we are looking forward to hearing from. i really do not need too much of an introduction for your currier, whohhi

has been president of your club, the women's national democratic club, for nearly four years. thisin for a treat afternoon, because she will provide the insiders view on what has happened in the historic pakistan national elections only just last week. she was not only raised in lahore, but she was in lahore last week as a an election observer or the elections. i might point out that the election, who won a clear victory, is from lahore. nuchhi will be able to provide us an insider's view. she will provide a larger look at the political culture of pakistan, and she will be able

to tell us about the significance of this election for not only regional stability and pakistan, but for the u.s.- pakistani relations. i am often asked as a former ambassador to pakistan why is it that we care so much, why do we talk so much about pakistan? for those of you in this room, from an educated audience, you know, as our troops and nato troops begin this drawdown from afghanistan, the incoming government in pakistan will be consequential to the stability in the region, and this impacts us directly. pakistan is important to us sharif wills -- inherit the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. he talked about iran. they do not have bomb yet. pakistan between 100 and 200

bombs, and it is growing, as is their delivery capability. it is one of the fastest-growing populations populations in the world in which over half, nearly 60%, are under 35, also consequential to us, and you want to know that we give our largest assistance packages to pakistan, nearly $3 billion a economic and military assistance. this is a country that we do care about. we are pakistan possible are just trading partner. we care about this election. us more aboutll it. let me tell you about her. a veryhas had successful career in the private sector. she has worked in senior management is edition's in the loft, dubai, in south asia, but also here in the united states. she made a career switch when she returned to get her masters

degree in international affairs at columbia university, and has worked very closely after that with various agencies within the u.n. system, writing and doing reports for unicef and the public affairs for the u.n. before she became, she did that she became your president, and i have watched her here a couple of times and nuchhi has revitalized the women's national democratic club and put it active hub of debate and dialogue that your club certainly enjoyed during its heyday with eleanor roosevelt. soon beuchhi will leaving and will turn over the presidency to the next president, who introduced me. , anna's a final note

great -- grandmother -- great- grandmother was herself eleanor roosevelt. n nuchhi, and to please join me in welcoming and most remarkable woman. [applause] kindhank you for the intervention. thank you so much among wendy. downstairs i have a few blog posts that i have done on election, which are sitting at the table. you can read them. they are in great detail and depth. will read from them, little bits and pieces, but i wanted to start out with facts of what really happened in this election. the fact usually in pakistan

are a little hazy and a little fudgy, and a little hard to come by. this was the first time a civilian-elected government completed a five-year term and handed over power at the ballot box. in pakistan's 66 years, this has never happened before. governments are usually trounced by the army, and so they never have completed a full term. the reason i wanted to be there was was because the excitement that this election generated again is unprecedented, and i have been in pakistan since elections, and people said it does not make a difference whether we vote or not. those people do not vote. in this particular election, there was -- the number is not quite solid, but it is between 55% and 60% of the election that

photo. even in advanced democracies, you do not have that. this truly was an exciting election. there were new motorives that ce out. my family was one of them. my 86-year-old mother was one of them, she was in karachi where a lot of the bad stuff happened at polling stations. she got there, she and her sister and her friend at 8:00 in the morning, and they said we will not leave until we have voted him and they voted. there was a revote there because there is hanky-panky that happened, and she was back again to vote again, and her candidate onwon. then i have other stories, just being there, so at night a very social society, so there were dinner parties every night.

of course, everybody is attending, and everybody had stuff to say, and every single party was represented at these various events. went i was returning back home, midnight, 1:00, 2:00 in the morning, you saw young people reveling in the streets. this is before the election. they are our ethics -- they are out in cars, shouting to each other, and the excitement was unbelievable, but i would not have known that, i would have not since that if i had not seen it. and you will not aver read thatn the paper, and even there i did not read that. this has not been captured at all. before the election, you saw all the different parties that were out there rejoicing, celebrating, hoping. and after the election, the wedding party, -- the winning party, they were dancing in the

streets. you could see there were please arson around, but they stayed back. we know that the army was back because there was a lot of threats, but you never saw a --gle army guy or an army and to me that was remarkable again, because usually in pakistan, there is a show of force by the armed forces. .ere, they were invisible but they were there. i know this. and they were keeping basically the piece. one of the most exciting trips i have taken. i go every year. but this was an incredible time to be there. facts is that in many parts of pakistan traditional, futile, and tribal structures remain in place and the electorate there followed traditional voting patterns. this is particularly true of

punjab, which is where i hail from, which is where the winner it wasfrom, and so somewhat of a foregone conclusion. i said in one of my blogs that he was the favorite. won twice as many seats and votes as the next person. and so he was a clear winner. that is again a first a patent pakistan. usually we have a honda parliament, and then our coalitions are formed, which basically means that it is a unique structure, like here, where if congress is opposing the presidency, then it is just hard to enact law. we just hope that the right thing now gets done by the winning party in pakistan. i am just going to give a few facts and figures for those come up because i know there are people in the audience who are very familiar with pakistani

politics. the winning party, the muslim league, took 126 national assembly seats and 24.9 million votes. and now i am going to talk about the next two, because one of the electoral votes, the other one won more seats. the pti, headed by the cricket khan, he dashing mr. took 28 seats, but he took more votes, 7.7 million votes. the ppp, which was the incumbent ruling party, which is the one secular party, which is the -- that benazir bhutto party, they

won more seats, but they won only 6.9 million votes. there are still seven seats which are in contention, and it might be possible that there will be a slight shift between the ptt and the ppi. but it will be minor. the fact is that ppi, the new party that generated this excitement, people voted for them because they wanted change. this is the party of change, because he came in -- and i have a blog on him in particular -- he came in with this message of clean government, because there has been a lot of corruption in pakistan, especially among the ruling elite and his one mission was to have got to get away from this and people flock to him because of that. in previous elections he had not won a single seat. seats is ahave 120 cit 28

monumental task. these are mostly new voters. just to let people know how the needs arem works, 126 needed to form a government. have joined the winning party, so they have more than enough, so they do not and need to make a formal religion with another party, an opposition party. but the other two which i find interesting is, each of the parties won majorities in a , so thet main provinces winning party wins in the punjab. ppp, the incumbent outgoing ruling party, they win the other province, and the new upcoming

glamour party, the young party, they win the most difficult province, which is the frontier, which adjoins afghanistan, which is all your terrorism is happening, which is where -- which is basically the trouble spot in the country. and so i guess this is the price he wins. he has to govern that now. this is not going to be easy for him, but basically what this means is that every single part has aa vested -- rd vested interest in government, and that they are going to be responsible to make sure that their piece works in conjunction with the center, so there has to be a level of cooperation. you cannot just point fingers only. i'm sure a lot about what happened, too.

it inevitably happens in government. yet another interesting thing that happened, the army. the army chief. he said, in these elections, the people of pakistan not only courageously withstood the threat of terrorism, they also defied the unfounded dictates of an insignificant and misguided -- misguidedhe is majority. he is talking about the religious nuts. he said they were shown their win anyhey did not seats and he did not win many. they won maybe one or two. it is so big insignificant that it does not cap. over and over again, the population of that country tells us that this is not where they are at. it is just that what we hear in

the rest of world are only those loud voices which are peaking and ofeech of hate terror and extremism. i am not trying to minimize that threat. the taliban threat is real and present. two days before the election, i was there, in lahore, and i was supposed to meet the interim here minister, who came and spoke year. she said, we cannot let anyone into the house, we cannot go out. we are not going to be able to vote because the ex prime minister's son had been kidnapped if you days ago and apparently they had intercepted some intelligence that they were spate of suicide bombers all over the country. she said it is off, we are not going to meet the date.

election day dawns, nothing happens, and everybody goes out to vote, and i cannot even tell you what it was like. i went with my brother and we drove around the entire city. there was jubilation everywhere. friends of mine went into the interior part of lahore, which is a really congested, wonderful part of lahore, which is where all your moments are, but it is also where there is a lot of poverty. even there it felt like a fiesta. what you saw was a little but different, because what you saw in the more affluent areas were , which, the young party was ascendant, and when you went into the interior part, that is where you saw the established party has actually won. if you went all over, then you could see the writing on the wall. you could see the majority was

probably going to go the way of what was predicted. the other thing that i found unbelievable was the role that the media played -- the role that the media played. >> geode television was emulating what they saw on cnn and nbc. geotelevision was emulating what they saw on cnn and nbc. two televisions. there were foreign correspondence and everyone you can think of. 2%.nd it was like i was back here. it was exciting. you know what is happening.

i was screaming, oh my gosh. we were doing the same thing there. the election day, television, we were educating people about the election process. we were guiding people. we were telling them it was a civic duty. if they wanted a change, they had to do this. that made a difference. i was blown away. i would not have known that if i had not seen it. and then there were irregularities. we had that also. [laughter] maybe a little bit more. people were taking pictures. there is much more

accountability than there ever has been. the large factor i will mention is we have a resilient judiciary now in pakistan. it is a new thing. all of these factors are going to help in keeping politicians a little bit more honest than they have been. i won't say much about u.s.- pakistan relations. i am going to give a little anecdote. i was in pakistan in march. i do not know i would go back. i wanted to be back for the election. at a dinner party, i met with the american consulate general. . met with the german counselor basically quizzing each

one. we feel safe when we are there. american contingent said that they would much rather be back in town where there is much more movement. the german counselor said to me, of course i feel safe. why would i not feel safe? i'm not in danger. you guys are in danger. what do they gain if they get mad at me? [laughter] the italian ambassador's wife myd to me, you know, daughter goes to the beach every day. who feels on targeted and who is targeted. what it isit is not basically presented as in the press.

let me see if there is anything else i want to say. i'm not going to read anything from my log because it is out there and you can read it. i want to mention a couple of things that pakistan fears in the next couple of years going forward. they have real problems. the economy is in shambles. there might be eight to 10 hours heat when there is no electricity. people do not have generators. that is a big issue. in the winter, there was a gas shortage. what happens to business? to theirectly related state of the economy, the state

of the energy crisis. the new government is focused on two things -- one, the economy and the energy crisis. they are also very concerned about what is happening in afghanistan. what happens their fx pakistan. affects pakistan. there was no drug problem and now pakistan has a drug problem. they inherited a lot of issues because of whatever geopolitical reasons. of possiblyeal fear civil war in afghanistan. what does that mean for pakistan? they wantissue is

the taliban to go home. deal with their own who have been converted. there are difficult issues at stake. i'm going to open the floor up for questions and discussions. i will request my very able to partner to come and join me. we will field questions together. ask anything you want. [applause] >> ok. 55you mentioned the figure 60% of the -- 55- electorate voted. what about the percentage for women who voted? what role did women play?

is there a league of women voters in pakistan? how is electorate prepared for voting? >> women were out in force. i was at different polling stations. there were more women than men. 464 women ran for parliamentarian seats. that is more than any other country i know. -- even in the most conservative frontier regions -- there were two women who ran. women ran for seats. [applause] women are a force in pakistan. amazing force in pakistan. that is a story that really does not get told. ofone of the peculiarities

the pakistan system with regard to women in parliament was introduced by -- having reserved seats for women. forthey have moved swiftly those reserved seats. that will continue. pakistani elites are very much behind having female representation. -- to stresss what what she was saying about the border area, it is very dangerous. the taliban was relentless. it was the with that it was with the precise goal to kill democracy.

men showed up at the polls at the border area, but so did the women. this was a victory for thecracy and a defeat for ideology of the taliban. that there is a new government. but [indiscernible] was formally part of the government. i do not think he has a very good representation for honesty and transparency. can you comment on that? in my blog post, but i will mention he has been running the government. he never completed his term. most of our civilian government and our military government have been warned for less than honest practices.

whether they be civilian or army. which is why the message resonated so much. he is known to set up universities and hospitals. the hope was that if he were to win that he would at least do away with this horrible corruption that persists in pakistan. pakistan is not the only country that has this level of corruption. i can name a few. but that doesn't change the fact that politicians have been less than honest. saidone that i spoke to that he has learned his lesson. we hope he will govern more effectively this time and in a -- way than he has in the past. >> i will chime in on that.

the history of pakistan is rife with large corruption. big and dramatic stealing of public funds. but there are practices within the democracy that we here in america would consider corruption which is not corruption. that is where it -- that is the their democracy works. you are in a village and you would like your -- to get a job at the local government. to a political party. whoever it is, the most dominant party in your province. you work through that to get a job or to get your son through

school. in exchange for that, you agree to go out and get votes from your village. we call that corruption. >> nepotism >>. -- nepotism. >> exactly. but they call it patronesnage. >> it is same in the u.s. with getting jobs and stuff. >> thank you. that was fascinating. answer for this question of why i'm asking it. how does this change pakistan's international relationship, andicularly vis-à-vis india

solving the crisis? >> that is a good question. the first thing he said was that he wanted to extend a hand toward india. he had tried to do that in the past as well. there was a lot of talk in the newspapers that at his swearing in that the prime minister from pakistan would come. but there is a lot of hope in that direction. he is focusing more on india than he is on afghanistan. we want to play a role or else they will lose in the geopolitical game. appears to be more toward india. he sees the trade. that is another very serious

thing for him. inwhen he was prime minister his second term, he was moving toward better relationship with when the military moved against him, the military coup. they do not want to see a warming relationship with india. a lot has happened since. some verybeen positive steps forward in improving relationships with india and doing trade with india. i think we will see a continuation in the prime minister characters to do so. >> there was an event on

election night. journalists were at this particular event in india. they were all stationed in new delhi. they're covering the election. when you're in that kind of setting, it seems strange that there should not be more of a cohesive relationship between the two countries. they have so much in common. , wefully in the next decade are going to go to a place where there is a lot of cooperation. ok. segue to my question that has to do with the army. andarmy kind of stood back let this happen.

i'm sure they have got good reasons. looking ahead a little bit, do you foresee that the government will have a bit more space to deal with these policy issues without an army coup happening? >> that seems to be the indication. one never knows. i'mave a saying that says .oing to try when the line gets a taste of wean, it is very hard to them away from it. they have tasted power. one hopes that this election that there'll be some weaning away from the old powerful army. they have learned their

lesson. the population started turning against them. they have pulled back in the last several years from having heavy involvement. i think there'll be a continuation of that. there are issues where they will say, this is our turf. i would not expect the government to trespass into that turf. those issues will be afghanistan and the handling of the nuclear weapons arsenal. i think there'll be some continuation of army control and those areas at least. >> yes. go ahead. >> this is changing the subject a little. i wonder whether there is a country being affected by climate change and whether there is a concern about water and natural resources and

whether this has entered into the campaign at all. is there any difference between the candidates if they discuss that? be a step that would beyond. they do not have energy or access to energy. they just one energy at any cost at the moment. once they have that, then you come to whether you want a .ustainable kind of method at the moment, electricity is a big issue. water has been a huge, political issue. india and pakistan share the same source. another reason for political strife. i do nothing climate change and that kind of stuff has really entered the discourse.

there are basic things they are dealing without the moment. caller: it does -- >> it does affect the lives of the pakistani. one could argue it is not a natural disaster. it is a man-made disaster. hasirrigation system -- were so many years of neglect. heavy rains have flooded it. the agriculture production is being degraded year after year. the flooding came from excessive melting of the glaciers. that is climate change.

they're are deeply affected by climate change. we will have sharon and then deedee. ouras there any talk about drone program in the media or socially or anything? >> we always talk about the drone program. , that alwaysnot becomes the one issue that everyone stands behind. it is our sovereignty that is being -- >> [inaudible] >> right. drone attacks have scaled back. in president obama's recent speech, did you see that woman who was carried out for protesting? medea who spoke here.

major issue. it will be a major issue. it is because of that -- it has been a great whipping boy in pakistan. >> within the election and the campaign, drones is captured by -- he made this a signature issue. he was against the drones and corruption. wideexplains for his popularity among youth and women in particular. he tends to -- intends to negotiate with the united states because it is a sovereignty issue.

to take a deeper dive into the issue, it gets far more complicated. a public policy of pakistan and the military and the government is to oppose the drone. our program is helpful when it goes after targets. the pakistani taliban have the goal of overthrowing the pakistani state. there have been some collusion when the targets are clearly enemies of the state. where it gets confusing even for us is that those targets are not americans. they do not target americans. there are other groups that cross the border and target americans. dna statespeople

that support the the drone for grant in pakistan, -- in the united states that support the drone program in pakistan, ask questions. are they pakistanis'enemies? there is a raging debate in that continuum. for moral and futuristic reasons. not because they oppose drones, but because it is who were noteople our enemies and putting us therefore in danger. >> let's do it here. deedee. >> after the election, what is

the role of the climate of extremism now? are people going to be less extremist? is religion going to play a more important role or secularism? that is a complicated question. generally, religious parties ith religious leaderships, is the secular wars that got heard. there have been religious leanings. one of the reasons that [indiscernible] was previous ousted by the army was because they wanted to call himself something similar to the pope. religion was very much about his agenda at that time.

conventional wisdom has it that he has learned his lesson. he is not going to do that. that remains to be seen. the population has made its voice heard. they have said that is not the route they want to follow. i want to divert a little bit and then i will hand the microphone over. my son is in the performing arts. he is between new york and pakistan. that it is such a vibrant scene in pakistan. there is a renaissance happening in that country because it is full of young people. there's so much positive energy there. i have always been rah, rah, rah, but my son has more this time around. there is only one way to go and that is up. >> let me be a little bit more pessimistic.

[laughter] not to contradict anything that she has just said, because i agree with everything she has just said, but to draw a clear line to between the threats of pakistan from extremists and terrorist groups with those that are below just -- with those that are religious, you can be very religious and not be a terrorist. sometimes we confuse the two. on the extremist side, the terrorist side, i'm still pessimistic. many of the indigenous pakistani arabist groups are from the punjab. groupsstani terrorist are from the punjab.

this is still very active. what will the new government's reaction be? nuchhi like to hear what has to say. i'm not very optimistic. groups are getting more interwoven in society. i would hope to see government the would not be intimidated by terror. i would like to hear what you have to say. >> i think the government is going to be fully in control. these right wing forces have tried to curry support. , it will be up to them to set the tone. we will wait to see what happens in the next few months.

party has hadhe religious leanings himself. where this is going to go with him. he has in the past supported whether it was clearly are not, but we do not know what his government will be like now and which way he will go. he can set a very clear agenda. the hope is that he will be very clear on this one issue. it is one of the most important issues facing pakistan. -- theication forcations to look for then bringing stability is to build up a police.

that is a vehicle, the institution -- it is not the army. have been abysmally funded. inas are interested providing assistance to the police. , you do not know how bad it is. when a policeman is in a village, he is likely to be sitting under a tree. someone comes up to him and says, my house was robbed. coming to a report. he says, ok. let me a piece of paper and pencil and give me a ride back here. that is how desperate the police are.

i have not heard anything yet that he intends to hold up the police. -- build up the police. >> and there's a lot of intimidation that happens. i come from a well-known family. policetruck by a lowly man. i said, don't you know how i am? that has been the culture. it will be very hard to break that culture and empower the people. it will be a long, drawn out process. let's go in the back. thank you for sharing your experience with us from your perspective. i know that women voters are on the rise in pakistan.

i was curious about the administration of the election. were women involved and working in the polling places? angry non-atme your mother's precinct. share with us the good, bad, and ugly. at your were some mother's precinct. share with us the good, bad, and ugly. >> women are a very active force in pakistan. there was a place where most of the bad stuff happened. morenk it is criminal than anything else. it is like a little mafia that is run by one of the parties. at her polling station, they would not allow -- to come in. there could be no voting. because of places,

everything got delayed, they were even one hour. a lot of shady things happened. ballots were stuck in the trash and they stuff the ballots. my brother told me one of his supplier said to him, you know what? you know what my family did? we sat down after 5:00 and we said, all a 20% voted. we cannot go to 100%, but we can go up to 85% to make it credible. but three of them sat there and they filled out the ballots. eu -- i had a long discussion with them.

i was at a dinner. they said if we can see it, we can't report it. you really cannot monitor. >> you cannot do the math. i have talked to other election that thereocally weren't -- i cannot remember the figures -- let's say 5000 and only or thousand actually voted. you can do the math. all of that said, the , there's nore

dispute in the election. nuchhi pointed out, the expected a certain ballot. >> it was a clear big or he. -- victory. when hundred 80 million people. people.illion >> here is a good social work question. >> ok. >> i have a good picture of the political aspects of pakistan.

i do not have a picture of the family structures in pakistan, possibly on the lower end of the scale better access to education and healthcare. can you comment on any of that? >> pakistan has a huge population and huge problems of policy. the state by and large has not done the job it should have done. i have always to the state has abdicated its responsibility in providing education and health. the kind of thing society expects. i'm going to give a very personalized view on this. i have seen all of my friends and those who have lived abroad and gone back. people like me who have lived abroad for 15 or 20 or 25 years are going back because they want to be there and give back

to it. i know so many people who are setting up schools and clinics. a huge amount of charity work that is happening in pakistan. ofis this -- it is part religion to give back to the needy. there's a huge amount of unemployment. in people are employed household and homes. that is how a lot of these people get their employment. a lot of families take care of their servants and their children. they send them to school and take care to education. it is an imperfect system at best. lots of issues. a lot of overpopulated or shins. -- portions. what iuld like to say

learned the most about the family structures -- you help me with the title and the author -- the authors half pakistan in half american. brit, i think? american. ok. the upstairs and downstairs syndrome. his story appears in the new yorker. he wrote a book. it has a catchy title. he wrote the beloved and fundamentals -- the reluctant fundamentals. in rising asia or something like that. on bothe same structure sides of the title.

how the talks about underclass lives in these societies. he talks about show first. that is like a class in itself -- he talks about show first -- drivers. that is like a class in itself. what time is it? >> [inaudible] >> we will take quick questions. >> and wondered what the proposals are in the campaign and now for the economic problems? what is this program? >> stock market in pakistan went up when he was elected. there's a lot of confidence in him. he's a businessman. i do not think he has put forward any plan or agenda. but there is a perception that if there's anyone good for the economy, it is him. he is a pragmatic guy.

he knows how the system works. i do not know of any plan that he has put forward. >> we will know tomorrow. he will make his first address to parliament tomorrow. it previews where he will say about the economy. he will cut government subsidies and cut back on the size of government by combining various ministries. at the same time, the analysts have noted that in his budget you has increased the budget for his own private cabinet multiple times. we will see. [laughter] >> that is the best answer. we will see. --could you say be fully

briefly what is happening in terms of education, secular, religious education? especially of the young people. up withhard to keep i population growth. about thery sure extent of religious schools. i will tell a little and it took. .- tell a little anecdote . woman organize discussions this was a discussion on gender in islam. you can see young men were there. they were lower, middle class. they have this discussion with a

woman who is conducting this. they were scholars of islam. one of them was going to the islamic university. minds and they were willing to discuss. minute issues i was not aware of myself. the speaker was well aware of what they were talking about. that was such a positive thing. here are these young men who you think would be responsible for the taliban attacks. they want to hear this woman talk about women issues. they had open minds. they said they would come back again and again. >> to reinforce that point, which is a good one, right after 9/11, we have this notion that -- terrorists were bred in

thousands of questions about it. over the years, we have done some research. we know a lot more about where the terrorist come from and how they recruit and how they are educated. that thees revealed majority of suicide bombers are educated in public schools. they are educated in public curriculum. has a lot of what we would call hate language. a small percentage of suicide -- ers came from most of the two, young people in pakistan today are not even educated in schools.

they are educated in private schools. less.ts they still probably follow the same curriculum, but the government in the past has provided three percent of the national budget for education where 60% of the national budget goes to the [indiscernible] it is simply not the investment of pakistan. people have had to go to the private schools. even sometimes the three percent does not get spent. that is education crime. one more question. in the back. my question is about youth as well. you talk with great enthusiasm .uring the election i wonder at this point whether

the youth is disaffected it is the party did not win over all? or is their satisfaction that the party did quite well nonetheless? both.hink it is a bit of there was a huge amount of disappointment because of expectation. there would be an upset and they would upset the election. there was disbelief. how could this have happened. that was never really in the cards. i think the people in pakistan are happy with the way this election went. i think there's a huge amount of anticipation about things changing. that will happen sooner rather than later. thank you. [applause]

>> i want to say our president has a whole collection. [laughter] with her permission, i will pass this on. thank you. we want you to come back. thank you. terrific program. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] martin durbinay, speaks about natural gas. here is a clip of what he had to say. ,> from a very high level natural gas is abundant. i'm not saying anything people in the room do not know. there is a clear consensus we have more than 100 years worth of natural gas to serve us here. it is affordable. these are third-party sources that are coming out.

we have got abundant, affordable. carbon emissions at the lowest level in more than 20 years. if you look at the power sector and the reduction they have , again, it isons a benefit for all of us. cleaner fuel. and portly, it is ours. it is a domestic resource. -- importantly, it is ours. it is a domestic resource. that is predicted to be more than the two percent. -- 50%. the better the outlook gets. in just two years time, increased by 26%.

five for 10 years ago we were looking at the potential of having to import natural gas. are in a position to export natural gas to our allies. who like to say that natural gas is a bridge, i would say that is one heck of a long bridge. the fact of the matter is that natural gas is a foundation fuel. it is providing us the opportunities and will be for a long time to come. it is abundant, affordable, and clean domestic resource. >> here is a look at our prime time schedule. beginning at 8 p.m. eastern, the u.s. deficit, economy, and science research. book tv. 2,

addressing partisanship. activists.an 3, and tomorrow on "washington journal" scott paul on american alliance for manufacturing. and regulation of natural gas and the oil market. later a look at the trends in school crime and safety. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. , the group center forward released a study on health care law and its premiums.

>> good morning. i'm a former member of congress and chair of center forward. we welcome you to our program this morning. center forward has existed for three years. we are about discussions and across the aisle conversations. we think it is important for organizations like center forward to bring panel discussions together over issues that are currently very important to the american public and policy makers on the hill as well. we view our role as aiding and assisting in providing information. today it is about providing information. we bring together in smaller programs members of congress from both sides of the aisle

and the hill. her bring together staff. ande bring together staff corporations and union representatives as well to come in and have conversations. our stakeholders up portis -- support us. it has been a dynamic effort. those of us who have left the hill and move downtown or eq to have conversations -- and have moved downtown are eager to have conversations. we provide educational rogue programs for-- the general public. we like to produce information. today's issue is health care. produced a study looking at how certain aspects of the portable care act will affect -- the affordable care act will affect premiums for americans going forward. there's a lot of information out

there. we will see today a presentation. o'connor is here today to lead that presentation. he flew in from chicago to lead the presentation this morning. we will have a reaction to his presentation as well by our other panelists. i want to make you aware of who is participating in this program. at the end of the program, there'll be time for questions from the audience. will make sure that happens. the first panelist is jim o'connor to my immediate left. as wellto him and doug to our program. jim is a consulting actuary. experienceiderable consulting and individual health and small group insurance markets.

he has been very involved in assessing the pen -- potential impact of the affordable care act. it is relevant to the conversation. he has provided in set fashion insight.e has provided jim, welcome to the program. ougore he presents, we have du with us this morning. he currently serves as president of the american action for him. he formerly served as a chief economist on the president's advisers. ofalso served as director domestic and economic policy. doug, welcome to the program. we also have a former member of congress. currently serves as senior counsel at --

brings years of regulatory and legislative experience. we continue to learn information we do not know. aso not know that he served a north dakota insurance commissioner. he is president of the national insurance of commissioners. welcome. jim, i will turn the presentation over to you now. jim o'connor. [applause] >> thank you. the affordable care act, we have

heard a lot about it. on behalf of center forward, they came to us to look at six pacific states as to what those impacts might be. specific states as to what those impacts would be. the states are arizona, florida, illinois, new jersey, ohio, and wisconsin. each of those states present its own type of characteristic. goinge talk about change the 2013 to 2014 is regulatory environment of each state right now. each of the states vary somewhat. take new jersey.

it has regulations that are different than the other five states that i mentioned. many of the reforms that are ,eing required through the aca the affordable care act, are in effect in states like new jersey. that is one of the reasons that we chose states like that so we could to the contrast between states that have passed a lot of these regulations. there's a significant difference. our analysis included looking coverage.imum benefit

the maximum specified levels of cost sharing or that actuary value. the premium rating restrictions regarding age or gender or the fact that you will no longer be able to rate by health status or other characteristics, the fact that averages are going to be -- coverages are going to be a big issue, that will be at big the federalates. subsidies, what is the impact after all is said and done and the insurance comes out with a premiums, but we also have these premium subsidies that will be provided for people who have household incomes under the

federal poverty level? we look at that as well. that is what the consumer will feel. after subsidy premium. that affects people in different ways. introduces newa tax assessments and fees to ensure it will get passed through instead of primus. that also affects premiums. was our the huge driving forces that will affect -- those are the huge driving forces that will affect premiums. at the same time, the individual market today represents about five percent of the population. we expect that to grow over the next few

years because of aca. for thoselot of focus few reasons. and it is affected expected to grow the fastest. we also look at the small group market. i'll will have some comments on the small group market as well. is not oneffect average as great as he might ,nc. for the individual market or certainly the effects on small employers. i will have some comments on that. if we're talking that individual market, the key observations we have made is that certainly other than new

jersey, the states allowed medical underwriting. bailout. two very their premiums -- they them to bury their premiums for the applicants were coming to them. they very their rates based on age and gender. but aca, we no longer will vary rates by health status or gender. our age rating will be compressed. instead of having premium rates were the rate for a 64-year-old is five times as great as the -- 25-year- euros old, aca compresses that to 3-1 so it can't be more than 3-1.

in the individual market, carriers are able to rate for health status and other things. that is 5-1. it gets expanded quite a bit because of the premium add-ons for poor health status. we can see a much greater than 5-1 in today's market. that will be compressed to 3-1. that affects a lot of people. we illustrate that in our report. as to what those effects aren't. those effects depend on the characteristics of each person. that is one of the findings we illustrate in the report. is evidenthing that is that participants in the individual market, because they

are paying all the premiums out of their pockets, they are not getting any kind of help from their employer, they tend to lower-cost policies that have much higher cost sharing. that theny requirement theentage of benefits that health plan has to pay has to be at least 60%. in today's individual market, in a lot of states, the average is less than 60% so what's going to have to happen is that the person who is today insured with a policy of less than 60, let's say we are at 50%, are going to have to upgrade their coverage. have toare going to move from that 50% level to at

least 60% and that's going to get reflected in their premiums as well. the cost of bear getting those extra benefit. so they will see that in the premiums, 2014. they're not going to be affected by that part. they won't see that piece of the increase that will be coming through. what we have done in our studies two is we have looked at sample plans in 2013. -- whatto see what our are popular plans being sold and we chose to plant in each state. one of those was a popular plan i had a value less than 50% and

the other plan had an actual value greater than 60%. we wanted to illustrate the orpact of just that fact itself. when you look at the detail of our presentation, you will see the total rate changes for those who have plans less than 60% actual value are greater than those who already have a plan that pays more than 60%. new jersey was a little different because new jersey artie passed a lot of these unisex, the such as than whate far less we see in those other states.

new jersey also has standardized plans that are required in the individual market. the also reduces somewhat actual value impact in that state. so we see in new jersey that people can certainly get reductions in the rates, even before the subsidies. the thing is -- in new jersey is they have two different types of standardized plans. one is essential, one of standard. the basic and essential are a little less regulated plants, less rich. those plans will get more impact in new jersey than the standard , we seen in new jersey people get impacted differently

than people who have the richer standard plans. provisions rating are different as well for those basic and standard plans. that gets reflected in those new jersey rates. finally, you look at the federal tax credit. those are the premium subsidies. those premium subsidies can be very significant for people who qualify for them. as i mentioned, people who have household income under 400% of poverty will qualify for them. what does that mean? for a family of four, we are talking about household income of about $95,000. in ae below that threshold family of four are going to qualify for some consideration for premium subsidy.

some of the things that we have noted with the premium subsidies is while they can be very generous to people at the lowest levels of income and in fact they are so generous that -- because premium subsidies are , thaton the silver plan they plan with a 70% actual value, if someone chooses to 60%,ase a bronze plan with the minimum, some of those people can actually get their coverage for zero premium after subsidy. ofhave a full spectrum where the premium changes are going to be after subsidy all the way down to zero for a bronze plan for some people and for people above 400% of

poverty, they get no subsidy relief. they will see the brunt of the other changes that we have studied in our report. there are also some younger after subsidyn qualify for very little as it turns out. that's because of the way the subsidies and that is. it's based on household income so whether you are 27 or 57, if you were at the same household for the same size family, you are going to get the same subsidy. are much higher for older people than younger people, some of those younger people, their premium rates are the threshold for

their subsidy. that tends to happen somewhere above the 300% of poverty. it varies by age in terms of who really glad -- who really gets the subsidy. it's not quite the 400% level. that's when we start looking at in a lotr your people, of situations, it is 300 or more that do not get subsidy. those were some of the key things we look at. the findings we have, basically in the five states other than wisconsin, before subsidies, the changes we are seeing are going to be somewhere in the up to 60%% -- of 15%

on average. it is a wide range of potential changes. i need to note when we're are talking about these increases, we did the study looking at the on premium rates. there are also the normal type changes that happened due to the annual increase of cost of care. in addition to these, you should consider that trend will also be added. varies state-by- state, plant by plant. toranges typically frmo 5% 9% that we are expecting next year -- from 5% to 9% that we

are expecting next year. one of the things we did in our study as we looked at 2014 plans.\ we assumed that those plans would have the same type of provider network and manage care features as the plant people were coming from. -- as the plans you were commentinming from. health plans are introducing new plans that have alternative provider networks. you may have heard the term narrow network lands -- plans. a number of plans will introduce plans with narrow network that can help drive down costs because they're able to negotiate lower rates with

if those providers want to be in the narrow network. i think we have seen that has been the case in the rates released by california last week. they have been able to support lower premiums than what we otherwise would have expected. so our study did not want to look at what effect that might have an effect might be a 10 or which otherwise might be affected. that kind of counters for the people who opt for that type of land, the trend increase i just mentioned. we see increases on average between 15 and 60%.

new jersey, on the other hand, we see the average will be somewhere between -25% and zero percent. that is for the sample plans we looked at. of those pieces, a good amount of that is due to the fact that people will need to upgrade their benefits to the 60% level. it tends to be somewhere within the 10 or 20% range of that 15 to 60%. we also look at the subsidies again. they can be anywhere from zero centpercent to 100%. do is encourage you to

read the reports. the reports are out on the center forward website. don't just read the report, read the appendices. it's where the real detail is. the effect, before and after subsidy, they spawned 47, 57,ges -- 27, 37, 62. lookales and females, we at different health status levels. people who are very healthy all the way to those were quite sick. we look at different income levels. ,ased on those combinations

you can see in our appendices how those rate changes might be expected to come out for a person in a given situation with the characteristics. that is where the real value of the study is eerily gives you that kind of detail that you can get a good sense. is true that there are winners thatosers in this and illustrates who those people who's goingms of to pay more, who was going to pay less than what the current premiums might be. finally, i want to talk about the small group market. most states, there will be increases. one of the things most faith allow us to verary rates for sml group based on its composite

health status. that is going away. we took a look at what the istribution of those rates in each of the states. based on that, we were able to take a look at what impact that has. that was our key focus in the small group market. what impact that one single change will have. sixveraged somewhere around percent to 12% for each of the states. that's justis that an average. what percent of groups are going to have increases for that versus percent are are going to have decreases, we see that somewhere to 80% of the

groups will get some kind of increase for that. vary.increases will the averages in our studies is somewhere between 10% and 25%. the least had increase of all those. including in this increases is the addition of the taxes and fees that are also going to impact those. they tend to be around three percent to 5%. another percentage of the small groups will see decreases. those decreases tends to be somewhere in the range of 10% to 15%. ohio is in excess at 18%. it is less than 20. seeingroups are also

differences based on their characteristics. what we did not the factor into our study for small group is small groups will also be affected by the age changes in the unisex requirements at aca. because an employer group can differ in its makeup in terms of age and gender. groups made of younger, healthy males will tend to have high increases than those that are unhealthy or comprise mainly of older people. the age gender impact also plays a role here. those are main findings. with that, i think we are ready to open our discussion.

>> we are ready to begin our panel discussion. double start with you -- doug, we will start with you. >> thank you for the chance to be here today. this is a very important issue. i am thrilled to be on such a distinguished panel. i have worked with jim in the past and have a lot of regard for his efforts. i work for oral when he was at the audit committee and i am still in terror of him. i love this work. first, it accords with everyone's intuition about some of the features of the affordable care act have to produce in terms of premium changes. ,hen you put in the age range if you tighten those and so you cannot charge higher premiums for the older compared to the younger, then without question you would expect to see increases among the young and

relative decreases among the old. this comes straight to the analysis and should have a differential impact. we have had some speculation about how the affordable care act will play out. it is nice to see a study that cements tuition about the pattern of increases and the level of increase is likely to prevail. this gets the same answers our work got. but could we better -- what could be better? in january, the american action forum put out a survey which was a survey of insurers and asked them a similar question. we asked questions like if you have a 27-year-old healthy male in chicago, illinois, and this is the policy they have right bands andd these age guaranteed issue and other regulatory restrictions placed

on insurers, what happens to the premium? we got answers that were very much like the appendix jim recommended you read. there will be different impacts depending on who you are. averages will not tell the story. the unhealthier going to see being increases. our survey said 200%. these are sharp and you increases. for others, they will get relative decreases as a result of the regulatory framework. you don't want to rely on the average. some people get quite a bit of impact and others a lot less. raises aportant and couple wildcards i think deserves some further work. we did a second survey which we put out more recently last week

that serving the young americans who have insurance. we took the time to find out their monthly premium and be able to turn into dollars what happens if the premiums go up 10%, 20%, or 30%. based on all the work that has been done, including today's, are not crazy possibilities under the aca. the answers are striking. group that basically looks at the law and says i like some of it, i don't like parts of it, it is not an active or political calculation. they look at what happens to the price of a product. if you look 10%, it goes from 100% of people who have cover to started with them down to 80%. rate the payment over 20%, it drops to 65% of them retaining coverage. if you raised 30%, it down to

55%. those are striking results about the price responsiveness of the young folks for an important part of the pools that will be on the state-based exchanges. that leads me to the final point -- this is going to depend a lot on money. the way you solve the problem is easy. you throw money at it. either by having subsidies, and this raises the importance of the subsidies jim talked about. give subsidies so the net does not go up. they get a smaller increase and continue to purchase. that's one way to solve the problem. or, if they choose to exit and are left with more expensive pools, the reinsurance division and other ways of subsidizing will become important. --i don'tlays out

know the answer to. it merits a lot more consideration. it's at the heart of having to be ineffective, functioning expansion in insurance for americans. the last piece i want to emphasize is something i'm glad jim mentioned. oftenis a big difference, lost in the public debate, between health insurance coverage and healthcare. and the choices in care people actually received. we are seeing this innovation where care choices are going to be far more limited and where receive people will will be affected by the regulation imposed by the aca. we don't know yet how it will play out but it very important. and merits watching as other states go through the process of taknig up the -- taking up

the insurers filing for coverage. what's the nature of that? what are the restrictions on care options people are willing to face in order to keep the at reasonables levels. i want to applaud both the work that got done, i think it's exactly the right kind of work that we need. the fact that we are having an event today to talk about it. and to encourage everyone that one of the key takeaways is there is not a single answer. this sadly will be nuanced public policy issue and it has been my sad experience that nuance is not easily conveyed in the public debate so get ready to be disappointed. thank you. >> thank you so much. earl. >> thank you. i'm pleased to be on this panel. jim has produce a very interesting body of work. i think it should be commended for the level of detail they get

into, showing the nuances dough just mentioned in terms of the ratings picture. that has been very engaged in the political debate well keeping his intellectual integrity intact which is no small trick. good to be with you this morning. i have an interesting perspective on all of this as insurance commissioner and member of congress. the bill was built. ultimately voted for the bill. a good reason why i am in private sector today is that vote. [laughter] i am fighting the debate on rate fences -- i am finding the beate on rate increases to [indiscernible]

they say rates shock, the bill is a failure. democrats conversely looking notwhere the rates are impacted to severely and they will use that as proof that you expand coverage to those who can now not get coverage. and it's all free. there is no consequence whatsoever. obvious either side is just continuing the melodrama approach and it's important we by theand in context situation will for some involve some great -- rate increases but what are the trade-off policy benefit that a been achieved? when i was insurance 1992, thener, 1985-

last period of serious efforts by the insurance industry to contain medical costs in order to keep premiums affordable. in the end, the inexhaustible increases in medical costs won the day and the business of health insurance changed. it became much more the business of identifying risk in either excluding it from the pool or sore charging it -- or surcharging it. there were a number rating schemes we addressed as regulators, trying to keep that from getting entirely out of bounds. as a business practice, segmenting out high risk it's a legitimate approach from a business standpoint. as a social stall -- as a social policy standpoint, however, you might think this is not an acceptable foundation for health insurance for america and the 21st century. the affordable care act tries

to address that at its core. it basically says if you have been excluded from coverage because of a health condition, we will assure rating rules that keep you out are changed and you're now now able to access coverage. if you have been surcharged to an unacceptable degree, defined in the statute, 3 to 1 for you will not be charged over that amount. in the event that the cost i consequences of this are too grave, you can come into the insurance exchange to buy your individual coverage and there will be premium subsidies in order to be affordable. it is a hugely complicated piece of work.

with an awful lot of decisions taken from the marketplace and defend as a matter of social policy. level of coverage is that jim mentioned, for example. the way coverages are marketed. imposed ratios upon insurance companies, all very severely limited. what we're seeing underway of insurance companies companies is the most competent rating challenge i've ever seen. because it involves the great unknown. new systems, new market structure. and behavior responses from the population of the impossible to predict. so i think the political debate about whether or not the rates will be ruinous, whether there should be no great consequence, there is a disservice to the

difficult time the market is in getting coverages extended for next year. the way i like to think of it is we're shifting gears. moving from a system that has excluded risk or surcharged it to a system that ask fans of cross subsidy the very nature what insurance is. it's a cost subsidy. cost subsidy and we shift to where there's greater coverage certainty. and worst of coverage available. and we subsidize those who are at the moderate end of the rage school -- of the range scale. jim mentions $96,000. i think a lot about the premium .ubsidy on this part

the portions of the health insurance marketplace, most giving way under the old system. in changes are most dramatic the system. that64,000 question waldman to determine rates and these new individual health insurance exchanges. from people what health conditions that have excluded coverage, they will sign up. they understand acutely the financial risk to their family of not having coverage to pay the medical bills they're much more likely to be incurring.

people have been self insuring the risk that they don't have [indiscernible] now they're going to have subsidies of making that coverage available. theythey respond, will respond, will they understand how this all works and is extremely competent at bill and is weighings again in on this one. have taken efforts of voter suppression and we moved to efforts that an moment suppression. ,e have not funded information getting information out to let people know who may be subsidy eligible. health ande have human services reduced to

shaking the 10 cup, panhandling trying tobutions raise privately money. been accused -- being accused of something like the iran-contra type violation. this is about trying to discourage the contributor in adverse. we don't want people to know about these exchanges because we don't want them in the pool. ant on the one hand has been unfortunate aspect of what we're seeing relative to the potential to get as many lives in the pool of possible. and you need allies in the the pool to keep premiums down.

my ding on the other side, i think the democrats have to be real. it will be rating consequences when you expand coverage and guarantee access and narrow premium surcharging. at least you're getting more for it. relates to nohis improvement in the policy at all. fees andnsurance taxes newly created under the bill. this happened in the senate. [laughter] -- do.'t do that them them.

who pays them? the people paying the premiums here that cost is passed on them priced out in the cost of coverage. that's a premium driver that does not tend to be anything in enhance coverage. jim ends up by saying winners and losers. that turns on who, where, how old, how much. some states that have made this shift already, not that much impact. how old. obviously if you're a younger, you lose this rating then limitations. if older, you win under the limitation.

finally i do not think of as winners and losers. i don't think we have except what health insurance system. if you need the coverage it did nothing to respond to those who cannot not afford coverage at all. that was a system where in a way, we were all losers. in the middle of a difficult under a very complicated re-do but i think you'll end up with a stronger health insurance system as a result. thank you. to the auditso for some question and reaction, anything you want to further discuss our react to bought up in the panel discussion? >> certainly the point they both made a very valid. --one of the keys that we need to understand is

that i mentioned that rates are different in different states right now. earl mentioned where you live as being the --being important. you look at a state like new jersey or new york where a lot of these reforms have already been put in place, we look at their premiums today. they are quite a bit higher than the premiums and these other states we looked at that have not passed those reforms. a good indication as to what direction we think premiums for the indigo market -- for the individual market will lose overtime as the new requirements get put in place. we do need to be cognizant of ll all of that. as i've mentioned, everybody

gets affected differently. i encourage you to look at that type of detail not just averages. that's really where it's important. >> thank you. now if he could have questions on the audience during bear with us here. we will need to get a microphone to you. and for you to state who you are and who you represent here. >> peter barnes with fox business -- i haven't had a chance to read the full report but can you tell us how and why you selected these six states? i assume you have looked at all 50 states and selected these based on some criteria. idea about the geographic impact, calmly states would you say are like new jersey and new york and massachusetts and already have a lot of these reforms in place and thus their residents might

not see large increases? how many states are on the other side without as many reforms? >> we selected the states laregelgely due to several critersia -- criteria. we were getting data from certain carriers and so the states where they were operating is where we can get good data. the second criteria was we wanted a mix of states where the regulatory environments for somewhat different. new jersey obviously stood out as one with more restrictive regulatory environment. -- they had aio far less regulatory requirement than other states. like illinois and

florida were somewhere in between. in the middleates tend to be more similar to those that are least restrictive than those with most restrictive. they do allow for rating variation as well as medical underwriting and the ability to decline. in terms of the numbers of states, pretty much the ratio that we have in our study is would sees what we if you look at all states. the states that have passed these, maybe five i would put into that bucket. least restrictive and the

middle restrictive, the arer 40-45 states falling into that category. within that middle, there is a spectrum asked where regulation is,. . it makes a difference as to the regulatory environment not only for the individual market was deposited on but small-group market. some states that are more liberal in the individual market are not necessarily all that liberal in small-group market. that makes the difference to in terms of choices employers will make going forward because today they may have made some choice based on the current regulatory environment. tomorrow when the regulatory environments are basically the same across the nation, those choices may be different that those employees will make.

[inaudible] with a be fair to assume that about five of the states will not see significant increases on their healthcare reform and 45 will see bigger elseases, everything being equal? >> i think that is a fair statement. certainly not only will those five or six states not see increases, quite possible that quite a few of their members will actually see decreases in their rates provided that the inflow of new members are healthy.s so we gotta get that healthy flow of new members to bring down tehe average health status

and risk pool. right now in the states, because mandate, a lot of the healthy people choose to stay out of the markets and the because the premium rates in those markets are a lot higher than they are and the other markets. so you definitely need the inflow of new healthy lives as well as those life that -- lives that we expect to get who are certainly less healthy. we need the proper mix of risk. >> one thing in context is -- as you look at most people in , they arerage coverage are large employer group. we are talking about the smaller portion of the market is short in the individual market. a representative.

as a clarifying question from something you said about who responded to the study. i wanted to confirm the states that are studied here that the companies covered the ballistic comprehensive. are there companies that did not respond question mark -- di id not respond? no. we solicited information from the blue cross and national carriers for these states. we do not look to every carrier in the state. >> tony pugh. you mentioned an estimated five percent of the insured market

is in the individual market. i wanted to find out what percentage is covered to the small-group market directof the direct market. of the five or six states, you mentioned new jersey, what about the other three or four question mark -- or four? and the availability of the catastrophic coverage that typically have lower premiums, is that not a viable option for the young, healthy people that will face the entire premiums? >> the other states awe're -- we're talking about would be new jersey, new york, massachusetts, vermont. ht consider maine, washington, oregon. those last states less so than

the first several i mentioned. your second question? i don't have those numbers with me but that would roughly be the population. through, when we talk about small groups, companies with 50 or fewer employees. the catastrophic coverage? >> the catastrophic coverage, plan will be out there for young people were people who find other coverage unaffordable. .o purchase at a lower cost so there is some viability to

that plant. n. i don't think it's the title plan that we be attracted to everybody who qualifies but certainly having that plan does give another choice the people. >> on the small-group, a group of 25 and fewer, there is a tax credit in support of the premium to 50% for the first two of coverage. that's kind of bait and switch. the rationale behind it is you rearrange your pricing in your cost structure so that you work your way into employer coverage for those small employers on 25 and under. so that's a significant tax credit not mentioned in jim's report.

>> is that a relatively small slice of the total market that woul dbd be affected by this law? >> most people will not directly feel the impact of aca immediately. are employedpeople by large employers who are not the minimum actual. they are subject to a minimum value of 60%. they're not sensitive these rating requirements.

they won't feel a type of impact we are talking about for the other 20% or so. they will feel impact because the large employers are going to be subject to these new taxes and fees. see some of -- they will see some of the premiums passed on to them in the way a premium. so i think that's right. in majority of the population is not going to be impacted as greatly as the people in the small-group and individual markets will be. --i think it's important it's important is beyond the proportion of people in it. here's why --to the extent that ,mployers change their coverage

they will get into a tighter reg the tory web. second, anyone who is on the arithmetic recognizes that for 300%mployee of to about of the poverty line, it is clear that the employer and employee have a shared interest to stop providing insurance, give the employee a raise, let them pay taxes on it, take the subsidies and buy coverage that is as good or better than what they had before. the employer can give them a pay the they can't even penalty, i had your the only big losers the taxpayer. -- ahead. the only big loser is the taxpayer. will they remain a niche will to be the case of large-scale entry by people in the market.

if it's as large as the arithmetic suggest, the majority of insured products we conveyed to the exchanges in america's future. veryhis plays out is important. out of proportion to exactly the initial startup. risks will show up. there are high risk pools in every state. those people will be hand as quarter to these exchanges, i promise you. they will be there. they will be hand escorted to these exchanges, i promise you. they will be there. if they are not subsidized, they will say goodbye. of these are very expensive very-- that leaves a expensive pool deck goes into

potentially a death problem. goes intoat potentially a death problem. they could show up and if they forthe exchanges survive later the employers to enter into this. the ultimate outcome of this is highly unclear. it will differ across pages and incomes and health status but the implications are enormous and the future of american health insurance. its importance is not best measured by the fraction of people currently in the small groups or in the middle markets. this is a very big deal. ask -- >> i think what doug has for mostssed -- has expressed, employer groups will hold. .he tax incentives remain

the importance of health insurance as part of your employment relationship -- the importance of insurance given those going to work at their place of employment is paramount. it's a key recruiting tool. everything about employer health insurance continues. hand, these exchanges, this is a marketplace idea. when we were in congress considering the clinton health iturance forms -- reforms, is a marketplace based concept. there's a lot to be concerned about in terms of whether they will work perfectly or not under the affordable care act. i wish we were at a point in our political discourse for the parties were collaborating in terms of how to make this

marketplace where consumers can compare apples to apples and get better deals for their covers. coverage.ir one -- add one question? we agree on a lot of things. one of the key features will be doesn't work? when you flick the switch on october 1 for assignment -- for sign up and generate first actual operation, will it work? what are they show up and the subsidies don't show up? there are lots of start up risks associated with this vision. even if you agree on the notion of an exchanges and after

concept. annext year is going to be oferesting period science for the insurance industry. >> in 2016, the definition small-group expands to 100 employees. percentage of the people who are going to be affected by this. resurgence of some of these questions and issues of that market expands. >> one last question from the audience. i don't see a hand. is it possible considering the detail that have to be aressed and where we

right now to give general advice to those folks listing -- listening saying how do i avoid a large increase in my insurance premium? think somek -- i people are not going to be able to avoid it whatsoever. depending on the characteristics. but the insurers are putting out plans that will at least provide some relief in terms of the premium rates that will be charged based on what i mentioned earlier through plan design, network design, more managed care. things like that that will help keep down costs. those are the options for people who otherwise would be getting even larger increases than what they'll get from opting for those plans. --presentedndustry

an array of options that will give choice to people. callsmes the regulatory on whether the ideas would be acceptable or not in a new environment have been turned down. i think it's a time when we should have flexibility and choice. we are making a very important market shift. so i would encourage the administration to have an open mind about alternatives and in thelity, especially early going of the affordable care act. >> i think it's really important and the reality will be at the level of the states for a lot of these decisions to be made. some states are opting for an active purchasing approach where they go out and decide in a military fashion what kind of policies will be available.

the latter would be preferable in an environment where there will have to be a lot of people response to the reality of the regulatory shift, the reality of the tax and fee shift. that's all unavoidable. so you have to maneuver within that. >> thank you all. on behalf of senator -- center forward, i have to end the program now. i want to thank the board and the holders -- and stakeholders, the staff. thank you. terrific presentation this morning. this is a perfect example of how we try to offer timely information to the general public. a general public that is awfully cynical about what's going on here in washington. maybe now the insurance is viewed with more favorability

then the house and senate right now but it is still a world out there that will have to go through a lot of sorting through. becky for coming. -- thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] coming up on washington journal, scott paul of the american alliance for manufacturing. then federal energy regulatory commission chairman discusses the regulation of electricity, natural gas and oil markets. later, a look at the latest trends in school crime, violence

and safety. our guests are michael plenty of the bureau of justice statistics and nirvi shah. >> coming up tonight, one .enriquez --juan enriquez then, at 8:00 30, live, a chance .or you to talk to mr. enriquez we will follow that with a look at the impact of the internet and other technology on the human brain and child development. next up, we will hear from juan enriquez, the founder of the life science project at the harvard university business school and the cfo. we mention a couple of ways for you to participate in a half hour or so. we will open up your fold lines and te