jesus's teaching. >> again, i think if you can't discuss in a prayer breakfast one of the central innocents of your faith, which is prevalent throughout the new testament, i think you're really circumscribing yourself too much, he was explaining how his faith guides him, how his faith guides the decisions he makes as leader and i think that's entirely appropriate. he was not engaging in campaigning, he was just simply talking about faith and the decisions that he's made. >> did he give consideration to talking about this issue that we have been talking about about catholics being upset about the hhs decision. some men have said they have a problem with this. was there consideration to using

that forum to kind of changing that decision, and why it fits into this moral decision. i confess that he has not been ready to open the remarks. the considerations that were taken. one of the things the critics are jumping on about that collie is that they claim when you talk about contraception, you're -- that is not true. but i wanted to give you a chance on the record here. this is being used to say this opens the door to abortion. >> i would cite the experts in both the policy and medical experts and say yes, i would point you to the facts. i understand that things get

used for and misrepresented but that's not the case here, and this is about providing american women, women across the country with access to good health care and to the preventive services that the institute of medicine, a nonpolitical organization believes are necessary or required. >> the president has cited the major pieces of election, he said in addition to doing that because it's best for the economy, he believes in god's command to love thy neighbors as you love yourself. >> he's talking about what guides him in making decisions.

within the context of a faith gathering, a prayer breakfast, so it was appropriate, i think some of these critics out there suggest that he doesn't talk about his faith enough or often enough. >> would you allow a feeling of come pagsz could be experienced in different ways -- >> of course. >> you speak of proverbs. is that a direct reference to what mitt romney said the other day? that would suggest that any conversation that was held in -- would have a political context. but i'm saying that this president was simply explaining

how his faith guides him, it was not a political event. >> you said the combat lead should shift to afghan security forces by the end of 2014, which leaves open the possibility that there will be nato forces in a combat role for how long? >> potentially until that time when false security lead is actually the phrase we use here, until that transfer takes place, write as designated by nato will be accomplished by the end of 2014. what the context of this conversation was the remarks. but the policy is by the end of 2014. >> i think it's important that iraq is a helpful reference point in this, the transfer of security lead does not mean full removal of forces, and we have been clear about that, necessarily. and the dpis position of

u.s.-nato and nato forces beyond 2014 will be up to the -- you know, if forces might stay, it would be up to the afghan government and whether or not they invite no, sirs to stay. as was the case in iraq. and obviously, and i remember trying to clarify this within the context of iraq, when we ended our combat mission and were highly skilled combat forces who did when necessary participate in combat missions. but the lead is the is a designation that's important here in ferms of how much presence you have and how much engagement you have in combat. >> what's the status of the

investigation into the fast and furious gun walking case, the administration's investigation of it. and what is the response to the growing republican calls for eric holder to resign or for the president to can him. >> i think the politicalization of this is pretty apparent. i would refer you to the department of justice for any of his testimony, but broadly speaking, including the illegal trafficking of guns to new mexico remains a priority of this administration, the attorney general also says he takes the allegations that have been raised very seriously and that is why he asked the inspector general of the justice department to investigate this matter. it is also why you saw the department cooperating with congressional investigators including thousands of pages of

documents making the sixth appearance on the hill. so to suggest that we haven't been cooperative of congress after six appearances testifying, i think it doesn't comport with the facts. and the calls for him to resign -- >> absolutely stands by the attorney general, thinks he's doing an excellent job. >> i'm going to get to you, i'm going to work around here. >> that's only a $10 million drive. ? afghanistan, yesterday secretary panetta said we all went in together, we'll all go out together. so did the president direct mr. panetta not to leave afghanistan early? >> i think he was making a broad statement about the fact that we work very closely with our nato allies in afghanistan.

>> i want to follow up on the state of the union address and see if you see anything under the trade enforcement unit, whether it would be specifically focused towards china and then also, residential mortgage backed securities working group and how that may be working in alignment with or separately from the work done by secretaries attorney's general with unlawful practices. >> i'm going to attempt to get this right. on the unit, working with the state's attorney general, and

part of the idea of creating this unit was to combine focus and resources in the investigation of these matters. it has to do with the servicing of i hope i get this right, the servicing of mortgages. the trade enforcement task force, i think it was as we have described and as the president mentioned. it was one of the issues that we have in relation to china, its fair trade practices, but it's not limited to china as i understand it. >> they were asking -- >> i will probably have to get back to you on that because i don't want to give you the wrong answer. >> what's your saying is that there was nothing off message said by the secretary of defense when he was in europe? >> he's an artful man.

again, he was simply discussing conversations he was about to have with his fellow defense ministers and talking about what could be the case depending on conditions on the ground in afghanistan, and in in addition to our allies in nature toe. to the extent that general petraeus, i think that was what he was probably referring to, again, this was properly analyzed. there's not as much there as some people seem to think. >> and when it comes to the hhs, the birth control decision, schools and universities, their statuses change because of this decision, does that somehow limitary freedom of expression,

employers who are designated but have such religious believe beliefs? >> first as i pointed out, there's different treatment of this already in different i-states and in some states the three i named have no exemption whatsoever. so this will change in terms of the churches and houses of worship. what we're talking about institutions not employees. and this does not in in way provide or -- require a person to prescribe -- insurance companies provide that coverage to women who work with those institutions. so that is the balance that we saw. i hope that answers your question. >> did the president seek the endorsement of donald trump?

>> you know, i'm not going to comb over that question. that's good, right? it's just, there's a danger in speaking off the cuff. but i think the -- i need you up here. look, the only comment i'll have on that beyond the one i just made is the -- i think the president gave his views about mr. trump in the dinner that many of you attended last spring. >> you said that secretary panetta sort of suggesteding something that would be possible. he said this was actually the goal of the united states from mid 2013 to the end of 2013 to end the combat role.

so is that u.s. policy, the goal to end combat participation by then? >> i appreciate the question, our goal is to execute the mission, disrupt, dismantle and ultimately to defeat the taliban. that is a policy decision made back in lisben and what's been clear ever since lisben and since the president made his speech in june is that we will be evaluating the decision, how it takes place, the scope and pace and territory to afghan

security forces along the way. i guess i'm like some folks, the president does not believe that u.s. troops should stay in afghanistan to fulfill their mission and then he will bring them home. i think within the context of transfer by the end of 2014, it is certainly possible and if possible, therefore desirable to have that transition take place earlier. but it is not an announcement of a new policy. >> you mentioned that some of the president's critics say he doesn't talk about his faith very much or very often. >> i think he did at the national sprar breakfast and i think i was saying that this is an environment that he has in the past and he certainly felt comfortable talking about it today. and i have seen some of that criticism from some folks about him discussing his faith.

but i think this is an appropriate environment, the national prayer breakfast, this is a gathering of men and women in faith. so he felt very comfortable discussing how his face influences his world view and the decisions that he makes. this is cspan 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and on the weekend, american history tv, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. join in the conversation on these social media sites.

>> and coming up in just about 15 minutes here on cspan3. we'll develop updates from the campaign trail, congress and the white house, and it starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern. house speaker john boehner today denied having a rift with eric cantor, the second ranking house republican. the newspaper politico had reported that there were new tensions between the two men. speaker boehner's comments today were about 15 minutes. >> this week we got word from the congressional bug office that after three years of the

president's policies, unemployment is expected to stay high for the noer seeable future. it's clear the president's policies are not helping the economy, that's making it work. house republicans continue to listen to the american people, and the house is continuing its work on jobs this week. now various committees are bringing for -- the bill will help create private sector jobs and ease rising gas prices. by reforming the way taxpayer dollars are spent, it will reform safe roads and bridges that is required for our long-term economic growth. and it does so without any earmarks. it's going to be a different kind of transportation bill. and over the 21 years i have been in congress, i have never voted for a transportation bill

because it's loaded up with earmarks, the last bill, 6,617 earmarks. so this is going to be different from anything we have seen in the past. this week leader cantor also announced that the house will consider a tax cut for small businesses. the idea was part of our pledge to america, and was part of our plan for american job creators. our plan has been out there since may, we have worked on it all last year, and we're going to continue to have a job in congress. but this kind of tax cut will help american small businesses. that's why it's part of our plan for american job creators, we have already passed a half dozen new job creators focusing specifically on their ability to create jobs.

the president has failed to act on any of them. so this week, the president endorsed many of those house passed bills, and he said he's sending them up to congress. well, we appreciate the president's good intentions. but the house has already done its work. but to speed this process along, the president really needs to call on the democratly run sena -- this time last year t house passed the capital formation act, it allows small businesses to attract more invests so they can turn their entrepreneurial ideas into jobs. it's sitting right now in the democratic controlled senate. last year the house passed the entrepreneur access to capital act. it allows entrepreneurs to raise money so they can invest in their business and hire more workers. it's sitting in the democratic

controlled senate. last year the house passed the fairness for highly skilled immigrants act. act. make sure that visas better match-up with holes in the american workforce opinion it's sitting in the democrat senate. all they have to do is pick it up and pass it. last year, the house passed a bill to allow small businesses to expense the purchase of new equipment. it's sitting right now in the democrat controlled senate. these are four of the bills the president said he's going to send up here fours. guess what, mr. president, we've done wourk. call harry reid and see if the senate will do any of their work. this is some areas of common ground. the president said he'll sign these. i don't know what the senate democrats are waiting for. the president wants to show leadership he should call on democrats in the senate to move these bills. i think american small businesses are counting on us to provide some relief even in an

election year. house republicans have done our work and we'll continue to but we need to have a willing partner. the president's job council supports the republican approach to job creation. the american people prefer our approach to job creation and now the president himself says he support as number of our bills. we have an opportunity to get something done for the american people but it takes two to tango. question? [ inaudible ] >> in the article says -- [ inaudible ] >> is that true? >> eric and decided about three years ago that we would sit down, just he and i together just so we could have a chat

about where we're going and do so between the two of us. now, listen. we have a tough job around here. our members feel very strongly about a number of the issues that we've moved over the last year. when you're trying to do real work in this setting, you're going to have some very passionate people. our members and staff, they are passionate about what they do. sometimes that lead to some disagreements. but i have to say this. because i've talked the whole leadership team this morning along with staff. the senior leaders about our need to continue to work together for our team. and so, i feel good about where we are. and happy that we've got the team that we have. yes, sir. [ inaudible ]

>> i've heard that rumor. i've heard that rumor. the chairman camp has a big job to do over, you know, in the conference with the senate on the payroll tax bill. and i'm hopeful that both the democrats and republicans in the house and senate continue, can continue to work together to have their differences resolved as soon as possible. [ inaudible ] >> there's, obviously a lot of opposition to the announcement by the secretary of labor, secretary of health and human

services to require religious organizations to violate their beliefs in order that all insurance policies provide certain contraceptive benefits. i think this mandate violates our constitution. i think it violates the rights of these religious organizations and i would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this. [ inaudible ] >> you know we have to remember the top 1% of taxpayers pay 85% of the taxes.

i believe if we're going to deal with the tax code we should deal with the entire tax code, both the personal side and the business side. it would make our country much more competitive. we can have the debate about fairness in that context. it's something that i think you'll see house republicans continue to advance as the year goes on. [ inaudible ] >> oh, no. listen, we're teammates and have been teammates. i can tell you that i don't think there's been a disagreement between eric and i over the course of the last year. as you're clearly aware there's been a couple of staff rumbles from time to time but that's to be expect when you're doing big things. [ inaudible ]

>> as you're well aware, this bill came over from the senate. i don't know how they justified it. we would rather have offset that two month extension with reductions in spending. [ inaudible ] >> no, no, no. that's not why they are here. they are not here to rob the federal treasury on behalf of their districts. in the last highway bill one chairman walked out with $750 million worth of earmarks. another member of the leadership walked off with over half a

million dollars in earmarks. you're all well aware, i've not asked for an earmark in the 21 years i've been here. i got to tell you what. over the last 21 years my district has done okay all by itself. and this business of powerful members loading up earmarks for their district was distasteful. and that's why the practice has been stopped. now, is it going to be more difficult to pass a transportation bill with no earmarks? oh, yes. is it going to be more difficult to pass a transportation bill that has real reform in it to stop a lot of nonsense that's going on? yeah. it's going to be hard. but as i told the members yesterday, when you're going make a big change here in washington it's very difficult, very difficult to get done because the force of the status quo. but this is a good opportunity for us.

nice hair cut. someone in the back row finally got one. [ question inaudible ] >> passing what bill? [ question inaudible ] >> i'm not quite sure i understand what you're really asking. figure out what you want to know i'll be happy to try to answer it. [ question inaudible ] >> listen, i've got concerns

about the sequester. i've made that pretty clear and replacing the sequester certainly has value. the defense portion of the sequester, in my view, would clearly hollow our military. the secretary of defense has said that, members of congress has said it. the question i would pose is where is the white house? where is the leadership? that should be there to ensure that this sequester does not go into effect. thanks, everybody.