but is that comprehensive approach idea still within the concept of u.s. operations? >> yes, sir, it is. and it's my fault if i didn't articulate that well enough. we have to have partnerships not only with other countries, but also inside our own government in terms of how we approach issues, whether it's military or economic or diplomatic issues. and i think that this comprehensive approach is certainly one of the keystones of what we will do in the future. what -- the thing that our strategy has said we are de-emphasizing is long-term stability operations, long-term large numbers of ground troops anywhere, and moving more toward a mobile, flexible, agile force

to be quicker, to respond to things. that is the only -- the less focus on long-term stability operations on the ground is one of the big changes that occurred in the security in this new defense strategy, new security strategy. but certainly not the comprehensive approach that we need to take. and the last thing i'll say is that one of the things that our sailors have to learn to be is not only good war fighters and good sailors, they have to learn to be diplomats. because one of the most of -- most of the -- for a lot of people on earth, the only americans they will ever see are sailors. and we have to represent the united states very well when we

go into some of these countries. so thank you. >> secretary, good morning. thank you very much for your presence and your participation. my name is alec morrison, and i represent royal roche university. in your presentation you indicated the amount of oil that goes to the united states from canada. and we regard that as a very significant part of our export program. however, recent events have indicated that perhaps we might not be able in the future to sell as much oil to the united states as we would like, and we are now going offshore to look for other customers. would it disturb you, the government and the navy if the united states did not continue to purchase that amount of oil from canada? and how would it be if you had to go to other offshore, perhaps more unreliable countries to

assure that your ships can sail and your planes can fly? >> well, number one, as i said, i think i used the word thankfully we get more than a quarter of our oil from canada. and it does disturb me that we are today dependent and could be more dependent on either actually or potentially volatile places on earth for the fossil fuels that we need to run our fleet. and that's the main reason that i've embarked on a very aggressive plan to try to move the navy both a afloat and ashore off fossil fuels to the maximum extent we can.

now i'll mention the unspoken thing that you had in your question. i think the president made it very clear that his decision on keystone was because of process and timing. he simply did not think that the state department had enough time to gather the relevant information. it was presented to him in a 60-day requirement by the extension of the tax cuts in december, and he made it very clear in the statement that it was only process and only timing, and that it did not and should not have any greater meaning than that. >> all right.

again, thank you so much for having me. >> a brief moment, i'll give you a few words. >> mr. secretary, we are extremely grateful for your having come to lead off our two-day conference here today. as a token of our appreciation, alou me to present you the small token we have here of the oxford companion of canadian military history. i thank you so much. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. >> republican presidential candidate ron paul is in idaho tonight for a town hall meeting. this is his final event of the day, and it's taking place at the civic auditorium in idaho falls. the texas congressman has been

campaigning throughout the state today in sandpoint and moscow, idaho. idaho and nine other states are holding republican presidential primaries and caucuses tomorrow, which is super tuesday. idaho will award its 32 republican delegates following the caucuses. we hear that ron paul, his appearance now will take place at about 9:30. we intend to bring that to you live. while we wait, a discussion on women's issues and the 2012 campaign. stephanie sreelock who is the president of emily's list was a guest on this morning's washington journal. >> emily's list president, good morning and thank you for being here. >> good morning. good morning, nice to have you. >> what role are women playing in the 2012 election? >> oh, i got to tell you, at emily's list, which is an

organization that has been working on advancing women for 27 years we have a historic year building. we have a historic number of women running for the united states senate. we have endorsed 11 already. we have a growing number of women stepping up to run in the house. and emily's list as an organization has more than doubled in size in the last year, crossing a million members this past january. this 2012 election not only is going to be a year of historic races with women candidates in them, but i really do believe that this is going to be a cycle that is determined by womenan up and vote against these outrageous republicans. >> and tell us about how the dialogue has changed over the last couple of weeks. we were hearing so much focus on economic policy, the future of the american economy. there has been a shift in focus towards social issues, the white house decision on contraception. we've also had some debate about

abortion. how is that playing out? >> well, it is very, very interesting. i would say women in this country, we want to be talking about the economy. we want to hear about jobs. this is the number one priority facing americans today. and what we have seen not really just in the last month, but in fact in the last year is a republican party that has really stepped up the debate on social issues from defunding planned parenthood to the contraception issue. it's been nonstop. and in the last few weeks, it has really, really picked up. and what we're seeing at emily's list, and what our campaigns are seeing around the country in fact is that the women voters, this is not what they're interested in. everybody is concerned about the economy, but they're also not putting up with it. it's not the kind of conversation we want to be having. these are women across the country who support access to birth control, who support planned parenthood. and i think if the republicans keep down this path, we're going

to really energize, continue the energize women voters this november. >> let's look at the emilis' list pac campaign contributions in 2012, and you can tell us about the pac in a moment. total receipts over $15 million have come in. total spent over $13 million. and then 3.4 million have come into the pac from individual donors contributing over $200 or more. tell us about the money coming in and the money going out. >> absolutely. as i said earlier, emily's list has doubled in size in the past year. we just crossed over a million members. and those members across the country have really stepped up in giving -- well, there is a $50 contribution, a $100 contribution. we have seen an increase of money going directly to our candidates. much of what emily's list does is we're a national network of women and men who care about electing pro-choice democratic

women. and in that our support, really much of it goes directly to campaigns. we call it bundling. and we get those $50, $100, $200 checks directly to those campaigns. and that has also been an increase this year. and we expect that to continue all through 2012. >> and who are some of the candidates that emily's list is especially excited about, that you're pouring money into the races of? >> the list is longer and longer. as i said, there is a historic number of women running for the united states senate. we are working with 11 specifically. from mazie hirono in hawaii who is a congresswoman out there running a great race to elizabeth warren in massachusetts, tammy baldwin in wisconsin, the list goes on and on. but i'll say to step back, it's this group of women, this historic number of women who are stepping up to make this a historic year for democratic women. it's really a narrative about how important it is to get women

in the house of representatives and in the united states senate. and right now today, women only represent 17% of congress. just think about that. that is one in six members of congress are women today. we feel that that must change, that we have a great opportunity in 2012 to make that change, and we know that when we do, when we get more women in there, in fact some day when we really truly have an equal number of women and men sitting at the decision-making tables, it's that day that we're going to get the best policies for a progressive america. >> jim tweets in this question. are any of the women you're endorsing republicans? if not, why not. >> emily's list mission is clear. we support pro-choice democratic women, and have for 27 years. in those 27 years, we have helped elect 16 united states senators and 87 members to the house of representatives. and hundreds and hundreds of democratic women across the country.

it is where our focus has been, and i certainly would like to see more women across the board, but, again, our focus is pro-choice democratic women. >> a recent story from national journal is about -- let's say a counterpoint, or another group working on women's issues, this from the republican perspective. the story is he is-pac. can she-pac help republican women solve their women problem? it talks about how republican women are getting involved in she-pac, a new group that aims to pore millions of dollars into the campaigns of conservative women running for state and federal office. what do you think about this? >> as i said, we need more women to run across the board. i certainly hope that we see more republican women, but i have to say we've got to see more pro-choice republican women. think about when emily's list started 27 years ago, when we

started as an organization dedicated to electing pro-choice democratic women, there were so many pro-choice republican women at the same time. now we have seen the republican party move to the right so much that those moderate republican women really have no place to succeed in their party. and so we of course say come on over to us and you can work with us in this endeavor. but i can say that i'm very, very excited about the number of women that the democrats have running right now. we've been working, as i said, with 11 senate candidates. already 20 house candidates, with another 20 possibly coming on line in just the next few months here. we've got a really, really good cycle building, and we need to help these women, because we need to change the dynamic in washington. the time is now. >> stephanie, scriock, we're talking about women's issues and campaign this 2012.

the tweet comes in. it says emily's list is a democratic organization. the gop can get their own if they want. we just mentioned she-pac, a new group that has formed to get republican women into office. if you would blake the join the conversation, democrats 202-737-0001. republicans 202-737-0002. let's take mark's call right here in washington, d.c., independent line. good morning. >> hi, good morning. i wanted to know if your organization is going to do anything concerning the comments from rush limbaugh, because i think what he said, was able to say on the radio was truly insulting to women. and if he is allowed to say that, i think it kind of sets the women's movement back. i remember when trent lott said the -- the comments he said

about blacks in the south. and then in d.c. there was a disc jockey who said something about martin luther king. and he was taken off the air. and i wondered if this could happen to rush. i think this might be the only time that you have a chance to do this. and i wonder if you'll take advantage of the opportunity. >> just to clarify, it is rush limbaugh who we are talking about. stephanie, weigh in. >> i certainly hope that this ends up with rush limbaugh off the air. his statements last week about a student at georgetown university and women in general was disgusting, insulting, and inappropriate in any political discourse, in any society. i am happy to see that a number of companies who had once sponsored the show have been walking away.

i ask all companies who are involved in sponsoring the rush limbaugh show to walk away. anyone who has a daughter or has a wife or has a mother should be disgusted by his statements. and i certainly hope that everybody just walks away from this show. enough is enough. there is no place, no place in our dialogue for this kind of language. >> and here is a story from 48 news. fallout continues after rush limbaugh's comments. he used disparaging remarks to talk about a georgetown law student, sandra fluke who testified before a democratic committee. recently the story says rush limbaugh has lost eight advertisers. let's hear eric cantor, majority leader, republican in the house representing virginia weighing in on the debate over this, the white house rule on contraception and whether or not religious-affiliated organizations should cover it. let's hear it. >> nobody is denying access, no. it's not about that.

it is about the administration and the president saying to the catholic church that we know what your faith holds, and you have to abide by that. it would be like saying to those of news the jewish faith that, you know, we know what the laws of being kosher means, and we're going to tell you what that means. that's not who we are in this country. that's what the rule is about. and that's why it has no place in american politics. and, again, i think it's very important that we uphold the tenets of religious freedom. it is at the core of who we are as a country. >> majority leader kantor is speaking on "meet the press" yesterday. david gregory had asked him does he see the other side of this issue. does he see this as a women's rights issue versus a religious issue. do you see that about women's rights? >> it is absolutely about our

freedoms. as americans we have the right to believe in what we want to believe. we have the freedom to do what we need to do. and as women in this country, that means we should be able to believe what we want, and we should be able to have access to the necessary health care that is going to give us all of the ability and opportunity to succeed in our lives. this is a core principle. this conversation is a core principle about american democracy. it is about individual freedom, and freedom to do what we need to do across the board. and i think this discussion would look incredibly different if we had many, many, many more women in the house and the senate. i think about the day when the house hearing occurred that congressman issa had, and that many of your folks have probably seen this. you have probably seen this as well, where there were five men on a panel to discuss contraception for women. now that is not going to happen when there is an equal number of

women and men in the u.s. house. and it's something that emily's list is working on every cycle, and feel like this year in particular is one where we can get a lot more women elected. and we need voices. >> let's go to ed, democratic caller in manhattan, kansas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how you? >> good, thanks. go right ahead. >> caller: thank you. well, i have to agree with the young lady that, you know, i don't understand the way these people, these republicans in the name of religion and christ tell people how to run their lives. i feel like that they want to keep the women back in the '30s, slave to the kitchen and being barefoot and pregnant. and i just wonder if they feel the same way about the contraception issue for the men for viagra and the -- that sort of thing.

and if you could comment for me, i would appreciate it. thank you. >> you know, it is an interesting point. these debates continue to be incredibly one-sided, as you just put it, it is about the place of women. well, like you i think most of us, the mass majority of americans agree that there is equality among women and men, and that women should have equal opportunity and the ability to make all the choices they need to make in their lives, and that this is not the time to send women back 50, 60, 70 years as you put it into the kitchen. and i am concerned about the discourse that has been going on, particularly in the republican party, right up through into the presidential nomination. and again, as i said, as i look at 2012, not only are women and men like yourself engaging in this and saying where are we

going, we also know that one of the ways to stop this kind of debate so we can focus on what is important in our country, which is the economy and getting more jobs out there is really, truly to elect more women. if we had more women sitting in the senate and the house right now, i really think that this discussion would look very different. in fact, i'm not entirely sure that we would be having this debate. >> let's look at some of the money that emily's list is contributing to campaigns throughout the country. this is emily's list pac. contributed $39,000 to federal candidates. and then $10,000 to in the race in oregon, which the democrat representative suzanne bonamici, and then $5,000 to susan davis, democrat of california. $5,000 into linda sanchez's campaign, loretta sanchez and $5,000 into the contested race in new york, the democratic seat that was up for grabs kathleen hochul's seat. and others from there.

why are some of these candidates appealing to women's list? >> our mission is to elect pro-choice democratic women. in all the races you mentioned, and that's just a snapshot of what we do, are all incredibly important as we try to change the dynamics and try to make washington work again. you just talked about the pac contributions that we make to these candidates. interestingly, the way emily's list works, that's one of the smallest things that we do for these candidates. what we really do is go out to our network of over a million members. and if you would like to join, emilyslist.org is the address, we ask members to make contributions directly to the candidates. we may send a $5,000 pac check, but we will raise 10s if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to help these women get up, get started, get organized. you mentioned suzanne bonamici. now she is the recently elected congresswoman from oregon. we were with her, sitting around

the kitchen table talking about how that race is going to go before she got in that race. you know, we stuck with her as an organization up until the very last vote was counted. our women vote independent expenditure arm also went in to talk directly to independent women voters on behalf of suzanne to ensure that the turnout came out and we were just thrilled to see her new addition to the u.s. house this year. and we hope to repeat that numerous times come this november. >> one of our tweeters writes in and asks our guest stephanie, do citizens unite have had an impact on women's abilities to run for office? is it a detriment? >> you know, it's a very, very interesting question. i will say one thing about citizens united. it's going to cause chaos in all of these races. men and women are going to have to deal with this in ways that

we hate to see. it has opened up a floodgate of unregulated contributions from sources that we may not even know about. so what i tell our emily's list women candidates, our historic number who are willing to step up this year in this environment is that we have your back. as an organization and a network, we try to do everything we can to get as much money into the hands of the candidates so they have the ability to tell their story and talk directly to the voters. and at the end of the day, that's the most important thing. these big organizations that are going to be spending what it sounds like hundreds of millions of dollars, as karl rove keeps talking about on "american crossroads," we are hoping that our candidates will have the resources that they need to get their message out to the voters. and voters across the country i believe are going to see through all of this big, big spending and look directly at who the candidates are. >> steve in baltimore.

republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my wife and i talk about politics all the time. both of us are republican, and the things that both of us are kind of frustrated about is that a couple of years ago when obama was hammering through congress his health care plan, that the republicans were not able to really speak about anything because they had both the house and the senate. now when the republicans have the house and we want to start talking about changing part of the health care bill, not totally getting rid of it, but changing it, that we're looked at as the bad guy. we're getting oh, they're anti-women, they're anti-this, they're anti-that. my wife and i are like every company we have ever had every since we could work, i'm in my

mid-40s, she is in her early 40s, has had women's health care. we have two kids that are 2 and 6 months, none of which was ever denied by our insurance company. it's just the democrats are hammering through the anti-women's rights. no. we're trying to fix women's rights. and that's why we're confused. and i would just like to hear a comment about it. >> well, i'm glad that you have had a good solid health care it sounds like, and that's incredibly important. and that's what we're hoping that every woman in every family across the country has. i myself have had a friend that had health insurance, ended up getting pregnant, but didn't have maternity coverage, and therefore was denied maternity coverage for her baby. so every situation is different. and we -- i think all of us, all americans want to ensure that

everybody has the same coverage that your family has. i think what happened is when the republicans did take over the house, the first thing they did was not to your point, which was try to maybe make some changes around the edges, unfortunately, the first thing they tried to do was repeal the whole health care bill. and i think that just set us all off on the wrong path here. this health care reform really did open up the opportunity for women to get coverage across the board. as nancy pelosi said, it ended the era of women being a preexisting condition. that's a huge, huge thing for all women across this country, and something that i think it's incredibly important that we maintain. i look at our women members of congress that emily's list has supported over the years. you know, congresswoman jackie spear from california,

congresswoman glen mauer from wisconsin, and last year during the debates on whether or not we should make changes, were there to share their very, very personal stories of motherhood, of trying to get pregnant, of dealing with pregnancies. i can say, and i think you would agree, we absolutely need more of those voices so we ensure that the policies we end up with in this country really do balance the needs of the entire family, women, men, and our children. and we have a lot of work to do. >> stephanie schriock, president of emily's list, the white house initial decision on contraception and how it should be dealt with and covered by religiously affiliated organizations was changed. they amended it so that insurance companies would cover that cost. were you okay with the compromise? and do you think that the white house has done enough for the issues you care about? >> president obama and the white

house has been very, very good on issues mattering to women and families across the country. since the moment he got in, we talk about the lilly ledbetter act, which was about allowing -- allowing a woman to fight for pay equity still. this has been an administration that has been very, very pro women. i couldn't be prouder of the president and his organization, and the administration. and on the contraception decision, the most important thing was to ensure that all women across this country were going to have access to contraception, to the birth control that they needed. and this compromise to me and i think to women across the country makes a whole lot of sense. because the most important thing is to ensure that women have access to this. and i think about the women that we work with, even in the senate. senator patty murray, senator barbara boxer who were so strong in this debate to ensure that women across this country had of