now switching over like i'm getting ready to be the hero of the neighborhood. and the judge looked at and and guide her downtown site, to me. they went right in the corner. my father looked at me and the judge the nittany i said well, you should be really proud of your son. he had concern for the people at heart that he got out the way and be really proud of him based on the fact that he tipped off for your mom and for your wife and his mother. he said okay, now we're leaving the courtroom. he said okay, now we're leaving the courtroom. you've done a lot of things leaving the courtroom. you've done a lot of things in your life and i got past a lot of days. but i'll tell you one thing i've never seen you back down. i've never seen you. i've seen you never change.

i remember how i ripped you when you became amused because they give me so much with being. but every time i with to you, come to find out that she was right all the time. now here you can't hear anyone at the the most egregious things in our family history, but the judge told you what you did was right. signed, i could never tell you how proud he was dear the judge say that, but i want to apologize for the whoopi and i gave you that i have the utmost respect for you. united is is for a kid 14 useful to have a daddy say i respect you? you open a long ways. that type it in the field and the locomotive. everybody have to watch out now. it's about making it bright. i could tell you a story about

chicken. [inaudible] [laughter] thank you all so much. we're going to do a signing out there. [inaudible conversations]

>> i think following on the same thread is that while you want to tone down the rhetoric, you want to try to make sure and work hard to have an official channel that is really open for dialogue. so that the ambiguity at least can be addressed, whether you believe the guy on the other side of the table or not is another issue but at least there's a dialogue that is always available so when something goes awry, whether it's in the gulf between shipping or some other way, that there's clearly a way to defuse it as quickly as possible. the iranians have actually demonstrate a pretty good ability to manage escalation. they really have stayed below a threshold that would precipitate

counterattacked. >> just to add, if i could, to what general cartwright said. i think it's important that at the end of the day, these are people. 70 million of them. they have aspirations, and desires, and there needs to be for demonstrated cooperation and a willingness to walk away from things that are detrimental to the region. that there's something in this for them. so having some light at the end of the tunnel, not closing off all options but, hey, we're willing to have you played a role in the region. you have a lot of capability of a lot of smart people, a lot of things that can be helpful if you decide to be cooperative, dealing with your neighbors. >> when you think about how the iranians think about this, their view is that they have indicated

many moments in the past decade and openness to talk to the united states. after 9/11, and offer that got sort of facts into the state department in 2003 and no one was quite sure of what it meant but it never went anywhere in the bush administration. again, at one point in the discussions with the europeans when the iranians said that they were willing to not give up uranium enrichment but only enrich in accord with her needs -- with their needs for energy which would've a significant lead on it. and they believe that everyone of these options has been ignored. and that's what president obama tried to reverse with his early outreach. the problem is the outrage happened just a few months before the iranian elections in june 2009 which were put down with force. that sort of froze all of that discussion. it never really recovered.

>> this lady has a question. >> this will be our last question. >> thank you. would you discuss the role china in the big picture, and how, would that affect including the u.s. policy and u.s. national interest in the asia-pacific and also in indian ocean? think you. >> good question. why don't we just go around the horn here and that will be our last question. >> i think what you're asking is in relation to iran, you know, the chinese obviously need feel that they need and our customers to oil production associate with iran and other economic agreements that go on. so they are in a difficult position here on how do they

support not having a weapon the developed and not undermine the need for the energy and resources that they are buying there. and trying to do the calculation of cost benefit right now, as with other countries, where they would like to see happen is a diplomatic solution to this activity, probably even if it included some sort of nuclear capability whether it be for energy or more. if that gets foreclosed then they have a very hard decision. and then they'll have to think their way through that. and to the extent have to go someplace else for that energy in the future if that were to happen, that will put pressure in the south pacific. >> they clearly have their need for energy sources very high on their lives. have another issue, and that's the adversity, aversion to activity by nations that could

be meddlesome with internal affairs. they certainly want to maintain the status quo inside of china, and one of the things that is clearly very unsettling to them is activity that is destabilizing to the population. so if they see or perceive that people are ganging up to instigate similar trouble in iran, iran today, who knows? but i think that is a drag, operate on activity that we would like to see move forward if china would be more cooperative and helpful. if china decided we will get our own somewhere else, be a huge additional terms of the screws here with iran, whether they're ready to do that or not i think is probably up in the air.

>> sum it all up for us to the obama administration tried very hard to come up with some alternative energy supplies for china. then went and talked to authorities. they went and talked to some other suppliers, obviously iraq now that it is getting up to production, libya comes back in. but it's not clear that any of that is really going to lean the chinese of the soil. the chinese does a great opportunity because i think they believe that the iranians are going to have to sell their oil at a significant discount, given the sanctions. and so on of the behind the scenes diplomacy, we saw some of his happen when the vice president of timeshare last week, was to try to get the chinese doctor backfill and by the oil of the u.s. and european allies sort cut off elsewhere. and that is going to be the big struggle of the next few months. >> one thought here and i will shut up.

there are different ways to approach this. one is to grab the alleged by the neck and beat on them, which is kind of taking their rhetorical screaming today and doing it that way. another ways to look read and see how many other tools you can bring to bear. so things are changing. there are more options, but the more things we can do with other countries to help out in their economic needs, availability of natural gas in this country, a lot of things are in play here. and emphasizing -- rather than just we're going to be them or not, they'll blow it up pick it seems to me that will be more useful for us. thank you all very much, and thank you on behalf of csis. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> several live events to tell you about today. politico is hosting its second annual state solutions conference looking at job creation and the 2012 campaign.

>> we got started because there are a lot of conservative think tanks that work across issues. but before cap there have been no single aggressive organization, progressive thinking that works on economic, -- >> neera tanden, president of the center for american progress on the mission of the washington, d.c. based think tank. >> we think there's an ideology behind particular artists are made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make the argument and the factual arguments and evidence-based are just behind our. and i do think that sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position we re-examine those

positions because we always fundamentally the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q. and a. >> now a hearing on women's health and contraception. the democratic steering and policy committee yesterday heard from georgetown university law student sandra fluke. she was blocked from testifying at a house oversight committee last week. a hearing where all the witnesses were men. committee chairman rejected her as a witness saying she was not qualified to testify. this is a little more than an hour. >> all right, everyone. our meeting will come to order. this is a hearing of the

steering and policy committee of the house democrats. it is my honor to be here with our senior, our ranking member on the government reform committee of the house of representatives, congressman elijah coming is, senior member of the committee congresswoman carolyn maloney, and congresswoman from the district of columbia and long-term member of the committee, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. we are gathered here today with a very special guest, this sandra fluke, and we'll hear from her in a moment. at first, i want to say that the purpose of this meeting is one that i wish didn't exist. i wish that in the hearing that was held last week, the republican majority in house oversight oversight and government reform committee would have heard from sandra fluke instead of just hearing a panel of five men. seen that panel before her, our

collie, congresswoman maloney put it best, asking where are the women? indeed, in this debate nothing could be more critical and hearing the voices of our nation's women, and democrats are prepared to hear from a single witness today, georgetown law student sandra fluke come to testify before the committee. she was invited by the democrats to be at the panel that was called together last week, but the republicans did not want to hear from her. and so we do today. we are proud to bring standard of our steering and policy committee to deliver the testimony she was denied last week. to stand from the cause of women's health, to no longer be held silent. sandra is a bold and passionate leader for young women, and all women at georgetown and across the country. she understands that this issue we're discussing is a matter of women's health, plain and

simple. she has stood in front lines in this debate at georgetown university law, dedicated her time and energy to the battle against and other issues, human trafficking at domestic violence, and serve as the president and second of the georgetown law students for reproductive justice. sandra will continue to serve women and the committee and the leader of public interest law. i think it's important as i yield to distinguish ranking member of the committee to inform you, sandra, that following a rejection by the republicans from the panel, which the democrats have just tested you as their witness, that we heard from over 300,000 people saying we want women's voices to be heard on the subject of women's health, and urging the republican leadership to make sure that that happens. having no reason to believe that they will, we are having our own hearing today. i know you will persuade them

with your testimony. with that, i think you for joining us this morning, and yield to the distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings, and thank him for his leadership and the important role he played in last week searing. >> thank you. thank you very much, madam leader, for hosting today's event. and thank you, ms. fluke, for coming in today to show the testimony you are banned from giving last week. when chairman issa rejected your testimony before the oversight committee top he argued that his hearing was not about contraceptives. and was not about women's reproductive rights. he said you are, and i quote, a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue, and to quote, and that you're not a quote, appropriate or qualified in the vote to testify and that you did not have all the appropriate credentials end of quote. to appear before the committee. obviously, everyone on this

panel disagrees with them. as i sat there and listen to the chairman try to explain his position, i looked out on a panel of men. i could not help wonder what credentials did they have to talk about the importance of the bill to the lives of women? in my opinion that chairman committed a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across the country are irrelevant to this debate. and that is what really offends people. even if they did not agree with you, ms. fluke, that is no reason to silence you. that is no reason to deny you a voice in the debate, or literally a seat at the table. so i thank you for coming here today to finally give the other side. the side of millions of women's across the country, who want safe and affordable coverage for basic preventive health care,

including contraceptives. i look forward to hearing from you today. let me add that i fully understand the religious component of this debate. my mother is a strong and independent woman who commands respect. she is also a woman of faith and has been an independent pastor in a small pentecostal church in baltimore, for all my life. i understand the importance of this issue to all women, including women of faith. at is why i commend the administration for the accommodation it may to allow women working at religiously affiliated organizations to obtain coverage for contraceptives. unfortunately, last week's completely one-sided hearing was not an isolated incident. right now, a nationwide campaign is being conducted at both the state and federal levels to outlaw many forms of commonly used contraceptives. these efforts include legislation and ballot

initiatives in multiple states, as well as legislation proposed right here in the house of representatives, and the senate, intend to outlaw the bill as well as other forms of contraceptives such as iuds. these so-called morale the legislation is intended to permit any employer including for profit sector companies to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives that are contrary to their religious beliefs, or even broadly to any other moral convictions. finally, under this legislation a ceo could decide to ban coverage of the pill for unmarried women employees. he could deny coverage for routine prenatal care and testing. he could deny coverage for medically prescribed iuds, all in the name of undefined moral convictions. madam leader, i am obviously not a woman so i can never fully understand how central this issue is to the lives of

millions of women across this country. but i'm here today to support their rights to exercise control over their lives and their bodies, and to make sure that they are never ever, never ever denied a voice in this debate. with that i yield back. >> i thank you for your very strong statement. now i'm pleased to yield to representative carol maloney with her words echoing, where are the women? well, sandra fluke is here today. >> thank you. thank you, leader pelosi, for bringing sandra to this hearing, and for your commitment to these issues that are so important to tens of millions of women and men across our country. when i took my seat at the hearing last week, and i looked out at the panel, i couldn't help but ask what is wrong with this picture.

there was not one single woman on that first panel, not one. even though we were there to talk about the needs of tens of millions of american women to have access to insurance for preventive health care, including reproductive rights, including contraception. the only freedom that was being debated was the freedom to tell women that they would not have access to family planning. what is wrong with that picture? we should not need to remind our colleagues at 100% of those who can have their health damaged by an unplanned pregnancy are women. 100% of those who died from complications related to pregnancy are women. 100% of those who give birth and

plan their families are women. but 100% of those on that first panel talking about the access to family planning, the ability to plan and space your children, and basic preventive health care, there was not one single woman on that panel. what is wrong with this picture? we see all too often in congress, in state houses, and in the super pacs that are now dominating the debate on the airwaves, that those who would take a woman's right to choose, those who compound a woman to undergo medical procedures she does not want or need, those who would introduce a bill on the house floor to allow hospitals to deny pregnant women lifesaving care our men. what is wrong with that picture? everything. >> thank you very much,

congresswoman maloney. now pleased to yield two representative of the district of columbia, who we are fighting to have full vote on the floor of the house, but she is certainly a full voice on every subject she takes later on, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, senior and respected member of the committee. >> thank you very much, leader pelosi. i have a vote in this committee, and i call for a vote when our witness, sandra fluke, was excluded. it's important to remember how the hearing occurred in the first place. the hearing a rose out of the controversy that had two sides. too compelling sides. religious liberty and reproductive freedom. by the time the hearing had been called, we are fortunate that the administration had worked a

compromise that, in fact, allowed women to receive their contraceptives insurance, while at the same time recognizing the religious concerns, of religiously affiliated institutions, such as universities and hospitals, who, under the accommodation, do not have to pay at all for contraception's passionate contraceptives which are to be received through the insurance company, and have no involvement with contraceptives. this is very important to bear in mind, because in my more than 20 years in the house of representatives, i have seldom seen a compromise that worked out an issue of such importance to both sides, as favorably as

this compromise did. the committee appeared to want to exploit the religious side of the issue by excluding the only witness that the democrats, that the democrats requested. sandra fluke was essentially defined out of last week's hearing. in defining her out of the hearing, and having a hearing about only one side of a clearly two-sided issue, the majority managed to to find out most american women. -- to define out most american women. a solid majority represented by sandra fluke was not at the table last week. i am very pleased, madam leader, that you have convened us here

so that the concerns of women can be heard through their representatives, sandra fluke, this morning. >> i thank you very much. i know that we'll get to to the q&a will have some other aspects of the to call attention to. for example, house member comments just make it at the time, a majority isn't totally witness at a hearing, and would you tell us, mr. cummings, as we lead into -- >> what happened with, we asked for two witnesses. it was ms. fluke and a gentleman, and the majority, mr. isaac, chairman issa said to us, you can only have one. and we said we want ms. fluke. and they said no. and when we invited a gentleman

and we are reset that we would not accept and we had to have her. and so that's what happened. so we were deny. then we appealed it, madam leader, after week were denied ms. fluke we then wrote a letter saying would you please reconsider. and they said no. >> so here we are gathered today. thank you for fighting the fight. in this room, which were happy to have the room, but the leadership told us, the republican majority told us that we could not have it house recording studio, take this public. so we thank the members of the press who are here for the resourcefulness with the technology to get the message from this room out, which has been barred by the republican majority. it's amazing what lengths they will go so that they don't have to listen to the voices of women. we are honored that you are here. thank you for your courage. please proceed with your testimony, as you wish,

ms. sandra fluke. >> leader pelosi, members of congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health. and for allowing me to testify on behalf of of the women who will benefit from the affordable care act contraceptive coverage regulation. mine in the sandra fluke, and i'm a third year student at georgetown law school. i'm also a past presiden presidf georgia law students for reproductive justice, or lsrj. and i'd like to acknowledge my fellow lsrj members and allies, and all of the student activists with us, and thank them so much for being here today. [applause] >> we as georgetown lsrj are here today because we are so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of institute of medicine. i attend a just law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. and just as we students have faced financial emotional and

medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliate hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered a similar burdens. we are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. simultaneously, the recently announced a just and addresses any potential conflict with religious identity of catholic and jesuit institutions. when i look around my campus, i see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. and especially in the last week, i have heard more and more of their stories. on a daily basis, i hear from yet another woman from georgetown or from another school, or who works for a registered affiliated employer, and they told have suffered financially, emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage. and so i am here today to share their voices, and i want to thank you for allowing them, then, not me, to be heard.

without insurance coverage, contraception as you know can cost a woman over $3000 during law school. for a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest gunships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. 40% of the female students at georgetown law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy. one told us of how embarrassed and just how powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, and learn for the first time that the contraception was not covered under insurance, and had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. just last week a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore. women employed in low-wage jobs without contraception coverage based this same choice.

and some might respond i contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. unfortunately, that is just not true. women's health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the guttmacher institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demands for these services. clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need. how can congress consider the legislation that would allow even more employers, and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis? particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics. these demands of contraceptive coverage impact real people. and the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire

consequences. a friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cities from growing on her ovaries but her prescription is technically covered by georgetown's insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. unfortunately under many religious institutions insurance plans it wouldn't be. they would be no exception for other medical needs, and understandable once a minute, senator rubio's bill, or representative fortenberry's bill, there is a requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs. went this does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well intended goals because when you look administrator or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a backseat to the bureaucracy focus on policing her body. in 65% of the cases at our

school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms. for my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite their vacation offer illness from her doctor. her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. she's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her. after months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and she had to stop taking it. i learned about all of this when i walked out of a test and got a message from her that, in the middle of the night in her final exam period, she'd been in the emergency room. she had been there all my inches

terrible, excruciating pain. she wrote to me, it was so painful i woke up thinking i'd been shot. without are taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. she had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result. on the morning i was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor's office. trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe. since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats and weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. she's 32 years old. as she put it, if my body indeed does an early minute cause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. i will have no choice at giving my mother desperately desire to grandbabies come simply because

the insurance policy that i paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when i needed it. now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age, increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child. some may say that my friend's tragic story is rare. it's not. i wish it were. one woman told us, doctors believe she is endometriosis, but that can be proven without surgery, so the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication, the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis. recently another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she is struggling to pay for her medication, and terrified not have access to it. due to the barriers erected by georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last august.

i sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses and ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before who needs enemies of all of these women are taken seriously. because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception since. a woman's reproductive health care isn't a necessity, isn't a priority. one woman told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered on the injured, and gsm that's how georgetown's insurance handled all of women's reproduction and sexual health care. so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that. something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. as one other student put it, this policy communicates to female students at our school doesn't understand our needs.

these are not feelings that mail palestinians experience, and they are not burdens that male students must shoulder. in the media lately, some conservative catholic organizations have been asking, what did we expect when enrolled at a catholic school? we can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, do not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. we expected that our schools would live up to the jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. we expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy great for us as students, they would help us. we expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. we did not expect the women would be told in the national media that we should have gone

to school elsewhere, and even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. and we resent that in the 21st century, anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women. many of the women whose stories i shared our catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. it is a struggle for access to the health care we need. the president of the association of jesuit colleges has shared that jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification the rule announced result. religious concerns are addressed, and women get the health care they need. and i sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much, ms. fluke, that was outstanding. let me say from the outside -- from the outset that there are a lot of us men who were insulted when we saw that -- i just want to make it clear, and i do thank you for your testimony. you know, you said something, a lot of things that was interesting. one of the things you talked about was the cost of contraceptives, and you said, i think, it could cost over a law school career, $3000? >> yes. >> and i think a lot of people assume that there are alternatives if you cannot get it through your insurance. can you talk about that?

>> of course. yes, i think it's especially important in today's economy, unfortunately many families are struggling with the cost of health care and so me part of the affordable care act will help, especially this regulation. as i discuss, the guttmacher institute recited a study entitled family-planning safety nets stretched thin as service demand increases. and i encourage everyone to examine it because i think it clearly demonstrates that these clinics are having to cut back their hours, lead author staff, close their doors. and so the safety net that women have relied on in the past is not there. and i -- >> so i take it they end up doing without? >> they do, absolutely. that's what many women have shared with me. >> chairman issa said you were merely a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue, and that you were not appropriate or

qualified to testify, and that you do not have the appropriate good credentials to appear before the committee last thursday. what was your reaction when you heard this statement about being, not being qualified? >> well, i will confirm that i was energized, yes. [laughter] as you can see from the reaction behind, many women in this country are energized about this issue. and so yes, that part was correct. in terms of whether or not i was an appropriate witness, i, i felt insulted, not for myself, but for the women i wanted to represent, the women whose stories i wanted to convey to the committee, and the women whose voices were silenced that day. and i've heard some people point out that there were two women on

the left primary panel that day, that's correct. that they were not women who were there to represent the women affected by this policy, and that manage. this isn't just about demographics. it's about the voices of the women who are affected by this policy. >> you certainly speak for millions, and i thank chairman issa did not understand why we wanted you to of your, because we were looking for someone to speak for women who want safe and affordable coverage for their basic preventative health care, including contraceptives. for the benefit of those who may not understand, can you describe your qualifications for testifying about the restrictions on insurance coverage for contraception's? >> sure. i'm an american woman who uses contraception, so let's start there. that makes me qualified to talk to my elected officials about my health care needs. beyond that, i will say that i, along with the other members of

law students for reproductive justice at georgetown, and summit of the other activists have been working on this comp have been looking at this for years. we have followed the regulations very close and the legislation, and we have done studies that our campus, document the needs of women. so this is something we take very seriously, and we're study for quite some time. >> as i noted in my opening, there is got a nationwide campaign at both the state and federal levels, not only to restrict insurance coverage, but in some instances outlaw many forms of commonly used contraception is dutch for contraceptives but if those are prohibited, commonly used contraceptives like iuds and some forms of the pill, roll back the clock for women across the country. can you describe what the impact would be on you and your classmates? >> well, i think from his of women it would be an increase in the number of people who have the medical complications i've been talking about today. one woman came to me recently

since this happened and described that she needs contraception to present -- prevent seizures but she had several seizures of months if she doesn't have contraception's to balance her home aren't. that's just an incredible intrusion on her life, her ability to manage her daily affairs. if she doesn't have access to that medical prescription. so that's one of the huge impacts. i think another impact that it's really important that we all think about is that contraception would it first became available was a revolution in this country but it allowed women to enter employment and educational opportunities that had previously not been accessible because they're unable to control their reproduction in the same way. and i just can't imagine rolling back the clock on that progress in it again, i see my time is up, but thank you very much. i think you have done a great

service for many, many women, and men by the way. >> i hope so, and i can tell you that my male partners certainly one of those men who is very supportive of this policy go and i know there are many other men out there. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i thank you for bringing -- [inaudible] over 300,000 as a matter-of-fact. [inaudible] >> first of all, thank you very much are being here today, and thank you for really being quite courageous in standing up and speaking out. this photograph, you're in this photograph. do you see yourself? >> i am. i am right behind that man's head. [laughter] >> and you are waiting to testify. i would like to underscore part of the statement that ranking member cummings made, and that

you were the selected democratic witness for the panel, and according to the rules of the house of representatives, we are entitled to select our representative on the panel. i was somewhat taken aback by the fact that even when eleanor and allies you and i were arguing that our witness should join the panel, that chairman issa said you were unqualified. i would venture to say that any woman is more qualified to talk about women's health needs across america than any man. so again, i say what is wrong with that picture as it pertains in the picture of the hearing, and i would say in basic policy.

can you think of what was in his head when he said that? i know you're qualified. i know you're speaking for tens of millions of women across this country. can you think of any reason why he would be so adamant that your voice should not be heard? >> i think unfortunately chairman issa's head is somewhere i don't want to go. [laughter] but what i've learned from this experience is that, you know, they say knowledge is power, and evidently the knowledge of how this regulation will benefit millions of women's lives is very powerful, and i believe to some, unfortunately, it is evidently very threatening. >> let's look at the role, and i see it's very balanced, thoughtful and fair, both to religion, to women, to society as a whole.

.. >> so to me, the hearing was about women's rights and insurance companies and their right to obtain this coverage from insurance companies. and in your testimony you touched about the fairness aspect of this and the equal ton aspect -- opportunity aspect of it. why should one woman working for

one university have access to reproductive health care, but a woman working for another university not have it? it's a basic fairness and equality aspect. i compliment you for bringing out the examples of young women and the multitude of ways that family planning, birth control, medications help women. with other medical challenges. and i appreciate your bringing that out. l i know that many people may be coming to you. the reaction that speaker pelosi pelosi -- excuse me, leader pelosi gave to her letter over 300,000 men and women responded across this country saying that this common sense approach is appropriate, it's fair, it's equal and that women should have a voice at the table.

>> yes. and i can't say that i've heard from over 300,000 women as you have, but i've heard from many, many women thanking me for talking about this and just saying how important this regulation will be to them. and one woman who i spoke with on sunday actually spoke with both she and her husband told me about a need that she had for contraception. they recently had their first child, and it's just been a few months. and since she gave birth, her obstetrician recommends that she take contraception following the birth of that child because for her as a mother and for any potential child that she might carry in the future it would be very medically dangerous for her to become pregnant again too soon. and that spacing of children is an important medical concern. so i think that's, that really highlights something as well because this woman is 30 years

old, she's married, and she's having children. we shouldn't be judging any of these women's choices about their health care needs, but in the case of this woman, she's doing everything that she's being asked to by some conservative voices, and yet she still can't get access to contraception because that's a purpose that prevents pregnancy. and even that woman is being denied the health care she needs. so for me it just really highlights that some of the issues that have been brought up are blurring what's really at stake here. this is about, um, for our opponents, this is about limiting women's access to health care, and that's why this just cannot occur. >> thank you for your testimony. my time has expired. and thank you for pointing out the other needs for contraceptives and one that is a basic need is the planning and spacing for your children to insure your own health to be able to have future children. thank you very much for your testimony.

>> thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman maloney. congressman maloney came all the way down from -- [inaudible] i thank congresswoman maloney for her extraordinary leadership on the subject ongoing and for coming down during the break from her district in new york to be here indicating the importance this issue has always been for her. thank you, congresswoman. and to our local representative of national significance, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. >> well, i'm certainly please today represent ms. fluke while she's in washington. >> as am i. [laughter] >> what year are you at georgetown? >> i'm a third year student, i'll be graduate anything may. >> i have some questions for you. the information that your testimony reveals today made your appearance at the hearing

we were, we had last thursday even more important. because it was new information. i would wager that most americans when they think of contraceptives think about their own lives, and their own lives are not typical of the lives you have related, but do not have the kind of information that you brought forward this morning. i want to thank you very much for putting that information at least on our record and on the record of american families who i think needed to hear it. it's important to remember that we are accustomed to the fact that women live longer today. i wonder if we understand that that is a 20th century phenomenon. if you were to go into the graveyards of america, you would be quite amazed with the stones

that speak of the lives of women who typically died earlier than men until the 20th century and fairly on in the 20th century at that from childbirth and its complications. do understand what we're talking about here and how serious this issue is. the affordable child care act, of course, um, now covers contraceptives. important also to understand that before the affordable child care act you could have a policy, and while every other part of, every other -- if you go to the hospital or most things having to do with your health are covered, the

insurance companies often did not cover contra contraceptive h care. now n case you think that is something that should be understood, the cost of contraceptives you already had something to say about here. but again, let me remind everyone that the notion of covering all of what attends to reproductive health is itself fairly new. i had two children. my two children were born in the 970s. 1970s. my family paid almost all of the cost of bearing those two children in a hospital. as recently as the 1970s, insurance companies paid a tiny portion of the cost of a normal childbirth in an ordinary hospital.

not until regulations and law changed in fairly recent decades are we now even covering a process that was normal for most women. half of the births in the united states are unplanned. i want to discuss that issue with you. what's the cost of tuition at georgetown law school? >> we think it's 40 plus thousand dollars a year. i know that it's 60 some thousand dollars a year in loans for the cost of living and tuition. so it's quite a bill. >> just for tuition. of course, most of you, i take it, are not paying that in cash.

>> well, i'm certainly not. [laughter] do you and most of your friends and colleagues in law school intend to practice law? >> we do, yes. it's quite an investment otherwise. [laughter] in order to practice law or to use law in other ways, would most young women of your age find it necessary to space your pregnancies? >> yes, of course. i've talked with many women on our campus who for them the idea they should go without contraception during law school and risk pregnancy while they're in law school, that's yet another way of asking them to put their education second because i can't imagine. i know a few women who have been pregnant during law school, but i just can't imagine how they do

that, and i just think it's not a feasible option either economically or, um, just in terms of their ability to balance everything for most women. >> so you believe in the contraceptive is as necessary as any other health benefit provided by an insurance company? absolutely. and especially for young women it's one of the most commonly-used health care needs that we have. one woman expressed to me, well, if my insurance doesn't cover this, then what am i paying my insurance for? these are young women who are in good health otherwise. this is what they need. >> that's a very important point. a young person doesn't go to the doctor very often. and if you're a young woman, it is probably, it probably has a lot to do with reproductive health. now, were you and the other students asking for any subsidy

from the university for insurance? would georgetown itself had had to pay anything for the insurance that you sought through the university? >> no. our student insurance is entirely unsubsidized by the university, and my understanding is that's true of most student insurance. and thankfully, i think w the new accommodation, the new adjustment to the regulation even in situations of employers, they would not be contributing their money toward the contraceptive coverage. >> so let me ask then what is the role of the university? it doesn't pay anything, so what's the role of this university in this insurance that you're seeking? >> to restrict access to our health care needs. i could answer more completely, if you like. [laughter]

they arrange for the insurance and place the limits and controls on what type of coverage we can access, but they do not subsidize it. >> in your experience is yours a university of many faiths? >> there are many, many faiths. these universities provide a high quality education, and students want to go there for many reasons. i'm proud to say that on our campus we have university-sponsored centers and student organizations that examine, um, jewish law or, um, you know, there are groups for muslim students and students of all faiths. thankfully, all of those students are welcomed but, unfortunately, they're all affected by this lack of contraception coverage. >> ms. fluke, we learned also that the insurance companies, um, who will be providing

through the affordable health care contraceptive coverage for women do not incur extra cost for this. you notice that you have not heard insurance companies pipe up and say what are you doing to us. it turns out that according to the actuarial tables it costs an insurance company more if it does not provide contraceptive coverage because of the costs of childbirth and of the conditions attending childbirth. so this turns out to be not only a win/win, but if i may say so, a win/win/win because, if anything, this is going to be a windfall for insurance companies in providing contraceptive insurance. it's a winner, certainly, in our country that we have this accommodation, and if i might say so as still a person who teaches law at georgetown, and i

didn't have anything to do -- the ranking member will tell you i didn't want go find you, it's the good work of the committee that found you, but i can is say that georgetown should be very proud of you. you are illustrative of the very high quality of student that georgetown is able to attract and it's able to attract that quality because it welcomes students from many religions. your testimony here, it seems to me, has been an evidence of a young lawyer who's ready to practice and ready right now to offer any testimony we might need at any time in the congress of the united states. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you so much, congresswoman. and i would just add that there are many faculty members at georgetown who, like yourself, have been very supportive of myself and of the law students for reproductive justice group, and we thank them so much for

their support because it is a frightening thing to speak against a university that provides your scholarships and that you're attending. so their support has meant a lot to us. and as you were pointing out, georgetown does have excellent preparation especially for the public interest students, and that's why i chose that university. and so i think that just highlights that i should not have had to go without that in exchange for my health care. that should not have been a choice that i was faced with. >> thank you very much, congress wop. i will keep my -- congresswoman. i will keep my questions brief, because i wish to keep myself associated with my colleagues and their valuable statements. especially in light of thanking you and full appreciation for what you brought to the table l today. clearly a woman should always have a seat at the table, unquestionably when the subject is women's health. as you were speaking, i was very moved by your statement, and

again, by the questions about colleagues. and i was reminded of a statement a very wise and respected catholic leader in washington, d.c. once said to me about catholic education. he said we educate young people not because they are catholic, but because we are catholic. >> yes. >> and it was a stunning statement to me, and it flies in the face of what is going on here. >> uh-huh. >> the question of who is qualified to be a witness raises the question of who is qualified to have a hearing. does that person or that chairman of committee have any judgment on what it means to a family to personally and religiously make decisions about the size and timing of their family? does that person have any knowledge, is he qualified to

talk about the danger to women's health and, therefore, the care of the family to a mom if she and her husband, their doctor and their god cannot make those decisions? is that committee chairmanship and leadership of the congress qualified to make a decision about how people exercise their god-given free will to take their responsibility and to answer for how they exercise that god-given free will? it sounds to me from their shot wanting the -- not wanting the public record of their hearing to show what this was all about, about women's health and how their decisions were impacting it, how they're not wanting to hear about it, not wanting to hear about it when it came to women's view on women's health and speaking for many women. i contend that the leadership of your committee, mr. cummings,

was not qualified to hold a hearing on this subject because their judgment was very, very poor as to what their obligation was to the public in the public record on this subject. so i would like to take sandra's testimony to the floor of the house to be sure that we can read it into the record there so the full congress can be aware and not, again, barred from hearing what you so capably have presented to us. it's a lack of respect because when the president first put out his statement there were those who said, well, there are those who want our religious waivers, the waiver for churches. and places of worship. and then tz the president said

and the administration said that that did not extend to other activities of the church, and there was all the uproar. so the president then as the congresswoman said if a very unpress -- in a very unprecedented way moved quickly to remove all doubt of what the intention was. it's not about accept eight of church and state -- separation of church and state, it's about women's health. but what was interesting about the progression of events, i believe, is that following that some of the leaders of the religious community said, oh, we don't want anybody, any insurance for any employer giving benefits to any employees to cover contraception. >> yes. >> and so i think that really showed their hand. it wasn't about church and state, it was about a ideological point of view that flies in the face of, again, the respect that we need to have for

women, the god-p given free will that we have to have responsibility for, the role that women's health plays in the lives of their families and of our country and the strength of women. and so i, again, thank you for your courage to come forward with such clarity about this subject, and i hope it's a -- i won't say comfort to you, but a source of satisfaction to you that so many people, hundreds of thousands, more than we've ever heard from like that practically in 48 hours over 300,000 people saying there shouldn't be hearing without women's voices being heard. >> it just demonstrates how many women and men care so deeply about this issue and how much it means to their lives. >> well, it does, and it also speaks to the fact that this is what the practice is in our country.

if an overwhelming number of catholic women of child-bearing age and they stretch that from 14 to 50 or however older or younger you want to go are practicing birth control, then there has, that has to be some message to the church that, please, don't expect employers and insurance companies to enforce an attitude that you have that isn't even accepted by the laity, church-going people themselves. so we have a problem here which you have really clearly presented an answer to. the voice of a young woman at an constitution of higher learning that is catholic. i always thought with a capital c and a small c. let's hope that that is the case. but in any case, i thank you.

and i just invite you and my colleagues to say any closing statement they may wish to have or question they may wish to pose. >> thank you very much, madam leader, and i'll be very brief. um, as i sat in the hearing the other day, e asked myself the -- i asked myself the simple question, i asked the question if this were a hearing on prostate cancer and there was a lineup of women and no men, i guarantee you men would not have stuck around. [laughter] because they would have said to themselves, you know, come on, give me a break. and, um, i just thank you for what you've done. and i was just listening. and one of the things that i've often said is out of our pain comes our passion. and clearly, you have felt the

pain, you've seen it, you empathize with it and have tried to make sure that you change things. and so, you know, i think there's a story here, this is a big story. and that is that out of your desire and your class mates' desires as students, as students, as students to make a difference, now you have not only the congress listening to you, but you have the country listening to you. and that is a powerful, powerful thing. and i just wanted to encourage you to continue to do what you're doing. we're going to work with you all and try to make sure that women have access to contraceptives ask make sure that they -- and make sure that they have what they need to live the very, very best lives that they can. and i thank you, madam leader, for calling this hearing.

>> thank you, mr. cummings. ms. maloney? congresswoman maloney? >> i would just like to add what's wrong with this picture. a woman should have been at that table, and i would add all the tables in america. thank you for you courage, thank you for speaking out and for your testimony today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if we had gone to central casting to find a representative to speak for american women, we could not have done better than you here today. and you have performed another service that is an unintended consequence of this hearing. for the first time, those who have paid attention to this issue now know that the affordable health care act covers contraceptives so that

women no longer have to pay extra for pills, devices or other means of contraception. thank you for helping us to get that word out, ms. fluke. >> well, thank you for -- >> i do believe that the visibility -- we almost ought to thank the chairman for the shall we say lack of judgment that he had to arouse the, to raise the awareness because it's been very hard over the years to convince people that the fight here has been about contraception. for a generation that i've served in the congress, 25 years now, we've tried to tell people it's about contraception. it couldn't possibly be. well, yes, it is. and i think there's a sisterhood that has been just around this issue quietly. it's not a summit that we like to go d subject that we like to go around talking about in public about personal, very private matters.

but apparently it is necessary because these people who called this hearing don't seem to know what women know about women's health. so i thank you and give the floor back to you for the last word. but thank you for your extraordinary leadership, your excellent statement, and with our commitment that we will take this, your words to the floor of the house if and ever these ill-conceived -- to use a word -- pieces of legislation ever reach the floor. but long before that we will share your views on the floor of the house. please, take the last word, sandra. and thank you. >> thank you so much, madam leader. and thank you to all of you for supporting women in this important need. and one thing i would just like to say is, um, while i appreciate the accolades for me as a spokeswoman, i would encourage all the members of congress and all the members of the public to go online because

women have begun posting videos of what they would say if they had been asked to testify. they're posting about how this effects their lives, and i just so hope that everyone can have a chance to look at that and hear from all of the women of america who are concerned about this issue. ms. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and we're live this morning as virginia governor bob mcdonnell and maryland governor martin o'malley will be taking part in politico's second annual state solutions conference today. both men expected to discuss a wide range of issues facing their states. this is just getting underway. >> they are, of course, people well known to us in the washington area, governor bob mcdonnell of virginia, the chairman this year of the republican governors' association, and just across the river and across the bay governor martin o'malley who's the chairman of the democratic governors' association. they've both in town, as you know -- they're both in town, as you know, because today is the first day of the national governors' association's winter meeting, and we appreciate both of them taking time out of their schedules to take questions from me and questions from you in our audience. a couple of program notes, i'm going to take questions throughout the morning, we're going to go an hour or so, and i'm going to just intersperse

those questions throughout rather than just doing a hard pivot. so be thinking of those questions, raise your hand. i'll recognize you. we've got microphones. you can join us on twitter, and we hope you will. that's at hash tag pol pz -- pol gov. so let's get going. will the governors, please, join us up on stage? [applause] >> thank you. >> well, thank you both, governors, for joining us. special thanks to my home state governor, governor mcdonnell. >> does that mean i have the home field advantage? >> you don't. we're on neutral territory here in washington. governor o'malley was nice enough to join us last year, this is the second annual states solution conference, governor to malley was there for the first. he was partnered at that time with governor rick perry of

texas. in retrospect, governor, that ended up being the highlight of his year, so this is quite an o honor. [laughter] >> ouch. glad i could help. >> anyway, we've got lots of stuff to mix it up on, but i just thought you guys should give a quick overview, you know, to be in charge of something, certainly to be in charge of a state is to worry about things. and i'd be curious to hear from both of you, what what do you mt worry about in your job as governor looking after the health of your state? governor o'malley, we'll start with you. what's on your mind? >> there's nothing more important, i think, to any of us than job requests and the economy -- jobs and the economy and accelerating the jobs recovery. so what i'm most concerned about and what i'm most focused on is making sure that we apply and make the choices that we must at the state level to make the investments that a modern economy requires in order to create jobs. so that means protecting investments in education,

increasing the skills of our work force, accelerating areas like the trade and also the development of new clean, green manufacturing like the gm electric drive motors at the, excuse me, at white marsh. so these are the things we're concerned about. none of it's easy right now. all of us have had to cut budgets by more than any governors since the great depression. we've cut 7.5 billion from our budget, but nonetheless, we've protected those investments that allow maryland to have a stronger economy than most, and yet we know there are still a lot of people looking for jobs, so the most important one we create is the next one. >> governor, what keeps you up at night? >> nothing. >> that's what clean living will do. >> when you've got the same job herald by thomas jefferson or patrick henry, every day's a good day. hey, thanks for doing this. i think it's a great

opportunity. i agree with martin. i think most governors now are focused on a couple of common things, one is jobs and economic development and figuring out how do you get your state this a position to recover from the greatest downturn since the great depression. 6.2% unemployment rate, pet of your -- both of our states have rell lively -- relatively low unemployment rates, but we are focused on all the things that are necessary; new incentives, tax and regulatory changes, international marketing, all things that'll produce jobs in our state. and secondly is what all governors are worried about, balancing their budgets in if light of the fiscal stress generally in the economy and some uncertainty created, obviously, by the federal government's inability to get things done on time, to manage the finances of the nation well. the crushing debt up there, no real good plans, i think, on jobs and energy that i see. so we've got to react. and a lot of unfunded mandates

on the states. health care and others. so we've got to figure out how do we make all that work, areas like medicaid, huge budget drivers in all of our states, and how do we make our budgets balance and still fund the core services of government. those are the general challenges, i think governors democrat and republican are facing across the country, and i think those are common concerns. >> governor o'malley, does your approach in maryland, do you see it as mirroring president obama's approach? you've etch sized balance, he's emphasized balance, and what the democrats mean by balance is that there ought to be spending cuts and tax increases in order to meet these really severe budget challenges. describe your approach in maryland and why you've said the taxes need to be on the table. that's going to be a contrast with governor mcdonnell.

>> sure. we certainly subscribe in maryland to the president's call that all of us do our part to be leaders in education, leaders in innovation and leaders in rebuilding the infrastructure, that common platform upon which our commerce depends and our competitiveness depends. so we do subscribe to the president's theory that if we want a better nation, then we have to work hard, and we have to invest in order to bring that better nation into being for our children and for our grandchildren. so we don't send back dollars that the federal government would send to maryland so that we can improve our transportation infrastructure. we do partner with the president in retooling gm so that they could become the number one auto manufacturer in america again and build products that people want that actually have cars that are more energy efficient. we have made shifts to

accommodate ships coming through the panama canal. we do subscribe to those things and, yes, from time to time we've asked our citizens to do more as we did on the tobacco tax. but there are now 00,000 people -- 400,000 people in our state who have health care coverage that did not before. people cannot work if they're sick or if their kids are sick. and in all these areas we do believe that the future is not, as robert kennedy said, the future is not a gift, it's an aaachievement. >> do you support president obama's approach? has it been a model for you in virginia? [laughter] >> i take that as a rhetorical question because, obviously, the answer's no, and martin and i do have some differences. i thought george allen said the future is now. >> george allen also said that. [laughter] >> the his father.

the first george allen. >> the football coach. and i'm told richard nixon used to send plays to him. is that true? >> that i don't know. a double reverse. no, we've taken a different approach, and many republican governors have around the country. all of us have the same challenge which is how to you balance a budget in tough fiscal times, and we've taken the approach of a couple things. one, realizing that families and businesses are making really tough decisions. they're having to make cuts, they're having to do things smarter with less, they're having to reprogram and retool and reform the way they do things. and we think government ought to do the same because it's not our money. it's the people's money that they send to us. so what we've tried to do is set priorities in government and say -- i try to be honest with people and say, you know what? we cannot afford everything we've always done because we don't have the same amount of money. so we're going to prioritize,

we're going to make targeted cuts and significant cuts in some areas, we're going to reform government, consolidate agencies, get rid of some boards and commissions, other things like that that'll save us money, and that's the way we're going to reduce the deficit. then at the same time we're going to prioritize economic development, private sector job creation and grow our way to a stronger virginia. >> and for us it's worked. we cut the equivalent of about $6 billion to cut the deficit when i became governor back in 2010. my predecessor recommended an increase, i thought that was the wrong policy, i did not think that would help us to recover. we eliminated that tax increase, we cut spending in the neighborhood, like i said, of $6 billion, invested in job creation, education and transportation. but we cut other areas that we didn't think would heed to that, and it's worked for us. we've had a billion dollars in surpluses the last two years, unemployment down to 6.2%, a lot

of jobs coming back to virginia. and so for us that formula has worked. it's a very different formula than we see at the federal level which is more taxes, more spending, more regulation. and more, i think, undermining in some ways the free enterprise system with federal government interference. i think it's worked for us, and i think it's working in some other states. >> do you send money back, do you turn down transportation money? some governors do. >> we've accepted a fair amount. there's some that we haven't when the strings were attached were over the top. race to the top was one. i would have loved to apply for that. i appreciate, honestly, what the president and arne duncan are doing this education, especially in innovation charter schools and merit pay, but the strings attached with adopting a federal common core was not tenable in virginia. so that we did not accept, but we accept a lot of federal money, of course. >> we've edge braced that one. -- embraced that one. e we think our kids should be

able to compete internationally. the governor and i try to work together on transportation issues. i think we both agree that were it not for the federal government and president obama and secretary lahood and their involvement, there would be no silver line being constructed right now in virginia out to dulles. these are big things that we can only do together, and they're things that require us to partner with the federal government. >> governor o'malley, how closely do you watch what's going on in virginia, and if you can do all these things that governor mcdonnell said just by making cuts, targeted cuts and targeted investments without tax increases, why wouldn't you do it? >> he's too busy, he doesn't have time to watch what's going on in virginia. [laughter] >> of course we watch each other. i mean, we watch each other, and we talked about this a little bit before. we both share this fantastic chesapeake region of innovation. if you look at the collective innovation assets, the colleges, the universities --

>> are you worried that virginia will screw it up by not investing in education, not investing in -- [laughter] not investing in transportation, critical need throughout the washington region but that the virginia legislature so in the grip of anti-tax republicans, you've got an anti-tack governor that they won't make those investments, and they'll starve the golden egg here in washington? >> well, you know, every governor's primarily responsible and is concerned about their own state. and i will say this, i think that we are well served by having a strong neighbor in virginia. it's like being in a shopping mall, you know in you want to be -- if you have a store, you want to be next to a place where a lot of other people are going. so we, we want to be, we want virginia to be strong. i can tell you that last year we had a rate of new job creation that was better than virginia's. i can tell you that unlike virginia, we went four years in

a row without a penny's increase to college tuition. i can tell you, also, that we were named the number one public schools in america four years in a row. i can tell you we've greatly increased the number of our children who take ap exams of all types, in fact, we were number one in that again last year, and we've greatly increased the number of students that are taking the science, technology, engineering and math courses. i think that every state needs to do their part in order to make our country stronger in education, innovation and rebuilding our infrastructure. have we made cuts? absolutely. $7.5 billion in cuts. governor mcdonnell's state is a aaa state, i do believe, last i checked. our state is a aaa state. we've driven crime down to it lowest levels in 30 years, we have more progress to make. but if you look at the other key indicators, i would put maryland, i would have maryland stack up against any state in our metropolitan -- or in our

mid atlantic region. especially if you look at rate of job creation. i think last year we were 14th in the country. governor mcdonnell's commonwealth was 18th in the country or 17th. so, um, but we still have a lot of work to do. and one of the saddest things that's happened to our nation in recent years nationally is the undercapitalizing of the great job-generating and opportunity-expanding idea that is the united states of america. i mean, we are both would like to believe we are fiscally responsible in our approach to governance, but both of us are also concerned about debt. 55% of that debt is driven by tax cuts during the bush presidency that primarily benefited the most wealthy among us. another 13% of that debt was driven by a series of desert wars that we asked our sons and daughters on a volunteer basis

to go fight but that our president never asked us to pay for and, therefore, it fell to our debt. and in all all of that we have o seen that debt and those decisions were also coupled with an underinvestment in the job-generating capacity and the economic competitiveness of all of these united states. >> governor, i'd like you to respond to that. governor o'malley basically laid out the democratic philosophy that's being apply inside many states and that president obama's trying to articulate nationally. i want you to speak about why you disagree with what he said. >> well, i guess first a disclaimer. governor o'malley and i are friends, we work together on a lot of things; metro, public safety, chesapeake bay cleanup, regional transportation, and we have a common heritage from county may you island, first two sons of mayo --

>> we're neighbors. >> all right, but we're close. [laughter] so point is, on a lot of things we get along. now, we have very different views when it comes to what's going on at the federal level and approach to governance, but that's the beauty, frankly, of american democracy and of the tenth amendment and of our founders' vision -- >> financed by marylanders. [laughter] >> but they always have taxes, so they can afford it. higher standard of living. [laughter] i'm just wondering, when governor o'malley runs for president, is he still going to be blaming president bush for everything that's wrong with the country? that's what i'd like to know. let me tell you the republican view, and i'll speak primarily for myself and about what other republican governors are doing. we do believe that it is time to really get serious about rekindling the american dream. we don't can believe it comes there more taxes and more spending and more regulation and more unionization which is the philosophy of this president.

just go down the list of policies every three years, and i rest my case. what we believe is that you have to spend within your means, you have to balance a budget without tax increases on time. you've got to encourage the private sector. this president has blamed, honestly, he's blamed wall street, he's blamed tea party republicans, house republicans, he blamed the founders last week for not giving him enough power. this is a blame game. there's a surplus of rhetoric and a deficit of results. we don't believe in that. we belief in taking accountability -- believe in taking accountability. governors do generally because you've got to be responsible for getting things done in your state. so encouraging the private sector to create jobs and opportunity is the way to go. but during the same time virginia's been ranked for a couple years in a row as the most business-friendly state in the company by cnbc, second in "forbes," i think maryland was 27th. we've invested the largest amount of money in transportation last year, $4 billion, at my request. this year at my request we're

going to invest money in higher education to keep a lid on college tuition, largest investment in nearly two decades. so we're making the strategic investments not only for the short term, but also for the long term. and we're doing it by reprioritizing spending. our unemployment rate's down to 6.2%, lowest east of the mississippi, so our formula's working. republican governors using similar philosophies, 11 out of the 15 states that have the most business-friendly rankings on cnbc, republican governors. so i'd just like to say on an empirical basis that approach that republicans are using is working, and i certainly compare that with what democrat governors are doing. >> am i allowed to -- >> quickly. >> i'm sure he doesn't agree. >> well, i think what we're all trying to do here is figure out how we build a new economy that lasts. that's not going to happen by itself. i mean, yes, there are republican governors in mineral-rich states who have

been largely immune to the national recession. but by and large let's look at some other states. i mean, in ohio john kasich, one of the new superstar republican tea party governors of the rga. 30th last year in new job creation. rick scott, superstar, tea party republican governor of florida, 45th in new job creation. scott walker, you remember scott walker. let's ban the unions, that creates jobs. [laughter] 49th in new job creation. >> of course, all the jobs are leaving illinois for wisconsin now, but that's the rest of that story. >> actually, wisconsin, you know, turned back some of the high-speed rail dollars, illinois with democratic governor governor pat quinn picked them up. our state, maryland, was ranked fifth by one of the top five

states for new growth by the u.s. chamber of commerce. hardly a mouthpiece for the maryland democratic party. our state was ranked number three in the kaufman new economy index for its potential for job growth. so this is about building a new economy with new opportunities, and the choices the democratic governors are making, the choices that the president is urging us to make as a country are the choices that create that better future with more jobs and more opportunity. if you look at the republican debate the other night, john, do you know how many times the new front runner, rick santorum, said the word jobs? not once. not once in a whole debate. now, what does outlawing unions, outlawing women's rights, outlawing, you know, these other sort of cultural wars that they engage in, what the hell does that have to do with creating jobs and making the investments a modern economy needs to create jobs? >> we've been talking about the economic issues, i'm sure we're going to get back to those in questions, but you just mentioned some of the cultural

her shoes which have been divisive in the national debate both in annapolis and in richmond in the legislative sessions this winter. cultural issues have been very prominent. governor mcdonnell, let's start with you. virginia drew national attention for the proposal -- >> did they? [laughter] >> by understanding is that they did for the proposal that was working its way through the general assembly requiring ultra sounds for women before they procured abortions. you seem to initially be prepared to sign that bill, but then you did a turn. the other day you said you wanted modifications to it, you were not prepared to sign it. give us the trail of your thinking on that issue and why you, apparently, changed your view of it. >> okay. well, you can't believe everything you hear in the national press, john, you know? sometimes they get it wrong, right? >> this was from saturday night live -- [laughter] >> jon stewart s that your news source too? well, listen, if you believed everything that the northern

virginia media said about maryland, you'd believe all governor o'malley's interests are same-sex marriage and raising taxes, and my guess hearing him today is he's interested in a lot more than that, so you've just got to be careful what you read in the papers. now listen, having said that, the focus for governor o'malley and i, it's about getting our budgets under control and about jobs. i've proposed about 153 bills this year in the general assembly, do you know how many on social issues? none. listen, i'm a pro-life governor. i believe that the sanctity of life is critically important. what you believe about marriage and life and families and the rule of law and individual liberties is critically important to who we are as a people. just go back and read the founding documents. it was very important to them. so we have a bill that came forward that mandated ultrasounds for the purpose of allowing a woman to have fully-informed consent legally,

medically prior to making a life-changing decision. look, everybody on both sides of the debate believed this was critically important, so it was about information. now, what we realized after i said, no, i support the bill. i still support the bill. that never forfeits a governor's right to make amendments through the process. during that we realized there was different kinds of ultrasounds, so what i recommended to the general assembly and they adopted the other day is let's make the requirement for a abdominal ultra sound. we found out through the medical community that in most cases if it's not sufficient, on their own they already do other kinds of ultrasounds. so i said let's make those amendments. i also got legal advice from various people that these kinds of mandatory, invasive requirements might run afoul of fourth amendment law. so those were the reasons that -- >> to be clear, did you not -- >> and so we made some changes. >> as you were educating yourself on this bill, did you originally not realize that it might mandate --

>> well, it wasn't -- >> -- procedure? i understand. but would you, you learned that this would, might mandate an invasive procedure, you didn't know it initially. >> well, during the course of the discussion after talking to lawyers and doctors on my own after we started to hear some concerns raised in the legislature, i personally looked at -- i mean, normally a governor would review these hundreds and hundreds of bills when they get to your desk. you're so busy advocating your agenda, you don't read every legislator's bill. but i was certainly supportive of that concept. so once we realized exactly the medical and legal issues involved, i thought it was prudent to recommend to the general assembly that they made a change. they've made the change. the senate, i believe, as of yesterday has adopted that change. i believe that bill will pass, virginia will have a strong women's right to know bill to provide the information necessary to make fully informed consent. so i think it's the right decision. but let me tell you something, and this is what is somewhat

exasperating, and i know governor o'malley probably would agree to this because, again, if you looked at coverage about maryland, you'd think that all they care about is same-sex marriage and tax increases. that's what i read about. if i was a citizen, that's all i'd think the governor was doing. but you know what? in virginia 97% of the bills that have gotten through so far are on things i've advocated, job creation, economic developments, investment in higher education, k-12 reform, energy plan, a veterans' package to help our returning men and women from iraq. that's what i'm focused on. we can't always help what the media decides to focus on. it's sometimes a very different set of issues. so that's what's going on in virginia, and i would say that after the session the story of the session will be a balanced budget. you know what i'm really concerned about right now is the senate democrats are mad about their committee assignments, so they're willing to kill the budget bill in virginia. that's what they did yesterday. it's outrageous. they're putting their committees ahead of their communities, and

so now we have a budget in virginia at risk because we have senate democrats that are concerned about committee assignments. i just think that's -- i've never seen that in 21 years in office. so that's my focus, is our budget. >> i'm only getting this from the newspaper, but i thought those democrats were concerned about your cuts to education. >> not what they said. i asked them publicly, they didn't say anything. in fact, they sat pretty much silent when they killed the bill. what i was told is they were mad about committee assignments. you wouldn't either. >> no. i don't think it's smart to cut education either. [laughter] >> well, governor, we raised education in my budget $500 million. now, it might not be as much as some want, but only in many washington would an increase of $500 million be a cut. so we increased education spending. >> governor o'malley, governor mcdonnell suggested sometimes these social issues get disproportionate attention in the media but, obviously, for many people they're the reason they go into politics and choose to become a democratic activist or a republican activist,

because they care very much about these thesishes. one of the the issues people care about is marriage. allowing same-sex marriage is, obviously, a historic bill in maryland. you're prepared to sign it. why? >> i'm prepared to sign it because i believe the way forward among people of many different faiths is always in the direction of greater respect for the equal rights of all. this has been a difficult issues that was debated over the course of the last year in our state, but it's passed the house, last night it passed the senate, and i look forward to signing it in this upcoming week. where are we, still on friday? next week. [laughter] i look forward to signing it next week. this bill protects religious liberty and also protects the rights of individuals equally in the context of civil marriage. some l of the other bills that were part of our legislative agenta was harnessing offshore wind. also some steps to curb the damage that's6z done by massive

sentive housing developments to our chesapeake bay watershed. this budget supports 52,000 jobs with the second highest amount invested in new school construction. maryland's one of only a handful of states that invest in school construction from the state standpoint. and all of this requires a lot of hard work. and all of this requires a prioritizing of our budget, and those things that actually make our economy go. >> governor, could you briefly describe how your own views on gay marriage have changed over time, and do you foresee a day where this debate is considered no big deal and that gay marriage is going to be an accepted practice nationally and be, essentially, unexceptional? >> i do believe that there is an unmistakeable movement, and you see it generationally. i mean, certainly you've looked at some of the polling, and when i speak, i mean, even in this debate in speaking with young wither legislators, we found a

greater openness to the discussion. a greater ability to sort of examine the issue from all sides. among some of our more senior legislators, there was not that openness, not a willingness to look at this from a standpoint of rights. so in my own evolution i think good leaders who are or progressive leaders always try to be a force for building consensus that moves us forward in the direction of greater respect for the equal rights of all. for a long time, i thought that that consensus point for progress in our state was around civil unions. i was mistaken. i misjudged. the public moved forward more quickly on this issue than i had thought we would as a people. and i look forward to signing

this bill. you know, at the heart of religious freedom is the freedom of individual conscious. and in the freedom of individual conscious, it requires respect for the equal rights of all. >> governor, have your own views on this question about and do you ever see in the state of virginia a time where gay marriage might become legal as it is about to in maryland? >> you know, i think the beauty of our framers under the tenth amendment which, unfortunately, is being regulated by congress, republicans and democrats over the years, is that states are the laboratories of democracy, the laboratories of innovation, and they have the freedom to make different choices. i respect that about the views that our founders have. martin and i have different views on this issue, on others, but that's what's great about having 50 states. we can be free to try different things and see what works. on this issue the people of

virginia have already spoken. there was a constitutional amendment that passed a few years ago in which we clearly stated in the law that we believe marriage is between one man and one woman. so our citizens have already decided. i would say this is a matter of yenly deeply-held religious beliefs, obviously. in the governor's state, there are very different views on this issue held by pastors black and white. there will probably be a referendum, we were talking about that earlier, that some may try to put on the ballot, so there'll be a discussion over the next few months for a potential referendum in maryland on the subject. but our voters already decided in virginia, and we think that's the right policy. it's certainly in line with the typical tradition of the church, and that reflects the collective conscious of virginians for many years. that's our policy. other states may have a different view. >> one of the perspectives that helped us through this, john, not to -- was looking at this

issue from the per peckive of the -- perspective of the children of gay parents. i just wanted to add that in our evolution and in if my evolution and the evolution of a number of legislators, we concluded that it was not right and not just that children of gay parents should have homes that are protect inside a lesser way under the law than other children. >> governor, i'm curious because as governor o'malley suggested a lot of people's views have changed over time. this is one of those social questions that seems to be very much in flux. have your own views on this question changed at all in terms of -- >> no. >> you've been -- >> well, no, because from all the data that i read, and my views on this -- like many, i think -- are driven by one's religious beliefs. and everybody's got to make up their mind on that. but i would say to you that most of the data that i've read that the best environment for a child

to grow up to be full hi capable of achieving -- fully capable of achieving the american dream and having the best start in life is an intact, two-parent family made up of a man and a woman. i think that's what all the data would suggest. now, unfortunately, because of divorce and any number of things that is no longer the family that every young person grows up in, and that's why the governor and i spend a lot of money on social services and so forth to help people, to create a good safety net, to be able to take care of people when families are not intact. but that has been, i think, undeniably for centuries what has really held society together and is the best environment for children, but also for society generally. and i think virtually all the data that i read from sociologists and others right and left, the empirical data coming out of that intact, two-participant family is, in

fact, the best for our country. it should be the model, but when it doesn't work, we have safety nets. >> let's go to the audience. i'm sure many people have questions about whether the baltimore port is superior to the hampton roads port or vice versa. [laughter] raise hand if you'd like to be recognized. yes, sir. >> thank you very much. thanks to politico for the good program this morning. you touched on, both touched on national politics, and let me ask you, you're both from pivotal states. governor o'malley, do you expect the state of maryland to follow its modern historical trend and go in for the democrats again in the presidential race, and governor mcdonnell, your state went democratic for the first time since 1964 in the '08 election. do you think it will revert to its modern historical trend? and one more thing.

you could be a vice presidential candidate with any of the major republican candidates except rick santorum would have to change his registration from the old dominion back to pennsylvania. [laughter] would you accept the vice presidential nomination? >> me first? i do believe that marylanders will reelect president obama. the president inherited one of the worst economies, worst recessions since the great depression, and we have certainly not recovered all we've lost. but we've now gone 23 months in a row with private sector, positive job growth every month for 23 months. that hasn't happened since 2005-2006. and the people of maryland, i believe, will vote to reelect president obama primarily for that reason. >> president obama said during the campaign, he said if we don't turn this thing around in three years, it'll be a one-term proposition. well, i think virginians are ready to collect on that promise

because it hasn't turned around. we have the worst debt in american history. it's grown $4.7 trillion under this, this president. the greatest growth in the national debt in the any term of any president in american history. that's going to grow another trillion in the near future. with his budget, really a political document because harry reid's not going to take it up, his budget would call for about $25 trillion in debt by the end of his term if he was reelected. he promised if we had bailouts and stimulus and all this other massive government spending that's created a trillion and a half of deficits every year, if we did all that, we'd have unemployment below 8%. well, guess what? here's the facts. we haven't had unemployment under 8% since the first month of his presidency. it's been an entire presidency of above 8%. now, listen, i'm glad that there's been progress the last few months and that we're dropping. i think that's a very positive sign, and we can speak for -- [applause]

>> i just wanted to thank you for admitting that. [laughter] needless to say, he's always making it worse. >> i didn't say he was responsible for it, i just said it's good news that he's dropping. we could debate for a long time with that. so your question is, is he going to get reelected in virginia? look, since he got -- >> vice presidential -- >> i was going to skip that. [laughter] but on the other part, on the question of -- it was, i think, somewhat of an -- >> just size up virginia. but not as a partisan, just as somebody who knows the state. size it up politically. the obama campaign's made very clear they consider virginia among a small handful of states in which the election might -- >> lord knows, we've seen the president and his wife in virginia many times recently. always glad to have the president there. >> we send him your way, by the way. [laughter] >> and that's true. he won by seven points in a state that had gone 44 years for a republican.

he was a phenomenal campaign. lots of money. he's a phenomenal campaigner. i think he's a bad president, but he's a great campaigner. since he became president, i won by 18 points, we picked up three congressional seats, and a couple of months ago we picked up the largest number of delegateses in the house, i think the trend is very bad for the president. i think on everything he said he was going to do on debt, on deficit, on jobs, he hasn't delivered. there's no coherent strategy in this administration on energy. he continues to torch major industries in virginia like coal and natural gas, pushing things like card check and cap and trade. it's just been very poorly received by virginia industry, so i think he's this trouble in virginia, and on the vice president, it's not my call. >> let me ask, though -- >> and i'm busy being governor of virginia. >> governor, the usual stance among people is, oh, no, no, i'm not interested, that's so farfetched, i can't even speculate about it. but you've been pretty direct, it seems to me, on other

occasions saying, yeah, sure, who wouldn't want that job? and it looks like you're working very hard for golf romney in -- governor romney in ways that sure look like you're saying, hey, take a look at me. >> you must be reading that national media, john. [laughter] what i said was, i said look, and i bet governor o'malley would say the same thing. if the leader of your party calls you and say, hey, you can help your country, your party, of course you'd think about it. >> right. but among friends and among our live stream -- [laughter] let's be clear. you ache for this job. >> no! look, i'm chairman of the republican governors' association. my top goal is to be able to beat martin o'malley and get more republican governors elected this year, and i'm confident we're going to be able to get that done. secondly, i believe this president has taken this country on such a radical, left bent that i'm going to do everything i can to elect a new president

of the united states. now, i decided about a month ago that mitt romney is the best guy. why? because i've said for about eight months that i believe that a governor with the skills we have to hone, focusing on jock creation and -- job creation and getting budgets done on time without excuses, getting things done, getting results, that's what we need instead of what we have now playing the blame game with this president. so that's why i'm supporting mitt romney. >> governor o'malley, you're not exactly coy about somebody raising your hand saying i want to participate in the national debate and haven't exactly dampened speculation as recently as this morning from governor mcdonnell that you might be a candidate in 2016. talk about your own national ambition. >> well, i accept governor mcdonnell's nomination, and be i greatly appreciate -- [laughter] i greatly appreciate his, the hopes and dreams that he sees in me. [laughter] we're both head of our democrat -- i'm head of the democratic governors' association this year, and

governor mcdonnell's head of the republican governors' association. i'm proud of the difficult things our president's done, and i'm not shy about wanting to be a supporter of his, especially in this national debate when so many democrats lose their tongues and feel like they can't speak up about the difficult things he's had to confront. everybody second fessed the president when he did -- second guessed the president when he did the recovery and reinvestment act. virginia didn't turn any of those dollars down. in fact, one of the reasons governor mcdonnell's state has been able to maintain a lower unemployment rate than most is because we applied those dollars ask used those dollars. on the auto industry, everybody second guessed the president, and second guess him on recovery and reinvestment, don't put the brakes on the bush recession. we can't afford to do that. then they second guessed him on the turn around of the auto industry. that would not have happened by itself. i know we have a lot of jobs in maryland that depend on the auto

industry. last i checked, i think virginia has thousands of jobs like, you know, that depend on the auto industry. and i don't believe, i'm not sure what governor mcdonnell's position on this is, but i know he's supporting governor romney, but i don't know if he subscribes to governor romney's position that the turn around of the auto industry was with something that president obama shouldn't have done. i mean, you can have philosophical debates about it, but you cannot say that he was unsuccessful in doing that. you cannot say that we have not had 23 months in a row of positive job growth. last year, governor mcdonnell, more jobs were created in the private sector in america while president obama was president than during all eight years of george w. bush. and president obama is not running against the almighty. he is running against alternatives who want to take us back to the failed policies that brought us record job losses and the debt that you proclaim to be

so adamantly against right now, governor mcdonnell, was racked up for this president by president bush. and according to an independent group commissioned on responsible federal budget, the budgets put forward by the current crop of republican presidential nominees, including governor romney whom you have endorsed, would all exacerbate and create a greater amount of debt than what the president has put forward. so look, we can go forward, or we can go back. and when the people are given a choice of more jobs and more opportunities or back to the failed policies, this trickle-down policies of george w. bush and its mountain of debt, i think they're going to choose to move forward. and i would also dare to predict that in virginia where they have seen what happens when you put republicans totally in charge, they have seen their legislature

take a hard right turn, ask that's exactly the sort of overreach that they saw in wisconsin which has the had 49th worst job creation rate, ohio which has the 30th worst job creation rate and also what they've seen in florida which has the 45th worth job creation rate. they say vote for us, things will get better, and then you vote for the republicans, and they take a hard right turn outlawing gay relationships, women's rights, outlawing unions, outlawing -- and throwing all sorts of social wedge issues out there when people care about jobs and the economy. >> i had a hunch we were going to mix it up. [laughter] i better let you respond to it. >> all i can say is governor o'malley's the only one that's got social issues at the top of his agenda. i don't. so i'm not sure what he's talking about. ..