unilaterally in the face of a half billion dollars worth of contributions aimed at defeating the president. jim ma sinna, the president's campaign manager e-mailed "we cannot afford for the work you're doing in your communities and the grass-roots donations you give to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads. this coming as a result of that historic 2010 supreme court decision known as citizens united. the president was critical of that decision saying that it is destroying our democracy but again the headline from cbs news among other web sites saying the president is reversing course. some sharp questions today from cbs news white house correspondent norah o'donnell to the press secretary. >> i mean, the president spent much of 2010 on the road ridiculing these groups. i mean, he joked about the name. they can call anything like moms for motherhood. he really decried their influence in elections. and now he has signaled to his campaign that he would like his

donors to contribute, as well. you indicated when asked about when the president made this decision. you made you could divine -- you could divine that and that clearly since he's made this in february of 2012. so has the president been putting off this decision? were you indicating he's left it to so late in the game because he didn't want to have to do this but he's finally relented and said right, the republicans have so much money i'm willing to give up on my principles because of. >> look, you can throw in a lot of editorializations into your question or save them for your piece. but the fact of the matter is, this president's views on citizens united have not been shrouded in secrecy. they were clearly expressed. >> waited till february 2012, what did you mean? >> i simply was asked why did he -- i can't remember the phrasing of the question. did he spend a lot of time thinking about this. i haven't asked him that

question but i think you can understand from the views that he has expressed about the citizens united decision and the impact of that decision on the process, that he takes a dim view of it. the, but it is also the case, and again i point you to the campaign here. i think a lot of these questions are more aptly addressed to the campaign, that as the campaign has said, the rules are what they are. the president will continue to change the rules. but the fact of the matter is, not only is there not a constituency among republicans in congress to overturn or take action against citizens united. there is not even a constituency among republicans in congress to allow the american people to know who the donors are. they blocked the disclose act. so that is the reality that we live in. and he will continue to press for change. and he will continue to press for change even if it requires a constitutional amendment. >> asking a very simple question here which is the president who has railed against these groups

and this decision in his state of the union address and multiple times on the campaign trail in 2010 decrying this has now changed his mind and so the simple question is when did he make that decision to change his mind. >> you're misrepresenting what i sid and i assume you were in contact with the campaign. he has not changed his mind about these the rules. >> public support for his own. >> he's not saying that the system is now healthy or good. he is saying he is making a decision, his campaign is making a decision that the rules are what they are and they will not -- they cannot play by a different set of rules than republicans are playing. but the situation, these groups are unfortunately -- >> he gave a signal and his campaign manager put out an e-mail. when did the president signal to his campaign manager that it was okay to do that? >> i this i we just, the campaign announced today or yesterday. >> the president gave a sig fal

yesterday. >> if this is the windup to asking me precisely the moment that the president made this decision, i think i'll take that question as i indicated about 15 minutes ago. >> just part of the exchanging from cbs' white house correspondent norah o'donnell to press secretary jay carney and some rather caustic words back and forth as you heard from that briefing that took place earlier today at the white house. ken vogel is following all of this for politico. thanks as always for being with us. >> it's a pleasure. >> so to paraphrase what you're reporting tonight, it's an act of hypocrisy or one of necessity. what's going on here? >> it's a little bit of both. this has been in the works for quite awhile. as norah o'donnell pointed out, the president during the 2008 midterm election spent a lot of time raling against the influence of outside groups that were lining up behind republicans in 2010. and one of the reasons why they aren't weren't lining up as quickly behind democrats is because of president obama and

because of the stances that he took going way back to even before he was an illinois state senator but sort of most acutely and you know, having the most impact income 2008 when he and john mccain during the 2008 presidential campaign got together and actively discurrentlied large donors from giving to these outside groups to air ads on their behalf. when the citizens united decision and a subsequent lower federal court decision in 2010 changed the rules and allowed for more money to flow into these types of outside groups, president obama was very forceful and aggressive in continuing to urge big donors not to give to these types of groups and as norah said, he spent a lot of time in 2010 railing against them. after the general election in 2010 during which republicans drove tens in millions to a land slide victory in which they took back the house of

representatives, the white house started to back away from its opposition which you see yesterday evening and today is a step further still where they're saying not reasonable we not opposed to these types of groups coming in, raising money on our behalf but in fact, we are going to help them raise money so they can offset what the republican groups have done. >> bill burton is one of the key people behind the president's super pac. let me ask you about one analogy and maybe it's a fair one, maybe not. but in the 1980s, we saw the buildup towards the soviet union because the u.s. didn't want to the unilaterally disarm with the weapons that the soviet union had. in terms of campaign money that the republicans are able to amaze from organizations like crossroads gps and others and what the obama campaign was looking as the, were they disarming financially because the republicans were getting so much more than the democrats and is that a fair analogy? >> that's certainly what the democrats feel as if suits their

positioning and they can say that we're just trying to level the playing field. but the fact of the matter is the playing peeled is what it is because of the stances taken by democrats in opposition to this type of outside spending, which was to you know, these stances were arrived at at a result of principle. so there's the unilateral disarmament analogy, but it will just sugar coats it that this basic premise that in fact they are flipping on what happened a principle stand against this type of spending. >> i'm going to ask one of those inside the beltway questions. it's interesting as you outline the timing of this announcement, it was a conference call last night at 10:00 in the evening in which some of the president's key supporters were told about this in e-mail from jim messina, the campaign manager. walk us through the process. >> that's right. this was something that as i said was kind of a long time in coming. we had reported a couple weeks ago that bundlers were going to

be able to raise money for super pacs. this is a step further, and it is clearing surrogates, high ranking, high profile surrogates for the campaign, including cabinet secretaries to go out top fund-raisers at which this super pac and presumably others because there is a small network of democratic super pacs that are kind of aligned with one another and are coordinating with one another in spending money and congressional races and the presidential race and senate races and also spending money to do sort of opposition research on republicans and they have been struggling mightily to raise money, part lip because there are still democratic donors who remember back to 2010 and 2008 when no less than president obama was urging them do not give to these types of groups. so now they are trying to signal to donors and do more than just signal to donors that it's okay to give to these types of

groups. they're trying to loosen up their purse strings and get them to give to groups that just months ago they were being told not to give to. >> yet, we heard from jay carney that the frez, vice president, and first lady will not attend fund-raisers that will benefit their own super pacs. >> that's one of the issues that the obama administration has had as a whole, the obama political operation that is. they have not done the types of things demand to be necessaritors court these big donors, call them pejoratively donor maintenance something that the clinton administration built a huge base of some of these big donors who were more than willing to write seven and sometimes eight-figure checks in the case of billionaire financer george sorosors insurance magnate peter lewis who wrote these huge checks in 2004 to the predecessor of super pac 527 groups that spent $200 million trying to defeat george bush and

elect john kerry as president. well, that unsuccessful experiment and massive outside spending also left something of a bad taste in many democratic large democratic donors' mouths. so you add to that the discouragement that they received from president obama and his surrogates from giving. they have rather a lot of work to do to get these folks off the sidelines and writing those same types of checks to these super pacs. >> ken vogel, the timing of all of this because as you point out and we heard last week from chuck schumer, he wants to hold hearings because he claims republicans certainly know what's going on between campaign committees and the super pacs. what does this do, this democratic approach to these republican super pacs? >> it highlights the hypocrisy. republicans are trying to paint the president and democrats as hypocritical. chuck schumer wants to hold these hearings. guess what, he's been raising

mona aggressively for the super pac senate candidates for months. nancy pelosi ditto, the democratic super pac raising money for house candidates. now you have president obama green lighting whether he's actively raising money for it or not green lighting the super pac that is going to support him. it becomes just more difficult for democrats to accuse republicans of doing anything improper in the campaign finance arena. >> read more online at politico.com. ken vogel joining us from the offices in northern virginia. thank you for joining us on c-span. the house energy and commerce comed today approving legislation that would reverse the president's rejection of that keystone oil sands pipeline. the bill latest to the advance the alberta to texas pipeline. republicans trying to punish the president politically. there's a story about this at the hill.com, all of this ahead

of the 2012 election. critical of the president for failing to green light the project that republicans say will create jobs and boost energy security. a number of amendments being put forth by democrats on the committee. ed markey, his amendment failed 14-37 that republicans claim would with curb account reliance on oil from unstable nations. also a proposal put forth by john dingell from michigan. his amendment using the same process that was used by previous administrations, again all of this part of the ongoing debate over the keystone xl pipeline. the senate is not scheduled to take up the measure. let's hear from congressman john dingell on his proposal. >> you will note, my dear friends and colleagues, that this amendment is going to utilize the procedures set forth by president george wfrl bush on

april 30, 2004 with regard to the permitting of the pipeline. the amendment would require that approval and permitting processes follow clearly understood processes established by president george w. bush. my friends in the majority who have been pushing so hard on this issue are concerned about the amount of time it's been takinging to approve the permit to build this pipeline. in the executive order in question, president bush established a timely process in which an issue like this can can be considered. agencies can be consulted regarding the permit application and are required to submit their views within 90 days. the environmental review cannen completed and expert who's know about the subject and projects like this can and will be consulted. and it will be dealt with by agencies with greater expertise than by the state department on

matters of the permitting that will go forward. enestate of allowing this process to play out, congress has chosen to rush the administration even though there are serious problems with the route of the pipeline. and well saestablished and well understood mechanisms for issuing permits of this kind are unfortunately, disregarded in the legislation before us. the legislation before us is going to be a splendid source of litigation, lawsuits, ill will, and political troubles by reason of the fact that a whole different mechanism is substituted over the well established practices which take place under the regular permitting process. this is a 1700 mile pipeline that's going to cross rivers, aquifers. it's going to going across public lands, parks, farmlands, through municipalities, and it's

going to create an absolutely magnificent opportunity for litigation and ill will. so, what we are essentially doing is codifying in an expedited fashion a process that will give more weight than an executive order even though what we are using as the foundation for this is the executive order which was issued by president george w. bush. >> the comments of congressman john dingell, democrat of michigan, again as you know, last month in the obama administration rejecting a permit for that transcanada xl keystone pipeline, the president claiming that a february 21st deadline of republicans demanding approval of this measure left inadequate time for a complete review citing some environmental concerns especially in nebraska. the administration did invite transcanada to reapply but moved today from the senate energy and commerce committee saying they want to take it away from the

president and grant an probable for the keystone xl pipeline. on the specific issue as raised by congressman john dingell, the amendment that would use the same process as former president good morning w. bush, it was an amendment which failed but literary, republican from nebraska, weighing in on this. >> i appreciate where the gentleman from michigan is coming from on the basis of this amendment. but the reality is this is an extraordinary situation because we have a presidenting that chose to deny this many permit. putting us in this position. the presidential permit as done by executive order of the rea r reaserrion in here, i agree the whole purpose of this bill is to move forward on the pipeline

despite the president's effort to kill it. it is the president who said or let me back up. it is the state department who said they have enough information to make a decision. the volumes of binders sitting by mr. pitts is the environmental study. the final environmental study. so saying that there isn't one is just outright wrong. the state department said they had enough information here that they were working diligently and would make a decision before december 31st. it is the president then after the nrdc, the sierra club that be mr. cassidy pointed out

during his statement on the last amendment said that this was going to be the line, this pipeline was going to be the line in the sand that the environmental community drew for the president. the president replied to that by saying i'm going to delay this until after the election. it is the president that made this a political football. when he said he was going to put his election year politics ahead of what the best interests of this nation and this many pipeline. soap that is what put us in this predicament. and we're not going to go back to the politics that's being played within the white house right now. so this is the best mechanism, the means forward. >> the comments of congressman lit literary, a member of the house energy and commerce committee opposing the dingell amendment.

the committee trying to allow the ferc committee, which is an energy regulatory committee that would have the responsibility for the keystone xl pipeline. a note that the senate at the moment has no plans to take up the pleasure. an environmental group giving its own scorecard, assessing members of the house and senate democrats and republicans on just what kind of performps they have when it comes to greenishes, the environmental scorecard today, sayre rare chiefo spoke to reporters earlier in the day. here is her assessment. >> the national environmental scorecard is scored on the number of pro environment votes cast divided by the total number of votes scored. an absence is counted as a negative vote. for over 40 years, the national environmental scorecard has been an important source of objective factual information for the public about the most important

legislation considered and the corresponding voting records of all members of congress. includes 11 votes from the senate and an unprecedented 35 votes from the united states house of representatives. leaving no area of the environment and public health untouched. the 35 house votes are a subset of the unprecedented assault on the environment and public health by the republican leadership of the house of relationships in 2011. the single most anti-environmental chamber of commerce. on the attacks throughout the year, votes are ordered to tell the story of last year's onslaught. the first session of the congress got off to a particularly appalling start with house rule 1. it is must pass legislation. before it reached the house

floor, hr 1 included attacks on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and places americans hold dear as well as funding cuts to critical programs. as if that weren't bad enough, members of congress proceeded to offer a broad array to hr 1 on the floor. in light of what was there at the time, the league of conversation voters took the extraordinary step of releasing a continuing resolution special edition scorecard in february. 9 of the 25 votes are included in the scorecard. >> that scorecard is available on the league of conversation voters. sara chieffo spoke to reporters today at the press club. it is available on our web site at c-span.org. last week, the obama administration released the national strategy for the global supply chain security.

looking at u.s. cargo and what is going into the u.s. and what is going out of the u.s. and how close we are to screening to make sure there is no threat to homeland security. this came up on capitol hill today. questions for benny thompson and kevin mcclean is with the customs committee on maritime security. >> in what is coming to the united states, it is not scanned. >> in the maritime environment in terms of physical scanning, this would be the majority of 95%. >> all right. >> why not? >> we have been discussing the

complexities of the process and the tests we have undertaken with sfi to examine the feasibility. at the same time, we have been aggressively pursuing the layered approach on the targeting intel and through csi through partners to conduct the exams on high risk shipments and working with the standards. >> i understand that. taking whatever you are doing whether it is high risk shipments or anything like that, at this point in this hearing today, is there any shipments using your proptocols using you standards that are not screened? whether you are saying it is the layered approach or you are scanning or taking high risk? i want to know what the number is.

>> we have stated contents on all shipments for the united states and through the isf, 10 plus 2 filing, we have the location on the vessel of the container as well as the container status message and where it is in the process. the combination of those two allow us to identify any unmanned vessels. we address those with the carrier upon arrival. >> hold on. so your testimony is there is no container shipment coming to the u.s. that we don't know what's in it? >> sir, i think that's too strong a statement. i explained we have requirements. >> i understand requirements. are you doing 90% or 85% or 95%?

i just want to know where we are toward 100% standard and whatever protocols you are using, that's fine. i want to know where the gaps are right now. >> there are very little gaps on information. we have very high compliance. >> what is the little? give me the little. >> the 24 hour is over 99%. isf is a new program at 92%. that is where we get the information on the cargo shipments. the very high compliance on both of those programs. >> mr. heyman? >> almost 100% of all things coming to the united states are known to us in terms of what is in the manifest and what is relayed. we use that information to do our risk analysis. >> so we are 99% of the container shipments that come to

the u.s. is your testimony before this committee which meets the requirement we setforth in the '07 law? >> no. whether we knew all of the stuff coming to the united states and i said yes. >> i'm not saying of all the stuff. do you know what's in the container? >> yes. >> you do? 99%? >> yes. the question that the law puts forward is whether that information that we received is accurate and whether, in fact, somebody has tried to fraudulently put material into a container or misrepresent what is in a container and we have done it to great success. about 11,200 narcotics seizures last year.

>> i'm not asking for that kind of data. i'm just trying to give the public the confidence that the law congress passed saying we want 100%. that you tell this committee, from what i understand, that you are 99% there. >> in terms of the 100% scanning mandate, congress member, that mandate as we have testified over a number of times over the last several years poses a significant operational and technical challenge. >> that's fine. where are you to do the 100%? what percentage? >> my colleague has testified to we are doing approximately 5%. >> 5%? >> approximately, yeah. >> 5% of 100%. let's put it in perspective. in 2007, congressman dated that 100% of the nearly all cargo

containers being screened. we are six months from a july 1st deadline in which that 100% guarantee needs to be put in place. homeland security secretary janet napolitano made it clear that mandate will not be met. birthday wishes to roberta mccain. john mccain's mother. in 2008, we sat down with her. she still lives in washington d.c. we talked about her son, the 2008 campaign and well, listen to this story. >> we come back to you and your age at 95. there is a story that you recently traveled to europe. too old to rent a car. so what happened? >> i just bought one. i don't know what the laws would

have done for me in england. i know you can't get a driver's license after 75 in england. but they will not rent a car to me a year ago. it might have been three years ago. anyway, they would not rent me a car, so, i bought a pugueot. it is a deal where you buy it and they buy it back. what it actually really is is a rent rental. you own the car. it has a 24 hour road service, which a lot of insurance companies -- i never needed road service. by the way, i rented the car on the last time because i had my