the mandate, the hhs mandate, takes effect on august 1st, a few short weeks away. after that as employers start new health plan years over the coming months, they will have to comply with the hhs mandate to cover abortion drugs, contraception and sterilization regardless of religious or moral objection. the religious exemption to the hhs mandate is narrow. it covers only houses of worship. other employers with religious objections may be able to get a one-year delay of enforcement on this mandate. but that safe harbor does not apply to business men, small family businesses who want to run their businesses according to their beliefs. because of that, several such family businesses have filed suits and the alliance defense fund asked for a preliminary injunction in one of those suits by august 1st so that family business does not have to begin

planning for health plan that violates its conscience. this is something to plan for the next few weeks. there are other plaintiffs seeking relief. they include catholic and protestant colleges, christian schools serving inner city children in the district of columbia and charities providing aid and help to the abused and neglected and dying. we've been profiling these, the victims of the hhs mandate on our foundry block at the heritage foundation each day during this ft. night for freedom. you can read their stories there. hhs mandate forces these ministries to either face steep fines or to violate conscience by providing coverage for services like abortion drugs which the obama administration deemed essential but which remain controversial in the american public at large. this is just the first among many rules and regulations as

nina was just mentioning that are expected as this massive 2,700 page obama care law presses its full weight onto our society. and we expect that we will see many more collisions with conscience in the midst of that implementation. now, in conclusion let me just mention two things. there are probably many americans who do not yet feel the pressure that religious institutions and individuals are experiencing under the hhs mandate. we would all do well to heed the old admonition that we should bear our neighbors' burndens. the burdens will soon be all of ours when we experience the full implementation of obama care. we should unite in religious freedom now. this is a wonderful opportunity to do that.

one thing we may want to call attention to is a quote from none other than justice ginsberg in yesterday's opinion. reading from her opinion, "a mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, it abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with free exercise of religion or infringed on liberty interest protected by the due process clause." that is what we should be talking about that we are going to see collisions under the mandates and rules of this obama care law with our conscience only beginning with hhs mandate but not ending there. we are looking forward to continuing to celebrate the ft. night for freedom particularly ending with the fourth of july and bells ringing at noon eastern time across the country to celebrate our religious freedom on that day. finally, while the hhs mandate

is being litigated in court, the broader fight for freedom now moves to congress. and policy makers must repeal obama care in order to replace it with health care that reduces costs, increasing access, respects religious liberty and leaves health care decisions where it should be in the first place in the hands of all americans. americans need and want health care reform that meets their needs, respects their liberties and respects their conscience. thank you. [ applause ] >> i should note that folks who are interested in seeing what such a plan would look like, they can come to heritage.org and look at our plan for reforming health care saving the american dream. with that, let me go ahead and open it up for questions. as the microphones comes around,

i will give my standard admonition. state your name and affiliation and a bold concept, please ask a question. >> name is dave. unaffiliated. you talk about the burdens of obama care on the population. i guess the question i'm trying to find out is why are conservatives in washington so eloquent about how precious life is with the womb but don't want to preserve the life after it comes out of the womb. is it not in best interest to make family planning and birth control and giving access to that for poor women. aren't the cost of poor children imposed on us all especially under the obama care plan. thank you.

>> because we take a pro-life perspective, we also take a pro-life perspective in investing heavily on our work on better poverty solutions and better health care solutions. i'll bracket the poverty solution and then turn it over to nina to explain why we have worked so hard on health care policy that would do a better job covering the poor and uninsured. we don't believe that the welfare state does justice to the poor. we think it has ill served them for the last 50 years. human dignity demands better approaches that restore responsibility of the individual and the community around them, that restore marriage and family. that's our number one antidote to poverty in america. because we take life so seriously, we take policy that succeeds very seriously. compassion needs to be effective. we can't hide behind the welfare state. nina, do you want to talk more about health care? >> just on the health care front, instead of empowering government bureaucrats to decide what's right for the poor, we believe the poor themselves

should make decisions on their own and the federal government certainly has a role in helping to support them. they shouldn't be making the decisions for them. in particular on health care that's so personal in nature. families need to be able to get their children out of as we have today failing medicaid programs where they can barely get children to see pediatricians because there are no pediatricians to care for them and give them and empower them the ability to get better health insurance through the private health insurance market with of course at the lower poverty level assistance where they need it. >> any other questions? all right. with that, please join me in thanking my other panelists. [ applause ] thank you for coming to heritage. we're adjourned.

coming up later today on c-span 3, defense secretary leon panetta and martin dempsey will brief reporters at the pentagon live at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. president obama travels to colorado today. he'll be touring areas of that state where massive wildfires have destroyed hundreds of homes and left at least one person dead. he'll make remarks at 3:30 p.m. eastern.

we'll have those live for you on our website at c-span.org. that's 3:30 p.m. eastern live on c-span.org. heading into the holiday break, the house and senate are in session today. the houseworking working on a m that would prevent student loan rates from doubling on july 1st. a transportation bill continuing funding for two years. the house is expected to begin voting on that bill at noon eastern. assuming it's approved it will be sent to the senate for their consideration. senators right now offering speeches on the legislation and you can see that on c-span2 and of course watch the house deliberate on c-span. >> the purchasing power of gold specified as a weight unit of any national currency was constant for a period of four centuries. it seems to me the record of the gold standard in some is a record by in large of growth and

macro sense and of personal accountability in the banking or micro sense. >> this weekend on american history tv, we look at the origins, departures and arguments for returning to the gold standard. that's saturday evening just past 7:00 eastern. also this weekend, more from the contenders. our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. charles evans hughes ran against wilson in 1916 and was the last supreme court justice to be tom natu nominated by a major party. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> authority david petruzza writes about the president. >> harry truman goes to the white house and says to eleanor roosevelt, can i pray for you? she says no, we need to pay for you. >> their campaigns. >> there are a lot of promises

made. they said they would have to rent large hall larger than this one to get all of the people that jack kennedy promised the vice presidency to that year. >> and their ideals. >> calvin coolidge believed in the limits of governmental power and particularly of federal power to resist the temptation to extend it. >> this sunday on book tv. your questions and comments for david live at noon here on in depth and the obama administration's response to afghanistan, iraq and israeli palestinian peace process. that's upon c-span2 on booktv. the u.n.'s law of the sea treaty defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in international waters. yesterday the senate foreign relations committee held another hearing on the subject. this time getting testimony from the business community.

they included the presidents of the u.s. chamber of commerce, american petroleum association, national association of manufacturers and the head of verizon. senator john kerry said he will not bring the law of the sea up for a senate vote until after the election to avoid politicizing the debate. this is about two hours. >> hearing will come to order. thank you very much for being here this morning. needless to say, capitol hill is filled with a little bit of anticipation about the supreme court decision shortly. we're going to prove that we can continue to do the nation's business notwithstanding that anticipation. i am delighted to have this very significant panel of business leaders here this morning to talk about -- to further help us evaluate and think about the law of the sea treaty. i want to just say a couple of

words at the beginning to put in perspective what well brought this about and why we're here. i have been accused of many different reasons -- i just read something the other day in the papers about why this treaty is sort of here and what it represents, et cetera. i think everyone has got it wrong so far. i was actually out to dinner with tom donahue maybe a year and a half ago or so and we were talking about a number of things on the agenda particularly energy policy. at the very end of the dinner, tom turned to me and said by the way, when are you going to get the law of the sea treaty done? way completely taken aback. last thing i expected to hear about at the dinner. why are you bringing that up? why is that a concern? i have a bunch of members who

are desperate to get this thing done so they can go out and explore and do what's necessary to produce energy for america and so that's what really flagged it to me. i came back and talked to my staff. i promised tom that i would in fact look into it and give it a good faith effort and that's what really brought us here. i met with various representatives of those industries and became convinced that american competitiveness and american jobs were at stake. this does not -- we're not here because of any political agenda. we're not here because the administration decided this was the moment. this is really coming from america's business community. i think people will hear that very powerfully here this morning. i think there's an urgency to it.

and that is what we'll examine today. we've heard already from our nation's top military leaders, the secretary of defense, the first sitting secretary of defense to testify in favor of it. we heard from the secretary of state and from every past secretary of state, republican and democrat alike, who have together signed a op-ed that they wrote which has been reproduced in national newspapers regarding this treaty. we heard from treaty experts and opponents and we'll hear from more still. we're not finished on that score. our military leaders have consistently supported the session to this treaty for more than two decades now. and some have argued that we should prefer to rely on customary international law to protect our navigational freedom. most of the national security community completely disagrees with that and does not believe

that we should leave our national security to an unwritten set of rules subject to change by other countries and subject to change at any point in time. that capacity to have things subject to change also provides uncertainty to the business community and as we hear again and again up here, nothing is more damaging to long-term business plans and investments, capital formation, job creation, than a lack of certainty about what the rules of the road are. so today we shift away our focus from the military to our energy and economic security. we're going to hear directly from top business and industry leaders who combined represent millions of businesses and jobs. our companies want this treaty quite simply bottom line because

it affects their bottom lines. joining the law of the sea will provide benefits to u.s. business and industry that are not available through any other means. just a quick few examples. telecommunications industry. as we'll hear shortly, we have vast undersea cable networks and they provide a backbone for the world's voice and data networks. when there is a problem, if a country were to seek to block a company from laying a cable or impeding the repair of damaged cables, the law of the sea provides redress. a party to the treaty can bring suit on behalf of its companies within the context of the law of the sea agreement. since the u.s. is on the outside of that agreement today, we cannot take advantage of this legal road map. our companies have to piggyback on efforts by government that

are a party to the convention. so instead of standing up for our companies when they need our help, our failure to join the treaty actually forces them to look elsewhere. greater expense. greater uncertainty. lack of protection of american sovereignty. the status quo is simply not acceptable. the ceo of verizon who i'm pleased is here today, will go into detail regarding that. all you have to do is listen to at&t, the telecommunication industry, verizon, others, all of whom urge a session to this treaty. on energy security, people come to the same conclusion. the united states is blessed with hundreds of thousands of square miles of extend eed continental shelf. we can literally add -- we can double the size of the united states in effect from what is under sea and available to us for exclusively jurisdiction and

that will be critical to our energy security for years to come. the only way to maximize the legal certainty and establish clear title over the extended shelf is through recognition by the continental shelf commission. as a nonparty to the treaty, we're shut out from this process. we're shutting ourselves out. this makes a critical difference to our energy companies as we'll hear. they want and need certainty to invest billions of dollars required to develop energy in extended shelf especially in the arctic where chinese and russians are already laying claims. instead of doing what we can do to encourage environmental sound energy exploration in those areas, our failure to join the law of the sea is deterring it. we're pleased to have jack here today to speak on behalf of the american petroleum institute and explain exactly why what i've just said is the case.

he's not alone. you can listen to a respected head of exxon mobil who recently wrote to me urging ratification of the treaty. or listen to the head of shell oil company which employs over 22,000 people in this country and strongly supports joining the law of the sea. marvin's unable to join us today, but he has submitted testimony for the record and his full testimony will be placed on the record as we read here in full. a short excerpt. marvin odom, if the united states were to become a party to the convention it could participate in the internationally recognized process for claiming its extended continental shelf and its rights over oil and gas which would provide legal certainty for accessing and developing those energy resources. without this clear claim our company would not find investment conditions favorable.

so finally, we turn to manufacturing. as many of you know, rare earth minerals are critical to a large part of modern manufacturing rare earth minerals are an essential component of the defense systems, missile defense control technology and other weapons systems. it includes the breadth of the scope of rare earth minhial use in electronics and it's in computers, cell phones and all of the advanced weapons systems, some of which i named. today, my friends, china controls about 97% of the production market for these minerals. can anybody in their right mind suggest that the united states is safer and our companies are to our advantage sitting in a situation where you can't invest

because you can't be safe and legally protected and we're sitting on outside? we cannot secure international recognition for deep sea mining claims and our companies want in order to invest millions of dollars unless we are a part of this treaty. so on rare earth minerals, on oil and gas, on whatever unknown minerals and/or products found under the ocean, we have a choice. we can neither join the major industrial nations that have shown up and are using this to their advantage and the law of the sea, as well as the businesses and indices, and we can remain on the outside to pride our companies with legal investment and operational security they seek american competitive advantage and watch

the countries take the spoils. i think the choice is clear. today we have people who can speak with much more authority than i can because it's their livelihood, it's their liven deafer and i think we need to listen to them. thomas don hugh, president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce representing broadly, many of these indices. jack gerard, president and ceo of the american petroleum institute which all of our major producers, our partners and jay timmons, president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers and lowell mcadam, chairman and ceo of verizon. gentlemen, welcome today. thank you for being with us. senator lugar? >> thank you. i welcome the distinguished panel of industry leaders and i appreciate their efforts on behalf of the oil of the sea and their willingness to explain how the convention will help them

create private sector jobs and contribute to the growth of the united states' economy. every major ocean industry including shipping, fishing, telecommunications and oil and natural gas, drilling contractors, shipbuilders, support the united states accession to the law of the sea treaty. this is not a recent development. ocean industry support from the convention has been unanimous going back to 2003 when the foreign relations committee first took it up and initiated a process that resulted in a unanimous committee vote to the whole senate on that occasion. a few years later on foreign relations committee hearing on october 4, 2007, a business panel testified in favor of the convention. only senator men end ez and i were present for the powerful, unequivocal testimony, but that

is now every major ocean industry back to the convention and a ratification. with good reason, americans are intensely interested in job creation and the pace of the united states economic activity. this is the paramount issue. there are, numerable threats to the united states' economy including the phenomenon over which we have minimal control which is the european debt situation. moreover, because of our own national debt we have few stimulus options to combat a future economic downturn. these factors increase the importance of the jobs-creating impact of technological innovation and our own national resources. as we will hear today the united states' ratification, the law of the sea which supports job-creating investment and open up new resources to our industries at a critical time for our economy.

the law of the sea already forms the basis of maritime law regardless, whether the united states is a party. the international decisions related to resource exploitation, navigation rights and other matters will be made in the context of the convention whether we join our not, and we will not even be able to participate in the amendment process to this treaty which is far more likely to impose on the navy if the united states is absent. because of these factors, the people who actually deal with oceans on a daily basis and invest their money in job-creating activities on the ocean's convention ratified. they do not want to be a competitive disadvantage to the foreign industries. by not joining the law of the sea we also are diminishing the potential scope of our domestic

energy production. some have argued that the united states accession to the law of the sea convention is unnecessary to secure the legal basis for companies to fully export oil, natural gas and mineral wealth on the ocean floor, but that is not the opinion of american companies that might invest the resources in this activity. they tell us that without the certainty of title provided by law of the sea convention, they would not go forward with many projects requiring large investments. their concern is that after doing the expensive exploration, research, testing and construction necessary to explore a site they have to be certain another entity won't be able to free ride on their investment or challenge their claim in international course. the drilling and mining companies prefer to pay a small royalty beginning in the sixth

year of production. their return for an international system that gives them a disputed claim with the resources produced. this convention is negotiated with the participation of extraction companies. they judge it is reasonable and the value that might be produced especially since the first five years of production will not be subject to any royalty. our resource extractors are telling us if we want them to move forward with scale and development of ocean floor resource resources that contribute to the united states and create jobs we need the law of the sea. we look forward to our discussion. >> thank you, senator lugar, i'm reminded by your testimony, and i don't need to be reminded by it, but it flagged that this is

ground that this committee has been over before and senator lugar has previously led that effort and has had a long time association and i want to acknowledge that thinking with his laying that groundwork and record that we have, to date. >> mr. don hugh, if you were to lead off and mr. gerard's second and if you'd have that cleanup. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member lugar and all of the members of the committee who are here or will be here, we'll appreciate this opportunity to testify here today. i am pleased to express the u.s. chamber of commerce's strong support for approval of the law of the sea treaty. this morning i will focus my remarks on why the treaty is in