ground. and we have no right to keep our brave servicemen and women in harm's way day after day, week after week based on a steady diet of rosey statements that tell us everything is going well, progress is being made, conditions are improving and victory isality hand. on january 18th i had the privilege of sitting down with lu ten naent colonel daniel davis. he recently submitted every ports in both classified and unclassified versions to a series at the pentagon. i was joined by my colleagues congressman walter jones and john garamendi. we were not only impressd with lieutenant colonel davis's character o but the information and analysis he shared with us. simply put, the situation in afghanistan does not reflect the optimistic statements we repeatedly hear from high military officials and commanders on a regular basis. this week, a great deal of what lieutenant colonel davis told us

has appeared in the media in an article he wrote for the armed forces journal, the nation's oldest independent military magazine and in "the new york times". lieutenant colonel davis talks about the difficulties of training the afghan police and military, the challenges facing our own troops to establish sustainable security zones, the rampant corruption and the gr great -- classified material that contradicts such claims. the briefing with danny davis comes close on the heels of a number of articles that appeared

toward the end of last year about the more pessimistic conclusions found in the most recent intelligence estimate on afghanistan. it's recognized u.s. policy has ãthe u.s. government and military leaders. no one likes to hear bad news, mr. speaker. but we do need to hear the unvarnished truth. we need accurate information to get a general understanding of what the situation is like on the ground in afghanistan. we need to know the real challenges faced by our troops and our diplomatic development and humanitarian workers every day. the amount of unclassified information available to the american public, the media and publish officials continue to shrink. ironically one week before being briefed by davis, congressman walter jones and i sent a letter on january 12th to the president asks him to declassify and release the 2011 n.i.e. in afghanistan. we are still waiting for a response to that request. >> the comments of congressman jim mcgovern, democrat from massachusetts and a critic of the u.s. war efforts in afghanistan. you're listening to "washington today," heard coast to coast on channel 119.

>> washington today is available as a podcast. you can download each program individually at c-span.org or subscribe using itunes. access the "washington today" podcast with the c-span iphone app or your data-enabled mobile device. at three minutes past the hour. wcsp fm washington. snoelt ♪ this attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand. >> he's concerned here about getting a policy right and its implementation right and being sensitive as he always is to the concerns of religious groups about religious freedom and the convictions they hold. >> religion, religious freedom

and now the hot button issue of birth control is part of the overall debate on the president's health care bill. welcome to hour two of "washington today," republicans today vowing to reverse the president's policy on birth control, denouncing the requirement that church-based organizations must provide employees with birth control coverage, calling this an attack on religious freedom. you heard from the speaker of the house as he began the debate on the floor earlier in the day. that ensued with democrats and republicans weighing in on this issue. we'll have more coming up in a couple minutes. white house press secretary jay carney accusing house republicans of, quote, caving to pressure from wall street lobbyists by removing a provision to require political intelligence firms to be registered as lobbyists. this is all part of the debate over the stock act which easily passed the senate and is up for a vote tomorrow in the house of representatives. turning to politics, one day

after rick santorum was able to sweep in missouri, minnesota and colorado, mitt romney on the defensive going after rick santorum calling him a washington insider and former house speaker newt gingrich returning to georgia next week to raise money and to campaign two days of campaigning in his home state, all in advance of the super tuesday primary on march 6th. the next round of primaries by the end at the end of this month in arizona and in michigan. we'll have more on presidential pol politics later in the program. let's begin with the comments of house speaker john boehner as he went to the floor critical of the president in his decision that would require religious organizations including catholic based hospitals, universitys and charities to provide birth control as part of the overall health care legislation. >> my colleagues, people have mobilized in objection to a rule

put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous 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, abortion, inducing drugs, devices and contraception. the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries encroaching on religious freedom 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're sworn to uphold and defend must. that house will approach this matter fairly and deliberately

through regular order and appropriate legislative channels. because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the energy and commerce committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. chairman upton convened a hearing late last year that began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand. i yield back. >> the comments of speaker of the house john boehner on the house floor. kathy dal came per served one term, was a key supporter of the president's health care bill but saying today she would have opposed the bill knowing it would require this type of contraceptive health care coverage for catholic charities,

catholic hospitalses and institutions and former virginia governor tichl cain, the former chair of the democratic national committee and a close ally of the president saying today this new policy on contraception is something that i disagree with the president. as the hotline points out, it is a rare instance of disagreement between the virginia senate candidate tim kaine and the president. the two are close political allies. tim kaine was one of the early supporters of barack obama back in 2007. more debate on capitol hill. representative gwenn moore is a democrat who spoke on the house floor earlier today. >> mr. speaker, i'm here today to be a voice for the millions of women and men who are celebrating the recent decision by the secretary of health and human services regarding requiring all businesses and corporations to provide birth control insurance coverage, a

lifesaving benefit for women, millions of women. under this new rule, virtually all women would have access to birth control coverage without a co-pay, through their employer health plan. if you listen to the politiclig pundits in this town, you come to the conclusion that people do not support the obama administration's decision that people of faith are en route to the white house prepared to storm it because of this decision. but if you talk to the average american, you will realize there is absolutely overwhelming support for the decision on the birth control benefit. this support crosses party lines as well as religious affiliation. in fact, a poll released just yesterday found roughly six in ten catholics support requiring employers to provide their employees with health care plans

that cover contraceptives. let's be clear, this decision represents a respectful balance between religious persons and institutions and individual freedom. it is very important to clarify that the law contains an exemption for religious institutions. what that means, that approximately 335,000 churches our houses of worship can choose not to provide birth control coverages of your employees. so if you're a secretary at the church or you're employed by the archdiocese, they do not have to provide birth control coverage for their employees. the health and human services, it was very important for them to carve out this exception in respect of separating church and state concerns. we're not requiring catholic

churches to go out and buy contraceptive coverage for all in spite of what you have heard over tv. but this lull does require that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals which are operating as large businesses and employ and serve a diverse array of people would have to dpol low the same rules as other businesses. this is the part that keeps getting lost in the debate. the sole purposes of these institutions is not to offer people a place of refuge and worship. it is not a place for people of faith to go to gather in fellowship and worship. the purpose of these institutions is to provide health care, to sprid an education for their students. no one is trying to take away

religious freedom, but rather this ruling preserves personal freedom. >> gwenn moore is a democrat representing the fourth congressional district in wisconsin weighing in on the debate over birth control, catholic church and catholic institutions as the story moved from the back pages to the front pages and likely to continue in the days and weeks ahead. also moving through the presidential politics as mitt romney and newt gingrich and rick santorum all weighing in on this issue. in our last hour margaret tall len joined us covering the story for bloomberg news. i asked her about the politics involved in all this and how the white house looked at all options. >> absolutely n. many ways the debate in the white house mirrors the debate in congress now. one in four voters is catholic.

of course. there are catholics who support -- who use contraception, catholics who don't, older catholics, younger catholics, different levels of do you attend mass and do you take your queues from the bishop? all this plays into this. this is a policy debate and to some extent a political debate. the argument for the policy debate was largely put forth by this group of women advisors inside the white house, everyone from valerie jarrett, the president's adviser to melody barnes to tina chen who is mrs. obama's chief of staff. making the case again behind the scenes according to people familiar with these discussions that the president really didn't have any choice but to stand by secretary sebelius. these are policies he believes in and the whole health care law falls apart if you don't -- if you create broad exemptions beyond sort of churches and houses of worship. the concern on the other side,

and it would be simplistic to say it was like girls against the boys or that the male catholics were dead set against this. it's not that so much that 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. >> margaret tall leave covering the story for broom berg news, white house correspondent in our last hour assessing the political implications of all this and the debate inside the white house including white house aides who are catholic expressing disapproval of the decision. of course, the white house announcing last month that hhs was implementing this decision. we heard from press secretary jay carney indicating the white house remains open to working with institutions as the process continues to unfold. but clearly it has turned into a big political issue for democrats and republicans. broadcasting in cable, writing

about a hearing we covered later in the day, concerns of house democrats and republicans about cyber security. it was hear in this hearing that the unusually free partisan divides, that was not the case as experts saying the threat is growing of cyber security, titled cyber security threats to communications networks and private sector responses. legislators heard from cyber security experts that the threat is growing and the role of cable operators and others trying to combat the threat. one of those testifying outlining some of the concerns he had is billing oh conner, the president and ceo of entrust, from today's hearing, an event available on our website at c-span.org. >> i'd like to focus my early comments on the arms race, on one particular vector of security. that vector of security is probably the leading cyber

stealer in the world today and has been around a while and certainly impacting small and medium business. both at a country state and organized crime state. specifically, it's known as zeus, commonly combined with spy on. for those of you who don't know zeus is the original man in the browser software, started out of the ukraine in russia. it went under its own merger and accusation by its lead competitor in the underground world called spy eye. their tools and technology were next generation, they merged in the fall of 2010 behind the scenes as law enforcement started to attack it, the guy took his money and ran, combined

it. that is now the the market. you can buy it with 24-7 support in the market. no longer do you have to be intelligent to right the code. you buy it. you pay for the support and they will help you design your attack vector on which banks, which geographics you want to do. how does this technology work? it's real simple. it's very complicated. you cannot find it with the traditional software that you have on your desk top, whether it's an anti-virus or the operating systems looking for it. it is software really targeted at small-medium business because it's tarringed for money. this is a for-money game for them. it basically targets small-medium business that probably doesn't have the technology or banking understanding with its supplier to understand how to deal with it. how does it work? i'm a treasure at a small business, i go in online to my financial institution. i say i want to move -- let's

say $10,000 the a supplier. i have an agreement with my local bank to have online bill pay. i type that in. the bank sees that. before the bank sees this, this software wakes up in the browser and changes the payees from one supplier to let's say six mules. it changes the dollar amount from $10,000 to $10 100,000 so the bank sees $100,000 going to six suppliers. we have good security, on your i.p. address, network and location. i'm going to send it back because i want a one-time pass code, 30-year-old technology we're trying to apply to the digital world. it sends it back to the controller of your business and says please confirm by putting your pass code in that's going to expire in 30 seconds that you

authorize this transaction. that software wakes back up, converts that $100,000 back to ten, six payers back to one. you type in your pass code, hit enter o to send it back. guess what? that $100,000 is now gone from the bank. you lose it. the bank loses it. six mules that will feed that money back into organized crime around the world are off and running. unlike the personal side where i'm protected by fdic, my friends you're protected as a small-medium business by nothing, the contract you've written. if you look around this wonderful country of ours, there's no clear case law. there's case law on both sides of this because the bank said i did nothing. we've had cases overturned that even though a business hat only done four transactions in the last year and 20 transactions happened in six hours totaling $2 million, in their line --

online was only $500,000. that's what's happening. the good thing is the technology exists to deal with that today. the banks aren't doing it and small businesses don't know what to do. so our belief is very straightforward, much like quality, there wasn't a lexicon to deal with cyber security. we need a lexicon. much like quality, it ain't a one-time thing like year 2000, we need to do it over time. that's why education is critical. the second thing you must do is have public-private partnership. i co-chair the dhs piece. i can tell you the legislative laws around this do not work for anybody. i think you've got to break public-private at different levels from intelligence to the people like me that try to secure the u.s. government and others to energy grids where department of energy works with those type of organizations. finally, we must take a unified

effort in public and private to defend this because it is an arms race and it is a pace as we mentioned it earlier. thank you. >> bill connor, who is the president of entrust testifying on capitol hill calling i.d. theft the end point. essentially what he was saying is the computer, smart phone or cell phone users use i.d. theft becoming a growing problem that cannot be stopped at the network level. part of the debate that took place before this house committee. what happens next? the senate is expected to introduce cyber security legislation. the house also plans to develop a number of responses based on this and other hearings. joining us live on the phone is josh smith, writing about all this for the "national journal." thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> what did you learn today? >> i think what this hearing underlined most was how this threat is big. it's growing and not going anywhere. and as that testimony that you just played illustrated, we're facing threats that are now able

to over come security measures that institutions like banks and other organizations have put in place and companies are forced to be kind of reactive, try to head off these threats after they've already happened, after the attack has already happened. you translate that now to what congress is trying to do and you're trying to move from a reactive stance to a proactive stance on the national and political level. that's what they're debating about right now. can legislation, can regulation, can government ever be flexible enough to prevent or counter these kind of attacks. >> let me follow up on that point. leading into that sound we heard there was broad agreement that this is not a political issue. there's a broad agreement among democrats and republicans to work on this. specifically, is it regulation? is that the answer? i know businesses today calling for more incentives and not as much regulation when it comes to

cyber security. what needs to happen? the agreement that this is a problem and needs to be worked on is about where the agreement ends. as you pointed out, it's not a partisan issue. the problem is that cyber security is such a broad issue that affects everything from the phone in your pocket to your banking to the national security of the united states, that there's so many people with stakes in cyber security, there's so many agencies with authority over it. there's so many approaches for the company that companies or government can take. how best to counter that, whether regulation or incentives will depend a lot. for example, the house republicans when they rolled out their proposals last year for -- it wasn't specific legislation, but kind of the framework that they would pursue legislation

under, they called for a menu of incentives that different kinds of companies could choose from because different incentives would appeal more to different kinds of companies. at the same time there's recognition that sometimes incentives won't be enough to counter that. so the degree of regulation needed is still very much up tore debate. >> let me underscore this point and i would encourage anyone who has not seen the hearing to check it out online at c-span.org. this is obviously an issue that many people talk about. it's one of the issues when you hear from the president and others, their biggest concerns, cyber security is not the top of the list in conversations but has some very real economic and political implications here in the u.s. and security concerns worldwide. so my question is, are people taking it that seriously? >> well, there certainly seems to be the will. it's to the point as someone who covers this, it seems like every other week there's a hearing on

the hill. the president mentioned it specifically in his state of the union last month. leaders in congress from federal agencies and business have all said this is one of the most important things that they can work on this year. that being said, the devil is in the details. so while there's broad agreement this is a problem and it is in the headlines, it's in the debate, it's in the hearing, where do we go from here is what they will be working on. >> as you indicated, both house and senate lawmakers working on this. who is taking the lead on this? >> in the senate it's coming a lot out of the senate homeland security committee chaired by senator lieberman. he has been working on this. many of the proposals there, i spoke with him yesterday. he said he is hoping to have the

senate bill out and going this week or next week and he hopes to have a hearing next week to kind of air some of the concerns and kind of start the debate there. in the house it's much less centralized. the house has decided to have cyber security legislation developed up to as many as nine different committees depending on what the issue is. for example, that's why you saw the house energy and commerce, their subcommittee today looking specifically about the issues. >> josh smith, one final point

because james lewis from the csis put some of the blame on cable companies and other isps, saying they have a key responsibility when it comes to cyber security. what was his argument and what was the counter argument? >> the argument is somewhat that these companies that are -- form the pipe, so to speak that they are enables of cyber attacks. there's been a lot of argument and push for a more built-in security, meaning not using your personal computer to block things or your isp and other

company that provides those services would take a more proactive in monitoring and identifying threats. >> you can read more online at nationaljournal.com. joshl smith is joining us live on the phone tonight, his piece on today's hearing. thanks very much for being with us. thank you for listening to "washington today" here on c-span radio. >> we'll have more coming up in a moment. first some other news finishing higher and appears to be closer defaulting on the debt. after three days of delays the greek government is -- the leaders meeting in athens to finalize the deal on cutbacks in public spending. several deadlines have already passed without an agreement xwg reached. here in the u.s., house republicans have introduced their version of a bill to ban insider trading with thousands of federal officials and prevent lawmakers convicted of a crime from collecting public pensions.

democrats complaining that eric cantor wrote the bill without seeking the minority party views. that was golling to elise slaughter who has been long trying to get an insider trading bill passed. the bill is expected on the floor tomorrow and we'll follow proceedings on c-span radio. you can also watch it on c-span television. federal policing of oil on public lands, only 6% of violations resulting in monetary fines over 13 years as according to house democrats in a report released today. fines over that time totaling less than $275,000. an amount the democratic staff at the house national resource committee characterizes a little more than pocket change for oil and gas companies. the head of the transportation security administration says more travelers will be able to enroll in a test