earlier, i think that will are mixed view, but in general, openness and transparency improves institutions and for all the reasons that you have so eloquently talked about, your role in educating the american public, i think that an awudio and visual of supreme court proceedings would essentially do the same and i think whatever results of televising senate proceedings and i was only facetious when i said i would take a pass, i do think that it has ban step een a step in the direction of providing more transparency and disclosure and understanding on the part of the public. now, i'll let you and the public be the judge of how it views us, but i think in general americans

should understand the challenges as well as the role that their institutions face, and since my time has expired and i want to thank you again for being here, and i am not at all dismissive of the points that you've made on the contrary i have great respect for them, but perhaps we can provide you with more information that would be persuasive in the advantages and the positives in those kinds of greater availability or accessibilities. a senate judiciary committee meeting from october of 2011. they met this morning to consider s-1945, a bill that would permit televised coverage of all open sessions of the supreme court, unless the court decides by a vote of majority justices. now, we open up our facebook poll this morning for your thoughts. should u.s. supreme court proceeding be televised?

go to facebook.com where you can vote, comment or share. when i first started the book i also thought this must be an american story. his is about a country that worships the religion of self-ee lines and individualism. the legacy of thoreau and emerson, but it turns out we're laggard it's when it comes to living alone, in fact, much more comments in european nations es specially scandinavia and even more common in japan. >> in going solo, the author looks at the growing trend of adults choosing to live alone and what that means for the country. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. also this weekend on "book tv" sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state cons leeza rice, connie rice, on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and starting a dialog between gang leaders and police. at 8:15, georgetown university's bonnie morris on we are

one-woman book of the same name, "book tv" every weekend on c-span2. house speaker john boehner holds a weekly brief ing from about ten minutes, at 11:15 eastern, and we will take you there live, once it starts. certain to talk about the insider trading bill which was housed in the vote of 76-2. differences between the two will worked out. it's possible there will create to the health care coverage of contraception. a member of the house energy and commerce committee, certainly the committee that will consider possible legislation according to speaker boehner. she joined us on this morning's "washington journal." >> joining us on "washington journal," diana beget, a democrat of colorado, a member of the energy and commerce

committee and as well as co-chair of the house choice caucus. correct? >> the house perfect choice caucus. >> right. and she is here to talk about some of the issues around planned parenthood and the rules regarding contraception with the health care law. first of all, i want to ask you about the investigation that the chairman of your subcommittee on the energy and commerce committee, cliff sterns, has instigated against planned parenthood. a letter sent back in september to cecile richards of planned parenthood saying he was investigating. were you aware of this investigation, and were you supportive of it at the time? >> well, as you might recall, there were some allegations that planned parenthood had actually commingled public money and private money, and planned parenthood, 97% of what they do is prevention and well-woman visit, breast cancer screenings, things like that's and they're allowed to use public money for are that. 3% of what planned parenthood

does is abortions, and they can't use any public money for that. only their private money. so the chairman wanted to know whether planned parenthood was commingling their public and private money. he sent a letter to cecile richards, who's the head of planned parenthood, and she responded by producing many, many pages of documents showing that the audits are all correct. that planned parenthood does not commingle these monies. henry waxman, who's the senior democrat on the energy and commerce committee and i as the ranking member on the oversight subcommittee sent a letter to my chairman basically saying that this -- this investigation was unwarranted. it was uncalled for, and asked him tosesist, and since last september, in the last six months, there's been no activity. so, in my opinion, the investigation, the chairman's requests were satisfy and the

investigation is moot. >> so is there any connection to that and what's happened recently with the komen foundation and planned parenthood? >> well, the excuse that the komen foundation apparently gave initially for taking back its funding for breast cancer screening from planned parenthood was that there was a congressional investigation, and i think they were referring to that letter that chairman stern had sent, but my opinion is, that was six months ago. i've seen no activity in my subcommittee. i don't think there really is an investigation. i think there was a request for documents, which was satisfied, and we've gone on down the road now. >> now, the white house, with regard to the health care law and the contraception rules, the white house has -- do you support the white house's position on, perhaps, extending the waiver for religious

organizations? >> you know, i think that we should have science-based policies as we affordable health care act, and the national institutes of health found that birth control and pregnancy prevention, plans, were a core part of women's health care services, and so in these insurance exchanges, that was part of what had to be offered in insurance policies to american women. and just as there are in 28 states, the department of hhs, the secretary said, we will nar for, say, a church that might be opposed to providing birth control coverage, if it's a church and their employees are all that same religion, then they would not have to offer it, but if the church decides to go away from its core mission of religion and start a business,

say, a hospital or a university or an insurance business, then they would have to comply with the same laws that every other business has to comply with, and that's the law right now for churches. let's say catholic charity decides to set up a soup kitchen comply with the anti-discrimination laws. they have to comply with the tax laws. they have to comply with every other law if they're doing a business separate and apart from their very core religious mission. >> representative to get in the "usa today" today, it's reported that that position is not consolation to catholic leaders. the white house is all talk, no action, on moving towards compromise, says anthony picariello, general counsel of the u.s. council of catholic bishops. a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise but it sounds to us like way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in

particular. we're not going to do anything until this is fixed he said, and guess on to say, that means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, not simply changing it for catholic employers and their insurers. >> so the catholic bishops apparently are saying, because they, a little group, narrow group of catholic bishops, think that health care plans shouldn't offer birth control coverage for the millions of american women who use it, it should be removed from the entire health care law, and that, frankly, is not atenable position. there already was a compromise, which the press has frankly overlooked in this rule. because the rule gives an exception for religious institutions and their employees. like the local catholic church, or any other church with a religious objection. they don't have to offer this. but if they're going off to have a separate business. for example, a university.

georgetown university students are going to have a rally today, because many of the people who go to georgetown university are not catholic, and even the catholics who go to georgetown university want to be able to have the choice to buy birth control or not. we're not talking about abortion. we're talking about family planning. 98% of catholics use family planning methods, and, you know, the question vie, and i've been thinking this for a few days is, where does the conscience clause rest? does it rest with the individual buying the insurance policy? the church or the university? or does it rest with the individual who makes their own personal decision, do they want to buy birth control coverage or not? i think it's the latter. >> well, further points before we get to calls. this is the new york daily news lead editorial. obama gets religion. yes, it's true many american catholics support the president's decision in a new poll 58% said religious

institutions should be required to offer birth control in their plans, a number higher than the support among the public at large. but that doesn't change the core principle, the new york daily news writes. a religious institution should have the latitude to live by its teachings free of aggressive government intrusion. all president's men and women know they've got a stinker on their hands. they've lost the argument on the merit. >> well, i agree with the new york daily news, that religious institutions should be able to offer policies that reflect their philosophy, and that's what the law does. but if they're going to go out and have a separate business, that's not essential to their core religious mission, then it seems to me it gets attenuated at that point, and there is that kind of exemption in the law. you know, the other thing i will say. last week when we had the komen breast cancer issue, that my -- my social media, my facebook

site, my twitter, everything, were just lighting up with outrage from women, that komen would pull the funding from plan the parenthood. this week, with this issue, it's -- it's really radio silence. the women of america, they don't see why this is such a big deal, because, after all, it's birth control, and virtually every american family has used birth control at some time or another. so people say, why shouldn't that be part of my health insurance? it's part of the health care that i'm getting. >> diana is our guest, a democrat from colorado. co-chair of the pro-choice caucus in the house and a member of the energy and commerce committee. first call for her comes from bought mo. frank, on our republican line. go ahead, frank. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the first thing that i want to say is, i think that the congresswoman is very wrong ligion.t comes to the freedom of

no y, no congresswoman, no president, has the right to force me to support something against my religion. it is unconstitutional. the other thing is, when it comes to the susan komen institute donations, my donations to cancer, which is different than abortion, my donation should not go towards funding of abortions, and the last thing i want to say is, there are a lot of conservative women in the congress who can be invited to speak on this issue. so i think to bring up a male conservative congressman to -- i mean, it's not a good match against a liberal woman. so you should invite some other

congresswoman who is conservative, and who has -- >> frank, thank you for that suggestion. representative? >> well, i -- you know, when it comes to a group like komen, which is a private foundation, people should be able to doan tooit that foundation whether they want to or not. i'm not going to tell people whether they should donate to a private foundation or not. i think this situation last week brought up the question of research. if people are going to donate to any private nonprofit foundation, they need to find out what their money is being used for. is it being used for research? how much is being used for research and then decide whether they're going to donate their money or not. that's their own personal decision. i'm not going to tell them what to do. >> beaver falls, pennsylvania. tim, democrat. you're on the "washington journal." >> caller: good morning.

i'm almost sorry i called. the lady speaks so well. i don't want to take up her time. but she's just amazing. >> why? >> caller: she's so clear on it. it's so sad in this country that individual liberty is frowned upon by republicans. i don't understand that. because they're always talking about liberty. but institutional liberty, big corporations and wall street, big churches and they're all for that. i just -- i don't understand that. i don't get it. it just doesn't make any sense to me. i'm 63 years old. i've worked in a catholic institution when i first got out of the service, and let me tell you, that's a very authoritarian place. where a lot of the lower paid workers have nothing. i mean nothing. and no freedom. no ability to organize.

fear to organize. i mean, it's just so sad. i just don't understand it. i mean, this is america. >> well, you know, there are about 3 million american women who would be affected by this rule, who work for religious organizations that are not, as i say, not a core church -- church-type organization, but for the catholic hospital systems, or for the universities, and -- and many of those women are not catholic. some of them are catholic. but they would lose their ability to get family planning, and it seems to me, as i said, that they're the one whose should be deciding. those same employers have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws, and the other laws of this country, if they're going to have those secondary types of businesses. and i think that providing full

women's health care services is a part of that. >> the spook speaker yesterday on the house floor. i want to get your reaction to what he said. >> in recent days americans of every faith and political persuasion 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-inducesing drugs and devices and contraception. and in imposing this requirement, the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, enkroemping on religious freedom in manner that affects millions of americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions.

>> diana de gete. your response? >> unfortunately, i don't think the speaker must have read what the proposed rule is, because many of the things that he said are in there, are simply have not in there. for example, the speaker said that catholic hospitals would be required to cover abortion-inducing drugs. that's just simply incorrect. we're not talking about a requirement for abortion services. although i think that that's part of the continuum of kim's cakim's -- women's care. but what this proposed rule says is that we should have family planning, birth control, pregnancy prevention as part of the core of women's health services. and, of course, if you have a strong program of family planning, then you avoid unnecessary abortions, and that's everybody's goal.

you know, 98% of catholic women have used some form of birth control, and have most women in society, and to say that that's not a central part of women's health. a group of us had some oft ta traditions talk to us about how birth control and family plans is central to women's health because it helps avoid so many other physical problems as well as help a woman plan her family. so i think people need to stop grandstanding around this issue, and they really need to start talking about what it is that this rule does. >> and daryl tweets in, allowing religious dogma to take precedence over the law opens the door to all kinds of discrimination, and this e-mail from joan in randolph, vermont i just ahead the deept and barbara

boxer made a misstatement in my opinion. she said women should have free access to birth control, the current rule sdg not do this since women are only being offered insurance coverage for contraception with no out of pocket expenses. however, these same women are paying a premium for their insurance coverage, so they are, in effect, paying to have this benefit. >> i don't really think that that is accurate as the health care bill is going to be implemented, because another part of the affordable care act says that you can't discriminate against people for gender. currently insurance companies actually charge many women more money for their insurance policy boss they might have a baby, and in addition, we actually have some insurance companies tell us that if you require birth control and family planning to be covered, insurance premiums actually will go down, because you're are not having unwanted

pregnancies that result in a lot of -- a lot of medical expenses. >> next call for representative de gette comes from west virginia. kristen on our republican line. corning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> good. >> caller: i have two comments to make. number one, i'm kind of surprised that we're getting away from the constitutional issue of freedom of religion. religious institution, whether it's a business or a church itself is separate from the government and the government shouldn't, or doesn't, as far as i understand, have that sort of control, number one. number two, what about all of the vouchers and, or i should say exemptions given to the other unions, big unions, that religion can't go under? why is this such a big issue for the democrats to hound after religion and make a religious

institution sound like it's denying care? you're mandating free birth control. how is that legal? >> well, kristen, actually, 28 states right now mandate that insurance policies that are sold in those states cover birth control, and the reason is, because just like with anything, if a religion has -- if it's the church itself, then there are many more tenants of the religion that can be exercised within that church itself, and that's why the administration, i think, very sensibly, excluded that -- excluded those cover bi control, because the people who work at the churches tend to be the same religion and have the same beliefs and have that conscience that they want to c have said is that if those religions are then going to

institute separate types of businesses -- >> all of this available online at the video library at c-span.org. live now to capitol hill for the briefing with house speaker john boehner. >> -- republicans continue to focus on the number one issue in our country and that's jobs. the house has passed nearly 30 bipartisan bills sitting over in the united states senate. lower gas prices. reduced job and encourage more small business creation. many of these bills embraced by the president's own jobs council, and the president's actually made it clear that he's in favor of a handful of these bills. the obama administration told us with the present stimulus plan were passed unemployment would be at 6% today. and i think it's certainly fair to ask, does the president want to accomplish anything this year? time is running short on the payroll issue, as an example.

house republicans asked us to do, we pass add full year extension of the payroll tax. unemployment fully paid for as the president said they must be. but the president and the senate democrat leaders will not allow their conferees to support of reasonable bipartisan agreement on spending cuts. worse, they've refused to allow any alternatives at all, except for job killing small business tax hike that they know can't pass the senate, much less pass the house. the president wants to get this done, i think he needs to let chairman baucus and the democrat conferees do their work. right now the only ones blocking the agreement are senate democrats and the president. it's time for them to act. the house soon will vote on the american energy and infrastructure jobs act, the next piece of our plan for america's job creators.

by breaking down government barriers to domestic energy production it will ease rising gas prices and create up to a million new jobs. by reforming the way dollars are spent it will ensure we have reliable infrastructure in our country, which is critical for commerce and private sector job growth in the future. the american energy and infrastructure jobs act will be the first highway infrastructure bill that i've ever supported. in the past, highway bills represent everything that was wrong with washington. earmarks, endless layer of bureaucracy, wasted tax dollars and misplaced priorities. this bill will have no earmarks. the last time congress passed a highway bill it had 6,300-plus ear marks in it. this bill will have none.

the bill represents not only a 180-degree turn from the failed stimulus approach of president obama, but also a genuine departure are from the misguided way washington has been abusing hard working taxpayers's dollars for years. lastly, the american people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards from their elected leaders. the stock act, approved by the senate last week harks be, has strengthened and expanded in the house. they've done a great job sheppershepper shepper -- shepherded and i look forward to this bill becoming law soon. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well i know that whip has been having, listening sessions with the members, and as i understand it, they've had good

conversations. in terms of helping people understand how much different this bill is from what we've seen in the past. >> [ inaudible ]. >> criticizing the obama administration -- [ inaudible ]. >> well, we've been concerned for some time about the number of former detainees that have been released, and the fact that they continue to show up in pretty large numbers back on the battlefield. and so this is the basis of our concerns. i understand that there's a great deal of discussion about any more detainees being released. especially those from afghanistan or pakistan with

regard to some potential talks that may occur. i think we're going to continue to monitor this. but we have great reservations about releasing detainees, because of the clear evidence that they end up back on the battlefield. i think i'll pause. the majority leader that was detained on the floor. so i'll let him say a few words. >> a polite way of putting it. thank you, mr. speaker. i think we saw today on the floor what the two sides can do if they're willing to work together. the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 417 votes for the stock act demonstrates that i think all of us recognize we've got some work to do to restore the bond and trust of the public. i reached out. i've been talking with representative walz, who's been actively involved in this issue since he came to congress, and

he and i have agreed to stay in touch, to monitor this issue and to continue to work together. again, it shows what we can do when we want to put our minds to it and work together, in a bipartisan way. i also think the vote on the stock act, 417 members, puts pressure on the senate to go ahead and take up our bill as well as sends a signal to the white house that they should go ahead and accept the provisions which expand the disclosure requirement individuals, in the executive branch. i also think what this does, mr. speaker, i know you probably talked about the payroll tax holiday extension, that we can work together. if there's a will. and hopefully we'll be able to do that, and resolve the question that lingers in the minds of the working people of this country and makes sure that they know their taxes are not going to go up. >> [ inaudible ]