the federal government must develop comprehensive safeguards for aviation's use of it. the stakes are too high for the passengers and shippers that rely on air transportation, the communities and businesses that depend on air service and airlines and their employees to leave to chance our continued ability to utilize gps to the greatest advantage. ..

and includes aqua block level officials from the department of homeland security, state interior aquaculture and commerce. the federal communications commission chairman participate in the pnt as a liaison. the ftc should be required to consult with the pnt before taking action to operate terrestrial base network that may affect the spectrum, which is the gps use. on the international governor positions expressed the international common as for spectrum issues are considered such as the world radio communications conference currently being held in geneva must reflect important than protecting gps throughout the world. we appreciate the subcommittee's interest in this issue and are prepared to reshoot anyway we can and i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman. president and ceo of the

aircraft association that there was a pleasure to be before the committee. i'm going to start the statement i don't always get to make and that is that we are not so full agreement with the obama administration on the question before you today. the deputy secretary and treasury goes right to the point. every point that was made there. indeed, the other members of the administration and agencies have the guys and only one somewhat reluctant regulator out there is not to have the message that perhaps today's hearing will help although i know that is a topic for today. a state mascot for the record makes many of the points that have been made. i just a couple comments with a different perspective. we aussie gps is extremely important that we certainly believe that. in a way, gps is pretty simple. i took off yesterday from

frederick maryland in the aircraft backing the fort was born. a small box or seek multiple signals from gps trans vendors and date. all that boxed did initially was identify precisely where it was. the genius of gps is what it enabled. the fact that gps has been around and can determine precisely where some ynez doesn't mean that this somehow that exciting because the excitement in gps is that it enables. the fact the boxes i traveled cat determining exactly where it was now have two points. the box calculated my heading. the box calculated that there's towers on hills or frederick maryland that i was with 500 feet of. if i had an emergency of some

kind the box would tell me where the nearest airport was, how long it would take me to get there. simply because you could receive the small signal from base. i guess i would submit. i guess i would submit. i guess i would submit dodgy for greater benefit, we've just begun to tap this genius of gps and what it kanebo. it is absolutely the center of nexgen technology e. we have 5200 public air force in this country. we couldn't possibly afford to put instrument landing system and all those airports of equipment on the ground. everyone can have a precision approach to every one way on the field with the gps capability. enables merchants to you, helicopters to go precisely to the scene of the crime, not in

climate it needs to be rescued in a exactly what the closest friend in a daze. all these are enabled by the gps. i guess from where we say, my 400,000 members who fly general aviation airplanes hit the is absolutely initial. by the way, you've heard from to their respective members in the industry who fly large airplanes. i'll be a task he has the same gps capability. you know, when we talk about this issue before, there's nothing wrong with the government agency looking forward to seeing an opportunity and letting it be explored. indeed the food and drug administration does that all the time with miracle cures of medicine, but sometimes they don't work and i think with the agencies federal government to set we embrace the concept that was being considered but the

approach simply doesn't work and it puts at risk of the gps enables, which is not only what you experience for the last 20 years, but the promise, so we very much appreciate the community's interest and certainly embrace the statement by the administration and strongly urged that the federal communications commission recently occurs that keeps the cloud over us on this import topic until further research can be done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. i'm john foley, a 9200 people at carmen are devoted to designing and building gps devices. for minutes of users worldwide

improving our lives and safety come in the gps industry in this country one accounts for 137,000 direct jobs. most likely governments only technology is now focused on the structure. that did not happen overnight. it has taken two decades of hard work from a technology to a reliable force for safety and the coming at unbelievably what we have built together now threatened. today virtually all types utilize gps for navigation. lots of traction the gps viability will pose significant danger to aviation. for areas are particularly worrisome for loss of gps on approach for safety increase pilot worker and critical failure and loss of gps would deny coverage of hundreds of air force making ground-based navigation. without gps, the terrain awareness would not work.

lots of gps means a lot of situational awareness for cockpit display in weather information including on the ground are found friendly encouragement. last but not least, reliable gps is essential for the faa's nextgen. we can not do last year for words. korea first, test later. korea first, test later is the process of public decision making on its head at this approach puts a severe burden on a front time, attention and resources become a burden that should have been placed on the fcc. everyone concerned about gps reliability had to devote ex-nun must bring in millions of dollars in testing the constantly changing proposals. the test revealed extensive impairment. anyone aware of the tremendous difference between gps and a

high-power tourist rail network could have predicted this result. yet despite all of this, another round of expected government occurred last fall. it then included in the ntia that various plan for a high-power terrestrial broadband network would cause harmful interference to many gps receivers. the letter noted a separate analysis similarly concluded that such proposals are not compatible with gps to pay aircraft safety and no practical solution it is of any significant interference to gps. no further testing is necessary. garmin has met tom and me to be troubling. why did the fcc have a far-reaching decision but that cannot in its own testers any time to evaluate garmin's past. should an applicant have to demonstrate american readiness? by what objections from the department of transportation be

ignored? we hope you are asking the same questions, too. where do we go now? we believe the pnt has the right structure, rates stakeholders and putting a liaison role to the sec on paper should be a second. however, coordination mess he improved. the fcc much sign off on proposals before a potentially interferes and customers have come to expect. going forward, the pnt believes creation of opposed something akin to a national chief eps up a third help ensure the coordination. we think such an officer's alternative would come from department of defense, transportation. in a recent letter to ntia, excom proposed a draft that new teacher bs. in response to simply note them in the last year, our government seem not aware of that and only

certified aviation gps. the faa in department of defense standards party address concerns. any analysis in the future should recognize that were. in short, garmin is had business greatly business greatly business greatly for dollars, thousands of personnel that of dollars, thousands of personnel that could have been better spent improving gps products. if anything, businesses and consumers in the nation, this year has invested as a trial run. we've learned a lot. the thread is still damning nature continued vigilance to. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you,. dr. pays. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you've heard, gps has global utility that's incredibly important on most of our nations infrastructure. what i would like to do is provide a little historical or policy perspective to some of these issues were threats to gps or not new.

there have been and continue to be many policy legal risks for gps to funding constraints the transition to modernize signals, trade barriers and domestic regulations. dear sir however are not gps itself, that such an environment in which he depends, the foundation upon which these applications design. every type of threat from dan sharon, segmentation can understand emissions, reallocation of adjacent van had been attempted over the past 15 years. to date, all such deaths have been removed or medicated to government industry cooperation and bipartisan support for multiple congress and administration to protect the gps operations. four presidents, two republicans, two democratic and policy stations regarding gps, and the statements recognize the dual use nature is more than a military system. crucial to a broad range of u.s. interests. in the early congress has passed

the first those related to protection of gps and statues found under titles armed services in title 51, national and commercial space programs. regulatory process for rulemaking in a procedure sigh. i would say the united states has official policy on the books to protect gps people have been missing is the willingness to enforce laws and seizures in all of the basic academy. given high stakes involved in presenting this to gps's attempt into look for a special policy for the prevent problems from the right thing. the independent regulatory commission does not report to the president and a special policy will require congressional action in a very complex area. receiver standards have been mentioned as a possible lifeline higher power admission to enhance gps omission and predicting regulatory environments for new admissions. i do not believe this would be useful approach for focusing on

defining gps spectrum protection criteria, a subtle difference is an important one. creation of government driven design standards outside of those necessary for national security and public safety, cycle innovation can receiver standards in a subtle way to sacrifice up users and applications and rapidly evolving market. on the other hand, transparent possessions for the spectrum environment can provide better predictability for new entrants will not constraining gps application. finally, the commission to areas not related to spectrum. today's fiscal environment may be tempting to slow gps or satellites or hope to rely on foreign distance to fill the gaps. this is a very dangerous idea given our reliance on the lack of demonstrate reliability with foreign assistance. a second iscariot be distractions to users as amendments and an of modernization. there is a need to explicitly confirm change to gps are

backwards compatible with the installed base is not the transition plan developed for needs to be a transition plan developed with relevant stakeholders in government industry and even nongovernment organizations such as advisory committee and scientific societies. we precious resource that needs to be protected. finally, the specter may pretty much gps presides to be reserved as gps modernization proceed, u.s. government should ensure that it offers no distractions as new gps capabilities, mind including aviation community it is not an overstatement to say eternal vigilance is in fact the price of safety. i thank you for your time and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i thank you and the entire panel for your contribution. craig bullard talk about the simple technology that sends out

anymore permutations. i think a night on area would have a manufacturer that has gps. you push a button that will stay perfectly still without an anchor in the ocean. and of course john deere and these people know and do apply fertilizers to fields based on the care restates and not spot on the field and it increases as a huge return for additional investment. there is more to end this is only the beginning of how we can redefine the application technology of more changes in circumstances on practically a six-inch by six-inch place across their country. you heard the testimony of the previous panel and i really wonder if mr. foley and mr. pace

would care to comment on it. you have it in your remarks, but we found ourselves in a rather peculiar situation and i'm sure you're good meaning people have seen the business opportunity to send aliens of dollars to help achieve a national object is, which is a good one of making broadband work and high speed to brad pitt and across the country. and yet, we have elaborated for a number of years, they need to be well known and the price of that spec term reflected that to some extent. and yet then, that spectrum was acquired in the previous purpose was broadened at the level at

the fcc, evidently needing people to think that to do some pain. it has been a rule and a lot of people who have invested in office technology. so is this a staff failure? or people leaving someone down the criminals path? i mean, we need a clear offense this year to explain to people? at the atlanta price perspective some knowledge at the investor level and to what was going on, but was it in the failure of the technical advisers that these investors? i guess it is speculation, but may be looking forward, helping avoid this wasted resources in the future for resting the situation we find ourselves in. do either of you have any ideas? >> thank you.

i think the main thing that we've all highlighted on not is that we need to make sure we protect what we have. looking kind of backward, i think at least from my days as a gps manufacturer, they are standards that have been in place for quite some time. back to 1996 i believe. so is a bit of a surprise for us to see that witnessed new proposed system came up, it was putting out signals far in excess of the receiver or interference protection. so any future plans we would want to build on those and i think that is what the pmt has had an dod has said. even more as i said in my testimony, improve and to bnt to make sure all stakeholders and

new policy stakeholders decisions have made. >> mr. chairman, looking back, the fundamental air was not in really applying the intent or pass practices at the administrative procedures act. proposed rulemaking involved reallocation. argument was made this is not a reallocation from satellite services to a broad and too mobile staircase. this is the relaxation of maybe some outtake constraints and waivers to be applied and maybe some new efficiencies could be found. i think in retrospect i have. it was a reallocation that proposed rulemaking should have been done. a notice of rulemaking would've been generated the technical data necessary to understand what was involved and that would've fairly quickly seen this is a nonstarter. when this originally started

back in 2003, the idea of an ancillary threshold component to satellite service was considered a kind of fill in, a catholic on a relatively low power no one was talking about 40,000 high-powered cell powers blanketing the country. no one talked about as terrestrial service. the fcc is very clear over the years that they would not allow a separate stand-alone service. it had to always be tied to the satellite service and no interference. these terrestrial broadband services with an improved mobile satellite services in the old band. so, i think that the position of people at the time is to try to find some way to make these ancillary systems work in good faith technical efforts. there was no technical data offered mnp book wretchedly

gotten into something else, a reallocation and they did not do a notice of proposed rulemaking and i think people were surprised when they found out that when i actually got the data, it was a much different situation than what they had intended. so, i don't know what to say, how do you prevent people from making that decision? i don't know if that's really possible. i think where rules and procedures that if were followed would protect us. >> any other comments? >> mr. chairman, one of the reasons for my enthusiasm about the clarity of the obama administration statement today if that it should send a very clear signal to any agency, even an independent agency. we really don't have to speculate. there is no one, no one who has done the work, the hardware. plenty of people have issued press releases, funniest people issue the cases, the no one has

done the hard work at testing and coming to any other conclusion that the software. so i would hope that the administration knew had to quit the testimony today at the executive branch, office of the president, i would hope the administration would provide an equally clear message in an independent agency to say if you have some special knowledge, that none of us have been able to uncover, bring it forward. bring it to the congress. but so far, we've had trust issues, but we have had not nearly the experts and technical experts we need to have. i think the process that funds the testimony today is sound and solid and represent the best administration of the project should not go forward as proposed. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you for the great testimony. there's so much information you've just given us. i really appreciate it. one of the things you said, mr. fuller. i want to make sure the committee understands it. with a gps system, they are said to be no terrestrial navigational system added eric porter. so you could be flying. if you have an emergency just as you alluded to, you can create a approach to go into an airport, to fly and bush wouldn't have any other navigational license to it. if you could expand upon not come it would be very helpful. talk about them in a month issue could bring the aircraft down to if you need it to. >> you're getting into dangerous ground because i could talk about flying all afternoon. the interesting thing and they will speak for themselves, but i think this is a topic on which we are in absolute agreement throughout the aviation

community. the general aviation community is equipped with gps, avionics for years. the commercial aircraft industry has been equipped with this technology for years and is equipped the more with the prospect been nextgen technology being utilized. although this gives us the ability, whether in a two seater sub three were flying a commercial airline, that we have the technology to take us in the altitude down to a couple hundred feet above the centerline of the run i come it using nothing but the satellite is technology of that series and the gps box and the related computers in the airplane. furthermore, it allows them to nowhere i not enemies to know where they are at, so it

provides separation of aircraft and that is going to be an increasingly important information. it makes it possible to do this, whether you're flying to your destination airport you go to all time or you have an emergency and you have to suddenly find a suitable runway nearby. so as i said, the basic principle of being able to define precisely where you weren't space continuously over time provides all kinds of answers. mr. chairman, i am a little slower, but believe it or not, it also helps us in case the anchor is slipping i don't want to go to boston because it shows the boat is moving. there's all kinds of possibilities. >> thank you. captain cassidy, as pilot, tommy in regards to nextgen and what some of the interference, what is your nightmare scenario? what do you see with the effects of viewfinder commercial

lovecraft with lightsquared come he was the pilot navigating down that goal? >> the nightmare scenario is i anticipate that putting myself back up and do a data channel. i have a reliable navigation system and then they send it a flip the switch on it and then i have to go back to the old procedures that would make me much more concerned about safe contact a flight because that would have a lot less ability to have a very good estimate at what my arrival would need to be of a missed approach point. that kind of taylor's on but mr. fuller just said. one of the safety aspects of gps technology as it allows you to be more to admit this state, contingency situations further down the road. in this case, based upon what the arrival whether it be, i

would estimate what a safe arrival to beat them with a love me dead to divert to go to an alternate, and also coordinates of the alternate and also have approaches note that that alternate and i thought management system so would've thought there and i have a one-stop shop and that is an incredible safety benefit that is clearly that is clearly that is clearly purely the benefit of purely the benefit of satellite-based navigation. >> thank you, captain. mr. chairman, indulge in some more time. >> mr. foley, in regards to lightsquared, they are trying to get to the learned of the spec time. they are going to try to get into -- i see them trying to start work in a hiring for the spectrum as well. if their current proposal in the different than past proposal? if they do get into higher spectrum, what is your business model? >> when they say i'd didn't

lightsquared propose changed numerous times over the past year, so primarily operating on the upper 10 megahertz frequency close to gps, all of the analysis has shown which is have widespread gps. the majority of the receivers just did not work at power levels that close. moving to the lower then helped somewhat, but all the analysis we've done since that doesn't get a clean bill of health either. there problems with that proposal as well, specifically the morning sickness. retyped about operations with low altitude. it poses a lot of problems. >> thank you, mr. chairman. put that idea that your thank you for the chairs indulgence. the >> government, thank you all for being here and your enlightening

testimony today. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> my most important point under the concert republican or conservative leader is, we can't tell them. it would be better like a month before the election we announce we running for president. i mean, the media's obsessive desire to know who's your leader, isn't michael steele, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sarah palin? they want us to tell them who our leader is so they can fixate on the person and destroy him or her. >> this year's conservative

political action conference begins thursday and c-span will cover their defense to the weekend. watch past speakers online at the c-span video library all archived and searchable at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> coming up in about 10 minutes or so we will bring live coverage of today's white house briefing. and killed in a discussion on nuclear energy and persian gulf countries. >> every wednesday at our last hour here in "washington journal" we take a look at a recent magazine piece today take a look at the "national journal" written by, about persian gulf states and nuclear energy. you write that there is a choice that the persian gulf states are facing. do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands, demand of electricity, et cetera? or to the respond in kind to

iran? which the answer? >> guest: answer right now for the program that exists which is iin the united arab emirates, this is kind of a gold standard for civilian program. they signed every protocol for transparency, u.s. government, it's very interesting if we take a step back and think about the program and iran. it's all, the whole world is saying this has to stop. the program at the embers, the whole world is an green light, go ahead. the u.s. is actively supporting at the westinghouse, major u.s. corporation, has a piece of the country. it's passing the way washington is treating it. that program is peaceful. if iran gets a new, saudi arabia said it will try to get a nuclear weapon. if it does you see the dominoes start to fall. saudi arabia first, egypt or turkey probably second and then you this nightmare scenario of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. >> host: we're talking to congressman thornberry, question of the house armed services committee earlier and he said if i were these countries and i were a neighbor of iran i would keep my options open.

>> guest: that something you in the gulf which is very interesting but if you talk to one country about saudi arabia, one of its neighbors, they will say the saudis would be crazy not to develop a weapon once iran does. we often look at iran from you as a threat to the united states, but israel, the saudi government, the kuwaiti government, they see this as a direct threat. this is a hostile shiite country. it's one that threatens gulf states readily. overboard, over water. the sunni states have to get one. >> host: the history of them pursuing nuclear energy and nuclear power. habit always trusted them? how did we get to this point? >> guest: a great question. that has been a pretty big reversal. eight yukon, the pakistani side to surrender basically at wal-mart for nuclear weapons, he used to buy the biggest city in the embers, a sort of weird see. he had bank accounts, apartments. he was kind of the central hub

of his ability to sell and smuggled nuclear weapons. there are a lot of people in u.s. to remember that he don't trust. wednesday was announce your opposition in congress for the very reason. people said it was a hub for this nuclear smuggling network, how can we trust them themselves with nuclear energy. >> host: when was this announced? >> guest: this is in the last week of the bush administration. it was a deal that didn't have to go to congress for approval but had to go to them for you. that's what we saw some of his opposition. >> host: but the bush administration signed off and said go ahead, bill these nuclear reactors? >> guest: and in the obama guys kept pace. when the bush administration time the first agreement, congress give you a incoming obama white house a chance to review. now it is full speed ahead. >> host: what has congress it about this? >> guest: their concerns about the past history, concerned that unless the e.u. had more control on what exports they did, you might see a threat to this. now it's very interesting

congress as well, the people who raise those concerns are also very strongly behind the program. >> host: tell us a little bit about the nuclear facility in the uae, how are they sort of checking off all of the boxes by the international community say okay, go ahead. >> guest: they have a few things. one, they signed the u.n. nuclear watchdog, has issues of agreements, all the ones that iran has not signed, nonproliferation, opening facilitate inspections. the uae has signed them all. they have the former head of an advisory board for the new program. they bring u.s. officials in regularly. u.s. officials regularly. they're working with a big company in the nuclear field, korean firm which means the nuclear sites has got golf courses, all these weird sort of corks for the greens. right now this flat terrain. they're hoping to begin construction this summer of the actual reactor. when you go there what you see

is a red flag which is exactly where the reactor is going to go. visually it is very striking. iran is only about 100 miles away and this big red flag showing you exactly where the reactor will be. >> host: he went there, you visited this facility? why does the uae need this to begin with? >> guest: great question as well because you think this is one of the richest countries on the planet, some of the biggest oil reserves on the planet. two reasons. one, their energy consumption is skyrocketing. more and more have multiple cars, and the family projects like an indoor ski slopes of the need for energy energy. they are importing a lot of guests to qatar. the more cynical one is the less oil they use the more they can sell. as oil prices when they go to the gas pump, record highs, a way for them to keep more money. >> host: that's the reason for going forward, but how easy once they get these nuclear facilities up and running, how easy is it to go from a so-called civilian program where

he justified energy to a so-called nuclear weapon? >> guest: it is a big stack. you have to build a reprocessing facility or enrichment facility, oath which would be spotted by satellites, by neighbors so it's hard to do. if iran goes nuclear and they feel the threat is big enough they could do it. it's not impossible. they would have over all the neighbors is one, they have some amount of uranium in the country already in rich and have this whole nuclear for structure which none of the neighbors had. it is a letter. there are several steps above all other neighbors. >> host: what is a dirty bomb a? >> guest: it is basically an explosive. all it does is take radioactive material, uranium, anything else and blows it up it is not a nuclear weapon which we think about a nightmare where the whole city is flat. but it could make part of a city something where no one could live safely for decades. >> host: is that a threat when uae, other persian gulf states are eyeing nuclear energy? >> guest: that's the most immediate threat. they try to build a dirty bomb or pass it on to someone else's set it off.

but it wouldn't be remotely as dangerous to iran as an iranian nuclear weapon. >> host: what safeguards are put in place? >> guest: some of it is the same ability on the ieee and the states to monitor pretty closely. they have agreed on not enriching uranium in their own borders. it is pretty low-grade. you have to kind of constant watchdog presence over the program which is exactly what you don't have over the iranian program. >> host: is the united states in favor of these persian gulf states reading this nuclear energy? because we're helping them and, therefore, we have a foothold in a region where we are adversaries of iran. >> guest: that's the question i think going forward. it is an easy one to sign off on. they've given every kind of assurance you can't have already given. the big question to my mind is saudi arabia. on the one hand, it is a u.s. ally. on the other hand, a lot of mistrust. if the saudi program would be a

weapons program this is something the u.s. if they supported would be all the charges of hypocrisy they already face about israel. >> host: talk about persian gulf states and the pursuit of nuclear energy. sean is a democrat in pennsylvania. you're up first. >> caller: i'm second time caller. i have a, and questioned if my comment is, since we have over 100 years of oil left in our reserves, why can't we pull our troops back and secure our borders, and then worry and let the persian gulf were about himself? been my question, then the question is, -- >> host: i think we got your question. >> guest: i think it's a good question. that's what you're seeing a lot of politicians, make basically that same point. they are saying the iraq war cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of american life. the afghan war more than a trillion dollars, lots of american life. so the smart thing to do would pull our people back, save money

because are basically bankrupt as a country. that said the persian gulf is a source of much of our oil. the reserves you talked about, a lot of that natural gas. it would be very, very difficult. that feeling is our economy depends on that oil unfortunate and because we did a not so much we can't just withdraw from that part of the world. >> host: here's a tweet. mr. dreazen, what is the state of iran's oil industry? disarray or thriving? >> guest: it is not thriving. it's a very good question because this had been the mean source, the only source of revenue for that government. right now it's basically coming to a halt. not just the e.u. but also japan and korea is promised to stop buying it by the summer. this is the only source of money iran has big you are seeing their oil sales beginning to come down. their currency is at historic low. this is sent directly a bull's-eye into the heart of iran's. >> host: here's the headline today. iran calls new u.s. sections a strategy to sow discontent in that country. >> guest: what they're referring to is the u.s. openly stated, you have the mole are

unpiloted the people on the street who may not love them but may may support them because they don't know anything else. you have this educated middle class who traveled the world and make a lot of money who are very western educated, speak fluent english and you could alienate that class you might see the country splinter and you might see the government fall. that's what the iranian government is saying basically you are doing this, we don't like it. >> host: let's go to tony, democrat line. go ahead, tony. >> caller: how you doing? >> host: good morning. >> caller: good. my question was, you think diplomacy is better than just going over there with bombs? right now in an election year, do you think diplomacy is better right now instead of going over there to just bomb, to bomb israel? i mean, not israel, but iran. you know, for what they do and. kind of keep a low for right now and tell the election is over

with, and then kind of come back to the table on the issue of. >> host: your question comes as we are hearing from cnn reporting this moment that the pentagon is weighing its military options in syria as well. and so this whole question of what our military does next outside of afghanistan and iraq. >> guest: it's an amazing she appeared the iraq war is winding down. the afghan war is beginning to wind down and now there's not just the possibility of an new military strike and possibly work amusing the israelis, the american officials and sort of this drumbeat more and more and more toward some kind of military operation. tony's question, the hard part, the reason why the skepticism, it hasn't worked. there have been years and years of effort to try to get iran to the table, to get into pause the program. it hasn't worked. now you have this last ditch effort use economic sanctions as you indicated to hit their oil sector and the financial sector. what they're saying is there only a few months left and that

by late spring, early summer iran will have the ability to move its facilities underground bunkers that can't be seen from air. they feel there is a wind of about five months that is closing. think about it, it's amazing to me how far we've come, how much things have shifted to an open discussion of a timeline for a new potentially new work. >> host: back to your store pictures a tweet, although concern over nuclear proliferation, how can we interfere with sovereign nations especially since we have nukes ourselves? >> guest: that's something you here as well. who is the u.s. to dictate what other countries do? we haven't had to do that with the saudi or other persian gulf allies. iran is an exception. the feeling is this is a country that threatens the existence to other countries. it threatens israel. it supports terror groups. they have taken themselves out of the normal confines of the country and as result the u.s. can kind of come in and say to

community change your behavior or else. >> host: we're showing our viewers right now total nuclear weapon in the car across all the country. russia with the most. about 11,000, united states follow that with 8500. rick every public in middletown new york. york. go ahead. >> caller: i wasn't sure this young fella here on the show, i don't know if he was a member of the council of foreign relations or not. i've been following this whole thing about this president of iran saying he's going to wipe israel off the map, which he never said. he said the regime that occupies the land of houston. and i would be more trusting of ron paul's agenda to bring the troops home, and iran is not a suicide mission and not attack anybody but we've got to be more worried about another uss liberty falls like to get us into a work. >> host: what about iran's motivation, their agenda? >> guest: i first of all in appreciate being called a young fellow.

i feel older these days. that's a fair point. the question about iranian behavior. this is a country that has never started a war. iran-iraq war was started by iraq. basically with u.s. backing. so there is a feeling that i happen to agree with that it is not a suicidal country. it knows if it uses a nuclear weapon it would cease to exist because of retaliation. the fear in some way, if they have the weapons they can act with impunity because nobody would be willing to take the risk of provoking a nuclear attack. but i agree, it's not so much fear that they would use a weapon knowing that they would cease to exist as a response but they would have this kind of umbrella, what we have with the russians were countries wouldn't be prepared to pick a fight. >> host: beyond the uae and persian gulf states looking at nuclear energy, whether or not to respond in kind to iran, where else are people offering? uae is starting, they got the greenlight to go ahead with their nuclear energy facility. what other persian gulf country? >> guest: saudi arabia,

kuwait, they both talked openly about it. egypt which has been talking about it for some years. it's not a gulf country but an airborne. >> host: but no one has signed off on the. >> guest: correct. egypt in some ways the furthest along. turkey has talked about. jordan has talked about it pretty much every country in the region at least indicated interest, not begin some pro. with the saudis, not just rumors that u.s. intelligence believes very strongly that the '70s and '80s and '90s approached a queue can't about you try to buy or fully operational nuclear weapon or to buy what they would need to build a nuclear program. again is if iran goes nuclear that would be the natural place for the saudis to go. back to pakistan, offer whatever about it and money necessary and tried to buy either a weapon or nuclear system. let's go to alexander next, independent infidelity. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i have a few questions, i guess one question. i will try to put all together. i just heard, speaking about

how, when more nuclear weapons in the middle east were caused by more of a different -- a deterrent factor. this is good because it will force everyone to sit down focus on diplomacy just like what we're seeing between russia and u.s. also what i'm hearing is always, like you said, there's an increasing drumbeat about going to war with iran. and this is based off intelligence from israel, presumably. and also from america present but no doubt about it. but my question is, right now we are really broke. we just finished to force, we're trying to finish two wars right now, and we're already seeing you as being called to step up with the fight against -- [inaudible] >> host: you broke up their a bit. let's take the first part of his comic. >> guest: in some ways this idea it would be a deterrent it

as a best case scenario. this case and it is yet other nuclear states as counterweight and things kind of subtle. the worst-case scenario and affords a given history of the middle east, the worst-case usually comes to. you have this opportunity where one country might try to carry out a terror attack on some sort to slow down and the country, what a weapon could get lost. we have the inherent destabilization a fragile government. in some ways it's what we've seen from every spring is how fragile these governments are. egypt fell real quickly. gadhafi, syria may simple. yemen fell, tunisia the. so we have seen this question are coming up when countries are so fragile, governments can be changed so quickly. do we want to sit back and allow this process to unfold whether i'll try to get nuclear weapons? >> host: here's a tweet. can we appeal to the iran people? by all accounts people don't want more. >> host: >> guest: president obama has tried a. is taken into office, tried to reassure the iranian people and every government that the u.s. didn't want regime change, didn't want to put -- push them

out of power. the inherent characteristic you stop your program we have diplomatic relations, we will collect all the sanctions to make it easier for the middle class who are pro-american in some cases, english-speaking and others to travel to see the world. it hasn't worked. in large part because the power rests so complete with the clerics and the average person has a low-power. >> host: what about iran's ability to impact the oil markets across the world, and with the impact the persian gulf states need for oil? you write about it in your piece of. >> guest: is a very indie -- a very interesting difference. they both see it as a threat but in israel it is seen as an accidental threat. they see it as at least a possibly that iran might want to use use weapon and israel might no longer exist to the gulf states they have sort of more prosaic pocketbook concern. their fear is that so much oil, iran has comparatively little. so the only way for iran to make more money is evil -- is either

limit the supply our raise the price. uae, sell less, kuwait, so less. that's hard to do right now if iran has nuclear weapons it becomes easier. they can dictate what the neighbor does. >> host: so the implications of that? >> guest: implication would be the saudis get told export less. they would have no choice but to go along with the. you see oil prices spike and they are already high. this whole fragile economic recovery i could be knocked off the rails. >> host: tina, democratic our. >> caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i just feel very concerned that our finances have been so depleted, and i don't know how much more fiat money we can print and edit any of our dollars b. worth even a penny. and our military men have been so, their energy and they've been so depleted, they need to have a respite and i don't see

why the nuclear thing, i mean, why they're going to war or bombing somebody, is even being considered as an option. >> guest: it's interesting, on the scientific sample of the collars, no one thinks this is a good idea. everyone is raising the same differences. we are broke, maybe diplomacy should be given a chance but that there'll be the military is exhausted. as teen indicated. the answer to the second question about the military is this would not be a granted nation. this would be bombed from the air and that would be it. whether that stays on the air strikes on a false ground troops is a good question. whether they can afford just a bombing campaign which would cost tens of billions of dollars, whether that is a good idea is an open question. noise talking about another afghan style were. >> host: another tweet. we said the same thing to talk and look what happened to him. why should iran trust our diplomatic overture? >> guest: gadhafi and libya

are seen in the region not unreasoned as a cautionary tale. this is a country that was a pariah. it had no other program. as jim indicated the u.s. had a band and it. gadhafi. cutoff was welcome back slowly into the fold. but ultimately when the uprising began we turn on him and took part in the operation to get rid of him. so the iranians come it's not irrational housing -- how they see the u.s. pakistan has a nuclear weapon and we don't do anything to try to disrupt. it's not unreasonable for them to think once we get a nuclear weapon we are save. >> host: pakistan has about 90-110 and a nuclear weapon inventory. india 80 to about 100. let's go to pennsylvania. mark, a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. this is only my personal opinion. the nuclear scientist that they assassinated, regardless of who did it, my personal belief was

that maybe some or all were stalling. i believe they could have speeded up a lot faster. i believe they were stalling. because the world would get involved. one more statement. how come they never try to develop a hydrogen bomb? >> guest: on the first question, there is no evidence that iran has tried to stone anyone in their nuclear program. all the evidence is it is accelerating. this new facility, one of the host cities was uncovered by the u.s. and dignity by the iranian. this is a facility that can enriched uranium to a very, very high level. very close to what they would need for nuclear weapon. all the evidence is it is full speed ahead for them. to the second question, and atomic bomb, a nuclear bomb is something much more powerful. hydrogen bomb is something that's kind of an older technology.

>> host: grade and any independent in sarasota, florida, but you're up next. we're talking a persian state calls, nuclear energy and whether not if the pursue to nuclear weapons. go ahead. >> caller: oh, hi. i'm just curious why we are not engaging reactor studies, you know, as a base source of power that you can get energy out of it. it's more prevalent than uranium. and then, it just makes as much energy. there is like a curve going on. i'm sure in your studies you kind of see how there's a give-and-take on each side. when you look at those fresh water supplies in the himalayas, for example, they know that their fresh water is running out. all the places are shrinking. now, you have a million people

that are looking for fresh water. now, let's bump it up a notch. let's say that china supplies iran with a refinery that makes methanol out of their natural gas supply. look at the line that runs from iran to pakistan to india. and you have a billion people looking to run those little motorcycles around. you've got to take the spike out of the energy. .. rational because

they need a weapon or they just want a weapon they've chosen not to take those better options, those carrots. >> host: what is opec's role in this whole dynamic? and with the oil markets, et cetera? >> guest: opec, you know, obviously being dominated by the saudis they're collectively terrified by this because they worry like the saudis could do the iran could say stop selling, raise your prices and they would have to go along with it. with the countries and saudis oil is all they have. if they have to sell less their economy stalls. >> caller: hi are you doing. i have a question. what would you think the u.s. would do exactly, let's say, if iran was two months away from a

nuclear weapon? >> host: yochi dreazen. >> guest: the question is better asked what would doyles which believes very strongly they may only be four or five months. there's this amazing dynamic where the defense minister said they will bomb iran. what you will see see is a strike on the water based enrichment facility which is one of the ones that is not covered by a bunker. it's relatively easy to get to. that would probably be the first thing hit. you might see bombing of the facility near the holy city and iran has a third facility where you might see there. and basically three facilities that would be the main targets. the question is, militarily it's very hard to do. for israel it's a long flight. iran has advanced aircraft systems, they have radar systems so it would be a tough challenge if israel chose to go that route but those would be the targets. >> this is an email from a viewer who talks more about soft power saying at this point the

iranian's regime influence in the world is very up in the air. the u.s. should focus on soft power in the middle east because of the arab spring revolution. iraq's increased democracy and the regime's collapse. iran's regime could expand or contract in the future now that there's a few reliable dictators. freedom is important. future of u.s. soft power will secure u.s.'s place in the middle east. >> guest: there's a lot of stuff that is correct. there's a couple of things that i would question. iraq is not making advances towards democracy. in fact, it's the opposite. i spent a month there points mo

more in the opposite direction. >> guest: another asking for evidence you and your guest are assuming that the wmd assertions we are hearing about iran are true. they come from the name neoconservative ultra right warmonger who gave us iraq. please ask him to furnish proof that iran is going to build nuclear weapons and then use them against israel and the united states. >> guest: the last point there is no proof. the idea they would use the weapons they would use them they are not suicidal so the notion that they would use them immediately i agree there's no proof or even reason to think that's the case. so for the first part this is in the neoconservatives for the war. the bush administration had a less hard edge approach. it's president obama and his white house are many things but they are not neocon republicans. unlike with the iraq war where you had the u.s. and to a degree

sxirlz some european countries saying iraq had wmd this is the whole world who believes this is the eu, this is asia, this is iran's neighbors, this is israel. there isn't the same kind of division. the other difference is, iran says they have this. i mean, iran's facilities to a degree are open to i.e. inspectors. to a degree iran has publicized what they can do. they've shown their cores and centrifuges so it's not something you have the u.s. saying we have weapons and iran saying no we don't. u.s. saying they have a weapons program and iran saying we don't have one and we don't have any weapons program here it's iran saying it's a weapons program but we have a very, very advanced nuclear program. >> what is the big countries -- which big countries i should say are resisting this action against iran or even, you know, questioning iran? >> guest: in some ways it's kind of the same bloc in the united nations security council. it's russia and it's china. >> host: and why? >> guest: these are countries that do a lot of business with iran. they sell oil. they sell natural gas.

they buy natural gas. they buy oil. they sell weaponry. they sell in china. they help pave iranian roads and iran. iran is a reliable trading partner and they don't want to see that toppled. russia and china hate the idea of an outside power dictating what another country does. it scares them. they don't want the u.s. to one say stop what you're doing, change your government or else so they look at this in the same way they look at syria and libya this is an fair sovereign led and they are opposed to it. >> host: what about south korea and its nuclear weapons ambitions. >> guest: it's interesting because they are the ones uae to counteract china, to counteract north korea. it hasn't advanced very far frankly because they are under the u.s. nuclear umbrella and if north korea threatened to use weapons or used weapons and the u.s. would respond in south korea's behalf >> host: jesse a democratic

caller, go ahead. >> caller: good morning to you al all. i know you got more education than i do and i've been around longer than i have. and the propaganda you spread and iran is not going to attack israel. and they will not get blown off the map. this propaganda stuff keep going and going and we have people who are living free. [inaudible] >> caller: and you don't have a truth what's going on and people in america. >> host: i don't know if you heard but our guest did say earlier that -- that there is no evidence that iran would necessarily attack israel or the united states. you said that twice, i believe. >> guest: and there's also this -- i don't at all discredit this notion, a, the u.s. economy is hurting and b, there are a lot of people hurting, high level suffering, hunger, fear,

lack of insurance and it is a fair question about whether this is a good use of our resources. i mean, it's interesting sitting here that pretty much every caller of every political background is saying the same thing. maybe this money shouldn't be spent. we don't want to have another war and it's unscientific -- >> we'll leave "washington journal" at this point. you can see it in its entirety if you go to our website at c-span.org. go to the c-span video library. coming up shortly, live coverage of today's white house briefing with spokesman jay carney. one of the items we expect reporters to bring up is the obama administration's regulation requiring employers including religious organizations to provide birth control coverage in their employees' health plans. well, the catholic church has come out against this and they vow to fight it. house speaker john boehner talked about it this morning on the floor of the house. >> my colleagues, in recent days americans of every faith and

political persuasion has mobilized to an objection to a rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack, it would require faith-based employers including catholic charities, schools, universities and hospitals to provide services they believe are immoral. those services include sterilization abortion, inducing drugs, and contraception. in imposing this requirement the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries encroaching on religious freedom in a manner that affects millions of americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions. if the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the congress acting on behalf of the american people and the constitution that we're sworn to uphold and defend must. the house will approach this

matter fairly and deliberately through regular order and an appropriate legislative channels because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the energy and commerce committee has taken the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. chairman upton convened a hearing late last year and began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. and i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand. i yield back. >> those remarks on the house floor earlier today and, again, we are live in the white house briefing room with jay carney. we are expecting reporters' questions on that particular item along with remarks from senate democrats who recently spoke about the issue and we'll

have those comments after the white house briefing today. normally at this time, during the week we would be bringing you live coverage of the u.s. senate. the senate is not in session today as senate democrats are holding a day-long strategy session at the washington national's ballpark. obama is expected to be there. there is no broadcast coverage of that gathering. we've gotten the 2-minute warning of the briefing. we expect it to be underway briefly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. good afternoon. thanks for being here. before i take your questions, just a couple of things. first of all, the president earlier today hosted -- or rather chaired one of his

regular afghanistan-pakistan meetings with his national security council team, national security team in the situation room. secondly, i wanted to mention that in the state of the union address, the president laid out a blueprint to return to america which means reducing the amount of money and influence in washington. last week congress was on track to take the right first step by doing something they should have done along ago banning insider training by members of congress. the senate in an admirable show of bipartisanship came together to pass the stock act because it was the right thing to do. the bill passed 96-3 and that doesn't happen very often as you know. now, this morning very early when it was still dark out and i was sitting in my kitchen table reading the newspaper i was shocked to see that even this simple bill would ensure that -- that would ensure rather everyone plays by the rules is being weakened. behind closed doors by house republicans who seem to be

caving to pressure from wall street lobbyists. we hope that's not what's happening. this should not be a partisan issue. after all, one of the amendments on registration requirements that according to these press reports is being stripped out of the bill by house republicans was inserted into the bill by a senate republican. the anticorruption amendment stripped out -- was offered by both senators leahy a democrat and senator cornyn, a republican. this is something that democrats and republicans in the senate worked together to write and pass. it would be a shame if house republicans led by the majority leader at the urging of wall street interests and other inside the beltway forces watered down the tough but commonsense measures supported by republicans and democrats alike. the president has said now is the time to take bold steps to fix the corrosive influence of money and politics. and this is something that congress should take action on

right away. with that i will move to your questions. >> thanks, jay. on the afpac meetings -- >> no, i have no announcements. i just know there's interest in general that the president oversees these meetings and wanted to let you know it's happening. i'll have more of a readout. it ended not long ago. >> okay. on the contraception issue, speaker boehner is promising to repeal the rule through legislation, senator mcconnell has talked about the same. i'm curious about your reaction to that and if that were to happen, if that's the kind of mesh the president would veto, do you feel that strongly? >> well, i think there's a lot of speculation embedded in that question. i'm not going to go there. i think on this issue, from the very beginning we have said that we will listen and work with individuals who have concerns as we work to implement the law. as i said yesterday, on january 20th when this decision was

said, secretary sebelius said, we will continue to work closely with groups to discuss their concerns. and i would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements. and 8 of the states, as i mentioned before, do not even have the exemption that this provision requires for churches and houses of worship. we want to work with all these organizations to implement this policy in a way that's as sensitive to their concerns as possible but let's be clear, we are committed, the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs, no matter where they work. >> so while you're pledging to work with the groups who have concerns, congress or at least the house right now is pledging to undo the rule. what is your reaction to that? >> right now i think we are focused on the implementation of

this rule and doing what we said back on january 20th when secretary sebelius announced it, which is work with those who have concerns to see if there's a way to implement this policy, to ensure that women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to preventive services. but to do it in a way that might allay some of the concerns that have been impressed. i mean, this president has -- as you know in his past, he has worked with -- his first job in chicago with churches and organizations that do a lot of good work, he's very sensitive to concerns like these and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he is committed to making sure women have access to these -- to this coverage. he wants to find a way to implement it, that can allay some of the concerns that have been expressed and that is why the transition period was announced at the same time the

rule was announced. >> one more thing about that transition period. the organizations have until august of 2013. is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place that the allaying of concerns before then? >> i wouldn't want to predict a date by which this process might produce a result. i think it's best to let that process take place. there are -- there are ways and i think people in the broader community in looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is implemented so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where they work.

but also that hopefully would allay some of the concerns expressed. i don't want to get into whether this approach might work or that one, who might feel better about it if -- if this solution were put forward. we're not that at that point in the process. >> one more on a different topic. payroll tax, the negotiations seem bogged down and the president wants this tax cut expended but i'm curious what the white house's take on it. is there a genuine interest that this might expire? >> we continue to be confident that congress will pass the extension of the payroll tax cut for the rest of the calendar year. it is still inconceivable to us that congress would want to raise taxes on 160 million

americans on march 1st, at a time when hard-working americans need that extra money to pay their bills, to make ends meet. you know, there is an elementary of deja vu to this process. i think that it was clear by the end of december why this needed to get done. it is clear from the economic reports that we've had in the last several months that we -- that the economy is growing and producing jobs and that we are moving in the right direction and congress should not muck that up. and the president believes as he has said in the past folks on the hill need to act without delay and without drama to get this done. again, this is a case where everyone says, republicans on the hill, leaders on the hill, by and large say now that they believe extending the payroll tax cut through the end of the year is the right thing to do. it's good policy.

it's good for the economy. it's the right thing to do for hard-working americans. democrats, obviously, agree the president strongly agrees and we ought to get this done. so we still have some time to work on this and we hope congress focuses and get its work done. i'll mix it up, briana? >> on contraception, it's not just the speaker and mitch mcconnell who have come out, and other senate republicans but the candidates have all seized on the campaign trail including mitt romney. they obviously see an opportunity to not only drive a wedge in the support of some democrats for the president but also trying to rally their base. does the president feel that he's vulnerable to that? >> well, the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country. he's focused on finding a

balance that is sensitive to the concerns expressed by some religious groups. you know, the former governor of massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given the services that this rule would provide for women around the country are the same that are provided in massachusetts and were provided under -- when he was governor, including contraception, including, you know -- covered with no co-pay or deductible. and a religious exemption for houses of worship and churches and church-controlled organizations such as parochial schools but not to universities and hospitals. i mean, this is, i think, ironic that mitt romney is expressing -- criticizing the

president for pursuing a policy that's virtually identical to the one that was in place when he was governor of massachusetts. >> does the president agree with rick santorum on the issue then? >> i haven't heard what mr. -- or senator santorum has said on the issue. >> and then one other question on this, sort of speaking to the evangelical support for catholics on this. rick warren said i would go to jail that violates what god commands us to do. as you know, he has a lot of twitter followers and stones have tons of people who are interested in what he's saying. are you worried that that rallies to the republican base? >> we're not worried about republicans or democrats or the political component of this. we're concerned about making

sure that women get access to these important services. that women are treated equally around the country regardless of where they work, but we're very sensitive to -- and understand some of the concerns that have been expressed and that is part of the original announcement of this by secretary sebelius, we put in place a process where further discussions would be had that would address hopefully some of these concerns and maybe allay some of them. i can't itemize or give great detail on what those discussions will look like i mean, as i think ben noted, the full implementation of this policy doesn't take place of 2013. and this conversation is only just underway but i think it's important to note that the

president takes those concerns very seriously and he also takes -- and is committed to take seriously and is committed to the policy, and we will press forward with these discussions to see if there's a way, to proceed and move forward to implement this policy to allay some of these concerns. >> can i follow up? >> let me just -- i want to get out of the front row and then come back and do my -- >> thank you, what has been the president's reaction to the reaction on the contraception issue on the 20th? i mean, is he surprised by the reaction either political or religious? >> i think as i've been saying the president understands these concerns, that's why he agreed with the approach that secretary sebelius took that took that balance to ensure that there's

an exemption for churches and houses of worship unlike in some states in the country. and why he supported the part of this that included a process by which further discussion could be had that would see if there was a way of implementing this for institutions and groups that expressed concerns that might allay or resolve some of those concerns. so i don't think -- i mean, i think he understands. and understood from the beginning, you know, why this is a sensitive issue and why -- and it informs his decision to proceed the way he has to try to seek this balance. >> just in the very early of the stage is there any sense of how discussions would take place? i mean, one sense you have 18 months but is there any sense here of who would talk to who in terms of trying to -- whether hhs would be involved or the white house to try to come up

with some sort of resolution? >> yeah, i don't have a roster of individuals involved in those kinds of discussions. it's issues involving health care policy that would normally include folks who do health care policy, both, you know, in a variety of places in the administration. so, you know, those are the kind of conversations that would take place in terms of the policy side of this. yes. >> there was reporting yesterday that your assertion that the next year half we spent looking for a way to implement the policy was a sign that you're looking to promise and you pushed strongly on those reports. tell me why that shouldn't be seen as an attempt to find a compromise? >> well, i just wanted to be clear as i'm trying to be again today, the president is committed to implementing the policy that will ensure that

women across the country, no matter where they work, will have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive care services including contraception. it is also true and has been true since the day that this was announced that we intend as an administration as secretary sebelius said to work with religious groups that have concerns about this, to see if there's a way to implement that policy. that these are some of those concerns. and both are true, but i wanted to be clear yesterday and i want to be clear today that the commitment to ensuring that women have access to this important -- to these important health care services remains very strong. >> so it's not a compromise because you won't back without access without a co-pay? >> correct. >> there's also difficulty within the pentagon on this. the army's chief of chaplains

suggesting priests not read a letter from an archbishop he felt might lead to disobedience, frankly. >> my understanding -- i'll refer you to specifics to the pentagon, obviously, but my understanding is the chaplains were absolutely free to express this and did. >> but he didn't -- >> i would refer you to the defense department but i would certainly hope that in reporting on this you noted chaplains were absolutely free to express as they should be free to express their opinion on this matter. nora? >> can you confirm that the president's former chief of staff, bill daley as well as the vice president encouraged the president not to make this decision but the president then sided with some of his female advisors including the hhs secretary? >> i'm not going to get into internal deliberations and who

is on which side of discussions and debates internally. i will say that broadly reports that line people up on this issue were inaccurate, both broadly and specifically in terms of some of the individuals but i'm not going to engage in a guessing game about who thought which way on which issue. >> and then on iran, iran's ambassador to moscow said today that iran is capable of carrying out military strikes on u.s. interests all around the world if iran is attacked. is that a concern? >> well, i'm not going to engage in a back and forth with this particular official but rest assured we're extremely confident in our military's ability to do their job and also rest assured that force protection for those americans deployed overseas is our top priority. >> and then just on syria, if i

could, i know you've addressed this before but i want to begin, senator mccain and others are talking about whether we should arm the opposition in syria. has that been completely ruled out? >> we are pursuing a political path in an attempt to resolve with our international partners the situation in syria -- or rather to help the process move towards a peaceful political transition, democratic transition in syria working with friends of syria all around the globe. we believe a political solution is the right way to go. now, we never rule anything out in a situation like this, but we are pursuing a path that includes isolating and pressuring the assad regime so that it stops its heinous slaughtering of its own people, and that, you know, in the coming days we will continue our

very active discussions with friends and allies who support the syrian people along with the opposition syrian national council to crystallize the international community in the next steps to halt the slaughter of the syrian people and to pursue that transition to democracy. >> and how would humanitarian assistance be delivered? how much are we talking about? has there been a dollar figure put on it? >> no, i appreciate the question and i know i raised this yesterday. we are, of course, looking at humanitarian assistance with the syrian people and we have for some time. we're consulting with our international partners and we anticipate this being one of the focuses of the discussions that we'll have with friends of syria, you know, in a friends of syria meeting that may be held in the near future because there is near universal concern about the plight of the syrian people as they are subjected to this brutal assault by the assad

regime. but i don't have specifics about content or delivery. i mean, these are just discussions that we anticipate having with our international partners. kristin? >> thanks, jay. in the past, the administration has put forth names of officials who supported your policy decisions, for example, during the american jobs act when the president first rolled that out. we heard from a number of people. why not release the names of religious leaders who support the hhs decision? >> well, i'm not sure -- anybody who supports the decision to -- and the general approach to providing important health care services to women across the country is certainly welcome to express that opinion. this is not -- again, i think that we're engaged in a process

that seeks to find a balance between a policy that ensures that women get access to these important services and that -- no matter where they work and also deals with the understandable concerns of some religious groups. and we're in the process of doing that. >> is it your argument to be able to put forth -- >> we're not trying to win an argument but we're trying to implement a policy that will affect millions of women, well, all women in this country and also to do so in a way that's sensitive to people's religious beliefs and that reflects the approach the president takes and it reflects the approach that secretary sebelius has taken. >> and on the payroll tax cuts discussions that are going on right now, there have been some rumblings that they might be

considering a short-term deal again. is this something the president would sign off on? would he support this or would he only accept a year-long extension? >> it is unconceivable that the same folks in congress who almost prevented the payroll tax cut being extended for two months would want to go through that again, so we believe there is consensus on the hill for democrats and republicans that we need to do this and we need to do it for the full calendar year. we need only point to the economic growth and employment figures to note that the economy while growing and creating jobs needs this action to be taken to continue along the road to recovery. i just can't imagine that folks in congress are going to want to

explain to their constituents that they blocked the extension of this tax cut ensuring that taxes were raised on most of their constituents. because they couldn't sort out some easily resolvable issues with their fellow members of congress. we think this can be done. we absolutely think it should be done for the remainder of the calendar year. >> and just one more on syria that you said in the past that you do think assad's fall is imminent. given the fact that there's increased violence over the weekend, last night, do you still see the situation in that light? >> there's no question that president assad has lost control over parts of his country. there's no question that he certainly lost the support of his people long ago thanks to his brutality and his refusable to participate in the kinds of reforms that would have led to a democratic transition in syria.

there's no question because of the efforts of the international community to put the squeeze on the regime financially that his assets and his capacities are dwindling. and there's no question that those around him among the military and governmental leadership are beginning to doubt the wisdom of sticking by him. so, yes, we believe his days are numbered and that's why we find it disappointing to say the least that votes were taken in the united nations security council to block that resolution. it is simply a mistake to side with a regime that is going to go down in history as a brutal repressor of its own people. it is a mistake to side with the regime whose days are numbered to isolate yourself from the

syrian people. that's the wrong action to take. the right place to be with and in support of the syrian people who are insisting on a peaceful transition to democracy. karen and then jay. >> thanks. >> and then i'll move back. i know it's been -- go ahead. you talked about the united states's commitment to reach out to religious groups and getting their views. is the president himself going to be involved in that process? has he done any kind of outreach on that? >> well, i think there's been some reporting on some of the conversations the president has -- has had but i don't have any scheduling or any calls or meetings to announce from here that he may have in the future. >> does he want to be personally involved in it? >> i think the president is very aware of and engaged in this issue but i don't have any, again, meetings to preview for

you or conversations to announce for you. >> and when you're emphasizing the effort to find a balance, isn't that the same thing as finding a compromise? and what -- >> i just want to be clear, the language that is used to describe it is up to you guys. what i'm only trying to be clear about is the commitment to make sure that all american women, regardless where they work have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive care services including contraception is absolutely firm. that's the president's commitment. that's explicit in the policy proposal. the discussion and it's an important one and the discussion -- how can we in implementing this policy try to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed? and the president is very sensitive to that. as is secretary sebelius and others. but that's the issue. so i've described that as you will but there is no change in

the commitment that women have access to these important services. >> and can that goal be achieved with some exceptions? and if you're looking at finding a balance, what is the time frame on it? >> well, let's be clear that there is an exemption. there are exemptions within the rule as it exists including churches and houses of worship. >> but maybe further -- >> well, i don't want to speculate about what discussions may be had and what policy proposals may be contained within them. what i will say is that the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to these services no matter where they work and that they -- that all women are treated equally in terms of no co-pays and no -- you know, no costs for the services provided. >> and what is the discussion about finding balance -- >> i was asked that earlier. i don't have a time frame to

provide to you, within the announcement that secretary sebelius made, she described it as a transition period of a year. so i would say some amount of time between one day and a year, is when this will evolve. >> jay and then jay. >> president obama will be discussing his outline for a budget. secretary bernanke said the lack of a budget would have an adverse of growth because it's created an uncertainty. harry reid has said that he doesn't think there's a need to introduce a budget this year. who does the president think is right, harry reid or ben bernanke? >> i think the president as you noted will be presenting his budget -- that budget, it's

important to remember and you all covered it has spending caps set based on the budget control act that was signed into law by this president last august. those spending levels represent significant cuts agreed to by democrats and republicans. and by this president. and his budget will reflect the need for that, will reflect those cuts but also reflect the priorities that he thinks are very important and i think the priorities that to wrap in part of your question here that senator reid believes are important as well, as do many members of the senate and the house. >> so, therefore, the senate should pass a budget as well? >> i don't have -- well, i don't have an opinion to express on how the senate does its business with regards to this issue. the fact is, because of the negotiations over the debt ceiling, that resulted in the budget control act, we have an

unusual situation here in that the top lines for the budget going forward have already been set and agreed to by republicans and democrats alike. >> so the -- i'm not actually asking your opinion but the white house's opinion -- >> well, i don't have -- >> the white house has no opinion about whether or not the senate should pass a budget? the president is going to pass one and the fed says not having one is bad for growth but the white house has no opinion about whether -- >> i have no opinion, and the white house has no opinion on chairman bernanke's achievement of how the senate ought to do its business. what the president believes is important is that the budget control act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget and he will, obviously, need those when the budget is put forward and he looks forward to the senate acting on the policy initiatives contained within his budget that will reflect the priorities he laid out in the state of the

union and also will reflect the priorities he laid out when he put forward his deficit and debt reduction proposal back in september. so i don't think there is any -- there will be nor is there now any doubt about the president's view on where we ought to move with the budget. >> just to follow up on the question from nora, there's been reports that because of all that's going on -- there was a hospital that lost power and a number of premature babies died as a result, i don't know if it's a true story but in a top story like this, there's a lot of rumors. does the white house know anything about the violence, factually about what's going on? i assume we have people on the ground to a degree or another. are we monitoring exactly what

is happening? well, i can tell you we all have seen the reporting and some of the horrific video images of the escalation of violence that's taking place in syria, over the last few days. and it's resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. and have been accompanied by senior officials to cleanse the country of renegades and outlaws. that is hardly reassuring and hardly re-enforces that the assad regime is on a brutal campaign to slaughter its people. this process began when the syrian people peacefully demonstrated in support of reform and transitioned to democracy. so i don't have any details to impart to you on the kinds of information we might have with

regard to what's going on in syria beyond the news reports but the news reports are bad enough. >> okay. >> you said earlier that you were discussing with international partners on humanitarian aid are you ruling out the u.s. provide humanitarian aid unilaterally. >> i'm not ruling that out but we're working with our partners. there is a broad coalition of friends of syria that extends around the globe and includes nations in the region so we have -- as we have from the beginning, we will continue to work with our allies and partners on this issue and with nations that are as concerned as we are about the brutality that's taking place in syria. >> in the wake of the russian foreign minister's trip to damascus, do you have any

reaction from the white house about russia's call for the western world to -- to have the government there, the assad government, engaging in, quote-unquote, dialog with the opposition? do you see that at all realistic or potentially meaningful? >> i think, as you may recall, from the earlier days of this situation in syria, there was an opportunity for the assad regime to engage in dialog with the opposition, with the syrian people who were demanding peaceful transition. rather than take that opportunity, assad brutally cracked down on his own people. and that crackdown continues to this day. we don't think that opportunity is available anymore. it's clear that assad has chosen

a path and that choice has resulted in deaths of many, many syrians, including innocent children, and it's a horrific result of that choice -- as we said before, as i said yesterday, i believe regarding the foreign minister's visit to syria, it's not clear what the purpose was. what is clear is siding with the assad regime at this stage will not get russia anything except for the alienation of the syrian people. alexis and then lawyery. >> jay, there are members of the president's party who say why the white house would want the contraception issue to continue percolating in a day after this. if his concept to communicate

with women and their health, et cetera, that is getting drowned out perhaps by the concern that he's trying to allay. so i'm just trying to get at this idea of a day and 18 months. could we expect the president to speak this himself to communicate better about what he is trying to do? >> alexis, i appreciate the question but i don't have any announcements to make about presidential statements or news conferences or anything of that nature. and my point about -- which i concede was delivered somewhat glibly from this time frame here is that i'm not going to set an artificial deadline. the policy that was put forward and announced by secretary sebelius makes clear that the period of transition is there for a reason. you know, and as these conversations and this dialog continues, you know, we'll have

a better sense of timing on it. but i don't have any to predict to you today. >> i just want to ask you, would you agree that the idea about as this conversation continues, if the thing that has the president on the ropes? >> well, that your assessment here is not one i agree with you -- agree with. >> the white house -- the white house did not agree that the president is on the ropes because of the concept of this conversation continuing? >> no, i don't agree with any of the phrases within that sentence. [laughter] >> or question. he's concerned about getting a policy right and its implementation right and being sensitive as he always is to the concerns of religious groups about religious freedom and the convictions they hold. that's the approach that was

taken in the development of this policy. it is the approach that is being taken in the conversations that will continue in an effort to implement it in a way that allays some of the concerns that have been expressed. laura and then lara. laura and then lara. lara and lawyery. >> i have two questions, the first is i understand the options that you expressed at the top but notwithstanding those, if that was presented, would the president sign it. >> which bill, the senate bill or the house bill -- the house hasn't voted on the bill. i'm hoping that the house doesn't do what the reports suggest it's doing, the house republicans. i think -- try explaining that to your constituents, you know, that you watered down this legislation to give -- you know, because wall street and hedge funds and others, you know, didn't like it. we just think that's a terrible idea and it should be -- this was an example of in the senate

of broad bipartisan support. the provisions that the senate is seeking to remove was put forward in the republicans in the senate and so it's just -- this is an opportunity to do something that's right, that will send a signal to the american people that congress agrees with them that there needs to be transparency and political reform in congress. it seemed like for a while that there was broad consensus, bipartisan consensus to get this done and, unfortunately, based on my early morning reading, that may not be the case. so we urged congress and the house in particular, particularly, house republicans in particular to abandon the effort to water it down and instead focus on getting it done. >> i mean, nancy pelosi has said that she's going to support it and urged people to support it. so i'm trying to understand whether those concerns are serious enough to -- >> i'm not sure --

[inaudible] >> that leader pelosi said she would support something that hasn't emerged from the back rooms of the house republican leadership room and then there's a question, obviously, as is the case in all of these things if the house dramatically changes the bill then what happens in terms of reconciliation. we support the bill, the proposal as the president said in the state of the union address that would ban insider trading among members of congress. we support the bill that emerged from the senate by a vote of 96-3 including amendments put forward by senators grassley and -- senators grassley and cornyn. we hope house republicans will do the same. >> and what is -- what is the white house's view on extending these provisions to the executive branch? >> i understand that there's been a furtive -- not a furtive, that's a wrong word, a very public although humorous attempt by some among the house

republicans to suggest that's an issue when the absolute fact is that there are far more stringent recommendations on the base. as i'm sure they know -- and i would quote from an article on a slightly separate issue today, in, i think, "the washington post," public citizen government -- public citizen as you know is a government watchdog group. greg holeman said, quote, the executive branch has far stricter ethic standards than congress does and congress has set these standards. the executive branch can't steer contracts or work to businesses where family members work, they can't even own stock in industries that they oversee unlike congress. it's complete hypocrisy. so again we are fine with the stock act as it emerged from the senate. we certainly look forward to the house taking action as it

appropriately should on this bipartisan measure and the president will sign it into law. i'm just struck by the effort to water it down behind closed doors, you know, presumably because of objections by financial institutions and their lobbyists. >> a follow-up -- >> yes. >> there's been a little bit of confusion about this insider trading. is insider trading currently legal for members of congress? it sounds like something that's -- >> i believe it is not banned. that's the point of the legislation. >> even though insider trading by definition is something that's not legal. i'm just wondering that will be made illegal by this legislation that isn't -- >> i think it explicitly bans insider trading as well as does a number of other things that are included in the bill. i would -- i would -- >> right now insider trading is not illegal for members of congress? >> well, it's certainly not

explicitly banned and i would point you to the authors of the legislation. >> okay, and my second question just about contraception which i've tried to stay away at least for 48 hours is -- do you feel -- [laughter] >> do you feel this is a tremendous amount of questions -- do you feel that this is a controversy that is oppressed-driven controversy as many things can be or is this a real debate that's really gripped a lot of people or do you think this is one of those things that we are ginning up? >> no, i think -- and more importantly, the president thinks that the concerns expressed by some religious groups and religious individuals are understandable and that's why even prior to those concerns being expressed, the policy included a transition period where discussions would be had -- would take place around

an effort to implement the policy in a way that alaid those concerns. so i think that -- it's important to, in terms of our actions and reactions here to note that from the beginning we understood the sensitivity of this. that is why we sought the balance that we did in the policy itself. why churches and houses of worship are exempted and why this transition period was a part of the rule. and why we're having these conversations. so you know, obviously, in a case like this, sometimes sometimes folks try to make political hay out of it and that's the way the system works and the process works but the president believes and we believe there's legitimate concerns out there and that's why the policy was written the way it was. >> well, jay, you haven't reached out to the catholic bishops i called them yesterday. they haven't gotten a call.

they are the most outspoken on this topic. if you're starting a conversation, who are you conversing with? >> first of all, i'm not going to dispute your reporting but i think there's been a lot of conversations in the process that led up to the announcements to this. and some haven't had a call but others have been engaged in this conversation and will be engaged so, you know, i think that's been amply reported in some cases. >> jay, the president is about to leave for the -- [inaudible] >> can you tell us what his agenda is? >> he looks forward with the senate democrats to talk about the agenda going forward and to talk about the budget he'll put forward and to talk about the

absolute need to ensure that the payroll tax cut is extended for the calendar year to make sure 160 million americans don't have their taxes go up. he'll talk about the other actionses that he hopes to work on to move this economy forward, promote growth and job creation, the usual topics. [laughter] >> why is jim maseeno there with him? >> i soon to engage with that conversation as well. but maybe you can ask the campaign. chris? >> let me go -- >> yesterday, regarding the president's position on the right of same-sex couples to marry, you said rights a process that involved a faith. what other decision business providing protections and civil responsibilities has the president based upon a decision

on his faith? >> i want to be clear and i appreciate the question that i was simply referring to statements the presidential had made in the past about this issue and it's not about -- i don't want -- i'm not -- i'm no, no way going further than anything the president himself has said about his views on this issue and i want to be clear. and thank you for the opportunity to be clear on this. you know, what i want to add about yesterday is that, as you know, the president has long opposed diadvice jive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. he believes strongly the protections should not be taken away from committed gay and lesbian couples who want to take care of their families. and that's -- while we don't comment on specific litigation, that is the -- his general position on this as i think you know and is reported on. >> on the conversations that are underway on this contraceptive policy, conversations that are

underway, allaying concerns, period of transition, do you think that boehner is jumping the gun when he talks about repealing this, since you believe this is all still in progress? >> you know, we're just going to focus on the effort we have underway. the president is committed, as i've tried to make clear to ensuring that this policy is implemented so that all american women have access to the same level of health care coverage. and doing that in a way to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed. you know, we'll leave comments that you mentioned and others -- you know, we note them but we focused on trying to get the policy implementation done in the right way. thank you very much. >> are you saying that you favor or oppose or don't care whether the executive branch is covered? >> i'm saying i don't -- redundancies are fine in the -- >> it's okay with you?

>> right. everyone who knows policies can -- that are in place and that apply to executive branch knows this is a completely -- yes, a barrel full of gorilla dust. >> but you don't oppose the bill? >> i don't. thanks. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

ended is generating some conversation and actually some controversy on capitol hill. we are going to show you the speaker john banners, the house floor from just a short while ago and will take your phone calls and a little bit in just about 20 minutes and get your reaction to the rule itself, the white house, the comments you heard from j kearney, and we will do that in about 20 minutes here on c-span2. also finding out that democratic senator boxer, sheen, and others will have their own news conference and will cover that later live here on c-span2. phone calls in 20 minutes. first republican senators on capitol hill. the senate is out today is democrats are holding a policy conference. their retreat in washington. republican senators also had

meetings on capitol hill, and a large part of their news conference after those meetings was dominated by discussion on the contraception rule. here is what they had to say. [background noises] >> kind of a slow day today. all of the newsmakers somewhere else spirit of the baseball park and i heard. is that right? at the met stadium. we had a republican conference this morning to discuss essentially the jobs issue -- issue in our economy and the way forward. our new conference chairman convened that issue, but we also convened a meeting, and i'm going to call on him in a minute then we would like to address another issue that has arisen in

the context of obamacare. we know we get the government involved in all aspects of our health care, but amazingly enough it has gotten involved in other things as well. we have three senators with us to have been involved in developing a response to the most recent discovery of yet another government interference with our lives in obamacare. we will turn to that shortly, but with that, let me call on our conference chair. >> thank you. we did have a really good discussion this morning, and the one thing that you are always reminded of whenever you get a bunch of republican senators together is that we are very much an entrepreneurial party. we do not march in lockstep. we have people with good ideas about how to move our country forward. the one thing that i think i would say and that everybody agrees on, and that is that the president's policies have made

our economy much, much worse. and because his policies have made our economy worse he is trying to distract from that record and divide americans in talking about all those sorts of things to get groups of americans pitted against each other. we think there is a better way. we ought to be talking not about how we can redistribute, would make a bigger for all americans, expand and grow our economy and create jobs. this morning it was really about us trying to come together around some of those key agenda items and hopefully to be able to work with the democrats on that, although it looks very much like they don't want to do a lot this year. i think that the leader on their side would like to insulate his members from having to make difficult votes in an election year. it is pretty clear we're not going to have a budget this year, which, of course, is the blueprint, if you will, the path forward in terms of how we're going to deal with spending and debt and jobs and the economy.

so, you know, we are at a loss right now as to why the democrats are not born to produce a budget for now will be the fourth year in a row, but i hope that there are some things that we can get done between now and the election. the american people expect it to act. the issues we face are bay, and the consequences of inaction are great. my hope would be that we will see some willingness on their part to work with us to put policies in place that will actually make it less expensive and difficult to create jobs for small businesses in this country, rather than making it more expensive and more difficult, which is what we have seen with the obama agenda and now the record and the economy that they have handed best. as the leader said, we have some folks to have been very much in the lead on this issue of religious liberty. it is pretty clear that we have in this country a heritage. we have the people who founded this country because of the issue of religious persecution

which is an incredible distinctive about america. they don't have that. religious liberty is not something known in many parts of the world, certainly not places like the middle east. we have seen with this administration now is the trampling of that first amendment protection in a systematic dismantling of religious liberty for people in this country, and so we believe that the president and hopefully his administration will walk back from this, but clearly this is an issue that has gotten the attention, not only of people who would subscribe to various religions in this country, a catholic, protestant, but those who, perhaps, maybe are not even all that religious simply because they see this as another attempt to grow government, make it bigger and more expensive and interested in their lives, and that is one of the very things we warned about when obamacare was adopted in the first place. i would like to introduce one of my colleagues, and she will hand it off.

>> thank you. we have seen with the president's health care bill and the regulations recently issued by health and human services and unprecedented affront to religious liberty. and if we put religious institutions and faith based organizations in a position where they have to comply with government mandate that violates the principles of their faith, it violates our first amendment to the constitution, and really, it is an affront to what we stand for as americans. i'll say this, this is not a woman's rights issue. this is a religious liberty issue, and it can apply to all south states. i have heard from my constituents who are deeply, deeply concerned about this. we need to respect the rights of conscience for all religions and when you look at what this a administration is done, really, it has a look and a whole group of people that are deeply concerned about an unprecedented

extension of government and to issues that we have always left in the quiet of people's homes, their churches, and in faith-based institutions. i'll say this also, what the administration has done is really an unprecedented thing in terms of both parties respecting religious liberty. if you look at what was signed into law in 1993, the religious freedom restoration act, what this administration has done also violates not only the spirit of that law, but also the letter of the law, which was signed into law by a democratic president. again, i would say this is unprecedented, not a woman's rights issue, but this is a right that goes to the fundamental of our first amendment in the constitution. i would call on the president to overturn the health and human

services regulation to stop infringing on religious freedom and to really change the direction of what we have seen with the unprecedented expansion that we have seen from obamacare. thank you. >> they do, kelly. try to act like they're backing away from this bad policy. j kearney saying we want to talk about this for a year, given them a year to think about it. that may actually be the most offensive part of this whole idea. religious institutions, you have to do things that are contrary to your faith and principles. by the way, we would give you a year to figure out how to accommodate that changing your faith. it is offensive, violates the first amendment of the constitution, shows what happens when the government begins to think that they cannot on the define health care but deliver health care. it should not be allowed to stand, and it is fundamentally a

religious principle issue. this is where the government is saying, here is the kind of coverage, the specific kind of coverage you have to give your employees. that even health care our institutions, the coverage you have to give your employees. just recently a supreme court case 90 on hiring religious institutions. others at the white house are saying, well, we give the church an exemption which rightly shows how little they understand the whole faith based institutions of the country. the church extends well beyond the building of the church. if it is a church run school, church and university. day care center adjures take care center, a muslim community, outreach effort, all of those banks are part of that faith-based community. the supreme court justice ruled 90 and at the academy case, 90

that those institutions have specific different and protected hiring rights. they also have all kinds of other different and protected rights because of who they are because of the constitution. and you cannot pass laws and rules that violate constitutional principles. that is what this would do, why there has been such a ridge about it, and it is only one of many instances that could occur if you begin to think that the government can interfere in these areas. it is about religious liberty, not about a specific individual application of that liberty. it is a religious liberty. we want to look at things like the rights of conscience, which were mentioned, i'm told, at the constitutional convention itself as one of the reasons for the first amendment. i understand people's outrage and would join me in the

congress, democrats, and i believe republicans and soon there will be a number of democrats saying that the administration, don't go down this list path. don't try to turn america into something it is not, and don't think that you can run the government controls the fate use of the american people. >> this has nothing to do with contraception or right versus left liberal versus conservative this is very straightforward. however government of the united states should have the power to go in until a faith-based organization they have to pay for something that they teach their members not to do. it is that simple, and if the answer is yes then we -- that this government can reach all kinds of other up results. the vast majority of americans weather of the left of the right would tell you that the government of the united states should not have the power to go in until a church based organization that they must pay for something that faith teaches their members not to do.

that is what this issue is about. the solution is for the president to come back and say we're going to reconsider this decision. we have plenty of other issues to argue. plenty of other issues to take to the american people throughout the year and in the november elections. all the president has to do is basically reconsider the decision as they have made in the knowledge that maybe they went too far and did not think about it all the way when they made it. i hope that is what will happen. if it does not then i hope that the senate and that house will act on it as well because the american people are asking us to, and i think that is an important issue. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> he said that this was part of a system as it -- systematic dismantling. >> well, i just think -- i guess what i am suggesting is i have looked at what this administration is doing with regard to our economy. it is pretty clear to me that the growth and expansion that we have seen in government is leading as toward more of the social welfare state the usc and a european country. this is is like this are also this is is that move us more in the direction of secularization in our country and seemed to me to be suggesting a disregard for the basic core beliefs of the american people. it's something that brought people this venture in the first place. it ought to be the thing that we are most concerned or concerned

about in every aspect of our constitution, but if we are now willing to defend our constitutional rights and that things for which people came to this country in the first place in many fun indict, then, you know, i don't know what kind of a country we are. >> can i add, i want to give an example of something that happened earlier this year. the complex, the sex trafficking grant, they previously held the red command the administration, basically the career employees at health and human services gave the conference of catholic bishops highest-ranking because of their prior performance in addressing the issue of sex trafficking. the administration went as far, the political appointees of transit -- changing the criteria of the grant to make sure the faith based organization would

not receive it. so when i see something like that, that is something that is deeply troubling. objectively they deserve to get that grant. i question it. i know others have, but that's another example. [inaudible question] >> but if you listen to that compromise, a compromise is we're going to talk to them a year and figure out how they comply with this rule. go back and listen to exactly what they said yesterday, which was we gave them a year to see how they can comply with this rule. it was not a discussion of how we can change the rule. it was not a discussion of how we can walk away from this. the white house does not need to do this, and whether it is eeoc versus an academy or the catholic bishops not getting a grant or hospitals being told, if you don't provide all services we will reimburse you for any services, this is

systematically happening. this just happens to be something that struck at the heart of these big institutions that provide lots of health care and lots of education that they are the ones driving this debate , not us. it was the catholic bishops that sent the letter to every parishioners' i think in america for the last two weeks. the catholic chaplain of the army, the head chaplain of the army has sent a letter that initially was not going to be read. this was a huge, huge issue. if you listen to what they're saying they're just trying to change the subject and ticket down the road year which may be why they gave it to start with. [inaudible question] >> the short answer is we are discussing the appropriate response.

the three senators you have heard from are involved in those discussions. we will let you know what we decide what approach to take. [inaudible question] >> would you repeat that question? [inaudible question] >> on that topic there is also other reporting that he vetoed the bill. so that is not what this is about. this is about religious liberty. these institutions. you can try to turn it into all of the political discussion that you want. this is a first amendment american right.

it has nothing to do with who said that win are his said this. this is about this issue right now. the conscious protection law that the senators and back filed some time ago that we all three co-sponsored anticipated a exactly the path that the administration was on. this just became the issue that brought public attention to something we have been trying to talk about for weeks now. [inaudible question] >> well, obviously very, very concerned about the americans that are being held. i issued a statement yesterday with senator mccain and senator lieberman. right now i think the egyptian government needs to understand how serious we are about resolving this issue. certainly we are in a position where it could be in jeopardy. they have an opportunity to correct this by obviously

releasing the americans that are held and resolving this with our country. there is no question that we have an important relationship with egypt, and i want to see the relationship prepared, but it is up to them to act right now. >> thank you all. >> republican senators on capitol hill, some reaction to the white house rules on contraception that were part of the health care law, which requires employees to offer birth control coverage. yet the reaction not only from republican senators, but also from the house speaker john boehner and others, and we will show you the speaker's comments in just a moment. we are opening up our phone lines for you for thoughts on the discussion of the contraception rules, again, that are part of the health care law. here are the lines to comment. 202-585-3885. independence, that number is

202-58-5387. make sure you knew your television when you call in. you want to let you know that several democratic senators will be holding the news conference about the very same issue coming up this afternoon at 4:00 eastern. we will hear from senators boxer and gillibrand, sheen, and others live here on c-span2. let's get to a couple of your calls. justin in akron ohio is first upon our republican line. go ahead. >> good afternoon. >> afternoon. >> it is clear in case anyone has been watching this presidency the prior four years of barack obama is a radical man. he really thinks he is smarter and more important than everyone else and has to tell us all how we are going to do everything. here is a simple solution for someone who wants to work in a catholic organization when you walk in there with a catholic organization presents their benefits. can you work under these conditions, yes or no? yes, good, you got the job. no, go find employment elsewhere why do we have to have this one

federal government fits all mentality that barack obama seems to just keep throwing and everybody? >> host: let's hear from the morning and our democratic line. michael. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> host: we sure can. go ahead. >> caller: okay. it is not about democrats, republican, black, white, it is about good and evil. and the american people know his agenda. he is evil. he is for satan. we are for jesus, and we are the winners. >> host: that is michael from ohio. let's take a look at what the actual language in the health care law would do. the president's proposal that was part of law now would require private insurance plans to cover contraceptive services with no co-payments or coinsurance or deductibles starting in august as part of starting in august as part of the health care overhaul.

>> host: make sure you meet your television. >> caller: okay. >> host: all set? >> caller: yes. >> guest: >> host: all right. go ahead. >> caller: obama, with his health care program, and a senior citizen for medicare and supplement. his health care program costs me a cancellation of my supplement in 2010. i had to take a new one, and it went up $50. this guy is an islamic, and he wants to rule the world. >> host: we go next to enjoy who is in mission viejo, california, democratic caller. >> caller: good afternoon. i am kind of sick and tired of

the republicans saying what might happen. this lot is not in effect yet, and 28 states, the press secretary justice spoke in support of this program, and 28 states already require this states already require this eight of those states don't have their religious extension. so this does not take effect until 2013, and he said president obama and the health lady is going to open up discussions with religious groups. >> host: kathleen -- the health secretary. >> caller: exactly. and this is -- president obama is open to this and is sensitive to this. this is not something he is jamming through. just to remind everybody, most insurance policies cover contraception. thank you for c-span. >> host: that caller mentioned the press secretary. you see him on the screen. we will show you his briefing in

just a few minutes. what to show you, john boehner basically started the afternoon session taking a couple of minutes support time to talk about the president's decision in the health care law and the contraception rule. here is what he had to say. >> my colleagues, in recent days americans of every faith and political persuasion have political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country this rule would require faith-based employers, including cat -- catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals to provide services that they believe are immoral. those services include sterilization, abortion, drugs, devices, and contraception. imposing this requirement, the federal government has gone dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, as

encroaching on religious freedom in a manner that affects millions of americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions. if the president is not reversed the department's attack on religious freedom, then the congress, acting on behalf of the american people in the constitution that we are sworn to uphold and defend, must. the house will approach this matter fairly and liberally throughout regular order and appropriate legislative channels . because it has prairie jurisdiction on the issues involved the energy and commerce committee is taking the lead on alleges that a process that will be necessary to enact an effective and a proper resolution. sharon, i convenes the hearing last year and began to lay the groundwork for a legislative action when this rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options at his committee proceeds of his efforts. this attack by the federal government and religious freedom in our country must not stand

and will not stand. >> host: speaker boehner from the house floor. a reminder, you can see that in our video library at c-span.org. also, part of the annual gathering of conservatives here in washington tomorrow at 1:35 p.m. eastern. live coverage of that. it is possible you will have more to say about the administration contraception rules, part of the health care law. we're taking your phone calls for the next couple of minutes. chicago and jose on our independent line. are you there? >> caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. what is going on that i am seeing is that there are trying to impose the freedom of first amendment rights against the united states of american citizens, and what i have noticed is the reason why they are saying this is because they took freedom of religious rights along time ago during the early 1900's when the study of

theology was imposed in public schools. so what obama is probably trying to do is impose a religious rights against the different sects of contraception, just trying to reimpose that there should be rights against freedom of religion in the united states. my question is, start speaking about having religion in public schools because kids are getting schools because kids are getting out of -- they're getting out of chaos, and that is my question. thank you for kevin mike cox. >> host: thank you. sally in milford, conn., a republican caller. what do you think about the discussion in washington and elsewhere about the status of generals. >> caller: thank you for letting me speak to everyone. i, first of all, think that it is against the constitutional right of religion for a

president, obama, to be doing this to the country. it is not right. he should realize that he has made a mistake and come forward and be a good person and say that he has made a mistake. second of all, i think congress should correct our problem, and that is why we voted for all the that is why we voted for all the people w ho are representing as in congress. >> host: if you cannot get through on the phone you can always way l line and are facebook page. the poll asked you specifically if you support speaker obama or the administration in this issue and to be more specific during his comments on the house or the speaker, the house or work on legislative action to oppose the obama administration contraceptive rules. buffalo democratic caller.

welcome. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my question here -- and i am a democrat, but i do see that this ruling the although it takes effect in 2013 is wrong, constitutionally wrong. fellow democrats need to get over that blame game toward republicans. they need to understand that this is wrong. it takes away religious rights, religious freedoms, administration has proven themselves over and over on this measure. they need to do something to stop this man. >> host: what do you think the administration can do at this point? point? how did they -- out in a compromise? >> caller: they are just going to have to simply back step. make apologies for enticing such a proposal the necessary

process, but at the same time they have set a mid to the american people that they were wrong. >> host: needless to say it was an important topic of conversation here's a sample. >> well, i think their is a lot of speculation imbedded in that question. i'm not going to go there. i think on this issue from the very beginning we have said that we will listen and work with individuals who have concerns as we work to implement the law. as i said yesterday, january 20th, when this decision was announced the secretaries have we will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional time to discuss concerns. i would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements. eight of the states, as i

mentioned before, do not even have exemptions that this have exemptions that this provision requires for purchasing. we want to work with all these in a way that is sensitive to the concerns. let's be clear, we are committed, the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs no matter where there were. >> so while you are pledging to work, there is concern in congress that the house right now is pledging to undo the role >> right now i think that we are focused on the implementation of this rule, in doing what we said back on january 20th when it was announced which was work with those who have concerns and see if they're is a way to implement this policy to insure that women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to

preventive services, to do it in a way that might allay some of the concerns that have been at expressed. this president, as you know he has worked with his first job in chicago, churches and organizations to do a lot of the good work. very sensitive to concerns like these, and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he believes he is committed to making sure women have access. he wants to of find a way to have lamented that can allay some of the concerns that have been expressed. and that is why the transition was announced at the same time the rule was announced. >> about that transition, until august of 2013. is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place that would be l.a. of concerns before that?

>> well, i would not want to predict a date by which this process might produce a result. i think it is best to let that process take place. there are -- there are ways, and i think people in the broader community here to have been looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is implemented so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where there were. but also hopefully it will allay but also hopefully it will allay some of the concerns expressed. i mean, i don't want to get into whether this approach my work or the one. who might feel better about it

if this solution were to move forward. we are not that -- at that point in the process. >> host: and we will show you all of jay carney briefing in just a moment. the white house contraception rule promulgated as a result of the health care law, part of those rules breed that requires private insurance plans to cover contraceptive services with no copayment chemical insurance, or deductible starting in august and also allows nonprofit religious employers such as hospitals and universities that don't currently provide contraceptive services to apply for a one-year transition. it says that fate institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques would be exempt from the requirement. let's get a couple more calls. we go to oklahoma. alex is on our independent line. hello. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that i agree with the administration on this and that we don't need to look at it as a religious view.

i mean, you have the department of health and human services stating that all employers stating that all employers should provide health insurance, you know, even a sterilization and contraception to all employees. it from an employment, you know, we should not discriminate employees based on their race, religion, color, or national origin and i believe allowing religious institutions not to offer the same health services is discrimination in the workplace. >> host: thank you for your input. this is rich burr, virginia, and jeff is on our public land. wed. >> caller: i am a republican, and i feel that this is a direct offense against our constitution president obama has done several things against our constitution. he should rethink this. churches and, you know, the

government should never roughshod over religious institutions, whether it be the catholic, jewish, or the muslim community. >> host: no, they have exempted churches and mosques and religions in particular. the rule is applying to religious affiliated employers. are you okay with that? >> no, not. because if you have a catholic university they go by church doctrine. is that not true? >> i guess in some cases you're right. it could be the case half on a. >> host: it employs people of other faiths.

>> caller: well, then they are still observing their religious faith. you see, it all comes down to religious faith. when you have faith people believe. >> host: thank you for your call. we will move on. we seem to have lost the caller. on the democratic side. go ahead. >> hello. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to get in and say, do the men here in washington think that women cannot think for themselves? and contraception these to be made available to anybody that wants it because men, if they are given a chance to wear raincoats they're going to go without, if you know when i mean >> host: here is a pay you as an independent collar and

milford connecticut. your thoughts on the discussion on the continent -- contraceptive rule. >> caller: endo believe it is a health issue. believe it is against the constitution and pieces stay out of people's business. >> caller: david kamala into the conversation. >> caller: you know, i think it is completely wrong that they should be able to tell our religious rights. i mean, that is why people move here, was for freedom of religion. religion. if they made a rule like, let's say, joe full witnesses should have transfusion if it would change our life, what can do a thing would happen? it don't know what it is. something is the catholic church. it's just wrong. >> caller: calling from busy in. possible that fred upton, the

chairman of the house energy and commerce committee could have some weight in the discussion of legislation. bill writes that john boehner said the issue has primary jurisdiction in that committee, and that the committee will take the lead on the issue to find an effective and appropriate solution. he specifically, the chairman fred upton to find a legislative solution. next up is pat in cincinnati. next up is pat in cincinnati. i think we are done with phone calls. thanks for all of them. we want to remind you that if you want to weigh in on the issue we have opened up a pull test your thoughts on who should take the lead, who is right in this situation, the obama situation or john boehner proposing a legislative solution to the issue. facebook dot com / c-span as per you go. also, this afternoon at 4:00 democratic senators are expected to hold a news conference. you will have that live for you you will have that live for you at 4:00 here on c-span2. next up, the entire news

conference with jay carney at the white house earlier this afternoon. [background noises] >> hello, everyone. good afternoon. thank you for being here. before i take your questions, just a couple of things. first of all, the president earlier today hosted -- rather chairman of his regular afghanistan-pakistan meetings with national security council team, national security team in the situation room. secondly, i wanted to mention that in the state of the union address the president laid out a

blueprint to return to america's values, including reducing the influence of money and lobbying in washington. lastly congress was on track to take the right first step by doing something they should have long ago, banning insider trading by members of congress. the senate in an admirable show of bipartisanship came together to pass the stock at because it was the right thing to do. the bill passed 96-3, and that does not happen very often, as you know. this morning very early when it was still dark out and i was sitting in my kitchen table reading a newspaper i was shocked to see that even a simple bill would ensure that -- that would ensure that everyone plays by the rules is being weakened behind closed doors by house republicans is syndicating to pressure from wall street lobbyists. we hope that is not what is happening. this should not be a partisan issue. one of the amendments on registration requirements that according to these press reports

is being stripped out of the bill by house republicans was inserted into the bill by a senate republican. the anti-corruption amendment was offered by both senators leahy, a democrat and senator corn and coming republican. this is something that the democrats and republicans worked together to write and pass. it would be a shame if house republicans led by the majority leader at the urging of wall street interests and others inside the beltway water down the tough but common-sense measure supported by republicans and democrats alike. the president has said now is the time to take steps to fix the corrosive influence, and this is something that congress should take action on right should take action on right away. with that will move to your questions. >> any announcements. >> i have no announcements. and no the president oversees

these meetings and one to let you know is happening. may have more of a readout. it ended not long ago. >> on the contraception issue, speaker boehner is promising to repeal the rule for legislation that was talked about. i am curious about your reaction to that and if that were to happen, is that the measure the president would veto? >> well, a lot of speculation embedded in that question, and not going to go there. i think on this issue from the i think on this issue from the very beginning we have said that we will listen and work with individuals who have concerns as we work to implement the law. as i said yesterday and january 20th when this decision was announced off all the secretaries of will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional time to discuss concerns. i would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements.

eight of the states, as i mentioned before, did not even mentioned before, did not even have exemptions that this provision requires for churches and houses of worship. we want to work with these organizations to implement this policy in a way that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible. let's be clear, we are committed , the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra cost. >> while you're pledging to work with groups who are concerned, congress to more of this house right now is pledging. what is your reaction? >> right now i think we're focused on the implementation of this rule, and doing what we said back on january 20th when the secretary announced it, which was work with those who have concerns to see if they're have concerns to see if they're is a way to and implement this policy to ensure that women everywhere at the same level of

health care coverage and the same access to provide services. but to do it in a way that might allay some of the concerns addressed, and this president has -- as you know he has worked with churches and organizations that do a lot of good work. he is very sensitive to concerns like these, and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he believes he is committed to making sure women have access to this coverage. he wants to find a way to implemented that can l.a. some of the concerns that have been addressed. that is why the transition was announced at the same time that the rule was announced. >> august of 2013. it is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place before they?

>> well, i would not want to predict a date by which this process might produce the results. i think it is best to let the process take place. there are -- there are ways, and i think people in the broader community here have been looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is implemented so that when have access to these important health care services no matter where there were, but also that hopefully would allay some of the concerns expressed. i mean, i don't want to get into whether this approach my work or that one, who might feel better

about it if this solution were put forward. we are not at that point in the process. >> on a different topic, payroll tax, bogged down, and this president wants the tax credit extended. of curious what the white house of curious what the white house is thinking about the state of play right now. are you confident that it will be extended or is there a general nervousness? >> we are -- we continue to be confident that congress will pass the extension of the pass the extension of the apparel tax cut for the rest of the calendar year. it is still inconceivable to us that congress would want to raise taxes on 160 million americans on march 1st at a time when hard-working americans need the extra money to pay their bills, make ends meet.

you know, there is an element of days of her to this process. i think that it was clear by the end of december. it is clear from the economic reports that we have had in the last several months that we -- that the economy is growing and producing jobs and that we are moving in the right direction, moving in the right direction, and congress should not muck that up. the president believes dementia said in the past, the folks on they will need to act without delay and without trauma to get this done. again, this is a case where everyone says, republicans on the hill, leaders on the hill by and large say now that they believe extending the payroll tax cut to the end of the year is the right thing to do. good policy, good for the economy, the right thing to do for our working americans. democrats obviously agree the president strongly agrees, and we ought to get this done. we still have time to work on this, and we hope that congress

focuses and gets its work done. >> on contraception, it is not just the speaker and mitch mcconnell have come out. the candidates have all seized on it on the campaign trail, including mitt romney. they obviously see an opportunity to not only drive a wage and the support of some democrats, but also trying to rally their base. does the president feel? >> well, the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country. he is focused on finding a balance that is sensitive to the concerns expressed by some religious groups. you know, the former governor of massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the

services that this rule would provide for women around the country are the same that are provided in massachusetts and were provided when he was governor. including contraception, including, you know, coverage with no copay or deductible. religious exemptions for houses of worship in churches and church control the organization such as parochial schools, but not said universities and hospitals. i mean, this is, i think, ironic, the fact that mitt romney is expressing -- criticizing the president for pursuing a policy that is virtually identical to the one that was in place when he was governor of massachusetts. >> as the president agree with rick santorum? >> i have not heard what senator

santorum has set on the issue. >> one other question go soda speaking to the evangelical support for catholics who are opposed to this. rick warren tweeted he stands in solidarity with catholics. i would go to jail rather than cave in to a mandate. as you know, he has a lot of followers and as tough as a people who are interested in what he is saying. are you worried that that is rallying the republican base? >> we're not worried about >> we're not worried about republicans or democrats . the political component of this. we are concerned about making sure that women get access to these important services, that women are treated equally around the country regardless of where there were, but we are sensitive

to and understand the concerns expressed, and that is why this as part of the original announcement of this by secretary sibelius, we put in place a process where further discussions could be had that would address these concerns and may be allays some of them. i cannot -- you know, i cannot itemize or give great detail on what those discussions will look like. as i think been noted, the implementation of this policy does not take place until august to cut to 13. this conversation is only just under way. it is important to note that the president takes those concerns very seriously and is committed to take serious the policy. we will press forward with these discussions to see if they're is a way to proceed to move forward

in implementing this policy valets of these concerns. >> yeah the furlong comeback. >> is he surprised? >> the president understands these concerns sought that appropriate balance houses of worship but unlike some states in the country. and why he supported the -- the part of this that included a process by which further discussion could be at no be

implementing this for institutions in groups that expressed concerns that might delay or results of those concerns. i don't think @booktv the key in the stands and understood from the beginning why this is a sensitive issue and why -- informs his decision. >> just at the earliest stage, is there any sense of discussions would take place? is there any sense here of whom would talk to who and terms of -- hhs, some sort of resolution. >> endo have a roster of individuals involved. issues involving health care policy would normally include

folks to do health care policy. you know, a variety of places in the administration. those the kinds of conversations that would take place in terms of the policy side of this. yes. >> this reporting yesterday that your assertion that the next year-and-a-half we spend looking for a way to employment the policy was a sign that you're looking to compromise. you push that strongly. tell me why that should not be seen as an attempt. >> i just wanted to be clear, as i am trying to be again today that the president is committed to implementing the policy that will insure that women across the country no matter where their work will have access to the same health care and the same preventive care services. it is also true and has been

true since the day that this was announced that we intend as an administration as the secretary said to work with religious groups that have concerns about this to see if they're is a way to implement that policy that eases some of those concerns. and both are true, but i wanted to be clear yesterday and i want to be clear today that the commitment to ensuring that commitment to ensuring that women have access to this important -- to these important health care services remains very strong. >> well, it's not a compromise because you won't walk back from access without copay. >> correct. >> there is also the difficulty within the pentagon, the army chief of chaplains suggesting, not read a letter from an, he felt might lead to disobedience, frankly. >> well, i will refer you to

specifics for the pentagon called my understanding is chaplains were absolutely free to express their opinions about this and did. >> well, the letter from the. >> i would defer you to the defense department, but i hope and reporting of this you know the chaplains are absolutely free to express as they should be an opinion on this matter. >> can you confirm that the president's former chief of staff along with the vice-president and encourage the president to not make this decision but the president's and his female advisers including the hhs secretary? >> i'm not going to get into internal deliberations and who is on which side of discussions and debates internally. i will say that broadly speaking the reports that line certain people up or inaccurate, both broadly and specifically in

terms of some of the individuals, but i'm not telling to engage in a guessing game but who fought which way on which issues. issues. .. >> i know you've addressed it before by one to ask it again. senator mccain and others are talking about whether we should arm the opposition in syria. has that been completely ruled out? >> we are pursuing a political

path in an attempt to resolve, with our international partners, the situation in syria, or rather to help the process move towards a peaceful political transition, democratic transition, working with friends of syria all around the globe. we believe that political solution is the right way to go. we never rule anything out in a situation like this but we are pursuing a path that includes isolating and pressuring the assad regime so that it stops its heinous slaughtering of its own people. and that, you know come in the coming days we will continue to our very active discussion with friends and allies who support the syrian people, along with the opposition of serious national council to crystallize the international community's next step in that effort to halt

the slaughter of the three people and to pursue the transition to democracy. >> how would humanitarian assistance be delivered, how much are we talking about? has there been a dollar figure put on its? >> no. i appreciate the question. i know i raised it yesterday. we are of course looking at humanitarian assistance to the syrian people and we have for some time. we're consulting with our international partners and we anticipate this been one of the focuses, focuses of the discussions that we will have with friends of syria in a friends of syria meeting. that may be held in the near future. because there is near universal concern about the plight of the syrian people if they were subjected to this brutal assault by the assad regime. but i don't have specifics about content or delivery. these are just discussions that we anticipate having with our international partners. christian. >> in the past administrators put forth names of officials --

[inaudible] during the american jobs act. the present first pull that out. we are from a number of them. why not when we name the religious leaders who support the hhs decision? >> well, i'm not sure, you, anybody who supports the decision, and the general approach to providing import health care services to women across the country is certainly welcome to express that opinion. this is not, again, i think that we are engaged in a process that we are engaged in a process that seeks to find a balance between a policy that ensures that women get access to these important

services and, no matter where they work, and also deals with the understandable concerns of some religious groups. and we are in the process of doing that. >> your argument will be able to put together a forward -- a list -- >> we are not trying to win and i've never we're trying to implement a policy that will affect millions of women, all women, and, in this country, and also to do so in a way that is sensitive to people's religious beliefs. that reflects the approach the president takes to it reflects the approach that secretary sebelius has taken. >> on the payroll tax cut, discussions are going on right now, there have been some rumblings that it might be a short-term deal again. something that the president would sign off on, would you support this or we only accept a year-long extension? >> it is, like i said, inconceivable that the same

folks in congress who almost prevented payroll tax cut from being extended for two months would want to go through that again. so we believe that there is consensus on capitol hill among democrats and republicans that we need to do this and we need to do it for the full calendar year. i mean, we just, you know. you need only point to the you need only point to the recent economic growth and i'm employment figures to note that the economy, while growing, and creating jobs, needs this action to be taken, to continue along the road to recovery. i just can't imagine that folks in congress are going to want to explain to their constituents that they block the extension of this tax cut, assuring that taxes were raised on most of their constituents. because they couldn't sort out some easily resolvable issues

with their fellow members of congress. we think this can be done. we absolutely think it should be done for the remainder of the calendar year. >> one more on city. you said in the past that you do think a solid fall was emmett. given the fact that the increase in violence over the weekend, last night, do you still see the situation in that light? >> there's no question that president assad has lost control over parts of this country. there's a question that he certainly lost the support of his people long ago, thanks to his brutality and his refusal to participate in the kinds of forms of what would've led to a democratic transition in syria. there's no question that because there's no question that because of the efforts of the international community to put the squeeze on the regime financially that is assets and his capacities, and there's no question that those around him

along, within the military and governmental leadership are beginning to doubt the wisdom of sticking by him. so yes, we believe his days are numbered and that's why we find it disappointing to say the least that votes were taken in the u.n. security council to block an important resolution. it is simply a mistake to side with a regime that is going to go down in history as a brutal repressor of its own people. it is a mistake to side with the regime whose days are numbered, to isolate yourself from the syrian people. that's the wrong action to take. the right place to be is with and in support of the syrian people who are insisting on a peaceful transition to democracy. karen.

>> you talked about the >> you talked about the administration's commitment to reaching out to religious groups and giving their views. is the president himself going to be involved in that process, any kind of outreach on that yet? >> well, i think there's been some reporting about some of the conversations the president has had but i don't have any scheduling or any calls or meetings to announce from here that he may have in the future. >> does he want to be personally involved in? >> i think the president is very aware of and engaged in this issue, but i don't have any, again, the meetings to preview for you or conversations to announce. >> when you're emphasizing the efforts to define, is that the same thing as find a compromise? same thing as find a compromise? and what is the timeframe -- >> i just want to be clear.

the language that is used to describe it is up to you guys. what i am only trying to be clear about is that the commitment to make sure that all american women, no matter where they work, have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive care services, including contraception. it is absolutely firm. that's the president's commitment. that's explicit in the policy proposal. the discussion, and it's an important one, the discussion is how can we in implementing this policy try to delay some of the concerns that been expressed. the present is very sensitive to that as it's secretaries of us and others. but that's the issue. so i -- describe it as you will, but there's a change in the commitment to ensuring that women have access to these important services. >> can that go be achieved with some exception? and if you're looking at finding about what is the timeframe? >> let's be clear that there is an extension. to our extensions in the rule as

it exists, including churches and houses of worship. [inaudible] >> i don't want to negotiate, or speculate about what discussions may be had and what policy proposals may be contained within them. what i will say is the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to these services, no matter where they work, and that all women are treated equally in regard to this in terms of no co-pays and no cost for the services provided. in what is the timeframe on the discussion about finding a balance? >> i was asked that earlier. i don't have a timeframe to provide to you. within the announcement that secretary sebelius made and she described it as a transition period of a year. so, i would say some amount of

time between one day and a year is when this will evolve. >> president obama will be -- [inaudible] secretary bernanke has said the lack of a budget has had an adverse effect on growth, created uncertainty. harry reid has said that he doesn't think there's a need to introduce a budget this year. who does the president think is right, harry reid or ben bernanke? >> i think the president, as you noted, will be presenting his budget. that budget, it's important to remember, you all covered it, has spending caps set based on the budget control act that was signed into law by the president signed into law by the president last august. those spending, though spending

levels represent significant cuts, agreed to by democrats and republicans, and by this president. president. and his budget will reflect a need for that. that will reflect those cuts but also reflect the priorities that he things are very important, and i think the priorities, to wrap in part of your question who the sender reid believes are important as well, as do many members of the senate and the members of the senate and the house. >> therefore the senate should pass the budget as will? >> i don't have come well, i don't have that opinion to express on how the senate does its business with regard to this issue. the fact is because of the negations over the debt ceiling, that resulted in the budget control life, we have an unusual situation here in that the top lines for the budget going forward have already been set and agreed to by republicans and democrats alike. >> i'm not asking your opinion but the white house opinion. >> i don't have --

>> the white house has no opinion whether the senate should pass the budget? [inaudible] the white house has no opinion about whether -- >> i have no opinion. the white house has no opinion. chairman bank -- chairman bernanke's business. what the president believes it's important that the budget control act was signed into law by him last year provides the topline spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously need those in the budget proposal he puts corporate and he looks forward to this thing and acting on the policy initiatives contained within his budget that will reflect the priorities he laid out in the state of union. and also reflect the priorities he lived that way before his deficit and debt reduction proposal back in september. so i don't think there is, there

will be nor is there now any doubt about the presidents of you -- the president view on where got to move with the budget yet to follow up on the syrian question earlier. there's been reports that because of all that's going on, i think there was a hospital that lost power and a number of premature babies died as result. i don't know if that's a true story or not. in situations like this there are a lot of rumors. does the white house know anything about the extent of the violence, factually, what's going on? certainly people on the ground there to degree or another. are we monitoring exactly what has happened? >> well, i can say that we have all here seen the reporting, and some of the horrific video images of the escalation of violence taking place in syria.

over the last few days. it's clearly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. and then a company by troubling statements from senior regime officials have pledged quote to cleanse the country of renegade and outlaw's. that is hardly reassuring of, reinforces the fact that the assad regime is engaged in a brutal campaign to slaughter his own people. a people that has, this process began when the syrian people peacefully demonstrated in support of reform and transition to democracy. so i don't have any details to impart to you on the kind of information we might have with regards to what's happening in syria beyond the news reports, the news reports are bad enough. [inaudible] your discussion with

international partners to study humanitarian aid, are you ruling out the u.s. providing humanitarian aid unilaterally? >> i am not ruling that out. but our partners, there is a broad coalition of friends of syria that extends around the globe, and includes nations and regions. so we have come as we have from the beginning, we will continue to work with our allies and partners on this issue, and with nations that are as concerned as we are about brutality that is taking place in syria. >> in the wake of the russian foreign ministers trip to damascus, do you have any reaction from the white house about the russians call for the western world to have the government there, the government engaging in important dialogue with the opposition? with the opposition? do you see that at all,

realistic or potentially helpful? >> i think as you may recall from the earlier days of this situation in syria there was an opportunity for the assad regime to engage in dialogue with the opposition, with the syrian people who are demanding a peaceful transition. rather than take that opportunity, a sawed brutally cracked down on his own people. and that crackdown continues to this day. we don't think that that opportunity is available anymore. it's clear that assad has chosen a path and that choice has resulted in deaths of many syrians, including innocent children, and it's a horrific

result of that choice. so i don't -- as we said before, as i said yesterday i believe regarding foreign minister's visit to syria, it's not clear what the purpose was. what is clear that is siding with the assad regime at this stage is not yet rush anything except for the alienation of the syrian people. alexis and then laura. >> members of the presidents party -- [inaudible] if this concept is trying to communicate their support for women and their health, et cetera, but that is getting drowned out. some just trying to get at between a day and 18 months,

could we expect the president soon to speak himself about this, trying to commit a better about what it is he's trying to do? >> i appreciate the question but i don't have any announcements to make about presidential statements or news conferences or -- [inaudible] and my point about, which i can see, was deliberate, i'm not going to set an artificial deadline. the policy was put forward and announced by secretary sebelius makes clear that the period of transition is there for a reason. and as these conversations and this dialogue continues, we'll have a better sense of timing on it but i don't have any to predict to you today. i just want to ask, do you agree that the idea that as conversation continues is the thing that has the president on

the ropes? >> well, your assessment here is not one i agree with you. what are you asking? >> the white house does not agree to present is on the ropes because of the concept of this conversation. >> no, i don't agree with any of the phrases within that sentence, or question. [laughter] he's concerned here about getting a policy right, and its implementation right in being sensitive as he always is to the concerns of religious groups about religious freedom and the convictions they held. so that's the approach that was taken in the development of this policy. it is the approach that is being taken in the conversations that will continue in an effort to implement it in a way that a play some of the concerns that have been expressed. laura and then mara. laura and then mara. >> thank you.

i have two questions about the stock of the first as i understand the objection expressed at the top, but notwithstanding those, if the bill were presented with the president signed a? >> if which bill were presented? >> if which bill were presented? the senate bill? >> the house bill? >> the house hasn't voted on it. >> i know that i'm hoping the house doesn't do what reports suggest it is doing. the house republicans. i think i explained that to your constituents. unit, you water down this legislation because wall street and hedge funds and others, you know, didn't like it. i just think it's a terrible idea. and it should be, this is an example of innocent a broad bipartisan support. the vision that the house republicans are seeking to remove our ones that were put forward by republicans. so innocent. so it's just, this is an opportunity to do something that is right, that will send a

signal to the american people that congress agrees with them that there needs to be transparency and political reform in congress. it seemed like for a wild that there was broad consensus, bipartisan consensus to get this done. unfortunately, based on early morning reading, that may not be the case. we urge congress and the house, particularly house republicans, in particular to abandon the effort to water it down and instead focus on getting it done. >> nancy pelosi has said she will support it. so i'm trying to understand -- >> again, speech whether those concerns are serious enough to make i'm not sure -- that leader pelosi has said that she would support something that hasn't even emerged yet from the back rooms of the house republican leadership meetings. so i think that, and then there's a question, if the house

dramatically changes the bill, then what happens in terms of reconciliation. we support the bill, the proposal and the president said in the state of the address that would ban insider training among members of congress. we support the bill as it emerged from the senate by vote of 96-3, including amendments put forward by senators grassley and senator gordon. we hope that house republicans will do the same. >> what is the white house view on extending these provisions to the executive branch? >> i understand that there's been a furtive -- that's the wrong word. a very public although humorous attempt i some among the house republicans to suggest that that is an issue, when the absolute fact is that there are far more stringent rules and restriction on the executive branch already

in place, as i'm sure they know. and i would quote from an article in a slightly separate issue today, and i think the "washington post," public citizen, public citizen action of the government watchdog group gregg allman said quote executive branch has far stricter ethics standards and congress does. and congress has fashioned executive branch can't steer contracts or work to business or family members were. they can't even own stock in industries that they oversee, unlike congress. is complete hypocrisy. so again we are fine with the s.t.o.c.k. act as it emerged from the senate. we certainly look forward to the house of taking action as it approach we should on this bipartisan measure, and bipartisan measure, and president will sign it into law. i am just struck by the effort to water it down behind closed doors, you know, presumably

because of objections by financial institutions and their lobbyists. >> follow up. there's been a little bit of confusion about insider trading. is insider trading currently legal for members of congress? sounds like something that is already -- >> i believe it is not banned in the even though insider trading by definition is something that is not legal. on this one is that will be something that illegal by this legislation that isn't -- >> i think it explicitly bans insider trading as well as a number of other things included in the bill. i would address -- [inaudible] >> well, it is certainly not banned and i would point you to the authors of the legislation. >> and my second question about contraception, do you feel that,

this has gotten tremendous amount of questions i receive it takes a lot of time here. do you feel that this is a controversy that is oppressed driven controversy, as many things can become or is this a real debate that has gripped a lot of people, or do you think this is one of those things that we are jenin a? >> no. look, i think, and more important the president thinks that he concerns expressed i some religious groups and religious individuals are understandable, and that's why even prior to those concerns being expressed, the policy included transition period where discussions would be had to take place around an effort to implement the policy in a way that a place those concerns i think it's important in terms of our actions and reactions here to note that from the beginning we understood the sensitivity of

this. that is why we saw balance as we did in the policy itself, why churches and houses of worship are exempted. and why this transition period was a part of the rule, and why we are having these conversations. so, you know, obviously in a case like this sometimes folks who try to make political hay out of it, and that's the way the system works and the process works, but we believe there are legitimate concerns out there and that's why the policy was written the way was. >> you haven't reached out to -- they said they had gotten a call. [inaudible] if you're starting a conversation who are you conversing with? >> well again, the policy was announced -- first of all i'm not going to dispute your reporting but i think that there's been a lot of

conversations in the process that led up to the announcement of this, and there are and will be conversations going forward. i mean, certain individuals say they haven't had a call but others have been engaged in this conversation and will be engaged. so i think that is been amply reported, some cases unfortunately. >> the present is about to leave -- [inaudible] could you tell us what his agenda is? but i would say talk about the gender going for, talk about the budget you will put forward, talk about the absolute need to ensure that the payroll tax cut is extended for the calendar year to make sure 150 minute americans don't have their taxes go up. you will talk about the other action that helped to work with him on that will continue to

move this economy forward, promote growth and job creation. the usual topics. [laughter] >> why is jim mac know along with him? >> i assume to engage in a conversation as well, but i'll have to take the question. have to take the question. or you can ask the campaign. chris? [inaudible] >> a little louder. yesterday regarding the president's position on the right of same-sex couples to marry, you said that this is a process that involves faith. what other decisions about providing protections and civil responsibility as the president based upon his decision on his faith of? >> chris, i want to be clear and i appreciate the question that i'm simply referring to i'm simply referring to statements the president made in the past about this issue. the past about this issue. ..

at. >> do you believe in the

this is in progress? >> we will focus on the effort under way. trying to make sure the policy is implemented to make sure people have access to the same level of health care coverage of that low laid down some of the concerns expressed in the commons that you mentioned and others we are focused on trying to get the policy implemented in the right way. thank you very much. >> , are you saying favor those or you don't care? >> i am saying redundancy is

fine. everybody who knows policies they know it is that buy. >> you do not oppose it? >> i do not. [inaudible conversations] >> coming at of bath

4:00 p.m. eastern we will hear from barbara of boxer and others talking about the administration's role on contraception and coverage by health insurance companies. we have live coverage at 4:00 p.m. eastern. john boehner started the afternoon starting to talk about the role foul lane congress would repeal that regulation in this is what he had to say. >> in recent-- americans of every faith and political persuasion has mobilize the for objection to the rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes the unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.re it would require faith based employers including catholic charities, schools, universipi ties and hospitals to provide services they believe are in a moral.

those include sterilization, abortion, dru gs and devices and contraception. imposing this requirement they have drifted dangerously beyond their constitutional boundaries encroaching the religious freedom that affects many americans to harm our most vital institution. if the president does not reverse the department's attack a religious freedom, the congress acting on behalf of the people and the constitution that we are sworn to uphold and defend, must. we will approach this deliberately and greater order inappropriate legislative issues because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved the energy commerce committeee takes lead with the legislative process to be necessary to enact the effective and appropriate solution. we began to lay groundwork for legislative action last

year when the rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options from his committee as they proceed with the ever. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom must not stand and will not stand. i yield back.

[inaudible conversations] >> kind of a slow day today. all of the newsmakers are somewhere else. i heard they are at the baseball park? there at the stadium? we had a republican in a conference this morning to discuss essentially the jobs issue and the economy and the way forward. we convened the issue but also convened the meeting i

will call on him seven we would like to address another issue that has arisen in the context of obamacare. we got the government involved in all aspects of our health care but amazingly enough it is involved in other things as well. we have three senators with us who has been in fall to to develop a response to the most recent discovery of yet another government interference with our lives and obamacare. but first let me call on our conference chaired john soon. >> we did have a really good discussion this morning and the one thing you are always reminded when you get republican senators together we don't march lockstep we have a lot of people with good ideas about

how to move our country forward. the one thing i would say is the president's policies have made our economy much, much worse. because his policies have made the economy worse, he tries to distract from the record to divide americans to get groups of americans pitted against each other. we think there is a better way. we should not talk about how to redistribute the private make it bigger for all americans to expand and grow and create jobs so it was about us trying to come together around the key agenda items and hopefully to work with the democrats on that although it looks very much like they don't want to do a lot of this year. i think the leader like to insulate his members from having to make difficult lonesome the election year it is clear we will not have

a budget this year which is the blueprint for the past four word in how we will deal with spending and debt and jobs and the economy. we're at a loss why the democrats will not produce a budget for the fourth year in a row but i hope there are things we can get done between now and the election. we don't have the luxury of time and the consequences of inaction are great so my hope is we will see willingness to put policies in place to make it less difficult to create jobs for small businesses rather than making it more expensive and difficult that we see with the obama agenda and a record and the economy they have handed us. we have folks who have been very much in the lead of religious liberty.

it is clear in this country we have a heritage those who have left other parts of the world because of religious persecution that is distinct about america up. religious liberty is not known in many parts of the world especially like the middle east in what we have seen is the trampling of the first amendment protection and a systematic dismantling of liberty for people in this country so we believe the president in his administration will walk back but clearly this is an issue getting the attention not only of those who would subscribe to various religions catholics or protestants but those who were not even all that religious simply because they see this as another attempt to grow government to make it more expansive and intrusive in their lives

that is what we warned about when obamacare was adopted in the first place but i would like to introduce one of my colleagues handing it off after that. >> we have seen with the president health care bill and the regulations recently issued by health in human services the unprecedented affront to religious liberty of wheat religious institutions and faith based organizations in a position to comply with government mandates that filed late their faith it violates our first amendment to the constitution, and really an affront to what we stand for as americans. this is not a women's rights issue. this is a religious liberty issue and can apply to all faith. i have heard from my constituents who are deeply concerned about this. we need to respect the rights of conscience for all religions and when you look

at what this administration has done, really it has awakened whole group of people who are deeply concerned about the unprecedented extension of government into issues we have always -- always left in the quiet of people's homes, churches and faith based institutions. i will also say that the administration has been unprecedented both parties have respected religious liberty if you look at what was signed into law 1993, the religious freedom restoration act, with this administration has done also violates not only the spirit of the law but the letter of the law which was signed into law by a democratic president. this is unprecedented and not a women's rights issue

but it goes to the fundamental of the first amendment of the constitution and. i would call on the president to overturn the health in human services regulations and stop infringing on religious freedom to change the direction of but we have seen with the unprecedented expansion we have seen from obamacare. >> what you really have is the administration trying to act like they back away from the bad call it -- policies saying we want to talk about this for a year and that may be the most offensive part of the whole idea to tell religious institutions you have to do things that are contrary to your face principles and we will give you a year to accommodate. in his offensive in violates the first amendment and shows what happens when the government begins to think

they can not all may define health care but deliver health care and it should not be allowed to stand it is fundamentally an issue but here is the specific coverage you have to give your employees. it is not even about health care but the coverage but there was recently a supreme court case on hiring and religious institutions. others at the white house said we give the church in a session which shows how little they understand the whole face based institutions of the country. the church extends well beyond the building if it is a church run the schools, university or a day-care center or jewish day-care center or muslim committee outreach effort all of those are part of the

faith based community and the supreme court justice ruled in the academy case and nine/isidro that those institutions have specific hiring rights and protected rights and also other different specific rates because of who they are and the constitution. you cannot pass laws and rules that violate constitutional principles. that is what this would do why there has been such outrage and it is only one of many instances that could occur if you think the government could interfere in these areas it is about religious liberty not a specific application so we want to look at the rights that were mentioned at the constitutional convention in

itself as one of the reasons for the first amendment. i in a stand people's outrage and joined many and republicans saying don't go down the foolish path don't try to turn america into something it is not an to say they control the face use of the american people. >> it has nothing to do with contraception or write versus left your liberal versus conservative. it is straight for whether the government should have the power to tell of faith based organization they have to pay for something they teach their members they should not be doing. it is that simple. then this government could reach other absurd results. somebody with the laughter the right win say the

different of the united states should have the power to tell a church based organization that they must pay for something that they teach their members not to do. that is what this is about. that is why you have commentators on the left and right saying this is wrong and the plan the white house are uncomfortable. here is a solution for the president to say maybe we went too far. we heard from a lot of people and we will reconsider this decision. there is nothing wrong with that. we have plenty of other issues to argue with this president to take to the people for the election in this does not have to be one of them. the president just pass to reconsider his decision to a acknowledge they did not go too far or did not think about all the way. i hope that is what will happen. if it doesn't, i hope the senate and house will act because the american people are asking us to and that is an important issue. >> guest: day in spanish? [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] >>

[inaudible] >> i thank at one i am suggesting i have looked at what this administration is doing with regard to our economy it is clear two me the growth and expansion we have seen in government is leading to us more of a social welfare state then you would see in the european countries. i think countries and decisions move us more and the secularization of the country and it seems to me to suggest a disregard for the basic core of believes to the american people. it is what people have fought for over the years and brought people to this

country in the first place and it ought to be the thing that we are most concerned about every aspect of the constitution but if we're not willing to defend the constitutional rights for which people came in the first place and many have fought and died, i don't know what kind of a country we are. this is an affront to the constitution and religious liberty, it in my view. >> i want to give an example of something that happened earlier this year. the catholic bishops conference applied for the sex trafficking grant they previously held the grant and the administration basically, the career employees at health in human services gave the conference of catholic bishops gave the highest-ranking because of their prior performance and the administration went as far to change the criteria

of the grand to make sure that that faith based organization that objectively got the highest-ranking would not receive it. when i see something like that, i tell myself that is deeply troubling because objectively they deserve to get the grant. i have a question but that is another example where the administration overreached. >> [inaudible] >> but if you listen to the compromise it is we will talk to them in one year to figure out how they can accomplish the -- comply with the role. listen to what they said yesterday which was we will give them one year to see how they can comply with this ruling. it is not a discussion of how we could change the rules or discussion to walk away. the white house does not need to do this. whether his the academy verses the eeoc are

hospitals told if you don't provide all services we will not reimburse you for any services, this is systematically happening. this just happens to hit at the heart of the big institutions that provide health care and education, they are driving the debate. not us. it is the catholic bishops that sent a letter to every person in america in the last two weeks or the catholic chaplain of the army that sent a letter initially that would not re-read. this is a huge issue if you listen to what they're saying they're just trying to change the subject and ticket down the road which is why they gave it one year to start with. >> [inaudible] >> the short answer is we

discuss the appropriate response those senators are involved in the discussions we will let you know, what we decide with the approach that we will take. >> [inaudible] >> could you repeat the question? >> [inaudible] >> on a that topic he vetoed the bill. that is not what this is

about. it is about religious liberty, these institutions. you could turn into all the political discussion that you want but it is of first amendment american rights but what has nothing to do with who said that when. this is about this issue right now. the conscience protection law that senator ayotte and senator rubio and i filed some time ago as we anticipated exactly the past the administration was on became the issue that has brought public attention that we have been trying to talk about four weeks. >> [inaudible] >> i am obviously concerned about the american is that are being held an issue the center at -- statement yesterday with senator mccain and lieberman right now the egyptian government needs to understand how

serious we are about resolving the issue and certainly we're in a position where they could be in jeopardy. they have an opportunity to correct this by releasing the american and sadr held a to resolve this with our country. no question we have a very important relationship with egypt and i want to see that relationship prepared but it is up to them to act right now. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] we're waiting to hear from the democratic senators with

their response. this is expected to get under way in five minutes. on money "washington journal" we talked with ed whelan who is president of ethics and public policy center a group opposed to the administration's ruling. >> we have ed whelan president of ethics and public policy center of. good morning. helped us explain to give us a take on with the obama administration health in human services department put out which some are calling the contraception mandate. but as we get started we will synopsis of the new role based on the media reports be well get the take this is the hhs final rule on private insurance plans point* #1. >> requires them to have contraceptive services

>> host: give us in the new ones and your take them perspective. >> guest: i will emphasize a few additional points. it is not just contraceptive that also operates but the one-year transition has enabled some to adapt to the law is a narrow exemption. it is not available to everyone. third, but category phase institutions that are exempt

are likewise extremely narrow. anybody an offense who has a number of non catholic employees probably would not be exempt. and the $2,000 fine? that is the base line that will grow later but an institution like neutered game that has 5,000 employees that is a $10 million and new-line. >> host: how did this come about? >> guest: it is about obamacare legislation enacted in 2010. hhs this pulp implementing the open-ended provision of the legislation and what preventative services have to be required by employers. and it is determined all fda contraceptives including those of have a secondary effect need to be provided at no cost to the enrollees. >> host: the phone number

is on the screen. has to look at this contraception mandate. ed whelan the president of his organization and ethics and public policy center if you want to read and learn more of their position but "usa today" has a couple of editorial pieces will lead editorial says the birth control mandate combines bad policy with bad politics. few americans disagree with the position that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. certainly should not force the religious affiliated institution to violate the central tenet of the state

to drop the rules that would govern health care reform they did not just across the line but galloped over it requiring employers to include free birth control in the health insurance plan as contrary to the catholic doctrine and the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. >> guest: i think that is dead on but imagine you have a national school lunch program that all schools are required to participate even the orthodox jewish schools and as part of the program the government said we think of all schools should make pork available for free to all students. the violation of religious freedom there is obvious. the same principle applies here. not just a violation of free exercise clause but of the religious freedom restoration act enacted in 1993 and it is a deliberate

and willful violation of this administration. >> host: this is the press secretary and what he has to say on the. >> be clear there is a lot with some of the commentary some misstatements about what it actually does. no individual is required to use or prescribe contraception. it does not force anyone with a religious objection to prescribe or provide contraception and prepare it merely requires insurance companies provide coverage for those who want them which is the recommendation of a non-partisan institute of medicine and important to note doctors prescribe conjures negative shin from medical and health issues including reducing the risk of some cancer. it is important to know because this has not been clear and commentary that the policy maintains a religious employer exemption.

churches are not required, other houses of worship are exempt to cover contraception. >> adding to the words of kathleen sebelius of the second part of the editorial the public health case to make sure insurance covers contraception is clear but we also recognize many religious organizations have deeply held beliefs opposing the use of birth control. that is why we specifically car about from the policy religious organizations to primarily have people of their own faith that includes church it -- churches and other houses of worship and could include other affiliated organizations. is that enough? >> that is a lot of for a play on the administration. catholic hospitals, universities, as social-service agencies clearly not covered. what is important to

understand there's a reason you have to script those religious objections into this program. by all means by which the government provides contraceptives. it has chosen the means among the most restrictive end -- and i cannot possibly justify that. this bookspan says the individual is required but in my example of pork in the jewish day school, node jewish students. >> we will continue this conversation online. we take you live back to capitol hill to hear from several democratic senators in response to the rule regarding contraceptive coverage under the new health care law. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay have paying our

laugh at the expense of myself i 12 pivot of five-year here with a very serious issue to stand up for the women of america to deserve to have access to free preventative care through their health insurance. and we want to thank president obama for making that possible. because of the new health care law comment the new insurance plans will provide free preventative benefit such as breast cancer screenings, hiv screenings screenings, physical cancer screening and free contraception if the women who want to avail themselves of these preventative services but if they don't want them did not have to. if they want them they can have them free. why did the institute of medicine who is not in politics reit *dais dais h*

recommend access to free birth control among those benefits? because of this. when a woman goes on birth control, she has great health benefits and her child, the child is much more likely to get prenatal care. with help the families and planned pregnancies and healthy babies. the other thing that senator gillibrand reminds us of and i hope we repeat this over and over 15% of women are prescribe birth control for non contraceptive reasons to stop debilitating monthly cycles, to stop endometriosis of danger is a very assess some even use it

to cure a severe skin condition for it is madness and and now the republican leaders of congress at the highest levels want to take away their health care. contraception allows families to plan for their children again healthier moms, healthier kids. and little known fact that i hope you will note. those employers to offer herb birth control say 16% are saved on the health care cost because access to birth control you prevent problems you prevent disease. let me conclude with this. women in this country are tired of being treated like a political football by

republicans in congress who the tried continually and are continuing to try to take away their benefits. to take away their rights. they tried to stop health care reform which said two women you must be treated equally when it comes to the cost of your premium. they tried to take away free breast cancer screenings. and now they are taking away or want to take away, we will not allow that, they're right to birth control. women deserve to we respected. they don't want to congressmen and senators with the speaker of the house or the republican leader telling you what to think and what to do. here is something else you need to know.

335,000 churches are exempted from this requirement to offer free birth control. 335,000 employers. these are the churches. they're religious freedom is being respected. we want to make sure that the religious freedom of all americans are protected. that means the women who work for institutions which serve the general public. 98% of american women have used contraception in their lifetime. it might be 99%. andrew said 21st century access to free birth control saves lives and saves money. and as americans move to take the benefit away we

will fight them. we will fight all of the women and their families and the economic well-being and that is of concluding musical of what i am saying. [laughter] ♪ speaking for our leadership member patty murray will elaborate we will use every legislative tool at our disposal to protect the women of america up. we have done that before and we will do it again. i well turn to senator murray and i will carefully get down. [laughter] >> good afternoon. with the combined years of experience with everybody he was up here with me we have seen a lot of political attacks on women's rights.

each time those attacks come in those on the other side attempt to exploit women's rights for their own gain we hear the same excuse is. every time we hear it is not an attack our women's health care but something else. we're told the tax on abortion rights are not the infringement on their right to choose but it is about states' rights for religion. we're told accessing emergency contraception is not about the ability to make family planning decisions but scientific processes and last week we were told the susan j. komen decision to end mammograms was not about the opposition to planned parenthood but a congressional investigation. this is no different we had a republican senator make the claim this debate "is not an issue about

contraception. they then went on to explain it is about everything else. it is about the opposition to the health care bill to provide millions with the health care they need and it is about the catholic church in those contraceptive services was left out and about freedom not the freedom to make your own health care choice but we have a news it is about contraception. if they think it is sent to the above them to hear the women who access contraception is on the line with the battle they take on. tell it to the x-ray technician in california who works for the hospital in her job is no different than an x-ray technician at the hospital across town but she can lose coverage just because of her employer and where she works. tell it to michelle paddle

labor and delivery nurse at santa cruz that said about her services "is something we come to expect for ourselves and for our family is. tell it to everyone who is employed by schools and universities who want to make their own health care decisions. i am guessing those who make political hay out of the issue will not tell us. this argument is everything about women's reproductive health because the attack on women's rights never come disguised as something else but all of us up here are not fools and the american people should not be there. this is a fight to protect the rights of millions of americans who do use contraceptives that a family planning is the right two

it -- choice by them and they do not deserve to have the extreme minority ideology to prevent them from giving the coverage they deserve. we are here because we fought hard that the preventive health care services for women are right for every woman in the country no matter the employer. we will work hard to make sure we preserve that today. >> what the moment we're at when you think of things what an anomaly in this one of the pledges made on the republican presidential candidate side is they will take away the rights of women to take care of their health. imagine running for president saying he will take away women's rights to

protect their health. i am here as a senator but also in my family we have five daughters and granddaughters. i don't want anybody telling them what to do with their house. they need to go to their mother or father that word that i claimed nine years ago when there was another attempt to attack women's rights for their choice. maleogarchy tried to defend plan parent of last year now they tried to take away affordable birth control which is basic health care for women in our country. mitt romney says of the is elected president one of the first things he will do is to overturn the obama administration policies to make birth control more affordable for women.

that is what the president romney would do first thing. make no mistake contraception is the essential health care i am for women but for many it is expensive the republican politicians need to stop meddling in the alliance of the women of our country and it is fine to tell the republicans to make -- mind your own business ideology should ever be used for the care that they need. what's take them out of the office to make a promise we will protect you're right to have good health and to raise your family as you see

fit and all of us are fighters by the way. [laughter] >> i am very proud to stand here today with such champions for william -- women's health care by am dumbfounded in the year 2012 we still are fighting about birth control. our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights. it is sad we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion on women's lives it is simply big government at its worst. the power to decide whether or not to use contraception and lies with the women make map lawmen not her boss. what is more intrusive than the employer making medical decisions for someone who works for them?

look at what is happening republicans are trying to make their decision on what the winning can do with their own bodies, showing a callous disregard to the health and safety of women and attempting to undermine the ability to make their own decisions. be clear. this rule respects the views of religious institutions and the conscience and three down and the strong exemption is included that allows it is -- allows house is of worship and churches to be exempted is already the law of the land in 28 states it should not be a religious issue. women and families across the nation in support common-sense affordable health care in millions rely on service since for a whole variety of services and deserve the access to plan a family on their own terms to take health care into their own hands it is not a decision that should be made

by washington. if my colleagues want to take the issue head on we stand here ready to oppose any attacks launched against women's rights and health. >> i am also proud to stand here with champions of women's house, a long record of fighting and winning on this issue and we should not have to be here. we should talk about job creation and economic growth and not wins health care. politics and politicians have no place in women's health care. our message back to whoever would suggest a restraint or a legislative move, it is dead on arrival, nonstarter we stand strongly with the president. been and any women who back down should take their hands

off women's health care. their release is less here than meets the eye. 28 states have comparable positions come and has worked well and the eeoc ruled june 2001 that birth control house to be afforded under these health care plans there is of mixed judicial ruling that may come -- employers now comply so this provision of ford's individual women the choice and that is the key. $500 or 600 is a lot of money for women to spend on women's health care and their health plan could cover it. and the health plan to provide that kind of coverage would be acceptable. but employers cannot discriminate. that is a lot.

so the kinds of exemption that exist for churches, 335,000 of for their religious convictions we have a respectful balance nobody is required to use birth control and no institution is required to dispense it but simply cover in their health care plan. that is why the message is hands-off women's health care loopholes fight anybody who interferes. >> can you talk about obama's visit with senate democrats? >> we will not go into detail but it is our clear understanding from the administration that to the president believes and the vast majority of people believe women should have access to birth control.

>> is today the administration they might look for a compromise to indicate there could be some compromise would you support that effort? >> i spoke with david nexrad he said exactly what i said. the administration stands behind the ability of american women to have access to this benefit. with the exception of the 335,000 that he has given the added one-year break period to figure out how they will do that. >> and can you address the catholic church said one of

the first that come out strongly with the affiliated programs what do you say to them? is there any ground for compromise? >> first of all, there is 335,000 churches today who are exempt because they are church is that we talk about schools and universities and hospitals that employ 890 women of all different faith and they have to rely on employers to decide if they will have access to contraception is something we say cannot have been brought out as senator boxer just said in the policies

put forward to give those institutions one-year to figure out how to do that and that is what they are in the process of doing today. >> let me just say, remember , more than half of the population in the country already has the law in their state. so this is not anything new and the fact that these universities are working with us really is not about that. listen to what the senator said. it is not about that to no, no, no. the questions are based on where you see the issues but what patty murray stated so strongly this is not about the exemption, it is the

fact they don't want women to have access to birth control and that is true the republicans who spoke before you earlier today. >> the way they have got around that is they are self insured and it requires them to provide that, etc., etc. it does not require the employer to cover. >> so there are institutions that are not paying for contraception spin nike maine catholic affiliated institutions if they are totally catholic institutions then they get that buds many hospitals do

this their own way. one way is to contract with the outside entity to provide a particular benefit so there are many ways but the point* is there is nothing for people to ringing bells about. but it is a compromise it makes sure the religious freedom of everyone is respected and it includes the women of the great nationwide obama has struck a balance why he is supported in the polls and why we will stand up against any move by the republican friends who will try to take away benefit that women have been granted. >> but now that the republicans and nrc. [inaudible] socially conservative? >> those who largely supported the ability to

contraceptive and they will not like somebody represent them who will take away that right. that does not concern me but i am considering republicans are using women's right to choose as little birdie on the wall so the american people do not see they block us from passing legislation to get the economy back on track. >> i have not heard what tim kane says but our candidates know their beliefs and i back them to do that. buy we believe strongly that women in the country have access to contraception. >> this is a benefit that has been granted to the women in the country.

over half of the women have it in the president does as well. any move to take that right away moves that women will lose a financial benefit, $600 per year in your pocket? that is a lot to the working poor or the middle class. that is a lot to anybody and costain women money they don't have to spend and women's house will suffer. i told you of the case you heard of women and able to afford contraception losing their overseas. this is a fact. this is a health benefit. everybody has a right to have their view button at the end of the day we are here to say we support the right to to have access to birth control anybody who stands in a way will have to do with us and we thank you

very much for coming out today. thank you. . . >> so quite clearly he needs to understand that was a provision that gather before i get.

and it was one i fought to remove. thanks, guys. thank you. >> house speaker john boehner said today the house would take legislative action to oppose the obama administration's contraception rule. do you support that? do spoke -- to support the speaker or president obama on the issue? you can weigh in at facebook.com/cspan. utah senators today, democratic senators back from their retreat and republican senators also on the hill today. the sin is not in session today. they will be in tomorrow. they're expected to begin consideration of the surface transportation bill setting out programs for the next two years. live coverage of the senate tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> by most important point on who the conservative leader or the republican leader, we get double. i think would be better like a

month before the election we announced who is running for president. i mean, the immediate is obsessive desire to know hoosier leader, is it michael steele? rush limbaugh? glenn back? sarah palin? they want to fixate on that person and destroy him or her. >> this year's conservative political action conference begins thursday in c-span will cover their events to the weekend. watch past speakers online at the c-span video library all archived and searchable at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> when i first started the book i also thought this must be an american story, this is about a country that worships the religion of self-reliance and individualism. this is a legacy of emerson. but it turns out we are laggards when it comes to living alone. in fact, much more comment in european nations. especially in scandinavia and

it's been more common in japan it on afterwards in going solo, we look at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone. and what that means for the country saturday night at 10 eastern. also this weekend on book tv, sunday at three the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rice, connie rice come under work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and starting a dialogue between game leaders and police. bonnie morris on her one woman play and book at the same name, revenge of the women's daddy professor. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> yesterday the house energy and commerce committee voted mostly along party lines to advance a bill on the keystone xl oil pipeline. legislation would give the federal energy regulatory commission 30 days to approve the pipeline taking the decision out of the hands of the white house. republican leaders in the house

plan to attach the measure larger transportation bill this year. [inaudible conversations] >> committee will come to order. at the conclusion of opening statements yesterday chair called of h.r. 3548, the north american energy access act. i would note that because of the conference committee on the payroll tax extension i want to thank members forgetting here to start this morning. and we are intending to stop temporarily at 10:00, and resume, it's my understanding, it's our understanding of the conferences will meet from 10 intel noon. so we will then come back at noon here. and work until it is done although we expect boats will occur i believe about 130. and so we will maneuver around

that so anyway, the chair would recognize mr. terry for the purposes of offering an amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate you bringing up the amendments in the nature of a substitute. and a introduce 3548 -- >> if the gentleman will suspend, do you call up the amendment? >> call up the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of the substitute the h.r. 3548 offered by mr. terry of nebraska. >> without objection the reading of the minute is suspended with. the gem recognize for five minutes in support of this amendment and and and it will circulated. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i introduced in december 31 last year into the committee's vetting, good ideas are any suggestions that proclaimed that it want to incorporate in this spill, and my bill, and the changes are relatively simple to i want to walk my colleagues

through them. the first three changes are in section three. specifically, the mm and the nature of a substitute clarifies that ferc must issue the permit without additional condition. ferc often issues its permits with conditions and i want to clarify that ferc cannot attach additional conditions to the pipeline. in other words, only the conditions in the ncis would apply for which there are multiple conditions already in those. those will stay. also it requires ferc into a memorandum of understanding with the state of nebraska, within 30 days of enactment. the state of nebraska was unable to testified two weeks ago to state department objections. but within the testimony that the nebraska deq submitted was a concern that the state department had not entered into an m.o.u. with them, even though

the m.o.u. was sitting on the state department's desk ready to sign. this amendment would ensure that ferc cannot be similarly dilatory in executing an m.o.u. with my home state. this gives our, my home state a path forward on this issue. instead of being in limbo as they are now. the third of the three and them and to section would clarify that the holder of any permit issued under the act may begin construction of portions of the pipeline while the proposed nebraska route modification is being determined. last changed in this amendment comes in section four, clarifying that only federal law i intend to supersede with this legislation is the requirement that a presidential permit must be obtained for the pipeline. this change was brought up in

the rule 11 hearing with the first panel. all the other federal and state laws continue to apply, by taking the issue out of the president's hands and addressing the issue with an expert pipeline agency eric i hope we can depoliticize this issue and give the pipeline and the jobs and the energy that comes with this pipeline. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back. >> gentlemen yield spread. the chair will recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. this spill isn't unprecedented regulatory earmark. the legislation singled out one project for special treatment. in some ways, mr. terry substituted amendment improves the pending legislation but in other ways it makes it worse. as introduced, the bill calls on the federal energy regulatory commission to approve transcanada's permit in 30 days.

representative terry has presented this as simply putting the project enhance of an expert agency. when he introduced the legislation, he said that quote, going forward with ferc is simply moving the authority to an agency that understands high plains, end quote. but this legislation is not about leading experts do their job. ferc testified before us, it was impossible to allow public comment and build the record that will yield a defensible decision in 30 days. and now this goes even further. it is ferc duty and practice to impose conditions on permits when circumstances warrant for instances serve a public interest purpose. apparently, there is concerned that the experts at ferc could find it necessary to add a condition to the keystone xl permit. said the substitute makes it absolutely clear that ferc may

not do this, no matter how compelling the reason may be. this amendment says we're going to tell the experts at ferc to issue the permit but first we're going to put him in a straitjacket. ferc won't have the time to identify any problems, and if they do, the law won't allow ferc to address them. under the keystone xl project, the american people will bear the risks and big oil will reap the rewards. with this pipeline we get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil prices in the midwest. big oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the midwest, a conduit for exporting tar sands projects to china, and the green light to exploit the tar sands at maximum speed regardless of the consequences. president obama listened to the differing views of american

citizens and made a responsible decision. he said he would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically fragile sand hills area in nebraska, but the state department would consider an alternative route. nebraska is taking the time to find an alternative route and the president is making sure he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. if mr. terry really wants to let the experts at ferc do their job, they wish to take this legislation back to the drawing board, as currently drafted this spill simply turned ferc into a yes man for this project. tar sands pipeline is a bad idea, and so is this spill. you back the time. >> gentlemen yield spread. other members wish to speak on the mm in the nature of a substitute? seeing none, are there any bipartisan amendments to this

substitute? seeing none, are there any amendments to the substitute, members wish to offer? gentleman from illinois. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will read the title of the amendment. >> amendment offered by mr. rush of illinois in the nature of a substitute in and and then it will be considered as read and the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes to support his amendment. >> mr. chairman, last week during the subcommittee hearing on h.r. 3548, the subcommittee heard compelling testimony from a nebraska rancher by the name of randy thompson, who urged this committee not too hastily approved the keystone xl pipeline without allowing the agencies of jurisdiction to

conduct their due diligence and oversight responsibilities. among mr. thompson's many concerns was the hostile and belligerent manner in which transcanada approached many nebraskans, claiming eminent domain in its quest to take away the property and land of ordinary american citizens in order to push forward on plans to construct a yet to be improved pipeline. and mr. thompson's testimony before the subcommittee, he noted, and i quote, many nebraskans if you transcanada as an overly aggressive company who

felt to bully and intimidate its way across our state. and having witnessed transcanada's actions during the application process, has made us weary, and weary of what they could try to do if empowered by premature permit, end of quote. and detailing how transcanada has approached nebraskans over the issue of eminent domain, mr. thompson went on to say, again quoting him, in the heartland, many of us view that approval of this project would strip us, allow individual property rights. we feel this way because we would be forced to give up or

forced to give up our high earned property for the personal gain and benefit of corporate entities, end of quote. mr. chairman, even if we cannot come together and agree on the necessity of hastily approving the keystone xl pipeline without the appropriate timeframe and federal oversight, surely, mr. chairman, at the very least each of us as representatives of the american people, elected to watch out for the public's best interest, i've to agree that it is morally wrong and income principle that we will allow a foreign company to push american citizens off their lands for the sole purpose of allowing a

pipeline that will ultimately be used to export oil overseas. might amendment -- might amendment, not a quote, permit shall not be issued or deemed to have any issues under this subsection absent of condition that the permit recipient from initiating or threatening to initiate proceedings to invoke the power of eminent domain for the process of taking ownership, rights away, easement, or other access, or use of private property in the united states for the purposes of instruction for operating the keystone xl pipeline against the will of the property's owners. mr. chairman, when the court

decided against the city of new london which upheld the use of limited domain, the house moved quickly to condemn that decision. in a bipartisan manner with 220 republicans voting with me in favor of house resolution expressing our disapproval of the forest decision. i hope that today we are going to find our what across party lines and do what's right and an the best interest of ordinary american citizens. i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back. other members? mr. terry is recognized for five minutes. >> to speak against the amendment, first, before i get to the merits of mr. rush's amendment here, i want to state that there was a phrase he used, push them off their land. this is a right-of-way where

they will take, not take, but use 50 feet, bury it, and the land owners then continue to branch on top of it or grow their crops on top of it. so it is not pushing anyone off their land. i just want to set that straight because i think that shows an image or that is just not accurate to begin with. now, there are private company and they negotiate. and at least in the state of nebraska i've met with ranch owners who had no problems negotiating an agreement for the right-of-way. in fact, now with the movement of the land, one of them even concerned that they are losing their right-of-way money that they were going to get. nonetheless, though if there is

an issue with being able to negotiate, that is always handled by state law. so if there's a land owner in montana, montana law handles that. if there's an issue in south dakota, south dakota law handles that. and the same for nebraska. so in essence what this does, this amendment does, it is rates the states' rights to handle utility issues in their own states. whether it is this project or for ever, but that's what this does is just as we are going to trust nebraska or south dakota or montana on this to do with their state law says to be done here. i just think for states' rights advocates this is a bad amendment to so i will yield back. >> gentlemen yield spread. other members? mr. waxman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i support this

amendment by our colleague, mr. rush. it says, it's a simple amendment, that congress will give transcanada this extraordinary legislative earmark to rubberstamp their permit application but only on one condition. and that is that they commit to stop bullying american land owners in seizing property through eminent domain. my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that transcanada has been using threats of eminent domain to force american land owners along the pipeline route to give up their property rights. transcanada has even taken land owners to court to seize their property rights through eminent domain, even before receiving a permit to build a pipeline. last friday, mr. rush pointed out that randy thompson, the nebraska rancher, testified that in the heartland many of them

feel approval would strip us of our individual property rights. transcanada is a foreign corporation. they have been trying to strong arm american citizens along this proposed, path of the pipeline. they are telling property owners here's some money for the rights to go underneath your land. but if you don't accept this about within a certain short period of time, we are going to initiate proceedings to condemn your land and take what we need through eminent domain. this is an imperious approach. it sounds unbelievable but it is true. i don't know whether the state of nebraska gave him this authority or not. i think that it would be interesting if the state of nebraska gave them authority for condemnation of land, at the same time they're trying to figure out what the route is going to be in the state of nebraska. i have a copy of the letter that

transcanada sent to mr. thompson on july 21, 2010, informing him that the proposed path of their pipeline will cross his property. in it, transcanada offers this money for easement to his land, and tells him if he doesn't accept within a month, quote we will be forced to invoke the the power of eminent domain and initiate condemnation proceedings against this property, end quote. well, absent mr. rush's amendment, this spill will and our foreign company to bully our citizens into giving their property rights. most americans simply don't have the money or time to defend themselves in court against an oil company with billions of dollars in assets. ranchers and farmers like randy thompson will be forced to live with the tar sands oil pipeline running through the property. that may jeopardize their safety, their health, their livelihood.

with a single leak. it's not unexpected that there might be leaks because existing pipeline that they already have has already had many leaks in a very short period of time. this amendment should receive bipartisan support. in the past, republicans have voiced great concern about the use of eminent domain to seize private property rights. as we saw in the debate on the private property right protection act of 2005. speaker boehner stated in that allowing someone's property to be taken quote represents a complete departure from the very core value upon which america was founded. your natural human rights to your property, end quote. i hope my republican colleagues support the private property rights, even when it's an oil company, rather than a democratically elected noble government that seeks to use

eminent domain. i think this bill was an insult to american citizens who oppose the keystone tar sands pipeline, and expects their views to matter. by granting the permit without condition unleashes transcanada to bully and threaten american landowners into giving up their property rights. i urge my colleagues to support this and he'll back the bells of my time. >> i had a couple of questions for the council. when it comes to the issue, this issue of eminent domain. i'm curious how the provisions being used by this company, that is based in canada, different than a utility based in the united states when it comes to eminent domain. in answer, could you repeat -- >> does keystone have any special rights or privileges not according to a domestic -- >> it would be in accordance

with state law. nothing special. >> and would their use of eminent domain has some special power that some city or county would not have? >> no. >> because they are foreign. >> not -- no. it is there anything because they are foreign ownership that gives them any privilege or ride that is above that of a domestically-based company? >> no. >> when the other pipelines are constructed in the united states, did those companies use eminent domain? >> depending on the law of the state, it would depend on the law of the state. some states have that tool. other states don't. state-by-state decision to make it is a state-by-state decision. and would come in this case, would transcanada have to abide by state law when it comes to eminent domain? >> yes your. >> so they would have to live by whatever the state law is

relative to eminent domain? >> that's correct. >> and when these pipelines are laid, in this case my understanding is it will be fairly deep in the ground, is that correct? >> i think for stretches of the. i'm not sure if i'll of it is underground. >> but that which is underground oftentimes you can still conduct your agricultural activity? >> absolutely, yes. >> tell me how the pipeline safety law would intersect. >> the safety laws continue to apply. and for this particular pipeline, -- >> can you get a little closer to that mic? >> the pipeline safety laws as administered continue to apply for this particular pipeline as contemplated under the final environmental impact statement. there are 57 special conditions that heightened the standards to the pipeline as opposed to most oil pipelines in the country. >> and so, i mean, i was just turning a -- hearing about the

potential for these leaks and all. does the pipeline safety act not have pretty strict requirements in terms of the safety of the pipeline? >> yes. pipeline safety laws would continue to apply the next of the pipeline safety law in the united states would apply to transcanada's keystone xl pipeline? >> yes, it would apply and it would apply at a heightened stand with the additional 57 conditions. >> can you speak to what some of those 57 additional conditions would be? i haven't made it all the way through? >> a lot of them are linked to specially technic to make sure if there is an incident that it is known sooner. so most of them focus on leak detection. >> and other additional levels of inspection required on this particular pipeline that are not on other pipelines be? so, in the idea of ensuring adequate legal protection, it is increased inspection requireme requirement. >> okay. and then -- >> they would have more of the

oil pipeline that are cited in this country. >> and are there, when it comes, i keeping this issue of tar sands can which i think really is at the crux of the opposition here is that this is an attempt to stop production, this is my commentary now, i won't ask counsel, to stop or hinder the development of oil from tar sands in canada. i would think that is as it relates to global warming issues as some people are passionate about. but when it comes to the pipeline itself, are there differences in how the tar sand oil would flow from a canadian-based field versus anywhere in the domestic united states? >> well, in other places in the united states and they use trucks and rail also, but most oil, large transmission of oil is through pipeline. but there