i think it's been very, very helpful to this v this kind of back and forth. i would just say to senator lee and some of the others and mr. groves that -- that you are operating on the principle that the united states has already established full jurisdiction and control over the extended continental shelf, and i see you nodding to say that, and you point to the 1945 proclamation by harry truman regarding the outer continental shelf lands act. the problem is that nowhere in that proclamation or anywhere else has president truman or anyone else set out the longitude and the latitude markers of the outer edge of our continental shelf, and the only way we can achieve certainty with respect to those demarkations is through an

international agreement of some ki kind. now, i -- we're not going to go into length about this, but i do want to pursue this. we may have some of you back or all of you back at some point in time here when we get this paper and get people's answers and we get the answers on the record. i'm concerned, secretary rumsfeld, about a recommendation for the united states businesses to have to joint venture with another country to exploit our resources, or what might be our resources. that really concerns me. i mean, if you want to talk about american sovereignty and american interests, i don't want to share it with another country, and -- and under this treaty if you import what you explo exploit, you don't have to pay any royalty. royalty-free. if you're importing it to your country, so that's an extraordinary offering, and it comes to the real nub of this

choice we face which i think mr. bellinger put his finger on. this is not a choice between sort of a flawed treaty and what the impact might be and do you take some benefits in exchange for that, or if you don't do it, you go out and get the same benefits? i think one of you suggested we ought to be doing these programs of distribution to these countries through our aid program. i don't know if you've been following the budget lately, but we ain't growing our aid programs. we're shrinking them. our influence in the middle east significantly reduced by our inability to affect things, our ability to do counterterrorism, our ability to bring 60% of the populations of some arab countries out of destitute poverty because of the absence of anything remotely resembling a marshall plan or anything like it in modern context is -- is

palpable. 60% of these populations under the age of, you know, 25, 50% under the age of 21, 40% under the age of 18. some countries with 4%, 5% of their population at 4 years old, and the question, is you know, what are we all going to do about that? the idea that there may be some resources coming from something like this that goes to some of these countries may be a saving grace, and senator lugar has raised this question about sort of maybe you get $1 trillion or something or whatever you might get out of it. if you are seeing an untoward distribution of that, you do have this ability to get out of it, as i've said. but i think there's a -- but the bottom line is this. if we don't do it, there are no royalties and there's no guarantee that anybody is going to drill, and the only reason that i can say that to you is

that the ceos and legal departments of these companies are telling us that. now, you can choose not to believe fortune 500 ceos and their stock value interests and all the rest of it. it will be the first time i've known the republican party not to put some credibility in what they are saying, but, you know, that's the choice here. it's not a -- it seems to me we have to keep this framed properly. so we will have additional hearings, and we will continue to explore this. you all have been enormously helpful in fleshing out a number of these considerations. the record is getting stronger as a result in terms of people's ability to make judgments, and that's what we want to do, so i'm very grateful to all of you to coming, and to both the secretaries we're really pleased to see you continuing to dig in and to contribute, and we're delighted to have you here today.

we're delighted very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the record will stay open for a week, as it will from this morning's hearing, and we will be building the record in written fashion also. thank you. next, a portion of the recent faith and freedom coalition conference in washington, d.c. this next discussion looks at religious freedom. from last week, this is about 25 minutes. ♪ it is my great pleasure tonight dues an essteamed panel to discuss this issue and i'm going to introduce them first, and then we'll launch right into the discussion. first we have tim gaeglein, a

senior fellow at the heritage foundation, vice president of external relations at focus on the family. he served as an assistant to the president george w. bush where he's deputy director of white house office of public liaison from 2001 to 2008. ladies and gentlemen, tim gaeglein. next, we have deal hudson, publisher and editor of "crisis" magazine for 12 years, insidecatholic.com for three years and the founder and former chairman of catholic advocate. also an author. dale hudson. and last and certainly not least, dr. richard land, the longtime president of the ethics and religious liberty commission, the public policy arm of the southern baptist commission. he's held the office since 1999. he served on the commission for international freedom and

president bush served dr. land for his first two terms. he was replaced by bill frist in 2005 and mitch mcconnell in 2007. he graduated with a p.a. degree from princeton and a graduate degree from the university of oxford. ladies and gentlemen, dr. rich land. let kick off the discussion, and we'll go in the same order that we did, this alphabet call order, and let me begin by saying it was 2008 when the presidential campaign was in full swing. i was -- i had the privilege of serving my country at that time as a judge advocate for the third armored cav regiment in diyalah province in n iraq, but even in iraq we received reports of this presidential race and this new candidate of hope and change, and one of the essential elements of hope and change for this new candidate was that he was going to break through the partisan divide on religion. he was going to unite catholics and evangelicals to a greater

degree than ever before under his banner, and he was going to break the republican and conservative stranglehold on the religious conservative vote. that was the promise. that's what was going to happen. what happened? let's start with tim gaeglein. >> well, thank you, david, and good afternoon to everybody. on the last point, you're right, david, not in the way that president obama has intended, but he has indefend united evangelicals and catholics as never before. i think it is fair to say that not just in the history of the contemporary presidency but in the history of the presidency we have never had a chief executive who was more actively hostile to religious liberty and the rights of conscience than president obama. it's attempting to sort of speak in sort of rhetorical or, you

know, lofty tones when it comes to this issue in light of the health and human services mandate, but, in fact, as we all know, famously said everyone is entitled to his own opinions. i think it was daniel patrick moynihan who said this, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts, and the fact of the matter is that the obama administration is actively hostile to traditional marriage, to the sacredness of each and every human life and to religious liberty and the rights of conscience. and i'd like to take one step back, if i may. one of the things that we do at our peril is to imagine that our founding fathers were of one peace. on the major issues of the mid-18th century, that, in fact, is not the case. towering giants at the founding,

like alexander hamilton and thomas jefferson, for instance, disagreed on very big things. they disagreed on the concept of the constitution. they disagreed on, you know, whether we should have a national currency. it goes on and on. but it is not an overstatement to say that all of the founding fathers agreed on one big thing. they all agreed that you could not have liberty without virtue, and they said that virtue was moral excellence which in the american experience, they said, came directly from the judeo-christian tradition which was rooted in the holy bible. that's a fancy way of saying that you could not have liberty without virtue. and you could not have the exceptional nature of our incredible constitutional republic, the greatest country in the history of man, without the flourishing of religious liberty.

and i think that the reality, and may i say, unfortunately, the reality of the primary definition of the obama administration in these areas is that he has proven himself and his administration has proven itself to be actively hostile to the basic religious liberty that is found not at philadelphia but even in the very pre-foundation of our -- of our great country, and so i think it's fair to say, david, that in sum, that there has not been a time, poet in contemporary american history or in american history, where, and the hhs mandate is just the most obvious example. there are many others, and i'm sure that dale and richard will talk about them, but i think it's fair to say that for jews, for christians, for hindus, for

those practicers of islam in, that regard we ignore this major trend line at our own peril, and i think that it is fair to say that we're not going to ignore it and that to begin where you began, catholics, evangelicals, protestants, christians, jews, we have never been more united in our concern than we are now, and i'm glad to -- to be a part of this possibly, because i think the very essence of faith and freedom, the original faith and freedom coalition is rooted in the narrative of the relationship, the great relationship in the american experience between our flourishing liberty and a flourishing religious liberty. thank you all very much. >> mr. hudson. >> well, tim, we are all

catholics now. i'm sure you've heard this phrase. i know that i've seen dr. land quoted saying it, and as an ex southern baptist turned catholic 26 years ago, the fact that i can get an applause line on we are all catholics now tells me that something has changed. there has been a sea change, that the very phenom than that raffle reid predicted to me in 1996 when we first met, when i came to washington, that there would be a surge iing and coalescing of conservative catholics, pro-life catholics and the evangelicals who had already entered into the political process, that there would be a vast national merging is happening.

and it's happening because we have, as tim so eloquently said, an administration hostile to faith. i want to bring up a flip side issue, you know. what has grabbed the headlines and deservedly so, is the hhs mandate requiring catholic institutions to offer health insurance that contains coverage for birth control and sterilizati sterilization. so, what is the crime there? the crime there is that you are forcing by law, by power of government, to do something that goes against the moral teachings of your faith, what we call

against your conscience, but, you know, i think there's even a more serious violation, more heinous going on. and it's one that that particular crime is premised on, because you will recall that barack obama at notre dame, that now infamous commencement speech promises the catholics nationally, that catholic health care worker rights would be protected. he specifically said it. so, what did he do to prove that he kept his promise? he defined a catholic institution as one that serves only catholics. so what -- what kind of catholic

institution got an exclusion? none that i know of unless it's a monastery full of nuns and nobody else. you know, if they got -- if they have got a cook or a gardener or somebody working the horses who are not catholic, they are out. now, what is -- why do i call that a more heinous crime? think about it. think about it in your own hospitals, your own soup kitchens, your own retirement homes, your own children's summer programs, disadvantaged and poor. why do we as christians do that? you know, why do we help people who are not from our own clan, from our own ethnicity, from our own faith tradition? why do we help people that aren't texans, really? and the answer is our faith

teaches us to love. our faith teaches us charity, caritas, agape. i'll do the greek and latin before dr. land. in other words, at the core of our christian faith, our shared faith, we're taught to be generous, be sacrificial, to help the samaritan, or to be the samaritan. so what's more heinous in this is that this administration, barack obama's definition of what a religious institution -- any religious institution, whether it's catholic or baptist, church of christ, methodist, is that it's religious if it serves only its own. so in effect he is saying we will recognize you as religious if you're not charitable, if

you're not generous, if you are not loving, if you are not imitating christ, if you are not a disciple, so he's cutting the heart out of christian life, the life that ironically is behind what barack obama himself says he believes in. he believes in helping the poor and the vulnerable. he believes in social justice, but yet how can you have social justice if you're only serving your own? you can't. so he's in a huge self-contradiction to his own life, to his own experience, his own example, and it's that level of his attack on our faith that troubles me the most. thank you very much.

>> dr. land. >> the obama administration, if you want to see the ugly face of their direct intent and their hostility to religious freedom, you need to go no further than the taper case. the taper case is a case where you had a religious instructor at a christian school who was terminated. she took her case to the eeoc. the obama administration got behind her. they went to court, and the obama administration argued that the eeoc, the government should decide for religious institutions who were religious workers and who weren't religious workers, taking this away from the authorities of those churches and those religious organizations and arguing that a -- a religious institution has no more special protection under the first amendment than a country club.

their position was so radical that they got a 9-0 vote against them in the supreme court. even justice soitomoyaor and kagan voted against them. and they said in his opinion remarkable. that there would be no special protections for religion in the first amendment since religion is mentioned twice. now the hhs mandate is another example of secularism. they want to take us from the broad uplands of religious freedom down to a valley of

freedom worship. as was pointed out to ourselves. they will let us do that. religious freedom involves the ability to be obedient to be salt and be light and share the gospel and share the love of our lord and savior jesus christ and that is what is protected in the first amendment. make no mistake about it. the hhs mandate is about religious freedom. and it is about conscience not catholics and it is about freedom and about our right to practice our faith and not be coerced against our faith to pay for that which we find

unimaginable. most disagree with catholics about contraception but they defend to the death catholic's rights not to be coerced. [ applause ] >> what they can do to catholics today they can do to others tomorrow we are all in this together. [ applause ] >> now, in the middle of world war tii when our country was in dire peril, the supreme court of the united states in oh case called west virginia versus bryant in 1943 defended the right of jehorah witnesses. if there is a fixed star, in the

constitutional coninstallation, it is the fixed star of freedom of conscious and this redates the constitution. in 1775 when our nation was in more dire peril than it has ever been when a fleet of 200 ships carrying 35,000 soldiers, the largest invasion fleet to leave the british isles left to rek reconquer the colonies and we needed every able-bodied man to carry arms. our colonies said no one shall be coerced to violate and believed that violence was never

justified should have the legal protection to not be coerced or not be punished. what is at stake here is our god given right to freedom of faith and following our conscience. this is as dire a struggle as we have ever faced and it is time to stand up and fight. if we are all willing to stand up and fight then we win. if we are all willing to go sto jail, then nobody is going to have to. god bless america. >> we have time for moderate

or's privilege of one question and it is for the panel. we represent a catholic business man and at least 15 to 16 catholic institutions have filed lawsuits and the bishops are completely united in posing this mandate. i survey the protestant landscape and i see individual activists stepping up. where is the response? are we letting the catholics fight this fight? i know of one baptist college that has filed suit. louisiana college in louisiana has filed suit. and our southern baptist convention is having it's annual

meeting next week. i can almost guarantee that there will be a strong statement on religious freedom that will refer to the crisis brought on by the hhs mandates and i suspect there will be others who will be filing suit in due course. i know several that are in consul station that are with others whether they should do this. we are in the same situation as others are. most are covered by guidestone resources which is our own self insured innerer. >> there is over 40 catholic

institutions that joined together to sue the federal government. specifically called to rome to be pressured to join it. i did want to mention and i think it is the right moment you have heard the bish omed called to the night of freedom. this is a two week period starting on june 21 st for a night with the archbishop and it ends on july 4th with a mass with the cardinal here at the basilica. it should be a magnificent

event. if you look at the statement with the bishop's name. it is the strongest most intense statement that i have seen. they called for the maximum amount of energy that can be exerted from the catholic faithful on this issue. it says there be demonstrations not just during those two weeks but on the feast of christ the king. it is the last sunday of the church calendar and it is november 25th which means that there will be demonstrations going on in september and october and early november for it to hit on november 25th.

and totaltarianism. >> i'll do this quickly. since we are getting the giant please wrap up sign, the most remarkable statement ever made by a protestant applies to what we are talking about. it goes to the heart of those that love our catholics and brshlgs and sisters in christ believe. the trial which was rooted in faith and public life a famous man said i have been