states. to accomplish this, the cbp pursues a multilayered approach to security. segments cargo by potential risk and examining it as early as possible in the process. although often presented as being intention or conflict, the security and trade missions are supporting. by utilizing risk based strait jis, we focus time on resources on the small percentage of goods that are higher risk that we can expedite trade about which we know a great deal. the multilayered approach is based on the following core elements, retaining information about cargo shipments as early in the process as possible, using sophisticated targeting techniques to assess each shipment for risk, partnering with the private sector, working with foreign governments and international organizations like the world customs organization to harmonize and enhance approaches to supply chain security, and maintains a robust

inspection regime including nonintrusive inspection of equipment and radiation detection technology at the ports of entry. the elements are familiar to the subcommittee and especially in lite how they are fundamental to the approach of the new strategy. dhs and cbp works closely with you and the staff achieved advances on cargo security and trade afghanistan. with your support, we implemented the filing or ten-plus-two. we can identifying these to identifying these in the processes. we have the unique capability advanced cargo information with the targeting system allowing us to take action before shipments are loaded on to vessels and aircraft destined to the united states -- >> your microphone is off.

>> the shipper program, the customs trade partnership or cp pat is recognized as the model for government and business. there's over 10,000 members representing over 55% of the importing value into this country. while terrorism remains the primary focus, we will explore ways to collaboratively address other threats vane the potential to compromise the supply chain including drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, and trade and import safety violations. under the container initiative, cbp works with the partnerrings to mitigate the threat before it leaves the foreign ports and operated 58 ports in 32 countries screening approximately 80% of the cargo being shipped to the united states. we are continuing the deployment and use of advanced images

systems and radiation detection equipment. this nonintrusive technology allows us to work first timely in recognizing the -- efficiently in recognizing potential threat. we remain at the fore front of supply chain management and confident the approach laid out in the national strategy represents an effective way forward building on the existing programs. thank you, again, for lay lowing me to -- allowing me to testify on trade resilience, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee on these issues, and i'm happy to tyke -- take your questions. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, madam chair and ranking members of the subcommittee. i'm here to talk about the approach of protecting our ports, maritime commerce, and securing the global maritime supply chain. from up acception, the united states has been a maritime nation considering that high concentrations of our population

live in and around port areas and 95% of the international trade is done via the sea. the consequences of any attack or disruption on maritime transportation system are potentially severe. backed by the national transportation security act of 2002 and the security and accountability for every port act of 2006, the coast guard led a joint federal state, local, tribal, private sector and international charge to implement a robust layered security approach that starts in ports abroad, carries across the high seas, and culminates in the waterways designed to identify any threat long before it reaches our shores. our oaforts start abroad under the os miss of the overseas assessments of over 900 port facilities and 153 of the 157

countries that can potentially conduct maritime commerce with the united states. for example, in 2010, two companies commenced the shipment of liquid gas from yemen to the united states, due to the increased risk of the origin, the coast guard conducted additional assessments in yemen and use technologies to screen arriving crude members before they depart yemen. the vessels are inspected with an undersea investigation well in advance in the mediterranean sea before they make arrival in the u.s. ports. offshore a cutter fleet maintains a vigilant presence conducting fishery enforcement armed with the authorities of 41 bilateral agreements and simultaneously maintaining an agile posture to respond to humanitarian disasters and threats 20 maritime security and the global supply chain. the coast guard's planned fleet

of the national security cutters and offshore patrol cutters august -- augmented by border patrol are essential to maintaining the offshore response capability. the coast guard in cooperation with border protection ensures that u.s. bound vessels pose a potential risk are identified and inspected before they reach u.s. shores. specifically, the coast guard and cbp share and jointly screen manifest 96 hours prior to the apriefl in the u.s. to identify crew, cargo, vessel documentation, and route anomalies providing an appropriate lead time to mar shall a response to any threat well offshore. in 2011, the coast watch program run by coast guards intelligence coordination center screened 28.5 million people and more than 121,000 ship arrivals as well as their business practices

and associations and generated 120 advanced warnings on arriving ships, cargoes, and persons posing a potential security or criminal threat. the coast guard leads the international maritime organizations work group three focusing on combating piracy on the high seas. this effort resulted in several best practices like the use of private armed security teams on board commercial vessels transiting the high risk waters. in 2011, the teams repelled over 120 attacks that would have otherwise impacted the global supply chain. a final level of security resides in the waterways and we have have security plans for more than 11,000 u.s. vessels, 3200 port facilities, and through the use of area maritime security committees fostered an extensive inner agency collaboration to bolster

security of layers infrastructure. this was highlight the in 2010 when the motor vessel carried 500 illegal migrant smugglers tied to sri i lanka and intelligence sources. this was our capability to track and intercept a potential threat on the high seas and mitigate risk to the home lan. it was also a prime unitlyization of the operational threat response plan, a presidential directed inner agency process establishing protocols for realtime, communication, coordination, and decision making among inner agency principles. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support of the coast guard. i'll be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, admiral, and the chair now recognizes mr. caldwell. >> thank you very much for having us up here to talk about

supply chain security. it's important to recognize that the issues and programs we're talking about today didn't start with secretary -- or the president's strategy from last week. these things go back ten years, they go back to 9/11, and they go back to the maritime transportation security act passed in november about ten years ago. the maritime transportation security act among other things called for a secure system of international, intermodal transportation with systems to screen cargo while in transit. since 9/11, go conducted about two dozen reports on some aspects of supply chain security everything from the programs discussed to the technologies that have been used some successfully and some attempts not adds successful. many of the programs jump started right after 9/11, so i think it was important to understand some of the warts they had initially. go made a number of recommendations through the

years for dhs to improve strategic planning, work force management, internal controls, cost estimates, and performance measures. as the programs developed, a lot of go's recommendations were implemented and to that in the programs, they have improved over the years. i'll be happy to discuss any of the individual programs during the q&a session. regarding the 100% scanning, the new strategy itself does not mention the existing statutory requirement. we completed a thorough review back in 2009, and we cited a number of challenges bringing into question the feasibility of whether we can do that as called for in the law. in the report, we made a number of recommendations. for example, recommended that dhs develop more accurate cost estimates, conduct a cost benefit analysis, conduct a former feasibility analysis, and after all of these, provide

specific alternatives to congress including special legislation. unfortunately and despite the issue of the recent strategy, little has changed in terms of our recommendations in the last two or three years. while dhs partially concurred with the recommendations at that time, they have not implemented most of those, and they now indicate these recommendations are largely overcome by events. we think that if dhs implemented these recommendations awhile back, the department would be in a stronger position to talk what those alternatives to be with 100% scanning and have specific legislative things, and they would be in a stronger position to justify the waivers that the department will obviously have to be providing and notifying congress about relatively soon. in fact, i think if these recommendations had been implemented two to three years ago, we might already have legislative compromise and be quite a bit ahead from where we are right now. here we are. we are still at an impasse in

terms of the legislation of the 100% scanning. our industry and trade partners are concerned about the uncertainty this creates for them, domestic and international industries. dhs will soon have to implement their chosen path in terms of doing a blanket waiver for all ports providing congress with advanced notification of that. there are substantial reporting requirements to that waiver, and those will continue as long as dhs uses the waivers as preferred tools 20 meet the requirements of the 9/11 act. in closing, gao provides analysis to congress on the issues, and i thank you, and i'm happy to answer questions along with the rest of the panel. >> thank you very much, mr. caldwell. that was an interesting testimony, and leads to the obvious question, i guess, and the reason for this entire hearing as we listened to the

first three witnesses talk about all of the various things that have been ongoing in the efforts to make sure that we secure the global supply chain giving us statistics, ect., which are very impressive based on the workload and the resources available to be able to accommodate 100% mandate that this congress has passed. i guess i would just start by -- you were mentioning, mr. cladwell, saying you made recommendations to do cost benefits and analysis and perhaps if they had taken those recommendations and done some of those kinds of things we would be further ahead, but overtaken by events, and believe me, we all understand that. totally understand that. the purpose of this hearing is just to have a belter idea of what kinds of events have overtaken us, but whether or not we have any realistic expectation of ever getting to the 100% or even -- if it's even

that is not achievable as the secretary has made testimony to this subcommittee on a number of occasions. where do we actually go from here? i guess i'm, first of all, just trying to understand from a cost -- let's just -- well, recognize optimal, but perhaps not realistic from a cost perspective. we have 55 ports in our country of which there are, i think about 700 ports of origin, countries of origin, goods coming into our country. do we have any idea at all what kind of costs we may be looking at? a ballpark figure in order to -- i don't know who i'm directing the question to -- gentlemen, do we have any idea, at all, what kind of costs we're actually looking at understanding the budgetary constraints that our nation is facing, but the goal of secures our nation, being our

priority as well. who might answer that -- start with answering that question? >> let me start by just talking about what the costs are that we have to include in that and then go to specific operations. there are a number of things that we've looked at in terms of the entirety from end to end questions about security and resilience. the implementation of going back to the supply chain to the manufacturer and things like ct pat require auditing of facilities and partners to ensure that they are adhering to the security requirements of ct pat. the ports require coast guard to go and ensure that the code, the international codes, have been adhered to, that safety and security procedures are in place. the counterterrorism programs are in place.

the actual scanning of material and cargo and containers that cbp has and other programs within the federal government requires that partnerships in foreign countries, with foreign governments, requires advanced targeting capability, and then also we have the capability at home for screening, so there's technology costs, there's operational costs, and all of those things are -- have -- are so broad and so large that estimates have been in the as cargo accurate as people would like. >> i'm not looking for an accurate estimate, just a ballpark. >> so this is in the billions and billions of dollars, but i'll turn to the cbp colleague who has the operational arm of that to go into the operational costs. >> from an operational perspective, we have significant experience in terms of the costs

of these programs. from the pilots that we've ran. over the course of the two and a half to three years those pilots were active, and, of course, we still have one additional active location in pakistan. the dhs, alone, spent about $68 million on the scanning equipment, on the deployment of it, on software upgrades, and all the relevant costs associated with that. at the same time, the partners at doe, responsible for the radiation and nuclear detection capability aspects of the sfi program, they spent over $50 million. the total government expenditures was almost $120 million on those six ports for the short time it was in operation. based on our estimates from that experience, we estimate about $8 million per lane to establish the sfi type 100% screening sweep of technology. now, that technology might be improving over time, and we're

still studies that, but if you multiply that by the 2100 lanes at the 700 ports globally that ship directly to the united states, that is quite cost prohibitive, up to the $20 billion range. the other aspect -- >> $20 billion? >> correct. >> $16.8. the other aspect of that mentioned is the cost to the trade, and to estimates have been very high both in studies from the private sector partners and the european union and others. >> okay. i guess i would also ask you, you were mentioning, i was taking notes when you talked about the risk assessments and the modeling that you're doing, and one of the things you mentioned if you could brush off for me a little a how you gather the information, and then you look at technology from the port of origin, ect.. can you talk a little bit more

about what kinds of things targeting technologies you utilize to make the risk assessments? >> yes. i'd be happy to cover that. that's an area of excellence we think that cbp has in coordination with the intelligence community and other dhs and law enforcement partners. we take information on cargo shipments as early as possible in the process, both through the 24-hour rule established after the trade act of 2002 as well as the isf, the importer security filing, the ten-plus-two, and the have that information with shipments combined with the information we know from the supply chain, the ct pat as well as historical data on shipments from certain routes and countries, and manipulate that data using the automatic telling system in sophisticated ways. one of the most common talked about is the intelligence based rules.

these are specific rule sets designed to address each mode. we have different rule set, for instance, for maritime sprier sus land, air, and -- veer sis land, air, and rail to identify potential security risks. we're using advanced analytic technology techniques and it's called machine learning in the field to help us model risk more effectively beyond the base process. we use what we know about the supply chain with the trusted partners to help reduce potential for risk on those shipments as well as the procedures used at the foreign port, so all 6 that is factored in in an automated fashion to give us a sense of the risk of individual shipments, and we do that both international targeting center for cargo and with other csi teams deployed abroad. >> thank you. my time expired, but i appreciate the candid response want best estimate on cost. it's our job as congress to ask

you how much it costs for you to implement mandates we pass. we have to have a clear understanding of what it is and understanding the budget constraints we deal with here and it's for us to determine from a priority standpoint where we go with the budget from here with national securities perspective as well. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. caldwell, you're with the gao; correct? okay. you have been with the issue for some time and know the legislative requirement and challenges of scanning 100% of containers, but in hindsight what different courses could have been taken to comply with the law? >> i think in terms of actually setting up the pilot, there could have been more metric setup to measure how long it was taking, the cost, what impact it had on trade at the individual

ports. in addition to this, there could have been better and validated data on cost, still an issue as we discussed, and i think again, feasibility analysis, cost benefit analysis had been done earlier in the process, and it's unclear if it will be done at this appointment. i think that would have had given them position to engage with congress perhaps earlier and perhaps, you know, very awkward, obviously to do this before the deadline approaches in july 2012. >> the two -- did you -- the gao communicate those recommendations to the department of homeland to cbp coast guard? >> yes, we did. particularly they went to dhs geared towards cbp with the leads in terms of the container program, and they were recommended in october 2009 report, and we tacked to dhs earlier, perhaps spring of 2009 about the need for these. >> okay.

.. there was some recommendation, what did you all do with a specific recommendations in 2009. i agree there's a deadline that p coming up in july this year u we are coming up to that.are what did you all ask we do with those recommendations?ual and keep in mind, as we're goinp through the in discussion, you

know, i'm a businessman. certainty is important.tant andn and in international businesssis community, not by what cbp is k going to do, what's going tohapn happen, it affects the certainty that affects our economy.and thc what did you all do specifically with the recommendations? recommendations? >> let me answer the general question first which is what we do with the gao report at the process of adhering to them or not. we actually have instituted about two and a half, three years ago a very synchronized effect with gao we are trying to get in early to understand the problem, so we are working very closely together. there's a whole process where we are working with them to get as much data as possible. on the back and when you are implementing, when the gao is finishing its recommendations we've given an opportunity to concur and not concur.

we do that in every report with all the things recommend but we usually provide what kind of corrective action were steps that will be taken into gao then follows up with what we've done that or not so there's a process that we do and the cost estimates for how we can do better. the time that report cannot most of the pilot project have been completed either government said they were not going to continue to implement it or they actually included for other reasons and so getting books cost estimates that's the best we have right now from that original data. spearman out of the recommendations that you all made on the one to 100 scale, what percentage do you think they implemented? i know there's give-and-take they are not going to accept everything 100%. but the way the gao or the

inspector general, somebody could that comes up with ideas i see it as a way to improve so how do we make it better not accepting everything 100% what would you say on the one to 100 scale? >> i will say our goal engaging in the executive branch and this is true with the dhs as well with 80% of our recommendations implemented. >> what do they get roughly? >> this year we are not doing very well. we have five recommendations. we maybe have two of them partial and the other three. i think also one of the recommendations we made that they do a feasibility study was a statutory requirement in the cord act it wasn't just the gao recommendations. >> so you are saying on that recommendation of the recommendation from you all a statutory requirement and they haven't done it yet? >> that's correct.

>> there's pieces of it but they need to put together and i think the important thing is for some of that analysis that feeds that will be important even if we do the blanket wafers because under the waiver procedure there's still the reporting requirement dhs talk about how they plan to achieve what they are doing still trying to achieve the scanning and if not why not so bad as some of the justification they're going to need in that analysis. >> and i think madam chair and members this is a difficulty when there's a recommendation is a statutory requirement. how do we get your body and into this? one more question that you don't remind in regard to the interim final supply chain strategy by the statutory act emphasized the 2007 strategy the interim is 128 pages long on the topics such as finding the problem, strategic objectives, the role of

technology, the responsibilities, implementation of a scheduled prayer these milestones, recovery and training exercise requirements but the report we just got last month and only six pages which means there was little discussion. i don't understand, usually when you do an interim report to build on it and this one you build and took away and i just don't understand and i give my time of but how do you explain discrepancy or not discrepancy but how do you go from details to now a six page executive summary how do you explain that and build down instead of sort of building up?

>> it's a good question, and i would just no to -- >> this is the interim report and then the interim report, 127, 128 pages you build on the other one and again i'm not saying maybe this is a perfect example of streamlining how do you go for men and from that report and then come up with this report here? >> i made to get a lot more time on the answer. there's a couple of things that we've done differently here than the interim report that should be noted. first of all, the scale of the report goes beyond the maritime and goes into all modes of transportation to and it includes resilience as a critical element and it also looks to international engagement on a wave that has frankly unprecedented. what we've done in the strategy

document is to talk about building on these previous documents. so rather than regurgitate all of them we've tried to make it a simple and straightforward as possible. that doesn't mean that there isn't behind, there are implementation things we are working on. we have a report to the president and i hope we wouldn't get lost in the length of it and i think eisenhower's strategy for world war ii was two words which was europe's first and we have a lot of things that go beyond that. we are in fact actually and plunging down things like the supply chain security initiative the circuitry put forth that sits in to the global strategy the president puts forward and all these things come together. >> i can summarize to words into one, wind. but this is something that should be a guideline to what we are doing.

and i am disturbed by what i'm seeing here especially recommendations from mr. caldwell and not meeting a lot of them, but madame chair, think you for indulging me on this important issue. thank you. >> the chair will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madame chair. mr. mcaleenan, the goal of this congressional law was to give us within a reasonable period of time 100% scans on the container shipments coming into the u.s. at 100%.

>> in terms of the total percentage, sir? >> yes. >> our csis program covers 80% of the global trade to the u.s. in terms of the actual scanning. we do about 45,000 inspections last year through our ports prior on the vessels. that is a little bit less than 1% of the total cargo headed to the u.s. and then we scan an additional 4% upon of rival domestically in the united states. >> all right. in layman's terms, what% of cargo that's coming to the u.s. right now is not stand? >> in terms of physical scanning that would be the vast majority come over 95%. >> why not?

>> well, we've been discussing with you and your committee for several years the complexity to this process and the test that we've undertaken with ssi to examine the feasibility of the physical scanning in particular. at the same time, we've been aggressively pursuing the lawyer approach focused on the coordination at the csis with our former partners on the high risk working with the international community on the standards. >> taking whatever you are doing to the high risk shipments or anything like that at this point in this hearing today, is there any shipment using your pravachol that's come into the u.s. that we don't know what's in it?

>> it's not as complex as what you are saying was the leader approach whether you're scanning are taking high-risk. i didn't want to know what the number is. >> we have stated content on all shipments to the united states and through the isf we also have the carrier explaining the location on the vessel of the container as well as the container status message where it is in the process. the combination of the two data element allows us to identify any and manifested identity eight containers and address those upon arrival. >> so your testimony to this committee is no container shipment come into the u.s. that we don't know what's a in it? >> that is too strong a

statement. we have requirements -- >> i anderson and requirements. i just -- are you doing 90% or doing 85 for several you are doing 95%? i want to know where we are towards the 100% standard and whatever protocol you are using, that's fine, but i want to know where right now. >> there are very little gaps on information. we have very high compliance. >> give me a little. some of the 24 compliance is over 99%. isf compliance is a relatively new program that 92% but that is where we get the information on the cargo shipment in the environment. so very high compliance on both those. >> mr. heyman, do you agree? stila almost 100% of things coming to the united states are known to us in terms of what's -- what is in the manifest, what is relating, and we then use that information to our risk

analysis. stomachs we are at 99% at the container shipment that come to the u.s. is your testimony before this committee meets the requirement at least in and the 07 wall? >> that's not what i was saying. when i was answering the question is whether we knew about all of this stuff that was coming to the united states, and the answer is generally yes. >> when you say new about -- >> i'm not saying all this stuff. >> you know what is in the containment? >> yes. >> you do? at 99%? >> yes. the question the law puts ford is whether that information -- the information that we've received is accurate, and whether in fact somebody has tried to fraudulently put material into a container or misrepresent what in the

container, and that's what we try to identify, and in fact we've done it to great success to read about 11,200 narcotics seizures last year. >> i'm not asking for that kind of data. i'm just trying to give the public confidence that the law that congress passed saying we want 100%, that you tell this committee from what i understand that you are 99% there to risk in terms of the 100% scanning mandate,,, that mandate as the testified over one a number of times poses significant operational financially and difficult challenges. >> that's fine. where are you to do the 100%? what percentage along the way are you? >> my colleague just testified that we are doing approximately 5% -- >> you are 5%? >> approximately. >> so, what are we doing for the

other 95%? >> so, those are what we've done -- the go through the advanced targeting system to get to be identified as not part of the high risk containers that require additional inspections. the inspection process, remember, is first to look at whether the manifest is accurate and second to look at whether there is any threat information and third, to look at the opportunity for the non-intrusive inspection and ultimately we may have to open that up. that is the most difficult of course. >> but that is the process that dhs put together. that was not the process that converts to elected. >> actually that was the process that was put in place for the pilot projects the congress asked us to do. estimates and so you have now taken that and made that the policy based on where you just said to the >> i'm not sure i understand,

sir to the estimate mr. caldwell, let me ask the question of the gao. are you comfortable with the responses that you heard that 99% of the cargo on the container shipments come into the u.s., you know what it is coming you know what is in its? >> let me interpret the line hearing here. >> no, don't interpret. just stick with the facts. >> you're not -- why are you not cracks >> for the majority of the containers, we have the manifest the it doesn't look suspicious. that's where the scrutiny stops. and in many cases this may be a standard shipments of manufactured overseas and to a target store here in the united states, towels, textiles, anything else. but as far as assurance of what

is in there we have a manifest and the manifest only. >> so other than the manifest we don't know? >> that's correct unless there is a scam. estimates before. at this time the gentleman will recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, madam chairman. let me pause to say thank you for arranging a tour of the port of baltimore with the coast guard to read recently where i and you had the opportunity to witness some of the things the ranking member is talking about. the scrutiny of manifest, looking at the country of origin, scoffs of the shift that's carrying the containers, possible interdiction to read multiple places along the way, and then the active screening in the port for the radioactive material chemical and biological issues. and so when you think about the number of ports in this country and the number of containers

that come in and i am amazed that we are able to do as well of each other as we did. and i commend the gentleman that are doing that implementing the policy of this country every day to keep us safe. so thank you and thanks for educating me. i guess the question i have is mcaleenan -- >> mcaleenan, sir tristram thank you pittard i wasn't here for the introductions, madam chairman, so i apologize. kim cdp effectively screen high risk shipments in a way that expedite a legitimate commerce? because from what i saw there's a stop and go process, and i know that we targeted certain containers and certain countries of origin when we are trying to do a very good job there but i am very concerned at the speed of commerce and expedition on that. so can you screen high-risk shipment in a way to expedite legitimate commerce while at the same time ensuring the security of the united states if he will touch on that? >> yes, i believe we can come

congressman. and it is to do precisely that. for the vast majority of cargo that we determined to be low risk based on our analysis of intelligence and information provided on the cargo shipments are to the supply chain and the knowledge of the parties involved in that transaction, those are released instead to their destination in our economy right away. usually for a rifle. for those very small percentages of cargo that we think might be risky or we don't have enough information on them and we wanted to give further look at we do try to address the potential risk of the earliest possible time in the supply chain. 45,000 times last year that was done before the cargo was on the vessel in the foreign port. another 5% of cargo ase examine the the u.s. port of a rival, and we try to those examinations of the most efficient way possible. we use the non-intrusive technology which is again an imaging device that you probably

saw the part of baltimore. to do the initial exams on the cargo that we determine might be high risk that is a very quick process that we can scan the cargo e efficiently. if we don't see any anomaly, the picture looks consistent with the commodity that we expect to be in that container we are able to allow that to proceeded to the commerce and is only a very small percentage to read a very small percentage that remains of concern that we actually do a full examination and what we call emptying the container and looking at all the content. so that leader approaches designed to do precisely what you asked about,, this time, in terms of facilitating that trade while securing it to get stomach and i appreciate those efforts and you clarifying that. it seems like there was went be a gotcha moment a moment ago asking for the 99%, and there is no way that any country in the nation were in the world can fill the screen every container based on the number coming in

this country. sliding scrutinizing the manifest, understanding the country of origin, understanding the history of that particular ship or that particular manufacturer, that particular in porter is critical. so watching you all implement those different steps and saying this container came from xyz country but stops at the country ze and why before it came to the u.s. and maybe it was offloaded there and held for a while and put on another container shipping and trucking at the whole way and understanding we need to pull that out of the line and scrutinize it a little bit further even to the point of possibly on packing it is an amazing undertaking. and so, trying to see the gotcha moment of the containers and we know everything that's in there that's ridiculous. we don't know how many are in their other than with the manifest says. but you do a tremendous job and madame chair, we saw looking for

threats, assessing those threats -- the question that i have for mr. caldwell is in your estimate what do you think it would cost the government to implement the 100% cargo screening? what is the dollar figure on that, sir? >> we talked earlier of a figure of 20 million dollars and that is the same vigor that we reported in 2009. some 20 billion? >> 20 billion to get it's a little unclear who would pay this in the 9/11 act not specify who would pay it which is a large issue of course. as to the consumer is right to be because the import/export is going to pass the cost on and that is obvious to most folks in and out of time and i yield back. >> thank you gentlemen and at this time i recognize the gentle lady from california ms. sanchez. >> thank you, madame chair. and again, you've done a good job. >> thank you. so have you. [laughter]

>> i have had the privilege of being able to go and look at having chaired the committee before the subcommittee before to many of the points abroad to see what conditions they were under and i would just say that i think as i from trying to take a look at some of the major ports that we have here, this committee might think about taking a look at the major ports that actually export to us to see what conditions there are. there's a difference between mumbai for example and singapore and that allows us to understand how is a difficult to get into this 100% scanning issue and that is 5% or so that peace can. and we understand the approached the evidence that is one of the people who pushed the past for

example. but there is the uneasiness at least for me for what is going on for the abnormal patterns with the risk analysis and then taking a look at that. so i think that we are -- i think it is very difficult to get to 100% screens, but at the same time there is still a lot out there that we are missing. for example, it is my understanding that of the cargo containers security initiative port determined high risk the customs and border protection scans or otherwise the result of 96% of the shipment that goes overseas. that means 4% of those in fiscal year 2011, a little under 2,000 shipments were high risk cargo that were not examined before they arrived to the u.s. 20 minutes away from long beach.

that is a big concern if there is a dirty bomb or something else in there. i really do want to push it out and have that happen out there. so, that's one of the questions i have is can you please discuss that particular issue and then my second question would be secateurs in a public, has testified that the requirement of h.r. one recommended by the 9/11 commission could not be met for several reasons including that the technology does not exist for 100% effective and efficient cargo screening. so is that the department's position today but we don't have the technology to do an efficient and effective fast 100% screening? and it's also my understanding that the domestic nuclear detection office is developing a plan for evaluating and testing the new one tomography as part

of the advanced technology demonstration program. this program is being installed in the street part, but, to demonstrate as the private public project in the operational environment, so it has the department taken a look to see if they want to participate in this test to see if in fact that technology works and whether we can get it put in here to the u.s. cracks so those would be my questions, madam chair. i will give you a chance at those. >> okay. i will take your first, congressman. your numbers are correct on the 96% of exams are accepted in the see if i ports of examination. the 4% as there are challenges sometimes in the timing of the request. some of our partners are not able to respond during the hours that we need them to be for the container is laden. >> it does mean it gets lead in without an expression even

though we've asked for it. >> the rise in long beach let's say could stomach correct that happened about 1780 times out of 10.5 million total cargo shipments to the u.s., so it is a very tiny percentage that we've targeted with sesir to foreign governments are not able to respond. >> but it's still 2000 and if it happens to be one of those that get put on a truck that goes through the freeway in my neighborhood -- >> understood to be the definition of high risk doesn't necessarily mean that it is a risky shipment. in fact, we have not found a terrorist weapon in all the shipments that are targeted. these are based on all these in the chain based on intelligence factors and most of all the vast majority of no concern. so, you know, to your point, we would like to get to 100% of the response, the 96 level is our highest historic plea that we've

achieved. we continue to work with our partners to try to get to that 100% level on the part. >> to get to the other two questions first let me just agree. i think that i would recommend to the ports of you seen one part you have seen one port. they are so different and one of the things that's been challenging to us is that the diversity of a terminal operation and the one part can be different from another operation on the same quarter, and so in terms of the cost of the technology and things like that, it's not just that but it's also how you configure your operations on the terminal is the footprint, all of those things may be affected and they are all problematic. >> report was made in a different way, you have a different footprint and you can't put the same standardization and. stomach and they were not -- they were not designed for screening. >> the challenge that we were looking to do this in foreign countries and the diplomatic

challenges we have to think in the pilots if you look at them we had labor issues, we had what i just described the operations from the terminal operations challenging in the other parts of the u.k., so there are foreign diplomatic challenges, not just the technical ones. and i really don't want to belabor the point and i will get the second question about the technology really have to look at technology as a possible solution down the road. we always want to look at that as a possible long-term solution that helps drive down cost and increase efficiency and may increase also the speed at which we have a good flows through our ports. so we are looking for that and we are partnering with other agencies and within their own strategy looking to do additional investments in technology and technology development and we will see where that goes in the long term. >> is it still the department's official position that the technology does not exist to do the 100% screening?

>> the technology that we have -- well, no, there's technology that exists today that has challenges come all the ones i just described, and including july descendant described such as false positives. >> could you answer for the record and in writing the third question that i have about the shreveport situation and what you know about it and whether you think you're going to get involved in that. thank you, madame chair. islamic thank the gentlelady and now recognize mr. brown from georgia. >> thank you, chairman. this hearing as well as many as a point about something i've long said here in this committee that is that the department of homeland security has a totally wrong. we are spending billions of dollars and wasting billions of dollars looking for object instead of looking for those who want to harm us. we would be much better off as a nation from a much more secure

as a nation if we would spend the money and human intelligence focusing on those who want to harm us. we have to stop patting down by ground ma and children and start looking at airports for those who want to do us harm through the sector. we need to stop looking at all the technology to try to get to 100% when we can only get 5%. i really focusing on those entities throughout the world that want to harm us and we are not doing that. we are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. we've given them a false sense of security. we are giving them a message that this country is going to be free from having dirty bombs as ms. sanchez was talking about. wasting the tax payer money and it is actually a posture is to continue looking for objects. we need to totally change our focus on whether it is with shipping and ports across the country around the world will

need to start focusing on those who want to harm us. having said that, the questions, just a couple of questions. why is there such a lack of specifics in the administration's the five new national strategy? global supply chain security cracks anybody? >> the strategy represents the highest level of fidelity for what we need to do to accomplish our interests in ensuring the security and resilience of the supply chains. there's obviously a much richer and deeper problematic implementation that goes underneath that and what the strategy tries to convey is the idea of all of the proceeding programmatic and strategic efforts that have gone before but the strategy builds upon. it might have been bea labor and oftentimes in the strategies to talk about all of the authorities and everything that goes before that we tried want to do that because we wanted people to read it.

that said, we would be happy to give you a more detailed brief at some point of all of the things we are doing and have been accomplishing in the last year. >> please, do. there's been a great difficulty dealing with your lack of specifics. why is the administration going against the 100% scanning and in some cases have even played the mandate but hasn't requested that congress repeal the mandate? >> at this point, we are looking -- one of the things we've done in the last several years which i think is important for people to recognize is put in place programs that actually allow us to do much better risk-management, and if you look at the atf that my colleague of eskridge, the advanced jargon center and the information, the ten plus two that allows us to do much better analysis, we are

probably -- i don't know they yawn but much further, the road in terms of our ability to identify high-risk and interdict high risk cargo than we were five years ago. and so in many regards, we are moving in that direction which allows us to be practical and responsible of the implementation of the law. >> in the kennedy we've looked at a number of the technologies that have been developed. you've utilized some just sitting in warehouses. i would like to have from the department a rundown of how much money has been spent on technologies that have been used and discarded as being affected and how much money has been even spent not even to utilized and houses. if you please provide those the data i would be interested to

see those because i know from the science committee perspective there been a lot of technological proposals that the department as purchased and have never been deployed. but i encourage the department to change tracks to but we have to focus on terrorism instead of focusing on objects. tsa takes great pleasure in talking about how many weapons have been found in airports and talking about the success that we have had the effect of service on their plans. we are not doing our job to keep america's a. the department is looking the wrong direction and we're looking at objects. we need to look at people. those people and groups that want to destroy us and i'm not talking and looking at every muslim and at every person from miller eastern descent to me to

get terrorists instead of looking for the objects that the department of homeland security is doing now. we are wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars in doing so. as a, i encourage the department to change the tracks. i told the secretary that she is wasting money and whole philosophy of the department is totally wrong. we need to look at terrorists and the people who want to harm us instead of trying to look at objects and people in this country are getting on airplanes and ships and we aren't even looking at those other things from just the aircraft. i you back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from texas ms. jackson lee. >> thank the chairman and the ranking member. and to the witnesses at me ask this first question of every one. i was trying to catch the

gentleman from georgia's comments of wasting money but i know that you can't put a price on the loss of life. obviously the issue of property can sometimes generate enormous catastrophic impact on communities. so let me ask the members of this panel representing a number of entities that are involved in the believe requirement of the mandate of the 100% cargo screening that was supposed to take place january of 2012. secretary heyman, do you have the resources, and please don't tell me this is not in my area you are here to talk about the

cargo screening etc., and it is your impression that the department has the resources, the money right now to make good on the mandate of the 100% screening. >> no, ma'am. >> we are always getting this, mr. mcaleenan? >> thank you. >> my good friend >> that works, congressman. a distinguished name and your answer to that, please, sir. ischemic my answer would be the same. >> admiral? >> we are not in the container screening and i don't think that was introduced was the for an assessment system of 153 nations but we don't to trade with and another piece of it and then we

are in that it with the cbp and screen 28.5 million people last year getting back to the congressman from georgia's question is looking at those people one or their holes in the fence to say in the form where there are not good access control point where someone can enter the facility and then introduced an object into a container that isn't in the manifest. and then screaming people on the vessel that me to the same looking at history and then impose history on the vessels that may enter the u.s. port. and that will only comes down to what stopped the threat before it enters the u.s. parts and what isn't stopping at term. so we currently have the resources to do these assessments. we have roughly 60 individuals that are dedicated to do the and formed part assessment to read our to alleges the resources that would take to actually stop the threat before it enters the u.s. water. so that is where as you heard our comment time again that is where the rubber meets the road.

>> so you have the personnel right now and the resources. is there a time when you expect those resources to run out? >> we've been able to advance those objectives working with foreign partners, particularly in the european union to the estimate and this is under the coast guard funding? >> it is. >> mr. caldwell, you are likewise with the government accountability to read to you think dhs may need an assessment of the resources they have to meet the mandate that was given to them? >> not 100%, no, ma'am. >> is anyone in your shop looking at that issue? that is part of what may be the potential problem treat stomach every year we do analyze the budget provided by congress and the committee such as this. islamic the most recent budget that you've analyzed. what is your guess on that? nicoe recent, the most recent

one we may have cut because we don't have a budget as we speak. >> can i be very specific? >> yes you can, sir. >> the 2012 budget versus 2011 was a 50% reduction in the international progress requested in the administration. >> thank you very much. what we've requested from the administration and then ultimately what occurred paid do you have a next step on what they actually received? >> part of this was a shifting of the funds from the people like d.c. yes i back to the national targeting center and from our perspective the gao. some people need to stay in the parts to have relationships with those countries that in general for the targeting purposes it would be cheaper and more sufficient becerra the national targeting center.

>> if you would indulge me for one last question i would appreciate it, madam chair. the study produced by the panel's indicated authority day closure of the part of the jersey would result in the economic impact of the u.s. gdp of over almost $5 billion loss of 50,000 jobs. whether in new york, in my home town of the port of houston, houston port or any of the other major ports across the country and the terrorist incident that closes the nation's port would have a devastating economic effect in the u.s. and around the world. understanding these potential economic growth impacts, potential economic impact can we afford not to increase the security of the maritime cause on the shores, and i want to point that to the assistant secretary of the commissioner. >> thank you for that, congressman. that's right. this is one of the reasons the strategy is being put forward. the disruptions to the ports,

the disruption to commerce and the supply chain is going to happen at some point. we've seen it recently with the tsunami and we've seen it recently with the volcano last year and terrorism to read one of the things we tried to the strategy that is different and is important to recognize is the international solution that is to say we've gone around and are going to multi level organizations, world customs organization like the universal union. we are working bilaterally and saying we need to raise the standards. no one government, no private sector, nobody's going to be able to solve it on its own credit has to be a community effort and that is why one of the things we are going to be working on and have been working on is the international deutsch >> have you given up on the 100% screening? >> we are continuing to operate on the wall. >> can the commission finish the answer to those? >> i would say we must maintain

a robust approach as to enhance the cargo security and you to continue to improve and we take the gao very seriously and as testified to improve the program over the course of the past five or six years and deduct the scsi recommendation that they remain $35 million a year without the security with the program so that is maintaining our structure and expanding and improving it is absolute essentials. >> i thank the chair and the ranking member and the witnesses and yelled back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from california ms. richardson. >> thank you. first i would like to start my comments by thinking ranking member for supporting my participation today in the hearing. second of all, for the record i would like to note that the representative rohrabacher this the one that represents the port of los angeles and long beach which is known as the complex and it is the largest port in the united states of which i

will be focusing my comments today. i also want to know for the record that out of the full homeland security committee hearing on february 25th, 2010, i questioned secretary napolitano on the progress of the 100% container screen buhle june 16th, 2011 as the chairman of the subcommittee on the emergency communications prepared this response, myself and committee members submitted a letter to the secretary regarding the impending deadline of the screening and then again on march 3rd of 2011i asked secretary napolitano about the 100% cargo screening. so this has been a concern of mine for quite some time and with all due respect to some of the folks here who are testifying for those of us that live in these communities, the port complex itself is in mr. were looker's district however all of the land portion and all of the impact of the port meaning trucks and activity for the simple the port of long beach is in my district. so i take it pretty seriously.

madam chairman, for the record i would also like to point out not speculating ideas, but according to the university of southern california homeland security center the preliminary economic report was performed back in 2003 due to the strikes we had, the labor strikes in 2003, and it was recorded at that time that $1 billion a day was lost based upon the closure of the port. so, with respect to the people who are testifying when we say a number of 16, 20 billion, what ever it is, when you keep in mind that we lost 11 billion in 2003, and that was a labor issue, that wasn't even if there were infrastructure damages, so i'm not putting aside the cost that we need to consider these costs which leads me to my first question and if you can do yes or no as much as possible as i would appreciate it. mr. heyman come to your knowledge, has the department conducted a feasibility analysis

based upon cost as mr. caldwell has referenced? have you guys dennett? yes or no? >> we haven't done the full capability study. >> okay. thank you. my next question would be mr. heyman, to your knowledge of any steps been taken or are any steps being taken at this time to achieve the act of the 9/11 recommendations of the 100% scanning in the department? >> yes. we have submitted the report to make sure you get a copy on that. >> let me make sure you're clear on the question asking. this will directly reflect what steps you are taking to achieve the 9/11 recommendations of 100% scanning. >> this report reflects all of the sea port requirements and how we are implementing it. >> and how you are working to achieve 100% scanning?

>> the report talks about what we've done to achieve the 100% scanning to this point. >> okay. commissioner, is it true cbp relies upon the host governments with their customs personnel in relevant from countries to resolve issues of containers that are deemed high risk? >> yes, we work with authorities that are sovereign in those parts and often times observe the anticipation. >> is it true the cbp doesn't require scanning of the parts? >> is it true that you do not require scanning of the high risk containers out of these areas? >> our csis folks are operating with request as opposed to the requirement authorities. >> so it is correct as my question that you do not require scanning at the ports; is that correct? >> we do not have the authority to take action on our behalf. >> okay.

again, building upon ms. sanchez, it's true 4% of the cargo identified the parts have been identified as high risk and have a right in the u.s. without being scanned; that's correct? >> that's correct, 750 shipments last year. >> mr. heyman, you testified about these wonderful international relationships. however, when i asked the secretary, when i also asked ambassador kirk in these trade agreements that we've recently approved, was there any effort to work with these foreign countries to establish a scanning process and the answer in both of those was no, it didn't, no, would get back to us. do you know anything on that? >> i do not, but i could get back to you if you like. >> finally, madam chairman, i would like to build upon mr. brown's request of not only requesting the information of the cost of some of the technology of what is being done, but to supply the request of the folks here who are testifying to supply to us

details on what steps have been taken, what technology is currently being considered, when has that last been reviewed, and what future technologies are they considering to meet this request which may require a classified briefing? >> thank you, chairlady -- >> did you accept -- >> without al-awja action d'aspin okwu concluding? okay, without objection from certainly. the chair now recognizes. >> thank you, madame chair and ranking member really am appreciative of this hearing as i mentioned to you yesterday on the floor. my friend, congress member and i have found the report caucus and we actually sent a letter to the chair of the homeland security committee asking for a hearing such as this.

and i am very pleased that we are holding of a spirited and i've been very interested in the testimony. but i think sitting here this full-time and listening to the question and answer i'm not feeling any better about where we are in this country in terms of the port security. and i echo many of the comments that my colleague ms. richardson just made, and while either one of us actually represents the port of long beach los angeles, those ports we call them america's the five ports because it's about 44% of the trade that comes into this country comes through those port complex, and both of our districts border ports. many of our constituents live minutes from the ports, and any attack and natural or man-made would be devastating, and to the national economy has ms. richardson said in 2002, we

had a labor dispute. everyone knew it was happening. there was already efforts under way to divert cargo from the west coast ports and yet we were able to determine that it was to 2 billion-dollar a day hit to our national economy. so, and it lasted ten days. do the math, and we know what i did. also, not to the national economy, but the global economy. we heard that many businesses throughout asia actually were extremely impacted by the loss of cargo moving in attendees. some of the businesses we even heard never recovered from that. so i think the threat to our national economy, the global economy is severe, and i have real concerns. i've always felt like the most vulnerable entryway into this country is through our seaports.

and after 9/11, i feel we've focused in this country rightly so on securing our airports. you know, and we didn't really take into account the cost. we didn't really take into account the inconvenience of i think the traveling public knew exactly what it was going to entail to make it through security. they would have probably balked at what we were recommending that it was important to the safety and security of the travelling public as well to our commerce to it i don't feel like we've done the same our ports, and i know there's a lot of vulnerability still. i'm one of those the would like to see us get to the greater percentage of scanning. that's also imperative. also a lot of what you are seen on is a lawyer approach, knowing what is in the manifest, be leaving with the manifest, and

the bleeding when it reaches our shores nothing has happened across the ocean to have tampered with any of that cargo recently if implemented design a to the port of los angeles there has been twice on the anniversary of 9/11 the national media company actually shipped deflated uranium through the port, and it was discovered in los angeles. also now since we've implemented this there has been a couple of containers that have come in that harbour folks from other countries. one was the 19 chinese in a container that was discovered by the choreman in los angeles, not any of these efforts that are under way. and in terms of cost, you know, the cost that would impact a recall me if something were happening at one of these major ports is significant. but, you know, we were sending a lot of money on our war per

month it was 12 billion per month for both of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. so, and we believe that was worth it. we believe it was worth it for the national security. l.i.e. really think this is at that level to read and i feel like we are vulnerable. i think we've all talked about how much we want a greater percentage of screening, and i think you've answered where we are at. and i think that you've heard this morning from a lot of members of this committee that we really are interested in seeing you get a higher percentage of scanning. let's talk about not -- if something might happen, let's talk about when something happens and the port disruption. it was touched on in terms of recovering. and i know that i am going to be introducing legislation that talks about all of the ports in the country having a recovery plan because i think i would make the ports less attractive to an attack if we knew that

they could get up and running to get in the port caucus we are going to talk about the recovery plan for all of the parts. what would you suggest that we look at in terms of what would be important for our major ports to get back up in business after a major disruption? >> thank you, congressman, for your thoughts on this very important subject. we take this very seriously and appreciate your seriousness as well. on the resilience and recovery site, it is something that is not -- it hasn't been embraced or has thought through as the prevention side. that is because largely we are very concerned about prevention, and we have done less on the resilience site. in the united states, that is why we are taking an initiative and building in the resilience internationally on the strategy. in fact we have led the way partly through the apec forum

ensuring that the trade recovery procedures are put in place. and one of the main things people will do, and frankly the port should consider is having the appropriate information to know where and when things can opens of the businesses can rely on the real understanding of the timing and the recovery and the disruption. the sharing of reformation as one of the things we can do a lot more on as it retains to the resilience of the courts. >> let me ask about the point of origin where we've got the manifest a right to the point of destination where we are hoping for the best but nothing has happened on our wide open seas. can any of you speak to that issue? are you 100% sure that when these containers leave the point

of origin and when the right to the point of destination nothing has happened and what are we doing to ensure that? >> we try to make it as certain as possible, and to that that is part of the ten plus two filing. it includes information on where the containers reside on the vessel. it allows us to see if they might be accessible while on the high seas and to determine whether they could be compromised during a lot of under way. so we do the checks when they arrive and are able to compare the seals submitted by the importer and the shipper to this because those? >> u.s. borders and protection of a point of entry. so, in other words, this is a concern and something we take seriously. we work with our partners on the coast guard at the dessel's approach of the u.s. parts, but -- >> do you do checks on all the containers? >> nope. we do targeted field checks and

also random operations to ensure the integrity. >> and that is what makes me nervous, too to read again, keeps me a bad night -- keeps me up at night. you're kind of best guess and it's more and more of the ports are going to go automated. i am concerned that the loading and unloading of the cargo by automation as opposed to real folks is also i think presents a bit of a rest. >> thank you. >> i want to thank -- term my microphone on. i certainly want to thank all the participation from the members today. it has been i think one of our -- well we've got a great hearings but this has certainly been a good one. i think a lively one. a good discussion. i certainly want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony and thank you all for your

service to the nation and i know i speak on behalf of all the members as we are obviously working in very extremely bipartisan fashion about the national security. and my staff get sick of me saying this but i say all the time and try to remind certainly myself that the first, with all the issues the congress faced first and foremost responsibility of the federal government to provide the common defense that is actually in the preamble of our constitution. .. challenges to ever get to 100% whether or not it is even feasible it's why we've been waiting for the secretary to come forward with possibly some

legislation to modify the current mandate or what have you come up this subcommittee is th the very country interested in ne assisting you with the resources that you need to do your job and the mission that we have askedut you if, and you're out there is, every single day and it really is a prioritize our spending here, and i say that from a bipartisan stand point because it's interesting the administration is proposing a 50% reduction, but yet i understand the makeup of all of that was, expensive to have officers oversea, ect., so we have to -- we're not looking for a sound bite here. we're really trying to understand how we prioritize our spending and do what we need to do to keep the nation safe, particularly to the points. again, i appreciate all the witness, their testimony, and with that, i would mention also that the hearing record will be open for 10 days. if there's additional questions, we'll get those as well, and

without objection, the subcommittee stands a-- adjourned. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

the u.s. conference of catholic bishops announced protests of the plan because they believe this provision forces almost all americans defined procedures regardless of their ethical objections but because it violates the first amendment. dennett catholic information center at washington to discuss the impact of the health care mandate on religious institutions. >> welcome to the catholic information center. my name is mary and it is my pleasure to welcome you today to the panel discussion contesting the hhs mandate. to learn more about the catholic information center or to donate to continue programs such as

these please visit our web site cisdc.org. on january 20 at this year the u.s. department of health and human services approved a mandate the will force catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization procedures and abortifacient in their health care programs. effectively forcing catholic employers to violate their consciences and fund practices that to them are morally offensive. as has received critical backlash not only because it forces religious institutions to fund procedures regardless of their ethical objections but because it gravely violates the first amendment. the january 28 statement by the secretary, hhs secretary kathleen sebelius, says we will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concern. this was made after careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty and she believes this proposal strikes appropriate balance between respecting religious

freedom and increasing to prevent services. on january 25th, teddy, the archbishop of the diocese of new york and the head of the united states catholic conference of bishops and does it designate the obama decision to force catholic and other religious and players to violate their conscience will not stand. americans will recognize it for the detour that it is and urged their elected representatives to repeal it. he also recalled in his meeting with the president in november that the president seemed at the time to consider the protection of conscience sacred and he didn't want the administration to impede the work of the church and he claimed that he held that in high regard. but after the last month over 150 bishops have since spoken against the decision. in fact, he says the president is saying we have a year to

figure out how to violate our consciousness to force citizens to violate their consciences and to forgo their health care is literally unconscionable. it is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. historic kleeb this represents a challenge and compromise of our religious liberty. "new york times" columnist says the government has been -- has given religious institutions an impossible choice. play by our rules even if it means violating the moral ideals that inspire your efforts in the first place and he says, or get out of the community building business entirely. he continued the obama white house decision is a threat to any kind of a voluntary community that doesn't share the sensibility of whether -- of which ever party controls the health care bureaucracy. tv host chris matthews has said it is the duty of religious leaders to follow their conscience. it will be the work of politicians, the president unbound to do, he says, to work

this out. some people on all branches of the media have been commenting on this. in addition, wall street journal columnist peggy noonan calls this a battle to the president cannot win. on monday it was reported that the signatures to rescind the hhs mandate on the white house dhaka of petition page that there are many more signatures by 5-1 objecting this decision of the hhs, but since today, as of today there are 2700 signatures opposing the mandate and in favor they still significantly trail behind with 18,000. on capitol hill, senator marco rubio has introduced religious freedom restoration act of 2012 in an attempt to counter the mandate. and also on capitol hill, we see that john boehner has given a floor speech saying if the president does not reverse the administration's's attack on religious freedom, then the congress acting on behalf of the american people and the constitution we are sworn to

uphold to defend. causing a lot of speculation that the obama administration a compromise may make a compromise on this issue. axelrod, one of the campaign strategists, said on tuesday on a tune to the tv show morning joe we certainly don't want to the burgeoning much religious freedoms we are going to look for a way for word that provides one in the preventive care they need and respect the profit of religious institutions. however, white house aides have assured women's groups advocates during meetings tuesday morning that axelrod's comments did not mark a shift in the policy of the administration. so we have here to discuss and settle all of this to see our way forward with their ideas with great panelists to join us. we have think it could join as richard doerflinger from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and jim capretta from the ethics and policy center. kyle duncan for the religious liberty. and we are thankful to have ryan williams as the moderator and i'm happy to introduce the

moderator, ryan williams before passing the microphone to him. he received his b.a. and m.a. with distinction of philosophy from boston college. he then moved to east africa to work for can yet to develop and implement a program for the national sangree and he received a baccalaureate promise of a commodity from and is now a doctoral candidate and a fellow in the school of philosophy at the catholic university of america. so i'd like to introduce -- i would like to pass the word over to ryan to continue for the ring the discussion. thank you. >> thank you very much, mary. to might as you know we are having a panel discussion on the hhs mandate and i just want to introduce three panelists, experts in the topic. the first is mitscher defeat to mr. richard doerflinger. as you know he works of the conference of catholic bishops and is the isasi director of the secretary of the co life activity where he's worked for

over 30 years. among his duties he is prepared policy statements, educational materials and congressional testimony on abortion, euthanasia, striking health care, embryo research and other medical moral issues. he holds a b.a. degree and m.a. from the university of chicago and conducted doctoral studies in theology at that institution in the catholic university of america. mr. james capretta is a fellow at the ethics and public policy center. he was and is as a director of the white house office of management and budget from 2001 to 2004, where he had a responsibility for health care social security education and welfare program. at the ethics and public policy center, capretta study and provide commentary on a wide range of policy issues that focus on health care and entitlement reform, fiscal policy and global population aging. mr. kyl duncan is the general counsel of the becket fund for religious liberty. kyle joined the fund as a senior counsel january 2012 after serving for three years as the chief of the louisianan per ton

of justice. he taught constitutional law we a the university of mississippi schools law and served as an assistant general and the attorney general's office. under solicitor general coleman. he also practiced law with vincent and houston texas. the way the evening is going to do is we're first going to have some remarks given by each of our panelists on the issue that we are discussing this evening. after that, there will be a small discussion among the panelists themselves that have a few questions to ask them just to get the discussion going. and afterwards, we will open up the floor to questions from all of you. fink of really good hard questions that the gentleman -- if they are ever answered here is where they are. so, to begin, we are going to start with mr. richard doerflinger, if you would, sir. >> okay. thank you very much. i'd like to begin by putting this in broad context because the debate about this mandate begins with the health care reform act itself.

some caulkett ppaaca. during the whole process of the bill, the catholic bishops said look, we are not experts on how you structure health care, but we do have certain moral principles that are important to respect. and one of those was the protection of conscience. that was it principle that was largely ignored through much of the process of various efforts to address that issue. but ultimately the final bill was deficient on and on a number of other areas. we ended up asking for a vote against the final bill. but in the ended narrowly passed. the problem finding this out as for the first time the federal government was for creating mandated benefits that every health plan and america would have to include in order to be seen as a qualified health plan and therefore be offered on the market. there was a and essentials

health benefits list who was details worked out later by the department of health and human services and lead in the process, there was a separate requirement for preventive services including a separate list of is going to be preventive services just for women. and in fact, the -- while the floor debate for the need of britain and services for when and i would say about 90% was about breast cancer screening, which of course we have no objection to whatsoever there are members of the congress who wanted to use that as a wedge to create for the first time a nationwide contraceptive mandate. something that congress has never passed before. in fact, over the 40 years that i've been at the conference i think there's been at least 20 bills introduced, none of which never got out of committees of this is an entirely new thing. there are states that have passed mandates that have had a religious exemptions and so on of various kinds, but for the first time you had a hook in a statute passed by congress that could be used to create a

mandate for the contraception generalization. and that in fact is what turned out to be the case. the department of health and human services delegated the task of creating this list to the committee of the institute of medicine and later found out that at least five members of that committee were board members of planned parenthood affiliates, and inevitably given that personnel the contraception sterilization or essentials prevent services for women which was uniquely all because every other preventive service in that list was about preventing a disease, and until now the american people haven't voted for the proposition that babies are a disease. at any rate, that was proposed last august. we objected strenuously to that. we file comments against it on three grounds. first, contraception sterilization are not basic

health care needed by women to prevent disease. pregnancy is not a disease. this is a selective and should remain elective which means you don't force it on people. and for that matter, contraception is most often used for things that are not urgent medical needs but lifestyle traces. they do in fact have serious sometimes deadly side effects of their own. and one of the ironies of the whole thing is that around the same time this was being debated there was a front-page article in "the new york times" about the latest study showing that hormonal contraception increases women's risk of contracting aids and preventing aids was one of the legitimate purposes for the rest of the preventive services list so you had a preventive services list at war with each other. some services to prevent aids and some to increase your risk of it. our second point was that particularly the scope of the mandate included drugs that are

seen as morning after pills that could prevent the implementation of the new embryo therefore in our view and that of many others is really a board occasion, and one drug called ella which is a close analog to the abortion pill and therefore really can cause abortion by anybody's definition with a before or after the implementation. though it is marketed as an emergency contraception so you have an abortion issue raised. and third of course is the fact that any in position to this mandate would violate the rights of conscience and religious freedom of anybody who object to them and therefore departs from a very long bipartisan consensus in congress that when you pass major health legislation like this, you have some protection for the rights of conscience and that has been true since the original church amendment of 1973 and after senator frank church of idaho, not after the catholic church. that's been in place without controversy for 58 years.

the amendment against the involvement of abortion, the religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate from the federal employees on the health benefits program and so on and so on and so on. just a list of all of the conscience provisions and other health programs takes about eight pages on the website. so, and some of those are put in bye example the clinton administration. this hadn't been a partisan issue and so he said, you know, there is a huge problem with this and all of those areas. we were ignored in the campaign to say states have to do this anyway. and one of the amazing thing is that the final interim rule, the interim final rule that has been put in his whole approach to religion. there is a religious exemption. it has four prongs. you to meet every one of those in order to qualify for the exemption. you have to be eligible for the tax-exempt status in a very narrow part of the tax code that

covers churches and houses of worship, religious congregations. you have to have the infiltration of the religious values as your purpose. you have to hire chiefly people of your own face, and you have to serve chiefly people of your own face. which means, as i've said before, that jesus does not qualify because though he certainly did invoke it religious values, he went around healing servants and so on. mother teresa does not qualify because notwithstanding being a saint, she picked up hindu and devious and muslims off the street in calcutta to heal their wounds, as it is a ridiculously narrow view of religion and it's all designed to put the war church at four met with itself because if we were to stop doing those things in order to qualify for being religious enough, we would stop being a christian enough and we would stop treating people who are needy simply because they are in need.

as the bishops have said, we treat people in our institutions and health care and schools, we help them but because they are catholic but because we are. and to compromise that would truly be to stop being the institution christ wants to be and so it puts us in an untenable position and does the same thing for many others. so, the bishops have reacted strongly to this and i've even heard some people say it's because the election year they don't like obama. nothing to do with that. a test to do that for the first time there is a kind of social compact that's been broken here because we have many debates about abortion and family planning and funding for those over the years. but for the first time, the government is reaching into the likes of our own and the institutions, our own and charitable institutions and religious organizations are saying we are going to drag you into promoting what we see as a

good thing for society. we are going to make you violate your religious freedom even within your own employees, employer relationships. perhaps if you are a university with your own student health plan and so on in order to meet the social goal. that is something quite new and isn't something that has been done to us by democratic or republican had ministrations in the past. in response to the public outcry in the catholic church, and from catholics who supported the health care bill or opposed the health care bill, liberals, conservatives and moderates, and many non-keflex we've also been supporting legislation called the respect the rights of conscience act we've been supporting for over a year now. cementer rubio, who was mentioned earlier, also has more targeted on this mandate considering all that we hope some of that will move forward. but basically in the and this is more about, not about politics,

it is about fundamental freedom and one that was very dear to the hearts of the founding fathers of this nation that people should be able to live without the government invading the conscience and can violate their religious freedom and with that i will turn it over to the next speaker. thank you. >> thank you. richard again my name is jim capretta i'm a fellow at the ethics and public policy center today i middle the efiks and policy center here in washington. and i want to thank the cic for sponsoring this event. it's incredibly timely and very important and i am pleased to be here with richard and kyl who are experts on this. i went to pick up a little bit on what richard described as the context and how this came about. but ago at this from one particular angle. the debate heard over the last week is rightfully around the rights of religious

organizations that are being told that they have to violate their collective conscience and provide coverage for contraception and sterilization and abortion abortifacient products that run against the belief of their faith and that is obviously a huge issue violating the rights of those organizations and the church. but, you know, so far in the debate and media is going to come back as ian even more important question is how do we get to the point where the government was allowed to do this for the average citizen any way. for the average catholic out there working for a private employer who doesn't have any religious affiliation whatsoever, they are being told by the government through this requirement that day, too, have to pay premiums into a plan that covers all these things and there is no right whatsoever to get out from under it. there's no talk of an exemption,

there is no contemplation in the administration towards the religious liberty rights of the average citizen and this is a very big deal. there will be tens of millions of people who forevermore the united states this is a last stand will be forced every two weeks in their paychecks to pay for a number of things that they find objectionable. how did we get to the point where this happened? as richard indicated, they're have been bandied about for the last two decades amendments that were considered in congress of various points to impose a contraceptive mandate on insurance products of various types and kinds of formats. as richard indicated, those usually stalled for a lot of the reasons why there are objections to what is taking place now. however, in the context of the gigantic health care bill, the past -- in 2010 there is a whole

slew of things the government can do. this is one of them but it's not the only one. the delegation of the massive amounts of power to the federal government is really remarkable. and this is all i would think one of those moments where the public is getting a glimpse into what is coming. the specter of the religious people having to go through the government, sort of hat in hand to get xm from this should be an indication that something is missing here, something has gone terribly wrong. why did the federal government get this power to make this decision affecting 310 million people coming and there is no recourse whatsoever. so there is something fundamentally gone wrong, and that brings me to my next point which is it is a principal catholic teaching that decision making authority should be located at the lowest level possible that is competent to do

it. subsidiary. and on a very much agree with the notion that this is a question that people loved fifa and consideration can come to different conclusions on. there can be debates about how appropriately to organize the societal questions in this arena. there is often lots of great debate that should take place around it, but my own and judgment is that looking out the balance of what has happened in the health care law this is one manifestation, one manifestation of a general phenomenon of entirely too much delegation of health care power to the one central bureaucracy and the department of health and human services. if you go through the health care law there are so many secretaries in there that it would stun you. they will shut as i did that. the orie regulation, not just about every three months reorganizing various aspects of how health care is going to be run and this is one of them. but there are many others.

there are all kind of things in there. things about how to run -- on the document hospitals are back to agree to be organized over time, they are heavily influenced how that will be changed over the next few years. there's all kinds of requirements about where you can buy insurance beginning in 2014. so, i am not here to relive the get all aspects of the health care debate, but it's very hard to see how when you delegate so much power, so much authority to let's be honest with ourselves a federal government that is not -- that has developed over the last -- at least half a century the point of view this secular is an orientation, and you know, in some ways hostile to the religious sentiment, if you delegate so much power and authority to the government to run the various aspects of our lives in this manner, this kind of thing is going to happen.

and, you know, we should be very careful as we take this moment where people are focused -- we have the public attention and focus on this. we should be very careful to return to the first principles. and make sure that whatever comes out of this something that really protect our rights. not something that gets us through the next six months, not something that, you know, it's the president really elected and can move on and may be reversed this leader, but something that really protect people's rights that doesn't have the government impose such an awful mandate and that's going to take some work i'm very hopeful that this moment catchers a lot of people's attention can be used to read, reorient what we need to do here which is very fundamental. and with that i will stop. >> it is an honor and pleasure to be here with you my family

and i have just moved to washington, d.c. from louisiana where i was in the state government there, and i look forward to a gentle introduction through my duties at the fund for liberty and lives that we find ourselves in the midst of what we see and what we see correctly ask one of the most flagrant attacks on religious liberty that we've ever seen in this country and that's really not in a better reading. what i want to talk to you about is we have heard some broad structural and thematic discussion about the mandate. we at the becket fund have been the first to bring to lawsuits on date on catholic college and evangelical christian college to overturn the mandate as violating the constitution and the federal law.

and in these few brief moments i would like to just highlight what we see at the becket fund has really unconscionable violations of basic religious freedoms. the whole so wide that you can drive a truck through them really in this assault. in many ways, and i don't want to overstate our case, but this is an easy case because what the administration has done here is it is to overreached on such a number of basic issues of religious liberty, and i would like to highlight those for you without rehearsing the sort of technical legal arguments in our lawsuit, but just giving you an idea of why this runs. i think everyone has the intuition that this mandate violates something very basic and i would like to try to unpack very briefly why it does in our view. and we have brought lawsuits at the becket fund on behalf of the college which is a catholic liberal arts school in north

carolina, founded and run and also on behalf of the christian university which is an evangelical university located just outside of denver. our claims on behalf of both of those schools are quite similar. and we have brought claims under the constitution and also under the federal law their religious freedom exploration act to and i'd like to highlight for you one of the very basic ways in which this mandate and also the exemption that you heard about violate the religious liberty. so a couple of ideas here. first is the very basic idea that this mandate is a form of coercion of religious conscience. it is so obvious that it's surprising to even sort of articulate it. the mandate says if you want to continue to practice your

religion and abstain from offering services that you're believe told you are greatly in morrill evin tantamount to the destruction of innocent human life, you must pay a fine. what that sink in for a second. you must pay a fine to be a catholic to read you must pay a fine to be an evangelical christian. the alternative is to kick all of your employees' office health care. pay the fines which can go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. if you are motored aim for instance you will be paying millions of dollars in fines. if you have 100 plays the lead to employees. the other alternative is to give up your faith. the basic commitment to read just liberty that we have held sacred in this country since our founding since we've recognized we shouldn't four squeakers to pick up rifles -- quakers to the

rifles we can't do that to people. another thing about the mandate that is quite shocking is the idea that the government in order to provide greater access to contraception, which is already available in 90% employer health plans, which the government already spends millions of dollars to programs like title x for the poor to provide access to contraceptives and on top of that the government has to pick on religious employers and prescript them to violate their own conscience to fill in what someone once called the catholic gap in the insurance coverage. so this has a thing to do with access, it has to do with imposing a vision of what constitutes appropriate health care of everybody including religious organizations who object to it another aspect of this that i think deserves mention this this mandate is by no means a one-size-fits-all kind of mandate. instead become if you look at it closely it looks like swiss

cheese. everyone knows the government has been granting waivers by the hundreds and thousands to allow large corporations not to be subject to the act itself. the act also exempts small employers from the mandate and certain grandfathered health plans from the mandate and even has a certain kinds of exemptions for say small groups who have religious objection to insurance per say. missing from all of this is an exception for the religious groups and individuals who don't want to be forced to violate their conscience. that's a fundamental violation of the amendment to take that kind of scattershot approach. but let me close. i really want to hear your questions. the most obvious and a egregious

violation of religious liberty is the so-called religious employer. let's take a moment to unpack that. as mr. doerflinger said, this is an exception that we have called sort of the antigood samaritan provision. this provision says religious organization here is the kind of religious organization that we come the government, want to see operating in the civil society. the religious organization that stays within the course, that doesn't haulier anyone outside of the faith and it doesn't serve anyone outside of faith. so if you are running a soup kitchen, and you want to serve the hungry jewish person or the laundry atheist person, the hungry evangelical person, your conscience isn't protected. it's sort of a grotesque conversion of the public policy that one would think we would want. but regardless of public policy,

it violates the basic position of the first amendment which is to say government doesn't get to pick the kind of religious organizations it likes and doesn't like according to whether they are sort of outward facing more inward facing evangelical or non-evangelical. quiet or disruptive in the public sphere. the government doesn't get to do that the basic violation of the establishment clause. squalls that is heard about is the overwrought part of the constitution where we are worried about the crashes were the minorities in the city hall and we think it is of the establishment clause is about. this happens to be really clear violation of the so-called separation of church and state which harkens back to the original purpose of that provision which is to keep government out of church's business so this is a very clear violation of our basic traditions of religious freedom.

it's not about access to contraceptives. it's about not forcing religious and lawyers of individuals to pay for things that violate their conscience. most importantly from our point of view it's not about striking the appropriate balance. we've heard that a lot in the media. as the chief justice john roberts said in the recent case they were very happy to prevail on those and it had to do with religious organizations rights to hire and fire their ministers. chief justice roberts said you don't need to be balancing anything here. the first amendment has struck the balance for us, and that balance is in favor of religious liberty. so with that i will turn it over to the moderator. ..

>> is there any possible way that this compromise can come about? i know that they mentioned this hawaii law, which an interview for the national catholic register, you said that's no middle ground at all. that is not an acceptable solution to this. the hawaii law allows for religious employers physically not pay for contraception provided they direct their employees to replace what they can get it. so could you maybe flush out all the more of the middleground, a balance that has been struck,

and whether it's possible and to strike another balance? >> the palace looks very much like the first amendment to the constitution. and that's the basic answer, which is this is not a matter of politics as mr. doerflinger said, this is a matter of respecting our basic american constitutional traditions of respecting people's conscience but it goes back to the quakers. it's one in our constitution we allow for affirmations. it is why we don't force the stage of jehovah's witnesses just say the pledge of allegiance to these are basic principles of american religious freedom that we, this administration has developed a frightening form of amnesia -- amnesia with respect to. let me answer the hawaii plant because i've heard this mentioned a lot. there's a number of so-called state mandates. i for the number 28. this is a red herring. these state mandates are not the sort of straitjacket that the federal government has created

with the federal contraceptive mandate. the state mandate, even where a state mandate would not allow for an exemption for religious organization, religious organization has an off-balance, they can self ashore. -- issue. income out with a plan. there is a way out of this. there's no way out of the federal mandate and less as mr. doerflinger said, you become a religious organization and you become a religious organization, abandoned any pretense of being a christian organization, for senator the hawaii plan is no plan at all. wide plan is you just said in introducing it would force a religious organization to direct its own employees as to where they can go and violate the religious organizations own teachings. that sounds like a violation of the first amendment by an ethnic also a violation of the free speech clause. not a solution. >> anything to add to that? >> well, i would say that, that

as i indicated in my remarks, that it's time to take a step back from the current back and forth about the narrow languages in disgust, and sort of tried to get, reflect on what's the basic principle want to protect and have to go about that. now, me, i go pretty far, you know? but i think, you know, this deal is provocative. the idea that we really had to have i think the federal statute delegated all this authority around the potential health benefit to secretary sebelius and her team to decide for everybody else, i question that. we have lots of employers out the door to respond to the needs of their workers. we have lots of state legislatures that are very responsive to the needs of their citizen. i really question whether we need as a country to delegate a once and for all requirement, that the department of health

and human services should decide as a proposition across the board for everybody. that was probably my judgment, problem number one. second point is if we go now to kyle's point about protecting and how do we go about protecting our constitutional liberties, i think we should do that in a very fulsome way. it should not be just to protect my judgment, just to protect the organizations that are originally -- religiously affiliate. but to protect the people of the conscientious objection to all is because the practitioners of their own fate. i don't see why we should settle for having the federal government impose this on tens and tens of millions of people who might object to some aspects of this. >> i would just make one comment to the hawaii law is bad. it's almost, it is almost not quite as narrow as the federal one. this requirement, if you're going to claim a religious exemption, which have to do instead is give all your

employer, all your enrollees information on how they can access all of these services, including the important ones, quote in an expeditious manner. up until now one of the points on the white house blog trying to explain away this mandate was to say hey, this is just coverage, this is not about having to get involved and actually provide the services. we don't know if anybody is going to use it. so now the compromise is to violate that and say, no, you're going to have to send people directly and expeditiously for the services. you won't have to pay for birth control much have to send your priests and nuns and laity to planned parenthood down the street. that's a compromise between the administration and planned parenthood. ever compromising with the wrong people. it's not a compromise with us. i don't see any of the recent

developments as serious at all. i think they are digging in on this, quite frankly. >> another thought that comes to mind, all three of you have mentioned, at least implicitly, that it seems like a direct attack on religious freedom. a direct attack on religious freedom as opposed to an overarching attempt to overstepped the bounds of the constitution. and the question i have is all of the news media, liberals and conservatives alike are saying, what's the political end game here? it doesn't seem to have any political grip. i mean, this is just everybody is angry about this on both sides. and they are angry about it because of the religious aspect. so the question is, if a religious aspect, could the religious aspect of this be serving as a smokescreen for a grander scheme? could the religious aspect of this be serving as a smokescreen for something, for something bigger? should we worry that the obvious political ramifications of this

decision do not align with somebody trying to be reelected? could there be something else here? i don't know. it's just something that is interesting to me. it's evident, this religious thing is important, and everybody is saying that it puts a bad light on the administration. so surely they know that. >> let me try to speak to that for one second because i am not so sure, i'm not so sure that the obvious is not the answer, which is that this is a deliberate attack on religious freedom. this is not an isolated incident, with this administration. it's part of a pattern. for example, just working backwards from where we are right now, the administration in the case of talk about a second case, the ministry of case that the supreme court just decided, the solicitor general was to make an argument about the autonomy of religious

organizations to hire and fire ministerial employees that managed to unite chief justice roberts, justice coley and justice kagan, brought everyone together and incredulity as this could argue till the end to basics is a religion or position doesn't have any more rights than a social club, the professors its message. so, you know, that's the notion that the administration looks at the religious are you and doesn't it. as mr. doerflinger knows, the administration cuts grants for combating human trafficking, because the u.s. ccd would not agree to refer victims of human trafficking to abortion services. that is a pretty stark attack on a very basic principle of religious liberty.

the administration rescinded the george w. bush era conscious protections for health care workers last year, and let us not forget that this is the president who, when camping, said that when people get frustrated they bitterly cling to their religion. so, this is perhaps a larger pattern or. >> you know, just to comment a little bit further on this, first of all you have to understand this has been brewing for a couple of years, so the normal, normal pattern here is sort of held a little bit in the sense that they got this provision enacted which delegated huge authority to hhs. so that was a huge win for them in first place. they knew they were doing by enacting such provision. if we did is put into law we get the right this whole thing as we see fit. then they said let's go to a scientific panel to decide, that came sort of the usual suspects were involved in that in terms

of defining what is considered scientifically good preventive benefits, came out with a predictable outcome. all of the interest groups that are promoting a contraception, you know, culture and abortion culture were all over it and push for it is for a couple of years pics of the obama administration in some ways have the power to do it and have a lot of activists on their sides and do it. and then had this gigantic blind spot that then let them do it. so i think in some ways it's the obvious, you know, that they did a power grab. they got the power. their supporters all push them to do this. they said why not? they did and they have a big blind spot to the reaction. >> just quickly. excuse me, mr. doerflinger. to respond to that, one of the possibly that all of this work that they've done will be undone if they don't get reelected -- >> sure hope so.

[laughter] >> my question about the policy involved relates to the fact that surely they would have known that this quick grab would've been undone if they don't go back into the white house the next term. surely they would know that, right? so was this just a misjudgment? this judgment, they were unaware of the blowback that they were going to get? >> i think of a very large blind spot, but i also think that in their political calculus there was a star in politico 10 days ago or beef -- 10 days ago before the blowback was about to reach this level today, what it essentially said they did an internet debate inside the administration, who knows how accurate this is, and they calculated that the intensity of supporters would outweigh the opposition of the intensity of the opponents who weren't going to likely vote for the president anyway. so they did it on a political

basis. >> i think in terms of the politics, what's happening is a battle between two groups that most presidents seeking reelection want to appeal to, particularly summit in president obama's position. and one is the catholic vote, and the other is his base in terms of the rights movement. the pro-abortion groups. now, they are very strong on this. they are capable of generating enormous traffic by e-mail and blog, and of making the media into their narrative, whatever is going on. that was very apparent in the foundation. in which they basically were willing to bring a major women's health care organization to its knees, simply in order to be able to continue to provide the cover that they allow one for a

planned parenthood clinic to do a breast exam even though they don't do anything else for breast cancer. you know, in order to say -- save half million dollars a year in money, and the symbolism that goes with that they were willing to all but destroyed the largest breast cancer charity on earth. so, and every time that the administration has shown any sign of being deferential to these religious concerns, this happened in november when the president met with bishops present, archbishop dolan, and said we're going to wear going to find a way to accommodate these concerns, and that came out. i think archbishop dolan said the reporter that he feels a little bit more positive now that the administration understands the religious freedom concern here. that apparently has sparked outrage to out the pro-abortion movement and they generated letters from senators and outrage in the ranks.

they really think that this idea of mandatory birth control in everyone's coverage is the way to a better america. and, frankly, that's just the first that because already in washington state, a deal is very close to passing that takes the next logical step and says that every health care plan in washington state that has coverage for childbirth has to equal coverage for abortion. and once they get a few states to pass that you see the federal government say well, the states are already mandating this, you know, we need to get with the program here and make sure they are not only no unwanted pregnancies but no unwanted birth. it's an ideology. a very extreme ideology but it's a group of people that unfortunate some of the administration and they are beholden to. >> kind of frightening or just maybe one last question from the and then we'll open it up to the audience. so, i was just reading an

article today. one of the justification for this was given by sara lipton of the aclu. and she says that this removes gender discrimination for women citing that their health costs rise by 68% without contraception during the reef -- reproduction used to you mentioned this, mr. doerflinger, that pregnancy is viewed as a disease. so the question i suppose is what does this imply about things like reproductive 80, pregnancy? is this an adequate justification? there is a legal precedent being set a. are there deeper cultural ones trying to integrating themselv themselves? so maybe speak to that. anybody i suppose be back let me take a stab and to let others speak to it. yeah, i think, planned parenthood's problem is and the aclu freedom project is that i'm the one hand, they keep citing 98% of women have here is a

family planning method at one time or another. the more relevant statistic is that 69% of sexually active women who don't want to be pregnant are using one of the methods that is covered by this mandate prescription contraception. and the rest are using nothing at all, using condoms, whatever. some are even using natural family planning. but these are into my the most effective. but the most effective of all are the things they've been spreading throughout the third world for so many years. and now want to get american women used to implant a both and injectables. vaccines to vaccinate yourself against pregnancy. these methods, a fraser will find very quaint, they are more independent of user motivation. they are much better for use inn the course of operation program. but two american women it means if you forget your pill you are

still bearing. and these are the things that are most expensive but this is where the money hits the road and you say well, there's a lot of sterilization, surgical sterilization is expensive because it high co-pay. the strength of have a high co-pay. they want to make them free. what they mean by free is there will be a co-pay anymore. it will be loaded into your standard premium, and the standard premiums of everybody else in the country who didn't want us to spread the costs around him on this. so all of us are being requisitioned in order to meet their goal and getting american women to use the more long lasting and more effective contraception but also by the way the most dangerous for women. so, it's -- you know, this is the situation we are facing, but there is a broader agenda from their point of view in all this, and it's not just to reflect reality.

it's to change reality and get american women doing more of what they think we may need. >> i very much disagree with richard that there is an agenda here to push into the mention of american culture certain practices that coming in, a certain segment of the pro-abortion point of view, and view as the right way. and the cause think i think is very much a red herring here. the idea that the federal government is already subsidizing the distribution of contraception's in a very -- the idea that there is this gigantic barrier to people getting contraception if they want to use it is really not true. what they're doing here is trying to make him put into the mainstream of america insurance coverage that will allow introduction of other things as richard has indicated, and also just create validation points that they find very important.

and you know, it's a long-term agenda that they had been pursuing for decades now. >> in the comments? i don't want to comment on the public policy revocation of these issues because they are very interesting in their own right, but if we are conducting public policy debate and we forget about certain nonnegotiable part of our political structure and of our constitution, then we've completely missed the boat. one of the geniuses in our country is that there is a pluralistic space for people to order their lives as they see fit, and they can do that individually and they can do that in religious committees, religious organizations. they can have different views about what the proper way of ordering mayor to relationships, sexual reproduction, and that's good from the point of view of

pluralism. the administration is trying to crush that i forgetting that when you make these kinds of public policy pronouncements and you don't take into account people's consciences, and you betrayed something very basic in the fabric of our nation. >> well, now would like to open it up to questions from the audience. we have a microphone being set up here. ready? right over here, please. >> thank you. i thought mr. capretta raise a very interesting question to the question is how did we get here? and its own a couple months ago that we had this well-established principle in this country that we would not use federal funding for abortions because that would -- so how do we get here? to which to come to mind, and you gentlemen have been very kind to the to work is coercion and deception. nobody wanted that health care

act, yet the polling was 65-35 against the act. they forced it through congress by bribing people, by deception. the day it was passed the president agreed to pass the executive order speed do you have a question? >> my question, the question is, basically -- welcome they are trampling on our rights. it is an incredible trampling of our rights. it is unprecedented. the question is, speak we got you. is there a question? if there is a deception going on. are they trying to pull something over the american people? i guess that's my question, thanks be mcclenny, just a little bit on what richard mentioned in his opening remarks, which was what provision in law allowed them to do this? they passed a provision that says in effect, that the department of health and human

services new a definition of preventive health care services that would be applied to all health care plan. now, lots of people objected at the time that this is moving through saying wait a minute, we really want to department of health and human services riding a one size fits all definition for the entire country? is it necessary? is there some huge public policy reasons that allows this to happen? and what will he do with the? of course everyone who understood what was going on new what they were going to do with it. but as richard indicated, went to the floor of i think in the house chamber, i can't move which chamber data, and basically argued this was necessary for all of the health benefits that everybody supports. trying to prevent aids, trying to prevent cancer, and diabetes, and you know, everything else. but they then use that to impose what they tried to impose, really going back a couple decades and was unsuccessful

doing, the contraceptive mandate. and so sure, i think, you know, strongly which is needed here, and i tend to agree with your point of view. >> another question? in the glasses. >> thank you guys for coming to my question goes back to the broader problem of government intervention in society and the economy. so the inherent problems that come out of chest, you know, sweeping laws from congress, whether they be a congress forcing people to do things that are not, you know, already opposed or whether it is crowding out social institutions, different groups. why does the catholic church even, why would ever support

anything like sweeping laws that come through congress, whatever it may be? >> i got to be the whipping boy, that's fine. i mean, we did not in the end support the health care reform law. what we said during the whole process was we want to see a way for congress to move forward, making a dent, inattentiveness of america don't have basic health insurance now. we are not saying you should do single-payer. we're not saying you should do big government, should you market reforms and small government, we should passionate we are saying we want to see that goal next and we want to see these other moral principles as well. the bishops first came out in favor of anyone in america having basic health coverage. in 1919. their statement of social reconstruction right after world war i. and so, we've sort of given subsidiary 95 years or so to

work, and gets the number of uninsured keeps going up. so if congress wanted to take a shot at it there was no catholic teaching has said they can't try to do it. but we wanted those principles upheld. in terms of big government being inherently bad on these things, i think what matters more is what principles every is acting on, what it's trying to do. because, i said in some a more concerted friends before, if you want to find a health plan that doesn't have abortion today, where are you going to find outside the catholic church? in the answer is, from the federal government. because of all the work that we and others have done, medicaid, medicare, federal employees, children's health insurance program, they all have almost all abortions a limited. would you go to find the plan that has abortions and you can't get rid of them? that's in private health plans

because most unfortunate of the private health care companies think abortion is a big constant. fewer mouths to feed. so i'm not, i'm not against free market capitalism by and large. i think when you apply discretions of human life it is so dangerous, but in the health care reform debate, the church is more concerned to say we are not going to take sides on this liberal conservative thing about the role of government. we're going to say here's what we think needs to be done. you guys work this out and we are going to tell you if you're doing something that really is wrong. they didn't listen. >> my question is for mr. duncan at the 18th article of these declaration of human rights reached everyone has the right to freedom of select conscience and religion, and he goes on to elaborate. i'm curious to what extent that language applies to this case here, given that we are

signatory to that that u.n. declaration? >> that's an interesting question. i'm not sure i can give you a good answer to that right now. certainly the origin of the u.n. declaration of human rights from the era of world war ii was certainly the product of great catholic thinkers, and you know, i think the notion that, well, i'm a little skeptical of the idea that you might be able to find some protections these days in those kind of formulations. we're grateful that the formulation is there. we are grateful is his religion and not like freedom of worship, which i might add this administration has taken to use in the formulation. i think, i think we find more comfort in looking at more

concrete guarantee of constitution. and i might add to that, that when we are protecting freedom of religion, we are not merely protecting sort of the rights of individuals to believe whatever they want to believe and sort of splendid isolation. we are protecting the rights of individuals and groups to act as a buffer against overreaching government. and as some part of civil society that does not involve the state, sometimes i think the administration is acting on the premise that there isn't a civil society in this country that doesn't involve a stay, which is a frightening thought. so that's it. that's about as good as an answer as i can give. >> other questions? >> thank you all very much for doing this. ..

coming out of hhs, the sort of post legislature stuff. >> the interim final rule issued by hhs. >> so they are not the law itself. there are findings that follow. >> the idea that contraception

should be a preventive service at all is not a statute. they are delegating the task of finding those. >> which means that these things have challenged, don't have to lump up against the constitution but can bump up against other federal laws. >> they could violate federal laws and our laws allege that they do. so i mean they are vulnerable to constitutional attack just as if they were passed through legislation. >> but i guess so what i'm thinking of is what jim capretta what you are saying about these issues sort of going beyond. i was listening to memoirs of some of the people at the time when the church was under assault and archbishop carroll more tl was dealing with that and he refused to let it become simply an issue of the catholic church that this is a crisis for man.

it's not a crisis for the church. how do we deal when we are framing this as a practical legal matter, how do we go forward framing this as a crisis of man, not just of the church but also being eminently practical because this is very serious. we are here because this is very real practical for all of us in the very near future. >> i would say first of all i think the second part of your two-part question is an excellent one and i would say that it is incumbent upon leadership, people in positions of leadership, that is in congress and institutions around the country and the bishops conference and other places that are weighing in on this question, to try to make sure that it becomes a more fundamental discussion and debate not just around cutting a deal with david axelrod, but really a question of something

of enduring value, something that would protect and not allow this to happen again. and you now at a minimum that might require statute, but how that all comes about i'm not quite sure. >> we think it might require some lawsuits. [laughter] and perhaps more, and exactly, it's not really a question of religion so to speak. it's a question of liberty. atheists should he troubled about this as a catholic should be. if they can do this to the catholics and evangelicals and whatever other religion would object to these which are many. we have lawsuits on behalf of evangelicals as well. what are they going to do to you atheist next, what are they going to do to your secular

humanist next? everyone has a conscience. everyone has a place in their inner selves that the government ought not to be able to intrude and here we have exactly the opposite so we feel it's it's a question of liberty and not really primarily a question of religion. >> if i may just make one addition to that, the legislation we have been supporting in congress, respect the rights of conscience act, this is true of senator rubio's newer bill that is more narrowly focused on this mandate. those of them say that the government should not be requiring people to offer, provider purchase coverage that they have a moral or religious objection to whether they are an institution or an individual, and so it is framed in terms of the freedom of conscience of all, but organizational individual and it's funny that

what i argue the issue of conscious in congress before, sometimes what comes back at me as well i think individuals have a conscience but i'm not so sure an organization does. and if it's a catholic congressman i can usually say congressman you and i go to church every sunday and say look not on our sins but the faith of our church, don't we? isn't the faith something that belongs to our community first and that is how we guarantee our individual faith is that we have an institution answerable to god that tells us, that guides us in that faith? but now we have this odd thing saying that well maybe we can figure out a way to broaden this little thing about religious employer and leave people out of the -- out in the cold unless they are able to come to the catholic church and start working for us, which it would be nice in one way but we can't

pay all of the salaries. so it is a broader question that just religious institutions and it's not a matter of saying oh and individual objects to this one thing that a health care, health insurance company has to accommodate them. that isn't true now that we have had the freedom especially if we can gather together in groups to increase our cloud, we can go out there and negotiate for a health plan that meets our needs and the government is not putting its thumb on the scale and saying whenever you go to a health plan say i want this kind of coverage and not that, that is the government the answer has to be no. all we are asking for is to maintain the freedoms that people have always had and you know that has not been a world of chaos. i have not heard about the health care system breaking down because people have the freedom and the absence of federal law saying anything to the contrary that people now have the freedom to try to negotiate a plan they

like. whether for moral reasons or for anything else and i keep being reminded that the president and various other set of this whole health care reform act if you like the plan you have now you get to keep it. it turns that -- it turns out that expires in a year from now. >> i guess you did have to read the bill in order to know what was in it or vote for it or whatever it was that was set on capitol hill that was so convoluted. it's really been enlightening this discussion and i'd like to find out what you would like the average catholic to do, to advocate on behalf of our objections to this and what would you recommend that we do as lay people? >> well, i did not plan to this question in the audience. [laughter] the bishops conference has a web site and these days we have a special page just on this issue called the u.s.

ecb.org/conscience and among other things that has a lot more material on this issue. and among other things that enables you to write an e-mail message to your elected representatives or your senators and representative urging them support legislation to fix this centered on the respect for the rights of conscious act and right now that has i think over 150 sponsors in the house and 28 in the senate including a number of democrats, and i think also just you know there has been enormous public debate about this and i am very gratified to see the op-ed and the columns, the blogs and just participate in a public debate. one thing that i think that has been missing here is that the narrative of planned parenthood who wants to present is that we have to balance out the religious, the benighted religious views of certain organizations against the needs of women. if there are women who do not want this mandated coverage and

like the fact that you can have a health plan that is in accord with their church's teaching, they need to be heard most of all because there are women out there and men and planned parenthood is claiming to speak for all of them and saying what women need is this, and it's just these guides who are saying they cannot have it. >> this woman here. >> actually just picking up on what you just said, it's more of a, then i question. one is this morning actually one of the news shows had surveyed catholic women and came up with, i forget, i think either 58% of catholic women use artificial contraceptives, contraception and are in favor of that. what are the actual statistics because that was something that was obviously being put out there to support planned

parenthood's argument. >> there has been a lot of polling. the claim is that catholic women are using contraceptives about the same percentages as other people and whenever you pull the catholic community, of course you are pulling people of all different stages, commitments or not so strong commitments to the church and its teachings and we understand that's true and i also understand that the church is teaching something that has not been explained or projected to the faithful as much over the decades as it should have been and might have been. making some improvements in that, but that is an educational material and national conference trying to explain that. the reality is this, that if a woman, catholic or not, once birth-control coverage, you

can't turn over a rock without finding it. there is many many health plans that will be happy to give that to you especially since they think it saves them money. but the question is whether you would be able to find anything else in a few years, whether you would be able to find if you are a catholic woman who wants to follow the catholic teaching or somebody who wants to live a holistic lifestyle that respects women's health and does not try to change her latte with a lot of dangerous formulas, whether you will be able to find anything different. >> if i may for a second, doesn't this week to the larger connection between religious practice and liberty? we are taught to think religion is supposed to be constraining and stifling and now we find that, when people in a certain religion, in this case the catholic religion, maybe are not practicing their faith as robustly as it ought to be then we find that the state rushes in

and takes their freedom away from them altogether. in some cases sadly it seems they don't acknowledge it. >> just one other comment about the polls and that is that the latest poll i have seen by rasmussen which came out this morning was that not just catholics but they were not pulling americans in general. they were polling likely voters. there was a plurality. maybe they have some political view in mind, i don't know but it's an election year. a likely voter i think was 46% against the mandate overall and 43% in favor of it. when you ask them whether the mandate should be applied to religious organizations they have an exception, it's 50% against and 39% in favor of the mandate. i have seen some polls before that seems to be the other way so it may be that you know the american people in general are getting informed on this and

realizing there is something more at stake than just whether people have birth control when they wanted. it really is about freedom. >> not to frame this as a birth-control issue. this is not a birth-control issue. it's a very way of dealing with it. the press loves it and date you did up but i think when you asked lang to people, this is coercion, this is something that has never happened before in our country. and the other point is, do you feel that the archbishop were really asleep on the job here? that we asked for this? that we didn't pay attention. we thought we could get something free and not pay for it. do you feel now that you are paying for naïveté? >> i don't think the bishops -- recently i was looking at the whole series of our letters to congress and their press releases about it during the whole health care debate.

we were raising this issue constantly. in fact one of our letters, we laid out exactly the scenario that in fact happened a year later. so, this preventive services thing, hhs can use it to come as a framework for creating a nationwide contraceptive mandate. if they do there is nothing here about the right of religious freedom so i do think there is a problem of not being listened to and frankly others in the catholic community have said that's not going to happen. you just don't like the health care bill. they are making things up. and you know now what we find is well, the worst-case scenario was the real one. i do think also that because of the battles about abortion funding which ultimately got settled in a way that we find very unsatisfactory and we sought to fix that, that sort of took all of the oxygen out of the air on these moral issues

and when you try to say them by the way there is no conscious protection on things beyond abortion like sterilization and contraception people say oh, come on. we are our ready getting ripped up on abortion. i don't think members of congress realize what an enormous issue we have. >> i mean i agree very much with what richard said. i'm not saying this -- but the idea you go to a member of congress and say i can't fix this other problem it just shows even nature what was going on and this bill was massive. this is not the end of it. they have been delegated a the huge amount of authority and it's not out of the question that they will use it in lots of other pernicious ways. and i'm quite sure they will. so you know, just looking at the

breadth of the legislation i do quibble a little bit with richard about the history of the subsidiary and how we ended up where we are. i think they both -- greece and italy have centralized health care systems. they are not doing so well right now so you -- there are lots of questions in a health care love. we don't need to get into a big debate about that, but the reds of delegation of authority that went on in the health care law, the federal government is beyond anything that has been done in 50 years. i'm not just talking about a particular -- mass of delegation authority. obviously people can differ on the question of subsidiary that i really question whether most people whether they know whether it's in their, saying wait a second. we really want the federal government especially the department of health and human services. they are great people.

they are not motivated with with the secular orientation. the sentiments we are discussing today really just does not enter most of their minds. and so, you are going to be fighting an uphill battle from day one when you have delegated this much authority. >> this mandate raises the thoughts of charles taylor's wonderful kind of award-winning book the secular age in which he says it's no axiomatic in the west where people believe in god so i asked this question does this mandate posed to us the following realities so were the question on the table? are we a culture of the lease or unbelief? i asked that in particular because if you are a culture of unbelief governed by unbelievers religion does not matter and conscientious object and -- objection matters less. that is my view and i would just

like to see if there is any reaction on the panel. >> there are certain cultures which say christians are jewish have to pay a tax to practice their faith and now we seem to be moving towards a system where if you want to be robustly catholic, fine, pay a fine. if you want to be countercultural in your beliefs about sexual morality are human life, pay a fine. i don't know if that describes the secular age but it sounds like a pretty frightening regime to live under. >> i think that i don't know if it's between unbelief or belief but i think it's a very specific and very narrow view of the role of religion in our society. the aclu position which i think has been swallowed pretty much whole hog by people in charge of these things and this administration is that if you are religious that is fine and dandy, pray and stay in your church. if you go out into the public

square then you have to play by the secular rules in the secular rules turn out to be by people who believe the opposite that you believe and especially if you ever want to take part in any public program or serve the poor using federal funds, or get involved and public works, serving the common good, then you have to set your religion aside at the door and, and pretend at least to believe as the theists do. i don't think that is a vision of america that the founding fathers had at all but it is increasingly the secularist world that is encroaching on our ability. >> i just thought for follow-up, my curiosity is to look at the racial selection laws in nazi germany and one of the first acts pass for those that per hibbard a doctrines from participating but the other thing, the second thing which is early on legislative history of

nazi germany was to say the jewish doctrine can only serve jewish people and there was a design come a sequester to rule out perhaps on the basis of authenticity but certainly the basis of religion the full culture of germany and this thing some ways reminds me of that. >> one more question. yes, sir. >> this is a follow-up question to the woman over here talking about lehman and women to get involved. >> certainly twitter messages, facebook, posts and the like is great. wonderful avenues. what would be maybe some value in you know on the ground protest in front of hhs, or any organizations planning on doing something like that to organize that sort of thing and get involved or what are some other strategies you could encourage? >> you can certainly go to our

web site. [laughter] you can sign a petition we have there. we have our own form of protest. we have occupied courtrooms and we hope to occupy more of those soon. >> for our part we are not for plot -- not-for-profit think-tank and we are doing more on the study, thinking and writing sides then they down in the streetside but i do think that the catholic community has gotten lots of messages from their bishops over the last few weeks, that there is lots of energy to protest this and how it's going to be directed in the most instructive way to have an effect i am not quite sure but i know just from the energy that i see and in people around the country in what is going on that it can be directed and i'm quite

sure it will be at some point. i don't know exactly how. >> there are 10 or 15 people here tonight who will organize that very rally and protest. [laughter] [applause] >> i just think this is a great start to the discussion. it's a great discussion but it needs to be extended. so come join us. >> now we are going to turn it back over to mary. >> i would like to thanked those who helped in preparations for this event, the director of the cic, kevin johns, bret manero, sarah. i like to thank c-span and their amazing crew for being here and our moderator and panelists. i would like to thank richard doerflinger, james capretta and kyle for moderating. i would like to thank the becket fund for participating in this event antes thank all of you for coming and join us at the

catholic information center in downtown d.c. to join us in the discussion. former information about the catholic information center to donate to programs like these, visit our web site cac d.c..org. thank you and please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] students from catholic

universities and other campuses held a press conference yesterday to address their support for the administration's contraceptive mandate. u.s. conference of catholic bishops has publicly denounced as a violation of religious liberty. we'll hear from kathleen kennedy townsend and reproductive rights advocates. catholic students for women's health is the host of this event. it's about 45 minutes and we will show you as much as we can until the president speaks. >> good morning everyone. thank you very much for coming to catholic students for women's health. i am here representing catholics for choice. we are going to have a great list of speakers for you from local catholic universities as well as other local non-catholic universities wallowed by a brief question and answer period. we are delighted in august of

2011 when the institute of medicine recommended a full package of women's health care services to be covered without co-pay under the affordable care act. this represented a step forward for millions of women and for their families both catholics and non-catholics. similarly we are very excited when the department of health and human services -- backlash on opposition from the bishop, conservative catholics and the conservative politicians, the usual suspects who oppose any rulings that include contraception. we did not expect however the backlash from so-called liberal punditry to do the same. all of this is especially concerning to us however in light of the fact that the regulations on birth control coverage already represents a severe compromise by excluding church employees, the janitors, housekeepers, cooks, nuns and

some schoolteachers from this important coverage. it is also especially concerning to us however because the voices of those who will benefit such as those standing behind me today and who to support birth control coverage has also been drowned out. we know from polls and social science studies that 90% of catholic women who are sexually active have used some form of birth control banned by the vatican. we also know that 65% of catholics have indicated that they support or control coverage under government-run or private health plans. the bishop in their opposition to this coverage are rejecting the tenets of our catholic faith by ignoring the individual consciences of those who have decided that birth control is best for them by rejecting our catholic commitment to social justice and to the poor folks who will benefit from this coverage. and by rejecting our catholic commitment to religious freedom by attempting to ride roughshod

over the beliefs of those who may feel differently than them and by ignoring our faith commitment to the idea that religious freedom has two sides, freedom from religion and the freedom of religion. we know though that the 98% of catholic women who have used birth control to support this coverage and we know that millions of americans stand to benefit, including not only the 700,000 employees of catholic health care institutions but many students at catholic universities, both catholics themselves and non-catholics. i am going to now read to you the list of speakers as they will appear in order. they will then sit down. we will have them come up and present to you. so, callie otto is the president of students for choice. she will be followed by kathleen kennedy townsend the former lieutenant governor of