next up in a simulcast with c-span radio the events and interviews and news of the today's political and policy stories on "today in washington." >> 202, 626, 8 8, 88. if the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freem freedom, the congress acting on behalf of the american people and the constitution that we are willing to uphold and defend must. >> the president is committed as i tried to make clear to ensuring that this policy is implemented so that all americans have, all american women have access to the same level of health care coverage,

and doing that in a way that is hopefully going address some of the concerns expressed. >> new lines on the old arguments issue of birth control and the reproductive rights. the catholic church involved in the debate and moving center stage here in washington. welcome the hour one of "washington today." i'm steve skully, and thank you for joining us. as you heard from the speaker of the house john boehner, the senate is willing to denounce the president's plan. they want churches who employ birth control coverage an attack on religious freedom. you heard the white house saying it will not stand, and also from congressional democrats and reaction from the white house through press secretary jay carney. we will have more on the story in a moment. presidential contests, three days after he lost to rick santorum, mitt romney on the

campaign trail in georgia argue that he has a former governor of massachusetts is a better tea party candidate than the rivals. he says that spending on the lawmakers pet projects doubled under newt gingrich when he was house speaker and went after rick santorum and saying as senator, he was a major supporter as the type of spending known as pork barrel legislation. more on the presidential politics coming up later in the program. and the house of representatives voting today to provide the president with something that many have called for and ronald reagan asked for it and bill clinton had it for a while, and the line item veto, but this bill differs from the veto that the president had briefly in the 1980s. this vote today on the bill of the president making recommendations on the government spending to reduce the deficit, and the vote overwhelming in the house of representatives and sponsored by congressman paul ryan, and ranking republican member chris van hollen and let's begin with this debate this hour that continues to percolate here in

washington, d.c. and around the country. from the "washington post" seeking to stoke the political ver nublability of the president, the republican lawmakers seeking to ram up the pressure on the white house over a controversial new health care rule that critics say violates religious liberty. it would repeal the legislation unless the white house relents, and dovetailing writes the "washington post" that it is a rule that requires employers regardless of the religious after fill yagtss to provide contraceptive and other birth control provisions as part of the employees health care plans, and it was opposed to by a number of catholics on the president's staff. we will get more background on this with margaret tallen who has a piece with the white house angle from bloomberg news. first the speaker of the house as he went to the floor earlier today with this statement. >> my colleagues, in recent days, americans of every faith and political persuasion have

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

the house will approach this matter fairly and deliberately through the regular order and appropriate legislative channels. because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved the energy and the commerce committee has taken the lead on the legislative process necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. chairman upton convened a hearing late last year to begin laying the groundwork for the legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee continues to proceed with the efforts. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom must not stand and will not stand. i yield back. >> the comments of the house speaker john boehner who is catholic from the cincinnati, ohio, area, reacted to the rule put in place by the department of health and human services after weeks of debate within the

obama white house. a number of the aides to the president signaled a mutually agreeable way to put the rule in place to begin in august of 2013. the rule put in place last month does exempture churches, but it would affect catholic hospitals and universities and even though contraceptives are contrary to catholic teachings, it would require it. and some of the catholic bishops discounted some of the white house assurances and this past sunday around the country, and many parishioners heard letters of bishops and arch bish shocbi around the country, and so it is turning into a religious and political issue. members of the white house weighed in on this, but jay carney taking questions at the top of the white house briefing. >> on the issue of

contraceptives, speaker boehner is wanting to deny it through the rule, and i'm kind of curious about your reaction to that, and if it were to happen, is that the kind of omeasure that the president would veto, or does he feel that strongly? >> well, that is a lot of speculation embedded in that question. i won't go there. on this issue from the very beginning we have concerns as we work to implement the law, and as i said yesterday on january 20th when this decision was announced secretary sebelius said quote we will continue to work closely with religious groups in this transitional periods to discuss their concern s. i would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements and eight of the states as i have mentioned before do not even the exemption that this provision requires for churches and house of worship.

we want to work with all of the organizations to implement the policy that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible, but let's be clear, we are committed, the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs no matter where they work. >> so, while you are planning to work with the groups who have concerns, the congress or at least the house right now is pledging to un-do the rule, and what is your reaction to that? >> right now, we are focused on the implementation of this rule, and doing what we said back on january 20th when secretary sebelius announced it with i is work with those who have concerns to see if there is a way to implement the policy to ensure that women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage, and the same access to preventive services, but to do it in a way that might allay some of the concerns that haveeen addressed. this president, as you know, in

the past, he has, you know, worked with when he had the first job in chicago and chump s churches and organizations who do a lot of work, and he is very sensitive to concerns like these, and he wants to find a way to implement this important rule, because he is committed to making sure that women have access to these, to this coverage. he wants to find a way to implement it that can allay some of the concerns expressed, and this is why the transition period was announced a at the same time that the rule was announced. >> from today's briefing with the white house press secretary jay carney, we are joined by a reporter who covers bloomberg news, and has a website @bloomberg.com, and she is joining us live on the phone. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be with you. >> walk us through the debate

happening internal ly in talkin to some at the white house today. there are a number of catholic staff members who disagreed with the president's decision, and this has followed weeks and months of internal hearings. >> yes, in many ways the white house mirrors the debate in congress and the one of four voters is catholic, and of course, there are catholics who support or who use contraception in their own lives and younger catholics and older catholics and different levels of at the end mass, and do you take the cues from the bishop and all of this is playing into it. the debate in the white house exists on two levels the policy debate and to some extent a political debate, and the argument for the policy debate was largely put forth by the group of advisers inside of the white house.

they are making the case again behind the scenes according the people familiar with the discussions that the president really didn't have any choice but to stand by secretary sebelius, and these are policies that he believes in and the whole health care law falls apart if you don't, you know, if you create the, you know, broad exemptions that beyond sort of churches and houses of worship. the concern on the other side and it would be simplistic to say that it is like girls against the boys or that the catholics were dead set against this, but it is not so much that as they had a concern that there could be an effect, a political effect, and an effect of just sort of disenfranchising or frustrating devout catholics who felt like this was putting the church in a box. >> well, let's get to that argument, because as i said, catholics around the country, if they attended services saturday

or sunday, and hearing from the bishops and talking about the policy side of this, but on the political sidef tho, the catholic church is opposed to abortion and opposed to contraceptive contraceptives and this is being viewed rightly or wrongly as government intrusion into catholic beliefs. >> this is one lens it is being viewed, and we are starting to see the polling, and it is early and some of of the polling on behalf of pro-choice groups so take it for what it is worth, but there is a counter argument, and political counterargument that to have given religious hospitals and universities wide birth on this could have disenfranchised women's groups and pro-choice or women's health advocacy groups who do turn out to vote for the president, and could have disenfranchised women more broadly and one of the arguments in reporting the story is that there are more women than catholics in the united states.

so it is a complicated part of the question. the question is will this be viewed not in the first few days when it is a frenzy and opinions have not settled, but over the long term and the weeks and the months to be an issue limiting the religious freedom or viewed as an issue of birth control and contraception and the posters that we have spoken will make a difference in the end. >> and let me go back to the internal debate within the white house. vice president joe biden is catholic and what were his views on this. >> biden and daley and what we are told by people familiar with it, it is not that they were telling the president, we are of fend and don't do this, but was not that, but it was a concern that this will not sit well with many catholics or seen as imposing government mandates that were in conflict with the church. it is a concern that the president be fully aware of this and do it with the eyes wide open and this is what he felt like was the right thing that

needed to be done. >> and you are seeing the debate play out on capitol hill in the presidential campaign and among catholics and pro choice and pro life activists and where does it go from here? >> le w several levels to see it play out, and what the catholic bishops organization told me the other day when we were reporting the story is that you will see it in litigation and legislation and basically at the pulpit in the public view that until the concern, this issue is resolved in a way that they are satisfied with, they will sort of pound on this on all fronts. you are seeing this legislative rhetoric and to some extent the legislative debate, and there is also that you have seen jay carney on the white house staff side, and david axelrod on the campaign side talk about this desire to accommodate concerns while still working within kind of the spectrum of the rule.

as it was announced on january 20th, and the question is, can you really do that? i mean, part of the reason why there was this lag time from august when secretary sebelius first announced the proposed rule until january of this year was precisely because they were trying to find that middle ground and that balance, and it is almost impossible to please sort of both sides with one decision. >> the headline from bloomberg.com, the president weighed religious politics in the contraceptive decisions and margaret taley reporting for bloomberg news. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. and senator marco rubio is a republican from florida. >> this has nothing to do with the contra sceptives or right versus left or liberal or not, and this is straight forward whether the government of the united states should have the power to go into a faith-based

organization to make them pay for something that they teach their members they shouldn't do, and if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all other kinds of absurd results. the vast majority of the americans whether they are on the left or the right would tell you that the government of the united states should not have the power to go in to tell a church-based organization that they must pay for something that that faith teaches their members not to do. that is what this issue is about. that is why you have commentators on the left and the right saying it was wrong. that is why you have people in the white house uncomfortable with it. here is a solution in my mind. the solution is for the president to come back and say, you know what, maybe we overreached and went too far and we have heard from a lot of people, and we want the reconsider this decision. there is nothing wrong with that. we have plenty of other issues to argue with the president on and other issues to take to the american people throughout the year and the elections in november, and this doesn't have to be one of them. the president has to reconsider the decision they made and acknowledge that maybe they went too far or maybe they didn't think about it all of the way

when they made it. i hope that is what will happen. if it doesn't, then i hope that the senate and that house will act as well, because the american people are asking us to, and that is an important issue. >> the debate over health care and contraceptives is a policy that is taking shape on a number of fronts. again, the day began with speaker of the house john boehner going to the floor of the house of representatives and really setting the stage for a fierce argument on both sides of the aisle on this issue. we heard from democrats and republicans and later we will hear from a number of senators who went to the podium late afternoon today, but in a teleconference earlier, two democrats one from illinois and one from california jan schakowsky and lois capps on this issue. >> i'm with the "huffington post" and i'd love to ask a question. regarding boehner's speech on the house floor today, he basically threatened the ed administration and said, if you don't reverse this decision, we

will use legislation to do that, and that the congress would actually pass legislation that would override this, and i mean, is this a real threat? > >> well, we saw a movement when preventive screen inings for car were going be taken away from the clients of planned parenthood and from planned parenthood. i think that you will see, and the polls are indicating that there's overwhelming support for this kind of rule, and i think that there will be a backlash from the women of america who feel that over the years as rosa said, we have seen ourselves be discriminated against in health care, and in 2012, we are just not going to go backwards. i think that there is going to be a great mobilization. so it would be at their peril i believe that they try to un-do

this. and this somehow this notion of a war on religion, you know, women want to exercise their own right of conscience, and their own religious freedom in making those kinds of decisions, and these institutions that accept public dollars, that conduct business in a public space should not be making that decision for them. >> could you i.d. yourself? >> this is congresswoman jan schakowsky. >> this is lois capps, and i want to underscore that as the speaker boehner decides to bring legislation to the floor, which is very well his prerogative, bawl but all of the time that we are spending with that topic on the floor of the house of representatives we are not

dealing with the issues that people are concerned about which is unemployment and jobs and job security, and so as he does this, i will underscore what my colleague jan schakowsky just said, to give more women an opportunity to say, wait a minute, you are talking about my right, my freedom and my desire to exercise and we will begin to see more of a backlash and speaking out to women. women are puce busy trying to f jobs now, but this is to the peril of the number one issues. >> that is from lois capps, and jan sha now ski as they weighed in on the issue of contraceptives and health care and the religion exemption debate which is likely to continue in the weeks ahead. mr. speaker, i will be brief, because my message is

clear and concise. mr. speaker, i rise today out of grave concern on the recent assault on the religious freedom, and the first amendment and our freedom of conscience. the u.s. department of health and human services ordering and requiring every catholic institution larger than a single church and even in some cases a single church to pay for contraceptives, sterilization, and morning after or efficients for the employees is directly contrary to the principles of the catholic faith. let us ensure that we do not confuse the issue here. this is a direct attack against religious liberty for all religions. but forcing catholic schools and hospitals and catholic charities to comply with the federal mandate that allows the core moral commitment of the unborn is unconscionable. this act threatens to sabotage the foundation of the first amendment rights and liberties,

and continually chipping away at the constitutional freedoms that set the foundation of this great country sends us down a slippery slope the further government overreach and intrusion into our individual lives. this must be must stop, and we as americans, must stop it. with that, i yield back. >> just another republican voice on this debate. represent chip korvack is from minnesota and spoke on the floor against the president's plan that requires universities and hospitals and other i.n.s. too ugss to provide reproductive rights for women who are covered under insurance plans. well, how is this affecting presidential politics? on a couple of fronts. we there is this victory speech by rick santorum who had a clean sweep winning three states spoke

out directly against the president e president's plan. he is a father of seven from pennsylvania, a key battleground state and also catholic. in the white house today president's press secretary jay carney was asked about all of this and the presidential race. >> on contraception, it is not just the speaker and mitch mcconnell and others who have come out to speak on it, but others who have seized on it on the campaign trail, including mitt romney who have seen an opportunity not only to drive a wedge in the support of some democrats for the president, but also trying to rally their base. does the president feel that he is vulnerable to that? >> well, i -- the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country, and he is focused on finding a balance that is

sensitive to the concerns expressed by some religious groups. you know, a former governor of massachusetts has not been a messenger on this, and the service services that this rule would provide for women around the country are the same that are provided in massachusetts and were provided under when he was governor. including contraception, and including, you know, covered with no co-pay or deductible. religious exemption for houses of worship and churches and to the church-controlled organizations and to the parochial schools and not the universities and the hospitals. well, this is, i think ironic that mitt romney is expressing or criticizing the president for pursuing a policy that's virtually identical to the one

that was in place when he was governor of massachusetts. >> so, does the president agree with rick santorum on the issue then? >> i haven't heard what mr. senator santorum has said on the issue. >> and then one other question on this, sort of speaking to the evangelical support for catholics who are opposed to this. rick warren tweeted that he is in solidaire with the catholics and said that i would go to jail rather than cave in to a government mandate that commands god to command us to do. as you know, he has tons of twitter followers and people who are interested in what he has to say, and are you worried that rallies the republican base? >> well, again, we are -- we're not worried about republicans or democrats. the political component of this. we are concerned about making sure that women get access to

these important services. that women are treated equally around the country regardless of where they work. but we are very sensitive to and understand some of the concerns that have been expressed and that is why this as part of the original announcement of this by secretary sebelius, we put in place a process where further discussion could be had that would address hopefully some of the concerns, and maybe allay some of them. >> comments of the white house press secretary jay carney, and so how did this play out on the political front? as we said on the top of the program, mitt romney is in atlanta tonight in part to raise money for his own presidential bid and eye on super tuesday and other southern primaries, and the white house is taking mitt romney to task over his criticism of the president's birth control coverage mandate, and jay carney as you heard a moment ago saying that it is odd for mitt romney to be going after the president when his own

policy was in place as governor of massachusetts. well, the massachusetts governor, mitt romney, quick to jump on this and had this the say to the reporters outside of the atlanta hartsfield airport. >> well, he needs to check his history, because that provision was put in massachusetts before i was governor and then when i was governor, i tried to have it removed in the health care plan, so in the working on the health care plan, i worked very hard to get the legislature to remove all of the mandated coverages, including contraception. so quite clearly, he needs to understand that was a provision that got there before i did. and it was one i fought to remove. >> mitt romney quick to respond to the comments of the white house press secretary jay carney and of course coming off of the l losses yesterday, an including a surprise loss in denver, colorado, expecting a win. the campaign moves to michigan and arizona at the end of the month, and then super tuesday early next month. this is washington today heard coast to coast on xm channel

119, and we are streamed live on the web at cspan.org. we are in the nation's capitol. first news on the wall street, the dow up and the nasdaq was up and the s&p up 2. the treasury department is trying to crackdown on evaders, and the u.s. is to join other nations to fight international tax evasion. the irs is publishing proposed rules that investors will have to follow in reporting on earnings from the foreign bank accounts. these requirements were in legislation from 2010 clack cracking down on people investing in foreign accounts to avoid u.s. taxes.

a couple of proposals on house republicans on how the pay for a payroll tax extension and a bill pending in conference contains a extension of unemployment insurance and that is o-call doc fix to prevent a cut to pay in reimbursements. and also, stopping illegal l immigrants to have credits. they will have to have social security numbers to prove they are documented workers and harry reid said that goes against the children of undocumented worker sworke workers. >> in order to pay for highway programs the proposal was posted online by the house rules committee, and the programs t