political intelligence is defined as information which is intended for use in analyzing securities or commodity markets or informing investment decisions. but what does that mean? does it apply to a retailer who wants to open new stores and calls the armed services committee to see whether there's a base that's going to be built in a particular neighborhood? some would say yes. some would say no. violation of the lobbying disclosure act carries civil and criminal pen noolt falities. we wanted to get the anti-insired trading provision out quickly and study this more. the bill calls for a g.a.o. study. i've said -- senator collins and i have announced that we're going to hold a hearing on this question. we need a little more time to do it thoughtfully because we're ultimately dealin dealing with t amendment rights here and we ought not to legislate until we're prepared to do so in a reasoned way. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. grassley: do i have time

to tell people not to vote for wall street, vote for my amendment. the presiding officer: there's no time left, sir. mr. grassley: thank you. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change a vote? the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 60. the nays are 39.

and the amendment passes. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1481 as modified, offered by the senator from ohio, mr. brown. this amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. may we have order. mr. brown: mr. president, the amendment that senator merkley and i propose would require all senators and senior staff to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or place their investments in blind trusts. you can still invest in broad-based mutual funds. you can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business. if you're setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to hold on to your stock and your family company. current senate ethics rules

require committee staff making more than $25,000 a year to divest themselves of substantial earnings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which it works. all senator merkley and i are saying is that members of the senate should hold ourselves to the same standard that we already require of our committee staff and executive branch employees. as senator merkley said, baseball players can't bet on their games. we should not be able to hold stock in individual companies and then bet on -- then vote on issues that affect our holdings. i ask for a "yes" vote. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i'm going to yield to have the time in opposition to senator toomey. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i thank the senator from maine. i disagree with the andment. i think it worse than it was

characterized by my friend from ohio, worse in the sense that as i read the definition of the securities that would be covered and as the securities attorneys have advised us on this, we would be required to divest ourselves even of our investment in a small family-owned business, a business that perhaps has absolutely no market whatsoever for the equity. and we would nevertheless be forced to sell that where there is no buyer. i think that's a very unreasonable standard, and so i would urge a "no" vote on this amendment. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i rise to oppose the amendment. this amendment would take congress from where we have always been and are going to be better after this bill passes in pursuit of disclosure and transparency, sunshine as the best guarantee of integrity. this will be the first time that i'm aware of that in the legislative branch we would

require divestment of personal holdings. for that reason, i oppose the amendment. i think -- remember the underlying bill we have increased the public's access to information about our holdings and our transactions. and ultimately, that knowledge ought to be enough to guarantee the public or to energize the public to make sure that we are following the highest ethical norms. divestment, in my opinion, is a step too far. ms. collins: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? since there aren't, on this vote, the yeas are 26, the nays are 73. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the substitute amendment as amended is agreed to. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar 301, s. 2038, a bill to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic information, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of the bill as amended. does everyone wish to yield their time? mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank everybody. it's been a good, open process. i think we had a good bill that came in. it's better now, and i yield back the balance of my time.

ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: we will make our speeches after the vote. the presiding officer: very well. ms. collins: i thank my colleagues. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of the bill. as amended. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: votevote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on senate bill 2038, as amended, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. the bill is passed. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i would ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to deliver my full speech regardless of the time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank you, madam president. madam president, our nation faces grave challenges. we're looking at our fourth

straight trillion-dollar defic deficit. our credit rating has been downraigraded. public spending is out of control. the nation demands leadership. at some moments in our nation's history, at moments of crises, leaders have emerged, put partisanship aside and worked to solve our greatest challenges. though our current president, who's compared himself to both franklin roosevelt and abraham lincoln, his leadership is falling well short of their examples. instead of taking the reigns and making tough choices when presented with our current fiscal crisis, he has decided to put politics first. he always puts politics first. just this morning at the national prayer breakfast, the president took what has always been a nonpartisan opportunity for national unity and used it to promote his political agenda. he suggested to the attendees that jesus would have supported his latest tax-the-rich schemes. with due respect to the president, he ought to stick to

public policy. i think most americans would agree that the gospels are concerned with weightier matters than effective tax rates. as long as the president has decided to assume the role of theologian in chief, he would do well to put tax policy aside and consider the impact of one of his latest obama-care mandates. secretary is h sebelius' decisio force religious institutions over the strong objections of yeufts and churches representing millions and millions of americans to provide insurance coverage for abortionification drugs and contraption to their employees, will require these groups to violate their deepest held religious beliefs. the president's comments this morning share more with political strategy than they do the religious beliefs of most americans. in 2008, the president declared that his nomination was the world historical moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow

and our planet began to -- began to heal. someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water and he did not occupy the oval office. madam president, this drive to politicize every aspect of our institutions and public discourse took a serious and dangerous turn last month with the president's appointments to the consumer financial protection bureau, or cpfb, and to the national labor relations board, or nlrb. last week, in his state of the union address, president obama said that americans deserve a government that plays by the rules, yet his appointments of january 4, just one day into a three-day recess -- senate recess, failed to meet his own standard. those unlawful appointments are the latest example of how he is willing even to undermine the constitution and weaken our government institutions to get what he wants. they are a deeply cynical

political ploy that puts his own ideological wants and electoral needs above our constitution and rule of law. the constitution, not the president's political agenda or reelection strategy, sets the rules we must live by and play by. in the regular order of the appointment process, the president nominates but the senate must consent for him to appoint. the president may not get his way every time, but this is one of many checks and balances in our system to make sure that one part of the government does not gather too much power. the constitution also allows the president temporarily to fill -- quote -- "vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate." because these so-called recess appointments do not require senate consent, however, they are supposed to be an exception to the confirmation rule. the most obvious requirement for a recess appointment is that

there actually be a real recess. needless to say, if the president alone could define a recess, he could make recess appointments during every weekend or lunch break. the exception would swallow the rule and the president could shut the senate out of the process altogetherment -- altogether. our constitution refers to the recess of the senate, not to a recess of the president's imagination or his lawyers' creation. and under the constitution, the senate has authority to determine its own procedural rules, including the what, when and how long of senate recesses. i won't go into all the twists and turns of recess appointment history. for decades, however, the standard has been that a recess must be longer than three days for the president to make a recess appointment. the constitution, for example, requires the consent of the house or senate for the other body to adjourn for more than three days.

the congressional directory, which is the official directory of congress, defines a recess as -- quote -- "a break in house or senate proceedings of three or more days, including sundays." the senate's own web site has the same definition. the clinton administration argued in 1993 that a recess must be longer than three days. the clinton administration took that position. and in 2010, the obama administration's own deputy solicitor general said this to the chief justice. john roberts, when arguing before the supreme court -- quote -- "our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days." let me repeat that. the obama administration told the supreme court that a recess must be longer than three days for the president to make a recess appointment. the democratic majority in this body has endorsed this same

standard. on november 16, 2007, the majority leader said -- quote -- "the senate will be coming in for proceed formasessions during the thanksgiving holiday to prevent -- pro forma sessions during the thanks gig holiday to prevent recess appointments." the four brief sessions he scheduled chopped the thanksgiving break into recesses of -- you guessed it -- three days or less. so did the five sessions he scheduled during the christmas break. this new tactic worked and president bush did not make another recess appointment for the rest of his presidency. there is no record that then-senator barack obama objected to this tactic in any way. he did not criticize it as a gimmick. he did not opine that the president could still make recess appointments despite these pro forma sessions. he did not even suggest that pro forma sessions did anything other than create new, shorter

recesses. that is, after all -- that is after all the only way the pro forma sessions can block recess appointments. as far as i can tell, senator obama fully supported his party using pro forma sessions to block recess appointments. finally, consider this. our rule 31 requires that pending nominations be sent back to the president whenever the senate -- quote -- "shall adjourn or take a recess for more than 30 days." pursuing his strategy to prevent appointments during the august 2008 recess, the majority leader scheduled no less than ten pro forma sessions during that period. as a result, because -- and that was the democrat majority leader, by the way -- as a result, because each pro forma session began a new recess of less than 30 days, the senate executive clerk did not return any pending nominations to the

president. now, the standard here is clear. pro forma sessions create new recesses. just read the "congressional record." each pro forma session begins with the words -- quote -- "the senate met" and ends the statement that the senate -- quote -- "stands in recess" until a specific date and time. i don't know how much clearer it could possibly be. the senate must adjourn for more than three days for a president to make a recess appointment. the senate has endorsed this standard. the democratic majority has endorsed this standard. senator barack obama endorsed this standard. and presidenand president baracs administration has endorsed this standard. a new recess begins when a senate session, even a pro forma session ends. that was then.

this is now. the senate met in january 2012 to convene the second session of the 112th congress. the "congressional record" states that the senate adjourned at 12:02 until january 6 at 11:00 a.m. i know that we see some fuzzy math here in washington from time to time, but this is pretty simple. that was a three-day recess which was not long enough to allow a recess appointment. the very next day, however, president obama installed richard cordray as head of the consumer financial protection bureau, and he also installed three members of the national labor relations board. these appointments were clearly unlawful because a sufficient recess did not exist. these appointments violated the standard that president obama himself endorsed when he served in this body, and they violated the standard that his own administration endorsed before the supreme court. senate democrats routinely attacked president george w.

bush for supposedly creating what they called an imperial presidency. that criticism was bogus for a host of reasons, but i can only imagine how the majority would have howled had president bush made recess appointments the day after those pro forma sessions in 2007 and 2008. they would have denounced heupld for defying the senate -- him for defying the senate for an unprecedented power grab and for destroying the checks and balances that are so important in our form of government. they would have taken swift and firm measures in retaliation. who knows, but they might even have gone to the court over it. but president bush respected the senate, and whether he liked it or not, declined to make recess appointments when there was no legitimate recess. president obama apparently has no such regard for this body, one which he was honored to be a member of. and to be clear, that means he has no such regard for the

constitution and its system of checks and balances. he only wants his way. his political mantra last fall that he can't wait for congress to enact his agenda has now resulted in these politicized appointments that violate our deepest constitutional principles. no doubt some on the other side of the aisle will respond that the office of legal counsel at the tko*pt justice has -- at the department of justice issued a memo justifying these appointments. as paul harvey used to say, here is the rest of the story. that memo was issued on january 6, two days after president obama made these unlawful recess appointments. i had understood o.l.c.'s rule as giving objective advice before decisions were made. during this, after the fact -- doing this after the fact looks like it is a method of trying to justify rather than inform this controversial decision,

especially when the memo admits that it addresses a novel issue with -- quote -- "substantial arguments on each side." the most egregious flaw on the o.l.c. memo is that it addresses the wrong question. the question that o.l.c. should have answered is why a pro forma session, like any other session, does not start a new recess. that is the real question here. o.l.c. simply ignored that question entirely, and i'm not at all surprised. the obvious answer is that a pro forma session does begin a new recess and then o.l.c. would have had to justify the president making a recess appointment during an unprecedented three-day recess. rather than address that necessary question, the o.l.c. memo insisted, or instead addressed whether the president may make recess appointments during a longer recess that is -- quote -- "punctuated by

periodic pro forma sessions." unquote. i'd thraoeubg know who made up this -- i'd like to know who made up this characterization of pro forma sessions as merely procedural punctuation marks, but a cliche like that is no substitute for real legal argument. if that is the most egregious flaw in the o.l.c. memo, it's most egregious omission might be failing even to mention, let alone explain away the obama administration's endorsement of the three-day standard before the supreme court. in 1996 the clinton office of legal counsel advised that making appointments during a ten-day recess would -- quote -- "pose significant litigation risks." unquote. and this new memo, the obama o.l.c. admits that these appointments during only a three-day recess -- quote -- "create some litigation risks." they admit that. the memo, of course, does not

attempt to explain how appointments during an even shorter recess somehow pose less litigation risk. either way, litigation may just be where this controversy is headed. and i certainly hope so. just like our democratic colleagues accused president bush of creating an empeeler presidency -- imperial presidency, they accuse the office of legal counsel of helping him to do it. they attacked o.l.c. for being his advocated rather than an objective, neutral advisor. nothing o.l.c. did for president bush looked anything like what we see today. this memo reads like a brief by the president's personal lawyer. the justice department lawyers are not the president's personal lawyers. madam president, when president obama decided to make these appointments, the person who should have been the most outraged was the senate majority

leader. after all, it is the highest ranking office in the chamber, he should have been known of the rights and prerogatives of the senate and should have opposed any action on the part of the executive to undermine the senate's role in the confirmation process. unfortunately that is not what happened. since the time the appointments were made, the senate majority leader has on multiple occasions publicly endorsed the president's decision to ignore precedent and bypass the senate. he did so on television in mid-january and again just this week here on this floor. the majority leader's decision to support and indeed applaud the president in this case is troubling, given that, as i mentioned a few minutes ago, it was under his leadership that the senate began to use pro forma sessions for the first -- for the specific purpose of

preventing president bush from making recess appointments. the majority leader has acknowledged this to some extent, but his explanation as to why he's taking these apparently contradictory positions is unclear and somewhat hard to follow. madam president, we need a better explanation from the majority leader because from the vantage point of many here in the chamber, it appears his position on the efficacy of pro forma sessions and the constutionality of recess appointments varies depending upon who is occupying the white house. no leader in this body should ignore this question. and, frankly, our leader should be standing up for the senate against the white house on this matter. i hope that's -- i hope that it isn't true that the constutionality of recess appointments depends -- varies depending on who is occupying

the white house. i hope i misinterpreted what appeared to be plain statements both past and present on the part of the majority leader. that is why i along with 33 of my colleagues have submitted a letter to the majority leader asking him to clarify his position on these appointments. specifically, the letter asks him to state what he believes the pro forma sessions have any impact on the president's recess appointment power. it also asks him to clarify whether he believes that president bush had the constitutional authority to make recess appointments like the ones recently made by president obama, and why if he believes these recent appointments are constitutional. he instituted the practice of using pro forma sessions in the first place. why did he do that? finally, the letter asks the majority leader to state specifically whether he agrees with the president's legal argument that the senate was unavailable to perform its advice and consent functions during the recent adjournment

period. i have a copy of the letter here, madam president, and i ask unanimous consent that that letter signed by 33 senators be entered into the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: these so-called recess appointments were unlawful because there was no legitimate recess in which they could be made. there are many disagreements about policy and political issues. that is to be expected. but the intellingty of our -- the integrity of our system of government requires that even the president must, as he said in the state of the union address, play by the rules. president obama broke the rules in order to install the individuals he wanted. that action weakened the constitution, our system of checks and balances, as well as both the senate and the presidency. madam president, i suggest the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the adjournment of the senate, the committee on public works be authorized to report legislation on friday, february 3, from 12:00 noon until 2:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that at 3:00 p.m. monday, february 6, the chair lay before the senate the conference report on the f.a.a. reauthorization reform act. there be up to two hours of debate on the conference report equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

prior to a vote on adoption of the conference report, the vote on adoption be subject to a 60-vote threshold. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that we now proceed to s. res. 367. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 367, designating january, 2012, as national mentoring month. mr. reid: i now ask consent -- the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements on this matter placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we have the first reading of a bill which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2064, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to terminate certain energy tax subsidies and lower the corporate income tax rate.

mr. reid: i ask for a second reading in order to place this bill on the calendar, but i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 6, 2012, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that following morning business, the senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 658, the f.a.a. reauthorization act under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i appreciate the cooperation of the senators this week. an important piece of

legislation. it's something the american people believe is extremely important for the congress to not put itself above the law. there was a dispute whether we were above the law. after this passes there will be no dispute whatsoever. i appreciate the fact we will now move to the f.a.a. bill which will be completed in the form of a conference report. very hard to do, people worked extremely hard on this, these -- isate perfect piece of legislation, no, it isn't but we have not had an f.a.a. bill since 2003. we've had 23 temporary extensions during this period of time the federal aviation administration has basically shut down because we couldn't agree on what should move forward. i repeat, this bill is not perfect. but it's something that is extremely important for job creation and for making our airports more safe. so there will be a roll call vote at 5:30 p.m. on adoption of

that conference report i just referred to. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 6, 2012.

>> afghanistan and reaction to the decision to compel religious hospitals to provide insurance that includes contraceptive coverage for women for among items discussed today in the white house briefing. this is about 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. you heard the news. six more weeks of this terrible winter we've been having. [laughter] thank you. [laughter] i guess we know. i have no announcements to make

at the top, so i'll go straight to questions. ben? >> thank you. first off, about afghanistan, the president has put plans in motion to withdraw troops getting us down to 70,000 troops in afghanistan by september. secretary panetta envisions end of combat role at the latter part of 2013. how does that affect the pace of withdrawal for the rest of the troops? >> let me step back and clarify, you know, your question. the secretary panetta on his way to a meeting of fellow dpefs ministers of nato in brussels spoke with the reporters about the consultations he'd be having, and in line with the nato policy set forward in lisbon with regard to afghanistan that called for the

transfer of security lead to the afghanistan security forces by 20 # -- 2014. that is the policy, and it has not changed. what the meetings that the secretary is involved in now are about how that transition will unfold and take place, and that will be a subject of serious discussion among heads of state of nato here in chicago hosted by president obama in may. it's certainly -- what secretary panetta said is it could happen that the transition to afghanistan security lead could be moved up to 2013, but he was not making an announcement about a decision made, simply about the consultations that would be taking place in brussels and from brussels forward to chicago. >> well, i mean, he said -- he didn't say hopefully, but mid to

latter part of 2013 going to training, and before that, it was 2014, so that, you know, that's clearly a change. >> well, he said hopefully, and it could happen early. let's be clear about the president in afghanistan strategy that included the ramping up of forces substantially in order to implement. the number one goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-qaeda. u.s. forces are in afghanistan as well as the forces of our international partners are in information because al-qaeda attacked the united states and other countries. our number one objective, therefore, is to defeat al-qaeda the president's strategy working with the allies resulted in significant progress in achieving that goal. i don't think anybody could

dispute that. another secondary goal is to stabilize afghanistan to allow time for the afghan security forces to be built up, trained, and develop the capacity to take over security leads. that process has gun, some sections have been transferred to afghan security forces, and it will continue. the pace of it, the point at which full lead is turned over to afghan forces is going to be a discussion among defense ministers as well as heads of state in chicago in may. the operating strategy is still articulated in lisbon which is the combat lead will shift -- rather the lead -- combat lead, i guess, would shift to the

afghan security forces by 2014 -- >> [inaudible] >> by the end of 2014. that's where we are, and what that transition looks like, and the discussions about the transition take place over time, and as secretary panetta said, it could happen, and hopefully will happen it will be sooner. >> let me wrap up which is the president has been on record as withdrawing troop, but the latest we knew was 60,000 troops by september. any clarity about how fast the troops come home. >> after september? >> yeah. >> i'm sure that's a subject of discussion among nato ministers and heads of state and combat commanders, but i have nothing to announce from here about any changes about the pace, and i think that's determined in part about how successful the transition is taking place over to afghanistan security forces.

>> okay. a quick question on the economy. as i'm sure you know, three years to the day that the president had in an interview that if i don't have it done in three year, it's a one-term proposition. i'm assuming you don't think it's done, maybe you do, but does he regret having said that? >> no, i think you point out it was three years ago, and he made that at a time when i think the economy said close to 800,000 jobs in the process of shedding 8 million overall, a time during which the economy had recently slunk in one quarter by 9%, the worst contraction in the economy since the great depression. he has successfully, through the policies he's pursued, changed the direction that we were in when he took office, and while we are not done and won't be

done until every american who wants a job can find a job and until we have built a foundation for the economy to compete and win in the # 1st century, there's no question, and i talked about this the other day, the graph, the u-shaped graph of unemployment, and what it looked like as the president took office inheriting the economy that he had at the time and what it had begun to look like in the slope upwards once his policies began to take effect. >> can't you see how somebody took him at his word deserves to be a one-term proposition? >> no, i think he made clear in the whole interview and every interview at the time that what his primary obligation was as president was to stop this cataclysmic decline in the economy when he took office. he successfully did that working

with congress, set out -- put into place policies that led to 22 straight months of private sector job growth to ten straight quarters of economic growth rather than contraction. i don't think anybody who looks at that objectively could suggest that turn around has not happened or that we are finished with the job, and i think the president has made clear and will continue to make clear throughout the year why we need to continue to do the things we can and the right things to grow the economy and great jobs and certainly not go back to the policies that indisputably helped precipitate the situation that we found ourselves in in january of 2009 where the economy was in free fall. >> okay. >> yes? >> just going back to afghanistan, there's the -- clearly surprised at the number

of people, and why make the disclosure now? >> well, he was simply discussing the consultations he would be having shortly with nato defense ministers so i guess disclosure if you refer to it in that way, which i take issue with, was going to happen within hours anyway or a day because those discussions take place. all it was was a framing of the conversations that the defense ministers would have in brussels and would continue to take place up until may when the president hosts nato in chicago. >> okay. and just to clarify, does it mean u.s. troops are coming home faster or less exposed to harm than previously exposed to? >> just let me be clear as i answered in ben's question. it's an assessment of what could

happen within the context of the stated policy of nato which is to transfer security lead to the afghan security forces by 2014, and within that frame, within that time line, the transition will take place. it has already started in areaings afghanistan, and u.s. troops are already coming home as you know so obviously as time passes and defense ministers, heads of state, combat commanders make decisions about assessments about how much progress is made, what the conditions are like on the ground, adjustments made in terms of schedules and time lines, but that's what secretary pa panetta was referring to, and that conversation continues throughout the spring. >> a group is proposing legislation to halt the sequester in 2013 and pay for a federal pay freeze. what is the legislation there?

>> that's the legislation that is america, we didn't mean what we said because the whole idea of the sequester was to design it in a way so that nobody, democrats or republicans, wanted it to become fact. therefore, they would be compelled to make the tough choices that would please to the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction agreed to. that remains the case. the sequester is bad policy for a reason so that it doesn't get enacted, but those cuts have to take place. the cuts have to take place. congress is compelled to make them happen, and this president will obviously sign into law a balanced approach to making that deficit reduction happen, but it can't be that some members of congress promised to their constituents and america look at the budget control acts, holding our own feet to the fire, my fellow americans, and then decide, oh, we didn't mean it,

let's change that. that's not how it works or should work. .. one from the white house organizations, so why don't have lanning for you on that. >> speaker boehner said today

that he thought that the rule that hhs recently announced requiring all health insurance to provide contraceptive services he thought that rule, which as you know why asked the catholic church among other organizations is unconstitutional. and i'm wondering why -- without getting into the whole constitutional because neither you or i or attorneys -- why is the obama administration think it has the right to kill any organization that they have to provide a service, even if the service goes against their religious beliefs? >> well, let's be clear about what the decision does. first of all, on the constitutionality issue, no, we do not believe -- we obviously believe this is constitutional. but the point of the decision, which was made after careful

consideration, and we believe reaches the appropriate balance between religious beliefs and the need to provide -- make services available to women across the country. we want to make sure that women have access to good health care no matter where they work and that all women who want access to contraceptives are able to get them without paying a co-payment every time they go to the pharmacy and let's be clear we have done a lot in the and commentary about there's been this statements about what it actually does. no individual will be required to use contraception. this rule doesn't force anyone with a religious objections such as a catholic doctor to prescribe or provide contraception. requires insurance companies provide coverage for the contraceptives and the patient who wanted them. it's important to know doctors

prescribed culture sections for medical and health reasons for instance to reduce the risk of some cancers. it's also important to note, because i think this hasn't been clear in some of the commentary, that the policy maintains the religious employer exemption. churches are not required, they are exempt. other houses of worship are not required, they are exempt to cover contraception. so it's also important to note that as we developed this policy and found what we believe is the appropriate balance that 20 states -- more than half -- 28 states in the country have always with contraception coverage mandates. over half of americans already live in those 28 states. several of those states, like north carolina, new york and california have identical religious employer exemptions. some states like colorado, georgia and wisconsin have no

exemption at all for churches or other houses of worship. >> has president obama acknowledged in his comments the prayer breakfast this morning there of catholic charities and organizations that are not houses of worship and which obviously their beliefs are very strongly held. it's what they do for a living. they believe that -- >> the policy doesn't require any individual to take or provide or prescribe contraception. it's simply requires employers to offer insurance coverage that provides that. but the individuals

certainly see that there's disagreement about this. we consulted with a wide range of people in establishing this policy and finding the balance that was found. and we are certainly aware of some of the reporting out there but i think it's important to note that there hasn't been a lot of clarity to what the policy actually is and the exception that exists within it and what its requiring here. it isn't again requiring any individual to in any way violate his or her conscience and it isn't requiring anything but employers, organizations, big hospitals and universities for example to offer insurance coverage that includes this surface just like elsewhere. >> on the freezing topic the president this morning talked

about making policy decisions within the moral framework and i just wonder if this one follows that. did the president pray about it or talk it over with religious leaders? >> i haven't had the discussion about what is -- whether he himself prayed about it. i had a conversation with him and he did consult with some religious leaders about it and i think that when you talk about making decisions and the moral framework providing necessary medical services to the women across the country is also a decision that falls into that context and when you seek to find the appropriate balance which is what we saw to do you need to provide services to women and obviously the issue of religious belief and that's the balance we found that has been found by other states across the

country and other institutions have successfully dealt with in those states. as you know we want to continue to work with organizations for the next year as they develop how they are going to handle the policy the consideration wasn't done arbitrarily. it was done absolutely focused on the issues under consideration now. >> could you talk about the response the you'd gotten, have you heard from interest groups, what kind of response and also this morning were their religious leaders who wanted to talk to the president -- >> i didn't trouble with the president to the prayer breakfast or discuss that with him this morning so why don't know, but we have seen media reports, people expressing opinions on a variety of sides of this issue and i am sure some

folks believe its foreign policy one and people who disagree but i don't have anything specific for that. the president is hopeful that by mid 2013 american forces and others who transition from the combat role. >> the president made clear u.s. forces are in afghanistan to accomplish a mission and they will not stay in afghanistan forever and they will stay in afghanistan any longer than is necessary, and one of the things he made very clear he would do if he were elected president and had done since he came to office is clarify what our mission in afghanistan is. as you know because you were --

>> clarifying again with a deal. >> was made clear when the president of the patrol down is that there would be discussions about the transition and the pace of budget all done and the transfer and how it would unfold to the afghan security lead and obviously within the context of making a lawful transfer by the end of 2014, you can't make assessments two years out about how things will look every month along the way so those assessments are being made but it is absolutely the case that this president is committed to achieving our mission in afghanistan and then drawing down u.s. forces. there is no question about that. let's be clear the policy that he inherited is one that neglect in afghanistan because of the focus on the war in iraq and he made clear as a candidate he would change that and he made clear that he would tighten the focus on the real enemy which

was al qaeda. he has done that and he has made clear that it would commit resources and make tough decisions to ensure we were successfully pursuing the right objectives in afghanistan and he's done that. this is all part of that afghanistan policy. >> can you respond to the criticism specifically from mitt romney who said one in the world would you go and give people that you're fighting and tell them that date that you're pulling out troops? it makes absolutely no sense to reduce chemical i'm not going to address the specific criticisms from one person but there are some out there. the president has a very clear focus policy with a lot of muscle behind it. what he does not support is the war without end and i mean that in the temporal sense and in the objective sense like when will this -- how long will we be there and body and i think that there is some of the critics of

the president's focused strategy in afghanistan who said this when we talked about 2014 and are now saying it again today, supported the policy in afghanistan under the previous administration that no to people involved could explain. why were we their? why were the number of forces that we had there why would that number have been chosen as opposed to fewer or more? it was entirely unclear and i know you didn't know that because it wasn't clear. this president has been focused on what the mission is and achieving it. >> general petraeus said this morning secretary leon panetta's comments had been over analyzed. would you share that view? >> it's up to you and others to analyze a. some accuse the director of the cia. >> no, i mean, i don't know whether -- is it over, under analyzed? this is an important issue and it's always worth paying attention to and it's far better than some of the issues that

consume us in washington. the secretary of defense made some comments about a very important policy implemented and is perfect to discuss. but i would say as i have said and answered them and the context of the policy of transferring the security to the afghans 2014 held that the transition takes place is what secretary panetta will be discussing at the defense ministers and that conversation will continue right through may when president obama hosts his fellow heads of state in chicago and may. >> the unemployment would likely give up my% by the election and also since the deficit began will be over a trillion dollars this year making president obama the only president.

meet part in the trillion dollar deficit inherited as the predecessor. he came into question with of the worst recession since the great depression. catastrophic decline in economic growth and deployment and took measures to reverse that catastrophic situation. i don't have the graph now but i saw an interesting graf lately about what policies contributed to the deficit that we have now come and i think it's worth reading. maybe we will find it because there is no question to the expense of unpaid worse and expansions of entitlements and other programs that were on before that happened prior to the president coming into office our contributors to the deficit is also true because of the catastrophic economy in early 2009 that he took measures.

turning this economy around there is no question the economy does turn them around dramatically and it's now been climbing out of the whole lot was done for the ten straight quarters. the work is not done. but it's important to remember that the deficit we are dealing with now and we have to address seriously and in a balanced way or contributed to mightily by the policies of the previous decade and it's important to remember in january, 2001 after president clinton lef office there were budget surpluses for the first time in a generation and the cbo and others forecasted the objectives for as far as the eye could see.

i haven't seen the new sanctions but we will get the men have a position. is because the administration lowered some of the actions on the sanctions that have taken that to serve the prerogative of foreign policy? >> no, and we have made clear what our position is with regard for a simple one to the sanctions that were part of the nba and the central bank of iran and making sure that we implement the sanctions that were designed with the goal in mind that we have simply share which is further pressuring and isolating the regime in order to get it to comply with its international obligations. we want to make sure that the implementation of the sanctions is handled in a way that does

not inadvertently do any harm to our allies or the oil markets and we believe there's a way to implement them appropriately. it achieves the goal the sanctions have to isolate and pressure iran. estimate of contraceptives, speaker boehner also called on the administration to reconsider this world. is there an ongoing debate about potentially reviewing this again even though there was the extensive review going into this decision? >> i think it's important to point you made at the end of your question is the point i was going to begin with is that there was extensive consideration as this policy was developed and the decision was made. the issue here is we want to make sure that when income all women, have access to good health care, and the fact is on

average american women use contraception for 40 years of her life, with the average cost of contraception of $50 per month. so this is both an issue of health as well as economics for women across the country. and so, in seeking to find the appropriate balance but we believe we found, it was very important to take into consideration the need to make sure that all women have access to good heah care. and that's what we've done here. so no the date about whether or not this should be reconsidered? >> no, there's not a debate. i think as we noted initially and i said again earlier, we want to work with organizations for the next year to help them deal with the implementation of the policy, but the decision has been made and was made after careful consideration. >> you're quite aware that last sunday in a number of catholic churches across the country, priests got up and read letters of protest, if you will. any concern at all that this kind of pushed back to grow to sort of a wider extent among the

catholic church and with the political implications of this could be? >> this policy was decided upon based on the merits, based on a balanced consideration of the need to find a balance between religious beliefs come on the one hand, and the need for broad access to important health care on the other for women across the country. this was not a decision about politics. and we obviously know of and have seen the reports that you mentioned. i think it's important also noted that there are a lot of folks out there who support this policy for the very reasons that the of put it forward, which is that it provides an important preventive service for women across the country, and it is not in any way in violation of the conscious walls. it's not in any way -- does not in any way require any individual to provide were prescribed contraception.

and it exempts -- unlike some sycophant kleeb sized states in this country, it exempts houses of worship and churches from having to abide by the policy. so, that's the balance that we sought and we think we found it. >> and one quick thing on the economy, does the president had his own graf if you will where he wants to see unemployment by november? >> well, he's not an economist, and he leaves predictions about what those numbers will look like to the economists. he is focused on doing what he can through legislative work with congress and true executive initiatives to move this economy forward, to keep it growing, to keep the recovery moving forward, making sure that it's creating jobs. we've made some progress and it is -- again, i think as we step back and look at this, as folks will be doing this year, as the

context of what has happened since president obama has been in office, and i did you will see, again, as that chart i keep describing shows, a pretty dramatic change from the situation that this economy was in when the president took office and the situation and the direction of the economy after his policies began to take effect. he wants to keep that graf moving in the direction it's been moving now for ten months, ten quarters and 22 months. yes. >> history and the president announced his housing policy, he made reference to that it's not the humane thing to do just to let the market hit bottom, and was widely seen as a contrast to mitt romney who said just a couple of months ago that you have to let it hit bottom. when the president was talking to the prayer breakfast today about the poor and shared responsibility, was there any attempt there to show a contrast to what mitt romney had to say

yesterday about the poor? >> i think if there is any more appropriate place than a prayer breakfast with people of faith to talk about the need to care for the least among us i can't think of it. it is certainly a central tenet of the president's face and i believe a central tenet of the faith of everyone in the prayer breakfast that we, individually and as a nation and as the world, need to take care of those who need the most common need help the most, and i think that was the context in which the president was speaking this morning. >> she went on to say that he would be willing to give up tax breaks since his wealthy and it makes economic sense, but then he also said for me as a christian it also coincides with jesus' teaching. why did he think it was appropriate in that case to talk about something that is sort of the central tenet now of his campaign about the share responsibility? >> i think if you can't discuss in a prayer breakfast one of the central tenets of your faith, which is prevalent throughout the new testament, i think that you are really circumscribing

yourself too much. i mean, that is just -- he was explaining how his faith guides him and how his fate guides the decisions he makes as a leader, and i think that's entirely appropriate in a situation like that. he was not trying to engage in campaigning, he was simply talking about fifa and how it affects the decisions he makes. >> one last thing on that. since it was inappropriate for him to do that, did he give consideration to talking about this issue when we were talking about here of catholics being upset about the hhs decision? since you had fief leaders there and it's not just catholics have spoken of but mormons and others that said they have a problem with this, was their consideration to using that form to kind of explain the decision and why he does believe it fits into his moral -- >> i confess i was not involved in working on the remarks. i mean, i think we pretty openly discussed the decision making

process and the considerations that were taken. he might if he's asked about it. i think i would just point you to the remarks he made at the prayer breakfast. >> one of the things the critics are jumping on about the policies that he claimed that once you cut contraceptive it would also include the morning after drug and opens the door to abortion conference calls of officials on this administration say on background that that is not true but i want to give you a chance on the record here this being used to say this opens the door in abortion. can you close that door -- >> i would cite the experts in both the policy and medical experts and say yes i would point you to the fact. i understanding get used and misrepresented but that isn't the case. and again this is about providing american women, women across the country with access to good health care and to

prevent of services that the institute of medicine, a non-political organization believes are necessary. this? >> the president cited some of the legislation, major pieces of legislation he has pursued. financial institutions playing by the rules and injuring those going under and scurvy was lenders in addition because such to the economy he believes in love thy neighbor as yourself. does that refer to the controversial policy somehow fall outside of the tradition? >> he's talking about what guides him in making the decisions as i just explained to ed. within the context of a face a gathering, a prayer breakfast. so it was appropriate. i think some of his critics out there suggest that he doesn't talk about his fate often enough or often enough and in this context he did because it was appropriate at the national

prayer breakfast. and he is influenced and informed by his faith. spearman wouldn't you allow that spiritual feeling of compassion towards one's fellow man can be interpreted in different ways? >> of course. >> when he quoted proffer as we speak of those who cannot speak for themselves and for all of those who are destitute falling on ed's question is that a direct reference was somehow an allusion to what mitt romney said dever de? >> that would suggest that every conversation that was held in any house of worship in the last week that contained within that one of the central tenets of the new testament about helping the least among us would have a political context. i'm saying if this president was explaining how his fave guides him. it was not political event. >> and finally, just -- as a matter of -- the administration policy on afghanistan, you said the combat wheat should shift to the afghan security forces by the end of 2014 which leaves open the possibility there will be nato and u.s. forces in the

combat role for how long? >> well, potentially until that time when for security lead is the phrase we use here until the transfer takes place which as designated by nato and lisbon will be accomplished by the end of 2014. but -- the context of this conversation was the -- were the remarks secretary leon panetta made the lead of the possibility that they could be earlier. the policy is by the end of 2014. >> in the combat participation by the u.s. forces are white? >> i think it's important iraq is a helpful reference point. the transfer of the security lead doesn't mean the full removal of the forces and we have been clear about that necessarily and the disposition of the u.s. nato forces beyond 2014 will be if the forces might stay part of that would be a to the afghan government and whether or not they invite forces to stay. as is the case in iraq.

and obviously, and i remember him trying to clarify this in the context of iraq when we ended our combat mission in iraqi forces took security needs, the u.s. forces that were still there, the many that were still there were highly trained, skilled forces, combat forces who could and did when necessary participate in the combat missions. but the lead is a designation that's important here in terms of how much presence you have and how much engagement you have in combat. >> what is the view of the status of the investigation into the fast and furious gun walking case? the administration's investigation of it in the justice department, and what is your response to the growing republican calls for eric holder to resign?

>> i think the politicization of this or the politics is pretty apparent. the attorney general's been the last five hours testifying in front of congress. i would refer you to the department of justice for any questions regarding the testimony but broadly speaking by the incremental activity among the southwest border including the illegal trafficking of gunster mexico remains a prayer the of the administration. the general has made clear he takes the obligations that have been raised and that is why he asked the inspector general to inspect the matter. it's also why use of the department cooperating with the congressional investigators including producing thousands of pages of documents and the attorney general making his sixth appearance on the hill to discuss this. so any suggestion that we haven't been cooperative with congress after six appearances testifying i think doesn't comport with the facts.

>> the call for him to resign or does the president stand by him? >> he stands by the attorney general since he's doing an excellent job. >> with 20 million-dollar bride so perhaps -- the psychiatry said they all went in together and will all go out together. so i'm wondering the the president-elect to those in afghanistan or is that part of the -- >> i'm not going to get into the conversations between the president and the secretary defense. i think he was making a broad statement about the fact that we work very closely with our nato allies in afghanistan >> is it correct though to say that reading between the lines what he's talking about is bringing france back into the fold when they shouldn't -- >> i will leave the interpretation up to you. >> i just wanted to follow-up on

two units than president announced during the state of the union address and see if you have any more details on the treen present unit or what agency the would fall under since it would be specifically focused towards china. and then also, i have to read this one, the residential mortgage backed securities working group and how that may be working in all i met with or separately from the attorneys general focusing on the multiple. >> i'm going to attempt to get this right on the unit's one dealing with mortgage backed securities they are working with the state attorneys general on the idea of creating this unit was to combine the focused resources in the investigation of these matters that has to do with the servicing i hope i get this right on the mortgages.

the trade enforcement task force was as we described as the president mentioned china is part of its one of the issues that we have in our relations with china is in the fair trade practices. but not china as i understand to be an estimate does this fal under the agency as they were asking about the failed attempt on the union and it wasn't clear at that point. >> i will probably have to get back to you on that. i don't want to give you the wrong answer. thanks. >> so what you're saying is that there was nothing in artful or off message said by the secretary of defense when he was in europe? >> he is an artful man. it wasn't -- again, he was simply discussing the consultations he was about to have with his fellow defense ministers coming and talking about what could be the case, depending on conditions on the ground in afghanistan and the discussions with our partners and allies and isf and nato.

so that's really -- to the extent that general petraeus -- i think that's what general petraeus was probably referring to when he talks about them being overblown. again, this was -- >> over analyzed. >> -- over analyzed. there's i think not as much there as some people seem to think. >> can i follow on that? >> let him finish then i will get to you. >> and then when it comes to the hhs birth control decision -- so hospitals, schools and universities, all of these -- their status is changed because of this decision. does that somehow limit their freedom of expression -- employers who were designated as such but have religious affiliation? >> well, first of all, again, and as i pointed out, there are -- there's different treatment of this already in different states and some states, the three are named that have no exemption whatsoever, so this

will change for those states in terms of the churches and houses of worship. what we are talking here is about employers and employees cannot about institutions and employees, and not -- we are not asking individuals, it does not in any way require individuals to provide or prescribe contraceptives in contravention to their beliefs. it simply requires that insurance companies provide the coverage to women who work for those institutions and, again, women of all faiths. so, that is the balance that we sought. i hope that answers your question. >> did the president seek endorsement of donald trump? [laughter] >> i'm not going to come over that question. [laughter] good, right? [laughter] there's a danger in speaking off

the cuff. [laughter] but no, i think -- >> or off the top of your head. [laughter] spec i need you appear. islamic don't just brush this off. [laughter] >> you guys are pretty good. look, the only comment i will have on that, beyond the one i just made, is the -- i think the president gave his views about mr. trump at the dinner that many of you attended last spring. [laughter] -- thank you. >> he said secretary panetta sort of suggested something the would be possible, but in fact what he said is that this is actually the goal of the united states by mid 2013 to late 2015 to and the combat role so that is what was new about this. so is that u.s. policy, the goal to end combat bogden? >> keefer come i appreciate a question. now were goal is to execute the mission, disrupt the dismantle ultimately defeated al qaeda,

give the afghan government the briefing room to help build up the elfgin security forces city can take security lead in the country. the policy, not just the administration and the united states but nato is for that transfer to full of insecurity to take place by the end of 2014 that is a policy decision made that in lisbon and what has been clear ever since and which would the president made clear in his speech in june is we will be evaluating the transition and how it takes place, the sloth and pace of a drawdown of the forces and the transfer of territory to the afghan security forces along the way. so it is certainly our goal. we -- leges unlike some folks, the president does not believe that u.s. troops should stay in afghanistan for the sake of staying. they should stay there to fulfill their mission and then he will bring them home and so i

think within the context of the transfer by the end of 2014 it is certainly possible and if possible therefore desirable to have that transition take place earlier. but it is not an announcement of a new policy. >> yes, leslie. last one. >> you mentioned on the president's criticism that he doesn't talk face very much and very often so why would he -- he did go into it quite a bit today. >> i think he has at the national prayer breakfast, and i think that's why was saying, is this is an environment where he has in the past and certainly felt comfortable talking about it today to write and not just -- i've seen some of that criticism from some folks about him discussing his face. but i think this is inappropriate environment come in national prayer breakfast, a gathering of men and women of faith. and so he felt very comfortable discussing his faith influence is his world view and the decisions that he makes.

>> did he have any political considerations? >> no, he did not. thanks very much. >> now house minority leader nancy pelosi talks about the decision of susan b. komen for planned parenthood. the house minority leader spoke reporters today about the democratic house agenda as the house and senate conflict committee meets to work out details of the payroll tax cut extension and unemployment benefits. the deadline for the deal on the payroll tax cut is the view or a 29th. >> good afternoon everyone. the clock is ticking on the

legislation for the payroll tax cut. we've made it clear our top priority is to give a tax cut to the 160 million americans to extend unemployment benefits to those americans that have lost their jobs and no fault of their own and to make sure that our seniors have access to the doctor under medicare. we've said they shouldn't be paid for. the tax cuts should be 160 million americans shouldn't be paid for. we didn't pay for the tax cuts of the wealthiest in america. i don't know why we have to pay them to the middle class. unemployment benefits have not traditionally been paid for, but if they want to pay for them we can start with a fair charge of the wealthiest in our country. we can look to the overseas contingency account to cover some of the costs. if they don't like that, like to see what the republicans have to offer.

but we are not going to give the middle class the one hand of the tax cut unemployment benefits and take them having to cover the cost. it's not fair to them but also to undermine the stimulus to the effect of that money being injected into the economy for creating demand and jobs. hopefully this can happen soon. we believe it has to happen by february 6 excuse me, the 17th to be ready for the deadline at the end of the month, meaning it was a congressional budget office requirement. and that is what our motion to instruct the conferees said last week and that is an overwhelming bipartisan votes. also this is about the stock act. the president mentioned the state of the union gave it a boost so when we came back, the first thing we did was and co-sponsors to an already large list. we had to under 71 co-sponsors

of which 92 are republican. and then yesterday, when we went to the floor we had members sign a discharge position right away and we have over 100 members who signed it and two of those are republicans. so it is supported as you know by the common cause, democracy, public citizen, a u.s. citizens for the responsibility and ethics in government and american people. so we are very excited to the leader would be taking up the bill by the end of the day. we can to get over here and have enough names on the discharge petition if it isn't too 18 but a persuasive number of co-sponsors as to 71 bipartisan. we have handed out an auto industry report and democratic

action taken to the auto industry. we are very proud of this. at the time as you know or maybe you don't know coming years ago in december we passed legislation the was designed not as the life support for the auto industry but as a lifeline to them establishing standards enabling resources extended to them to bring the although industry back the proposal later because the bill didn't pass the senate. history just yesterday we learned the news that chrysler reported its first annual process since 1997 and we're pleased that general motors is now once again the top automaker in the world. we are proud to have brought the automaker back not only the auto makers themselves but all that goes into that in terms of their

suppliers. we've made an investment that's paid off with nearly 1.5 million american jobs. it's a part of the meek in america reignite the american dream success and i want to salute the president for his courage in doing what he did by the executive action because as you may recall, it wasn't popular at the time. and people criticized the action but nonetheless it had paid off the and it is a job creator. i want to close once again my talking but the reforms and give them some trouble in the country, and the response continues to be overwhelming, to be ideal. that our legacy, those of us in public service must leave as one of the new politics free of special-interest money. we want to be sure that the american people have all of the knowledge they need to make a trace in an election, and that means we should disclose who

weeks of these big right now secret who knows where the money comes from contributions, sigrid unlimited contributions through campaigns. we try to disclose and will be talking more about that next week under the leadership of chris van hollen to read next we want to reform the system. i get a rousing applause when i say we want to reform the system and by doing so we will elect many more women to congress and public office because the women will no longer be deterred by the concern about raising money were being drowned by the opposition in the money they used in campaigns so it is in the women its minorities and its unleashing many more resources that will make our political system, our government will system more wholesome and then all to dhaka how we might amend

the constitution to overturn a if a decision that was very harmful to our democracy that said special-interest to make their mark. and they couple this with a flood of money and suppression of the vote. so what we're talking about is how we offset the flood of money by the power of the people's votes and their voices and that means we've to go out there and fight and about 36 states where half of them defense successful already in instituting barriers to the voter participation. we want to speak out against them but we want to make sure that everyone is eligible to vote those votes and that the vote is counted. soil to whimp chris van hollen for his work and on the

amendment parts and also in closing getting back to the stock act to come and louise slaughter and congressman tim all for their leadership and expediting all of this, so hopefully our own majority here will realize this is an important bill that should be taken up now. with that i would be pleased to take any questions that you may have. >> [inaudible] speed clich beavers that i don't agree to the stipulation that some of the stories. then you've been some inferences to be drawn from the stories but mr. hall year and i always had a partnership. we were not just a team we were a partnership.

people have fun interpreting one thing or another, the kind of story they would walk into a room or this or that. why it's interesting to me is that we need jobs legislation and we don't need anything to stand in the way of that job creation. >> [inaudible] the most powerful -- >> the normal the why we're here all the time. >> thank you for the question. in answer to eight that is the way that you phrase it.

i feel very sad. i feel very sad about it. i knew susan komen to be very professionally run, and for a good purpose. i think the collaboration with planned parenthood but what ever the connection was is one that benefited women's health and i feel sad that this decision on their part is to the detriment of women's health, but obviously women are responding and planned parenthood is getting a tremendous show of support for people out there. the basic premise is they can't be associated with anybody being investigated. will be interesting to see who else they are associated with and who they are investigated to and the would-e down the line. so if that is the standard, then

i think if to be consistent. but i know them to be an organization much admired, very professional and caring about women and i find this to be unfortunate but i don't attribute any motivation. i just don't know why they would do such a thing. >> the doc fix back in 1997 [inaudible] >> the would be the republican majority in the ways and means committee to decide with chairman thomas. if [inaudible]

>> well, the cbo did take into consideration the overseas contingencies account the budget. i would refer you to that. should the american concern about the process here? i think the american people first and foremost should be concerned about the budget priorities that we debate. we believe it should be a statement of our national values, what we believe as a country should be reflected in how we allocate our resources and how we are fiscally responsible for the future generations. i think this should be concerned about getting tax cuts to the wealthy people in our country

without paying for them or just giving them, period because they are not job creation that brings revenue in. so i think the main concern is about what are the resources that we are calling upon, how are they being allocated, how would they grow the economy, how to the educate our children, how do they keep america number one and at the same time how were they fiscally sound? that was more the concern that you can't have it counting one day and not counting another. >> [inaudible] >> i think it can be as justified as it was in the polling and budget. and may i just say that harkening back to the basic premise, i didn't hear a lot of tolerance on the part of the budget talks out there when the chairman thomas and the chairman of the ways and means committee decided on this gimmickry that outdoes any other sleight of

hand that you might reference. yes? >> but legislation issued regulations would require all including those [inaudible] >> is this a speech or do we have a question disguised -- >> when you stand in resisting this law? >> first of all i'm going to stick with my fellow catholics in supporting the administration on this. i think it is a very courageous decision they made and i support it. yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] well i think the

decision, i don't know if it is a decision, but the timetable that secretary leon panetta has put forth is consistent with what the president has said all along. that we would by and large have our combat troops out of or changed of mission in afghanistan by 2014, and this is the logical thing that you could do on that path. so i fully support what secretary leon panetta has put forth but it is consistent with the policy that has been put forth which is we will reduce our involvement by 2014. in addition to the president promised and said about iraq and now we are out. >> [inaudible]

>> is it okay with me? no -- >> [inaudible] >> now you are really talking. a commitment was made an agreement was reached and i think it's wrong for them to say we are not going to honor the commitment, and we're certainly not going to honor it on one side. how do they expect to make up for the reduction that is gained? we had an opportunity to do something big. the super committee had the opportunity to do something at least $4 trillion or more. it could have started with the spirit of america to grow our economy promoting small businesses and the rest and then have a revenue side and an

investment cited that reinforced that. it would certainly have involved some difficult cuts on the one hand and need to pull revenue in on the other side. they understood what the consequences for. they agreed to the consequences and felt they could walk away from all of the deficit reduction than was possible in that and now say forget about deficit-reduction altogether. when it comes to the defense budget -- an agreement was reached that must be honored. >> i think that we made an agreement we have to proceed with it. i don't like it. i would have hoped it would have been a motivator for the republicans to understand you cannot have the serious deficit reduction that we need to have less you do not have tax cuts for the rich but haven't produced anything but a deeper

deficit for us and that there are certain tax subsidies liked for big oil etc. that we could have done away with to reduce the deficit in a very big way which would have enabled us to make all kinds of compromises because everybody was part of making sacrifice. instead we had this kick the can down the road. no. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> at this point -- >> i think we should take ownership for the fact the unemployment rate would be 15% without the actions that we took to create jobs. president obama did inherit ns

of a magnitude and seen since the time of the great depression and we would have been close to the depression had he not won the election and taken the actions he and the democratic congress did. remember a meltdown of our financial the institutions of the global magnitude and the taxpayer with no commensurate population in terms of lending to grow the economy. this happened and had accompanying it a loss of revenue into the treasury because of the impact on the economy, that tax cuts to the wealthiest and in the giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that was hundreds of billions of dollars, and you had the unpaid war. a deepening of the debt. buried deep deficits from the millstone of the financial

crisis and policies that didn't occur in the economies of the president inherited that. he was a job creator, president obama was a job creator, and i've probably said this to you before but just in case i think it bares repeating a job creator from day one and his inaugural address because this will hold action now. one week and one day after his speech, house of representatives passed the economic recovery act which even cbo said saved or created over 50 million jobs, and again, we talked about the auto industry and how their reactions of their. and you will recall the effective nonetheless cash for clunkers and this sheds light added to it and measures to make sure that this does not happen again with the wall street reform which also gave

protection to consumers in the history of the country, so we fully employ those parts of what we did in order to reduce and mitigate the damage the was caused under the bush administration and the republican policy been a very, very deep hole and that is what we have to come out of. it's not cyclical, it's systemic and its structural colquitt jury boonen inlet flucas sign who really important for us to have more job creation but as you know once we didn't of the 16th vote in the senate bill was hard to do even with the democratic majority in the house and republicans are already in the house, you know job agenda and they are one year into the majority. so, i'm really pleased the president is taking this message to the american people. it's not about finding blame, but yo