it is all about something else. we are told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose. it is about states' rights. -- or religion. we are told that accessing emergency contraception is not about our ability to make our own family planning decision, it is really about protecting pharmacists and scientific processes. this last week we were told that komen's decision was not about their opposition to planned parenthood, it was about some congressional investigation. this issue is no different. a earlier today, you had a republican senator make the claim that this debate "is not an issue about contraception." republicans went on to explain that it was about everything else. they said it was about their opposition to the health care bill, which will provide millions of underserved men and

women with the health care they need. they said it was about the catholic church. the vast majority of catholics utilize contraceptive services. that was left out. they said this was about freedom, except, apparently, not the freedom to make your own health care choices. this is about contraception. if they take it is not, we want them to hear the women whose access to contraception is on the line with the battle they are taking on. tell it to the x-ray technician in california who works for catholic hospital. she is no different than an x- ray technician at the hospital across town, but she is refused coverage because of who her employer is. tell it to michelle. she is a delivery nurse at the dominican hospital in santa cruz. she says it is something we have come to expect for ourselves and our family.

tell it to everyone who is employed by schools and universities and institutions who want to make their own health care decisions. i am guessing of those who are making political hay out of this issue will not take them. -- will not tell them. they will continue to talk about everything but women's reproductive health. an attack on women's rights never comes without being disguised as something else. i tell you what -- all of us up here on this stage are not fooled. the american people should not be either. this is a fight to protect the rights of millions of americans who do use contraceptives, who believe family planning is the right choice for them and they do not deserve to have an ideology prevent them from getting the coverage they deserve. we are here because we fought hard to make sure preventive health care services for women were a right for everyone in this country no matter who

their employer was. we are going to work hard to make sure we preserve that. >> senator lautenberg. >> when you think about things, what an anomaly it is that one of the pleasures of being made on the republican presidential candidate side, they are going to take away the right of women to take care of their health. imagine running for president saying you are going to take away women's rights to take care of their health. i am here -- i have five daughters and five granddaughters. -- eight grandaughters.

i do not want anyone telling them what to do about their health. they will go to a professional to find out what they are doing. the latest attack is coming from, what i will call, and oligarchy, which is a word i used when there was another at work to take away women's rights of choice. now they are trying to take away affordable birth control, which is basic health care for women in our country. now mitt romney says if he is elected president, one of the first things he will do is to overturn both obama administration policies that make birth control more affordable for women. that is what president mitt romney would do it for spain. -- would do first thing. take affordable birth control away from women in our country. make no mistake, contraception is an essential health care,

not only for women, but for many. it is expensive. a third of all women who have that still have to pay for it. republican politicians need to stop meddling in the help of women in our country. it is time to tell those republicans mind your own business. ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives. let's take the "malegarchy" out of office and tell women we will protect your right to have good health and to raise your family as you see fit. all of us are fighters, by the way. [laughter] >> i am very proud to stand here today with such champions for women's health care and

women's rights. i am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still are fighting about birth control. our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights. it is sad we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion in women's lives. this is simply big government at its absolute worst. the power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman, not her boss. what is more interested than -- intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them? take a look at what is happening. republicans are trying to make it their decision on what the women in this country can do with their own bodies and help. they are showing a callous

disregard and attempting to undermine the ability to make their own decisions. let's be clear -- this role respects the views of religious institutions, individual conscience, and freedom. a strong exemption allows churches and houses of worship to opt out of providing birth control. this is the law of the land in 28 states. this should not be an issue. women and families across the nation support common sense, affordable health care. they deserve that access to plan a family on their own terms. to take health care into their own hands. this is not a decision that should be made by washington. if my republican colleagues want to take this issue head on, we stand here ready to oppose any attack launched against women's health. >> i am also proud to stand

here with champions of women's health, with a long record of fighting and winning on this issue. >> we should not have to be here. we should be talking about job creation and economic growth and not women's health. politics and politicians have no place in women's health care. our message back to whoever would suggest a restraint or a legislative move is it will be dead on arrival. it is a nonstarter. we stand strongly with the president, and men and eight women who back them ought to simply take their hands off women's health care. there really is less new here than meets the eye. 28 states have comparable provisions. it has worked well there. the eeoc ruled in 2001 that

birth control has to be afforded under these kind of health care plans. there is some mixed judicial ruling on it, but many employers now comply with that ruling. this kind of provision really affords individual women the choice, and that is the key here. $500 or even $600 per year is a lot of money for women to spend on women's health care, and their health plan should cover it. any health plan that provides that kind of coverage will be acceptable. but employers cannot discriminate. that is the law. and so the kind of exemption that exists for churches, 335,000 of them, affords religious -- respects those

convictions. we have a respectful balance here. no one is required to use birth control. no institution is required to dispense it, simply to cover it in their health care plan. that is why the message today is, hands of women's health care. we will fight anyone who interferes with it. >> we will be glad to take questions. [unintelligible] >> we are not going to go into detail, but all would say it is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes, as we do, that american women should have access to birth control. >> and david axelrod had said yesterday that the administration might be willing to look for some sort of compromise.

he indicated there might be some room for compromise, and one house is willing to talk to them again. would you support that effort? >> i spoke with david axelrod. let me tell you what he told me, exactly what i just said, that the administration absolutely stands behind the ability of american women to have access to this benefit. with the exception of the 335,000, he has given an added one-year grace period to religiously affiliated organizations to figure out exactly how they are going to do that, and that is what they will do. [unintelligible] >> i just wonder if you could address -- the catholic church said they are were the first

came out strongly against this and said these are affiliated institutions, they are extensions of the church. what do you say to them, and is there any ground for compromise here? >> first of all, there are 335,000 churches today who are exempt from this because they are churches. we are talking about schools, universities, hospitals that employed many, many women of all different kinds of faith. they have to rely on their employer to decide whether or not their access to contraceptives, that is something we are saying cannot happen. as senator boxer just said, the president, in his policy that he put forward, gave those institutions the year to figure out how to do that, and that is what they are in the process of doing today.

>> remember, this is not anything new. more than half of the population in this country already has these laws in their states. 28 states that covers more than half of the population. this is not anything new. the fact that the universities and these hospitals are working for the -- are really, this fuss is not about that. the questions are based on what you see the issues are. what patty murray stated so strongly is this is not about this exemption. it is about the fact that they don't want women to have access to birth control, and that is certainly true of the republicans who stood before you earlier today.

>> i spoke with the l.a. catholic archdiocese. the way they have got around that requirement, what they tell me was the california law requires that insurance companies to provide contraceptives, etcetera, and it is not unlike the federal law, does not require the employer to cover it. so there are catholic institutions in california that are not paying for contraceptives. >> you mean catholic affiliated institutions. it is a totally catholic institution and their mission is religion, -- many hospitals do this their own way. one way is they will contract with an outside entity to provide the particular benefits. there are many, many ways. the point is, there is nothing for people to be ringing the bells about. this is a compromise.

this make sure that religious freedom of everyone is respected. that includes the women of this great nation. that is why president obama has struck that balance. that is why it is supported in the polls and that is why we will stand up against any move by our republican friends to try to take away a benefit that women have been granted. >> how concerned are you that if republicans and the nrc [unintelligible] in states where voters tend to be more socially conservative. >> what i can tell you is that women in general largely support the ability for women to have access to contraceptives. and i don't think they are going to like having someone represent them that wants to take away that right. i am concerned that the

republicans are using women's right to look at over here so the american public does not see that they are blocking us from passing legislation to put this economy back on track. >> [unintelligible] >> i have not heard what tim cain said, but i know that our candidates in other states and they know their own beliefs. i back all of them in doing that. what i am saying from where we are today, we believe strongly and will fight strongly to make sure that women in this country have access to contraceptives. >> this is a benefit that has been granted to the women of this country. about half are women have come and we want women to have it, and the president does as well. any move to take that right away means that women are going to lose a financial benefit, $600 a year in their pocket. that is a lot to the working

poor and middle-class. that is a lot to everybody. they will be taking that right away, costing women money they were not going to have to spend, and women's health will suffer. you heard of these cases, women unable to afford contraception having to lose their ovaries. this is a fact. this is a health benefit. everyone has their right to their view on it, but at the end of the day, we are here to say we support the right of women in this country to have access to birth control through their insurance policy. anybody that stands in the way will have to deal with us and our friends, and we thank you very much for coming out today. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> tomorrow, the senate judiciary committee considers a bill that will allow tv cameras in the supreme court for oral arguments. committee members will debate the bill at a meeting that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> my most important. -- point, we cannot tell them. it would be better if a month before the election we announced we running for president. desire tos obsessive note who is your leader? they want us to tell them who our leader is so they can fixate on the person and destroy him or her.

>> this year, the conservative political action conference begins thursday. c-span will cover the events to the weekend. watch past speakers on line at the c-span video library at c- span.org/videolibrary. >> earlier this week, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops began a protest of the obama administration's plan to require all employers, including religious ones, to offer contraceptions. the discussion on this health care mandate and what it means for religious institutions. this is one hour and a half. >> at the ethics and public policy center, we provide commentary on a wide range of public policy and economic issues. mr. kyle duncan joined the

beckett fund after serving as a -- in the louisiana and department of justice. he served as an assistant for the texas attorney general. he also practiced appellate law in houston, texas. we are first going to have each of our panelists on the issue we are discussing this evening. after that, there will be -- there will be a small discussion among the panelists themself. afterwards, we will open the floor to questions. as you listen to this topic, pick of really good, hard questions to ask these gentlemen. if there were ever answers to be had, here is where we are. we will speak -- start with mr. richard doerflinger.

>> i would like to begin by putting this in a larger context. this debate began with the help were killed -- health care reform act itself. it was ultimately passed in march 2010. during the whole process of that bill, the catholic bishops had said we are not experts on how you structure health care, but we do have certain moral principles that are imported to "respect. -- that are important to respect. that was a principal the was largely ignored. there were various efforts to address that issue, but ultimately the final bill was deficient on that. we asked for a vote against the final bill. in the end, it passed over our objections. the major problem was that for the first time the federal government was creating mandated benefits that every health plan in america would have to include

in order to be seen as a qualified health plan and, therefore, be offered on the market. there was an essential health benefits less with details to be worked out later by the department of health and human services. late in the process, there was a separate requirement for preventive services, including a separate list that would be preventative services just for women. while the floor debate about the need for preventive services for women -- most was about breast cancer screening, which we had no objection to whatsoever -- there were members of congress that wanted to use that as a wedge to create a nationwide contraceptive mandate, something congress has never passed before. over the 30 years i have been at the congress -- conference, there have been 30 bills that have been introduced, none at of which have gotten out of committee.

for the first time you had a cohook. it could be used to create a mandate for contraception and sterilization. that turned out to be the case. the department of health and human services delegated the task to creating the list to the destitute of medicine. we found out that five of the members of the committee were board members of planned parenthood affiliates. inevitably, you ended up saying contraception and sterilization are essential preventative services for women, which was uniquely odd because every other preventive service in that list was about preventing a disease. until now, the american people had not voted for the proposition that babies are a disease. at any rate, that was proposed last august.

we objected strenuously to that. we saw a comment about it on "free grounds." contraceptive and sterilization are not needed by women to prevent disease. pregnancy is not a disease. this is an elected and it should remain an elective, which means you do not force it on people. contraception is most often used for things that are not urgent medical needs. they are lifestyle choices. they do have serious or deadly side effects of their own. one of the ironies of the whole thing is around the same time this was being debated, there is a front-page article on the "new york times" about a study that shows hormonal contraception increases women's rest of contracting aids. that was one of the legitimate purposes for the rest of the preventive services list. some services or to -- our

second point was that, particularly the scope of this mandate -- morning after a pills. in our view that is an aborted at patient. at least one drug, which is a very close analog to the abortion pill ru46, is marketed as an emergency contraception. you have an abortion issue raised. third, of course, if any imposition of this mandate would violate rights of conscience and religious freedom and therefore departs from a very long bipartisan consensus in congress that when you pass major health legislation like this, you have protections for rights of conscience. that has been true since the original church amendment of

1973 named after senator frank church of idaho, not after the catholic church, that has been in place without controversy for 38 years. the amendment against forced involvement with embarrassment. -- abortion. just a list of all the conscience provisions in other health programs takes about eight pages. some of those were put in by the clinton administration. this has not been an issue. there are huge problems in all these areas. one of the amazing things of the interim final rule that has been put in is the whole approach to religion. there is a religious exemption. yet to meet four prongs to qualify for the exemption.

you have to be eligible for tax- exempt status. there is a very narrow part of the tax code that covers churches, houses of worship, and religious congregations. yet to have the invocation of religious about use of your purpose -- as your purpose. you have to serve chiefly people of your own fate. which means, as i said before, that jesus does not qualify because of though he did allocate religious values. mother teresa does not qualify because, notwithstanding being a saint, she picked up hindus, asians, and muslims of the street. it is a ridiculously narrow view of religion. it is trying to put the church at war with itself. if we were to stop doing those things in order to qualify for being religious enough, we would

stop being christian enough. we would stop treating people who are needy simply because they are in need. as the bishops have said, we treat people in our charitable institutions and our health care and our schools not because they are catholic, but because we are. to compromise that would truly be -- would stop being the institution that anyone following christ needs to be. it puts us in an untenable position. the bishops have reacted strongly to this. i have for some people say it is because it is an election year. it has to do with the fact that for the first time there is a social compact that has been broken. we have had many debates about abortion, family planning, and funding for many years. but for the first time the government is reaching into the life of our own aestheticians

and religious organizations and saying we are going to dragoon you and to promoting what we see it as a good thing for society. we are going to make you violate your religious freedom even within your own employee- employer relationships. that is something quite new. it is not something that has been done by administrations in the past. in response, despite the public outcry from the catholic church and from catholics who supported the health care bill, opposed the health care bill, liberals, conservatives, moderates, and many non catholics, we are in support of legislation. senator rubio has a bill that is more targeted on this mandate.

we are considering all of that. we hope that will move forward. basically, it is not about politics. it is about a fundamental freedom. one that was very dear to the hearts of the founding fathers of this nation that people should be able to live without the government invading their consciousness and by letting their religious freedom. with that, i will turn it over to the next speaker. >> thank you, richard. i am jim capretta. i am a fellow at the ethics and policy center here in washington. i want to thank the cic for sponsoring this event. it is timely and very important. i am pleased to be here with richard and kyle, who are truly experts on this. i want to pick up on what richard said and how this came about. i will go from one particular

angle -- the debate that has occurred of the last week is centered around the rights of religious organizations that are being told that they have to violate their collective conscience and provide coverage for contraception and sterilization products. ofwent against the beliefs their faith. maybe it will come backed -- lost so far in the debate -- how did we get to a point where the government would be allowed to do this for the average citizen anyway? for the average catholic out there working for a private employer who does not have any religious affiliation, they are being told by the government premiums have to put

into a plan that covers these things. there is no talk of an exemption. there is no contemplation in the administration for the religious liberty rights of the average citizen. this is a very big deal. there will be tens of millions of people who forevermore in the united states will be forced every two weeks in their paychecks to pay for a number of things they find objectionable. how did we get to the point where this happened? as richard indicated, it has been bandied about for the last two decades. amendments that were considered in progress at various points to impose a contraceptive mandate on insurance products of various types and kinds of in various formats. as richard indicated, those usually stalled car at the reasons they are taking place

now. the task in 2010, there is a whole slew of things but the government can do. this is one of them, but it is not the only one. the delegation of massive amounts of power to the federal government is really remarkable. this is, i would think, what of those watershed moments where the public is getting a glimpse into what is coming. the specter of religious people having to go to the government with their hat in hand begging to be exempt from this is a clear indication that something is amiss. something has gone terribly wrong. why did the government -- how did the federal government get this power to make this decision? there is really no recourse whatsoever. something has fundamentally gone wrong here. that leads me to my next point.

it is a principle of catholic teaching that decision making authority should be located at the lowest level possible. i very much agree with the notion that this is a question that people of faith and consideration can come to different conclusions on their can be great debates on the societal questions in this arena. great debates should take place around at. but my own judgment is looking at the balance of what has happened in the health care law, this is one manifestation of a general phenomenon of entirely too much delegation of health care power to one central bureaucracy. there are so many secretaries in their at -- in the health care law it would stun you.

there is a regulation coming out every three months, reorganizing various aspects of how our health care should be run. this is one of them. there are many others. there are things about how doctors and hospitals are going to be organized over time. they are heavily influencing how that will be changed over the next few years. there are requirements about where you can buy insurance beginning in to the other 14. we are not here to relegate all aspects of the health care debate, but it is very hard to see how when you delegates so much power, so much of 42, let's be honest with ourselves, a federal government that has developed over the last half century a point of view that is secular in orientation and in some ways a hostile. if you delegate so much power

and authority to that government to run various aspects of our allies and in this manner, this kind of thing is to happen. -- of our lives in this manner, this kind of thing is to happen. we should be very careful to return to first principles and make sure that whatever comes out of this is something that really protect our rights, not something that gets us to the next six months. not something that gets the president reelected and he can move on and maybe reverse this later. something that really protect people's rights and does not have the government impose such an awful mandate. that is going to take some work. i am very hopeful that this moment that has obviously captured a lot of attention can be used to reorient what we need to do, which is very fundamental.

>> it is an honor and pressure to be here with you. my family and i just moved to washington, d.c., from louisiana where i was in the state government there. i look forward to a gentle introduction to my duties. instead, we find ourselves in the midst of what we see, and what we see correctly, as one of the most flagrant attacks on religious liberty that we have ever seen in this country. that is really not exaggerating. what i want to talk to you about is we have heard some broad structural and kinetic destruction -- discussion about the mandate. we brought two lawsuits to date

on behalf of catholic college an evangelical christian college to overturn the mandate as violating constitutional and federal law. i would like to highlight what we see at peat beckett fund as an unconscionable violation of basic religious freedoms. holes so why do could drive a truck through them. in many ways, and i do not want to overstate our case, but this is an easy case. what the administration has done is to overreached on a number of basic issues on religious freedom. i would like to highlight those for you without reversing the technical legal arguments, but giving you an idea. everyone has the intuition that this mandate violates something very basic. i would like to talk about why it does in our view.

the lawsuit is on behalf of belmont academy in north carolina, founded and run by benedictine monks. we also have a christian university -- an evangelical university located outside of denver. claims on behalf of both of those schools are quite similar. we have brought claims under the constitution and also under a federal law called the religious freedom restoration act. i would like to highlight for you some of the basic ways in which this mandate and the exemption violates religious liberties. first is the very basic idea that this mandate is a form of root portion of religious conscience. it is so obvious it is surprising to even articulate

it. the mandate says if you want to continue to practice your religion and abstain from offering services that your belize tell you are at -- beliefs tell you are tantamount to the destruction of human lives, you must pay a fine. let that sink in for a second. you must pay a fine to be a catholic. you must pay a fine to be an evangelical christian. your alternative is to take all soft of healths care -- all your employees off of health care. if you'll have 100 employees you'll play -- pay one of the thousand dollars per year. the other alternative is to give up your faith. the basic commitment to religious liberty that we upheld sacred in this country since our founding, says we recognized we

should not force quakers to pick up rifles, is that you cannot do that to people. another thing about the mandate that is really quite shocking is the idea that the government in order to provide greater access to contraception, which is already available in 90% of employer health care -- on top of all of that, the government has to pick on religious employers and conscripts them to violate their own consciousness rigid consciences to fill in what someone once called the catholic gap in insurance coverage. this has nothing to do with access. this has to do with a vision of a professor of health care on everybody, including religious organizations that object. another aspect that deserves

mention is that this mandate is not a one-size-fits-all kind of mandate. it looks like swiss cheese. everyone knows the government has been granting waivers by the hundreds and thousands. -- hundreds and thousands of to allow large corporations not to be subject. the act also exempts state's small employers from the mandates. it exempts certain grandfathered health care plans from the mandate. it even has certain kinds of conscience provisions for small groups who have a religious objection to insurance per se. missing from all of this is an exemption for religious groups and individuals who do not want to be forced to violate their consciousness. that is a fundamental violation of the first amendment to take that kind of scattershot

approach. i really want to hear your questions. it is an obvious and egregious violation of religious liberty is the employer exemption. let's take a moment to unpack that. this is an exemption that we have called the "anti good samaritan" provision. this provision says religious organizations -- this is the kind of religious organization we want to see operate in society. did notus organizations stat hire or serve anyone outside its fate. if you are running a soup kitchen and you run a catholic soup kitchen and want to serve a hungry jewish person or a hungry 80th person -- atheist person,

it is sort of a protest and version of the kind of public policy one would think we would want. it violates a basic proposition of the first amendment, which is to say government does not get to pick the kind of religious organizations it likes and does not like according to whether they are outward facing, and word facing, evangelical, non evangelical, quiet, or disruptive to the public sphere. the public does not get to do that. it is a very clear violation of the establishment clause. the establishment clause is this overwrought part of the constitution where we worried about the pressures -- the menorahs in city hall. this happens to be a very clear violation of the separation of church and state, which arkansas back to the original purposes of that provision -- keep

government out of churches business. this is a very clear violation of our basic traditions of religious freedom. it is not about access to contraceptives. it is about not forcing religious employers or individuals to pay for things to violate their conscience. it is not about striking the appropriate balance. we have for that a lot in the media recently. chief justice john rogers said in a recent case that had to do with religious organization's right to hire and fire administrators. chief justice john rogers said we did not have to balance anything. the first amendment has struck the balance for us. that balance is in favor of religious liberty. with that, i will turn it over to the moderator. >> a lot to think about. [applause]

so, mr. duncan, the balance has been struck already with the first amendment. i think the recent media coverage of the issue has shown that the administration -- i do not know if they are surprised, but they are starting to a knowledge there is a bigger issue here. they think there is a possibility we are willing to compromise a little bit. do you see -- with the balance being struck already, is there any possible way this compromise can come about? they mentioned this "hawaii law ." you said that is no middle ground at all. that is not acceptable solution to this. the hawaii law allows for religious employers not pay far

contraception as long as they died their employees to where they can get it. can you talk about whether it is possible to strike another balance? >> the balance looks very much like the first amendment to the constitution. that is the basic answer. this is not respecting our basic american constitutional traditions of respecting people's consciousness. it goes back to the quakers. for oaths we allow po of acclimation. it is why we do not force jehovah's witnesses to do the "pledge of allegiance. this administration has developed a frightening for of and in -- of amnesia. let me address the hawaii plan. the number of so-called state mandates -- i have for the no. 28 -- this is a red herring.

these state mandates are not the sort of a straitjacket the federal government has created with the federal contraceptive mandate. with the state mandate, even where a state mandate would not allow for an exemption for a state -- for a religious organization, they have an opt out. they can come up with a plan under federal law. there is a way out. there is no way out of the federal mandate unless you become a religious organization and abandoned any pretense of becoming a christian organization. the hawaii plan is no plan at all. the allies plan would force a religious organization to direct a employee to where they could go and violate the religious organization's own teachings. that sounds like a violation of the first amendment.

not a solution at all. >> would you like to add to that? >> i would say that, as i indicated in my remarks, it is time to take a step back from the current back and forth about the language being discussed and it reflect on the basic principle we want to protect and how to go about that. i would go pretty far. just to be a little bit provocative, the idea that we really had to have a new federal statute the delegated all this a party around help benefits to secretary sebelius and her team to decide for everybody else -- i questioned that. we have lots of employers who are very responsive to the needs of their workers. there are lots of state legislators who are very

responsive to the needs of their citizens. i question whether we need to delegate a once and for all requirement. that was probably, in my judgment, problem #one. if we go now to the point of protecting our constitutional liberties, i think we should do that in a very wholesome way. it should not be just to protect my judgment, but to actually protect people who have a conscientious objection to all of this as practitioners of their own fate. i do not see why we should have the federal government impose this on tens of millions of people who might object to some aspects of this. >> the hawaii law is bad. its religious exemption is not quite as narrow as the federal

one. it has a requirement that if you are going to claim a religious exemption, what you have to do instead is give all of your employees, your enrollee's information on how they can access all of these services, an expeditious manner the white house is saying this is just coverage. this is not about how to get involved and actually provide the services. now the compromise is to violate that and say you are going to have to send people directly and expeditiously for the services. you do not have to pay for birth control, but yet to send your priests, nuns, and laity to planned parenthood down the street. that is the compromise between

the administration and planned parenthood. they are compromising with the wrong people. it is not a compromise with us. i do not see any of the recent developments as serious at all. i think they are digging in on this thing. >> another thing that comes to mind -- all three of you have mentioned this seems like a direct attack on religious freedom. addressed the attack on religious freedom as opposed to an overarching attempt to -- liberals and conservatives alike are asking what is the political end game? it does not seem to have any political grip. everybody is angry about this on both sides of the spear. they are angry about it because of the religious aspect. the question is if the religious aspect -- could the religious aspect of this be serving as a smokescreen for a grander scheme?

could it be serving as a smokescreen for something bigger? should we worry that the political ramifications of this decision do not aligned with somebody trying to be reelected? could there be something else here? i do not know. it is something that is interesting to me. it is obvious the religious thing is important. everybody is saying it puts a bad light on the administration. surely they know that. >> i am not so sure that the obvious is not the answer, which is this is a deliberately attack on religious freedom. this is not an isolated incident with this administration. it is part of a pattern. for example, working backwards from where we are right now, the administration in a case the

supreme court just decided, the administration made an argument about the autonomy of religious organizations to hire and fire ministerial employees that managed to unite chief justice roberts, justice alito, and justice kagan. he brought everyone together with this argument. the administration says the religious organization does not have any more rice than a social club. -- rights than a social club. the administration looks at the religious argument and does not see it. the administration cut eight grant for combating human trafficking because the usecb would not refer at victims to

abortion services. that is a pretty stark attack on the very basic principle of religious liberty. the administration rescinded the george w. bush conscience protections our health care workers last year. let us not forget that when campaigning at, they said when people get frustrated at the better cling to their religion. it is perhaps a larger pattern. >> just to comment a little bit further on this -- i understand for the normal pattern, it has held a little bit. they got the provision enacted. it delegates used a party to hhs. they knew what they were doing by enacting such a provision. if we put this into law, we get

to write this whole thing as we see fit. then they said let's give this to a scientific panel to decide. the usual suspects were involved in that. they came out with a pretty predictable outcome. the interest groups that are promoting a contraception culture and abortion culture were all over it and pushed for this for a couple of years. the obama administration in some ways have the power to do it and had a lot of activist on their side saying do it. they have a disadvantage blind spot. -- they have at this gigantic blind spot. they did a power grab. they got the power. their supporters pushed them to do this. they said why not? they did it and they have a blind spot to the reaction. >> to respond to that, what are

the possibilities that all of the work they have done will be undone if they do not get elected -- reelected? my question about the policy as involved -- they should have known this quick grab would have been undone if they do not get back into the white house the next term. was this just a miss judgment? >> they were unaware of the blood back there were going to get? >> they had a very large blind spot. i also think they in their political calculus -- there was a story in politico before the blood back reached the level it is reaching today where they essentially said they did an internal debate inside the administration and the calculated that the intensity of supporters would outweigh the opposition and the intensity

of the opponents who were likely not going to vote for the president anyway. >> in terms of the politics of this, what is happening is a battle between two groups that most presidents seeking reelection want to appeal to, particularly someone in president obama's position. one is the catholic vote. the other is his base in terms of the reproductive rights movement. they are very strong on this. they are capable of generating enormous traffic by email, blog, and making the media bend to their near to. that was very -- that was indicative of the common foundation. they were willing to bring a

major women's health care organization to its knees simply in order to continue to provide the cover that they allow women who enter a planned parenthood to do a breast exam, even though they do not do anything else for breast cancer. in order to save half a million dollars a year in money and the symbolism that goes with that, they were willing to all but destroyed the largest breast cancer charity on earth. every time the administration has shown any sign of being deferential to these religious concerns -- this happened in november when the president met with archbishop dolan and said we are going to find a way to accommodate these concerns. i think the archbishop said to a reporter that he feels a little bit more positive now that the administration understands the religious

freedom concerns here. that apparently sparked outrage throughout the pro-abortion movement. they generated letters to senators. they really think that this idea of mandatory birth control in everyone's coverage is the way to a better america. already in washington state, eight bill is very close to passing that takes the next logical step and says that every health care plan in washington state that has coverage for childbirth has to have equal coverage for abortion. it is an ideology. a very extreme ideology. unfortunately, some of the administration thinks they are

beholden to it. >> maybe one last question. i was reading an article today. one of the justifications for this was given by the aclu she said it removes discrimination for women. you mentionedis this an adequate justification ta? are there deeper cultural one stacks? >> let me take a stab and that then let others speak.

on the one hand, it they keep saying 98% of women have used a family planning 68% of those that did not want to be pretty easy. the most effective of all are the things they have been spreading throughout the third world for so many years that what to give american women is used to comment implantable and where bulls. these methods are more independent of user motivation.

much better in a coercive population. if it means you forget your pill you're still baron. these are the things that are most conditions. what they mean by three is that it will be loaded into a standard premium. all of us are being requisitioned an order to meet their goal to use the more long lasting and more effective contraceptives that are also the most dangerous for women. this is the situation we are facing.

there is a broader agenda. that is not just reflect reality. it is to change reality and getting american women doing more of what they think they need. >> i would very much agree that there is an agenda here to push into the mainstream of american culture. it was the right way. it the cost thing is very much a red herring. they are are they subsidizing the distribution of contraception in a very positive way. the idea that there is this gigantic barrier.

a credit validation pointed they find importance. >> is a very interesting in their own right. if we are conducting a public policy debate and we forget about certain non-negotiable part of our political structure then we havetion, o completely missed the boat. one of the geniuses of our country is that there is a pluralistic people to order their lives as they see fit. they can do that individually and in religious communities and organizations. they can have different views about the proper way of ordering

marital relationships and sexual reproduction. that is good for the point of view of pluralism. the administration is trying to crush its by forgetting that when you make these announcements, you do not take into account people's consciousness. yet the trade something very basic fare -- each trade it for something very basic. >> we have microphone set up. >> i thought he raised a very interesting question. how did we get sharehere? only a couple months ago we had a principle that we would not use federal funding for abortions because of a violate people's rights. how did we get here?

coercion and a deception. nobody wanted that health care act. the polling was 65%-35 -- 65-35. they force it to congress by bribing people, deception. the president agreed to pass this order. >> do you have a question? >> they are trampling on our rights. it is incredible peer in it is unprecedented. they are being deceptive. are they trying to pull the roof? that is my question. >> richard mentioned that what provision allow them to do this.

they said the department of health and human services would oversee a new definition of health care services that would be applied to all plants. a lot of the people objected, saying do we really want the department of health and human services right to a one size fits all definition? is that necessary? is there a policy to allow this to happen? what will they do with the dax everybody who understood what they would do with it. they went to the floor in the house chamber. he argued this was necessary for all of the health benefits, of trying to prevent aids and cancer and diabetes. they can use that to impose what

they tried to impose going back a couple decades and tried to be unsuccessful. i think strong language is needed here. i tended to agree with your point of view. >> thank you for coming my question goes back to the broader problem of intervention. we see the inherent problems that come out of sweeping laws from congress, whether they be congress forcing people to do things that are not that they are opposed to are crowding out

social institutions. why did the catholic church ever support this? >> we did not unsupported the health care law. we said we want to see a way for congress to move forward, making a dent in the tens of millions of americans that do not have basic health insurance. we are not saying you should do big government or market reforms. we are saying we want to see the goal. we want to see these other moral principles. they first came out in the favor of everyone in american having basic health coverage.

95ve given a subsidiary years or so to work. the number of uninsured keeps going up. if congress wanted to take a shot at it, there is still catholic teaching that they cannot try to do it. in terms of big government being inherently bad, i think what matters more is what principles reduce what principles government is trying to do. if they do not have abortion, where would you find it? the answers from the federal government. medicaid, medicare, federal employees. they all almost have abortions

eliminated. where you find a plan that has abortions that that is a private health plans. most private health care companies think it is a cost saver. i am not against free market capitalism. i think when you apply to questions of human life it has its own. we're not going to take sides about the government. here is what we thing needs to be done. we're going to tell you if you're doing something that is really wrong. we did. >> the 18 article says everyone has the right to the freedom of

religion. it goes on to elaborate. and curious to what extent that language applies given that we are signatories. >> that is an interesting question. i am not sure i can give you a good answer. the origin of the declaration of human rights from the era of world war two was a product. i think the notion that i am skeptical of the idea that he might find perce perceptions. it does not like freedom of worship. this is what they have taken to

use this is a freedom of religion. i think we find more comfort in looking to more concrete guarantees. when we are protecting freedom of religion, we are not merely protecting the rights of individuals to believe what they believe. we are protecting the rights of individuals and groups to act as a buffer from overreaching government. there's some part of civil society that does not involve the state. i think they're acting on the premise that there is not a civil society in this country that does not involve the state. if that is a frightening thought. that is about as good an answer that i can give.

>> thank you for doing this. congressman barney frank recently said that government is things in commonpeopl as a people. the point is well taken. i am a grad students of this is a two-part question. these four points dimensions, what we are cleared for, the houses of worship, that sort of thing, those are in the law itself or are those in the findings coming out of hhs? >> it is in the interim final rule. >> they are not the law itself. there are the findings that

follow from the law. >> conception that it should be a lot at all. the task of defining those. >> that means these things have challenged and not have to bump up against the constitution. >> they could violate other federal laws. they do have the force of law. they are vulnerable to constitutional attacks. >> what i am thinking of is what you were saying about these issues going beyond. i was listening to memoirs of some of the people at the time when the church was under assault and the archbishop was dealing with that. he refused to let it simply become an issue of the catholic

church. he said this is a crisis for man and not the church. how do we deal, when we are framing this as a legal matter, how do we go forward this as i mean this a crisis of man and an eye to being preeminently practical. this is serious. this is very real practical implications for all of us. >> i think the second part of your question will go on. it is incumbent upon leadership in congress, and institutions around the country and bishops conferences to try to make sure that it is a more fundamental discussion and debate.

not just cutting a deal with david axelrod. it is a question of an adoring value -- enduring value. at the minimum that will require statute. how that comes about i am not sure. it is not really a question of religion. an atf should be troubled about this as a catholic should be. if they can do this to the catholics and evangelicals and whatever religion would object, which are many, what do they going to do next? what are they going to do to you

secular humanists next? it is a fundamental overage. everyone has a place in their inner selves. did the government ought not to be true. here we have exactly the opposite. we feel it is a question of liberty and not religion. >> if i might make one edition. the legislation we have been supporting is also true, it requires people to provide or purchase coverage. it is framed in terms of the freedom of conscience. it is funny that when i argue

the issue of conscience, what comes back to me is that individuals have a conscience. if it is a catholic congressman, i could say we go to church every sunday and say look not on our sins but on the face of your church. isn't the fate something that belongs to our community? that is how we guarantee our individual cases. now we have this odd thing saying maybe we can figure out a way to broaden this little thing about religious employers and the people out of the cold unless they are able all to start working for us.

it should be nice in one way the we cannot pay all the salaries. it is a broader question than just religious institutions. it is not a matter of saying if an individual objects than health insurance company has to accommodate them. that is not true now. we have had the freedom, especially we can gather together, we can go out and negotiate for a health plan that meets our needs. the government is not putting its thumb on the scale and saying i want this kind of coverage and not that. the government says the answer has to be no. we're asking to maintain the freedoms that we have always had. that has not been a world of chaos. people now have the freedom to try to negotiate a plan they

like. i keep being reminded that the president said if you like the plan have knelt you get to keep it. it turns out that expires in a year from now. >> again she had to read the bill to know what was in it. it has been a lightning, of this discussion. i would like to find out you like the average catholic to do to advocate on behalf of our objections to this. what would you recommend we do as laypeople? >> the conference has a web site. we have a special case us calledccb -- usccb.org/

conscience. it enables you to write an e- mail message to your elected representatives urging them to support legislation and to fix this on the right of conscious act. that has over 150 sponsors in the house and 28 in the senate. i think there has been enormous public debate about this. i've been very gratified to see it. just part is a pity in the public debate. one thing that has been missing is that the narrative of planned parenthood was to present is that we have to balance out the religious use of certain organizations against the needs of women. if there are women who do not

want this mandated coverage and like the fact that you could have a health plan that is in accord with their teaching, and they need to be heard most of all. there are women and men out there who are claiming to speak for all of them and say what women need is this. it is just these guys who are saying they cannot have it. >> picking up the set, this is more of a comment than a question. one of the new shows this morning surveyed catholic women and came up with either 50 a germ of catholic women use artificial contraceptives and are in favor of that. what are the actual statistics fax that is something obviously being put out there to support

planned parenthood argument. >> there has been a lot of polling. the claim is that catholic women are using contraceptives about the same percentage as other people. when you pull the catholic community, you're pulling them at all different stages of commitments are not so strong commitments. we understand that is true. i also understand it is something that has not been explained or projected as much over the decades as it should have been. in my head and making improvements. it got some educational materials. the reality is this. if a woman, catholic or not once

birth control coverage, you cannot turn over a rock without finding it. there are many health plans that will be happy to give it to you, especially since they think it saves them money. the question is whether you'll be able to find anything in a few years, what do you will find a catholic woman who wants to follow them or someone who once to live a holistic lifestyle that respects woman's life. whether you will be able to find anything different. >> if i may, doesn't dispute to a larger issue about religion? we are supposed to think religion is stifling. now we find that maybe they're not practicing their faith as robustly.

it seems like they do not even know. >> just one other comment. the latest poll i have seen a cannot this morning was not just catholics -- they were not polling americans in general. there were polling voters. it there was a plurality. a likely voter was 46 is our more against the mandate overall. we ask them whether it should be applied to religious organizations, it was 50% % in favor. 39 souther it could be the american people

are getting informed and realizing there's something more at stake one of them people have birth control when they wanted. -- want it. >> cannot bring this as a birth control issue? it is not a birth control issue. the press loves it. they eat that up. when you explain to people of this is something that has never happened before, another thing is that you feel the archbishop really was asleep on the job? that we ask for this tax tha? that we did not pay attention? do you feel now that you are paying for naivete? >> i was looking at the whole series of our letters to congress.

we were raising this issue constantly. we laid out exactly the scenario that have been a year later. this preventive services thing, they can use it as a framework for creating a nationwide -- contraceptive mandate. there was a problem with not being listened to. there others that said that is not going to happen. you're making things up. that was the worst one. because of the battles about abortion funding, which ultimately got settled in the way we find very unsatisfactory and have to fix it, that took all the oxygen out of the air on

these moral issues. when you try to say there is no conscious on things beyond abortion, they say we're getting ripped up. there's not much political will. and at the members of congress realize what an issue this has become. >> i agree very much with what richards says. it seems like not much. the idea that you go to member of congress and say i am exhausted, it shows you the nature of what was going on now could 2009 and 2010. this is not the end of it. they have been delegated huge amounts of authority. it is not out of the question they will use it in lots of other ways. i am sure they will. just looking at the breadth of

the legislation, i disagree with how we ended up where we are. i do think greece and italy have centralized health. they're not doing so well. there are lots of questions at stake in the health care law. we do not need to get into a big debate about that. the breadth of authority that went on is beyond anything that has been done in 50 years. i'm not just talking about this particular provision. it is massive delegation authority. people can differ on the questions. i really question whether most people when they know what is really in their would say wait a second. do we really want the federal government, which i've worked in the federal government, they are

great people. they are motivated both very much a secular orientation toward these questions. it does not come up. it does not enter most of their minds. you're going to be fighting an uphill battle from day one we delegated this much authority to them. >> this mandate raises for me thoughts of charles taylor's award winning book, "the secular age." does this mandate close the following reality or question on the table? are we a culture of belief or unbelief? if you are a culture of unbelief, religion does not matter and conscientious objection based on religion matters less. that is my view.

and like to see if there's any reaction. >> there are certain cultures in which christians or jews have to pay a tax to practice their faith. now we seem to be moving to the system if you want to be robustly catholic fine. but i do not know the disbelieve or unbelief, but it is a very specific and narrow view of the role of religion in society. the aclu position have been swallowed whole hog. if you are religious, and that is fine. pray. stay in your church.

the go out into the public square, then have to play by the secular roles. they turn out to be people that believe the opposite of what you believe. especially if you ever want to take part in a public program or serve the poor using federal funds are get involved in public works, yet to set your religion at the door. i do not think that this division of america. it is increasingly the secular as the world view that is encouraging on our ability. >> mike here as they led me to look at these election laws. among the first act passed with those that prohibited jews doctors trumpet is abating and health insurance plans.

early on it was to save jewish doctors could only serve jewish patients. it is designed to sequester and roll outs on the basis ofn the . this in some ways reminds me. >> one more question. >> this is a follow-up question of women to get involved. this is great. these are wonderful avenues. what could be some value and on the ground protests. do they plan on doing something like that? there were some other strategies that you could in courage.

he can sign a petition that we have there. we have our own form of occupy protest. we occupied the court room. we hope to occupy more of those sam. we are doing more on the steady in thinking side family are down in the streets. i do think the catholic community has gotten lots of messages there is lots of energy to protest this. and now it is going to be constructed to have an effect, i am not quite as sure. i know from the energy from

people around the country that it can be directed. >> there are people that are going over. they're organizing that rally. this is a great start to discussions. >> thank you very much. now we're going to turn it back over. >> thank you. i like to thank those who helped for this event. i would like to think c-span and their amazing true for being here. i would like to think the usccb for participating in

think all of you for joining us here in downtown d.c. to join us for our discussion. for more information about the capt. information center or to donate, visit our web site. please join me in thanking our panelists. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coming up next, and look at the nuclear energy programs in persian gulf countries. a house hearing on defending private computer networks. later, debate over the obama at initiations plan to require health insurance coverage for birth control. >> we began three days a coverage tomorrow at the conservative one. live coverage on c-span3. on friday morning, it begins at 10:10 we will also hear from rick santorum, mitt romney in of being rich. more information is available at

our website www.q-and-a.orcspan. >> shouldn't the president be this ta? >> shouldn't this make him a role model? shouldn't anyone you elect always keep his promises? >> with a back at 14 in new ran for office and lost. do they not have a right to revolt against a government that they feel does not serve their interests tax to appointed us to sacrifice the rights of americans trying to wiway indein? >> when i first started the

book, i thought this must be a the american story. this is about a country that worships self-reliance and individualism. it turns out that we are lagging when it comes to living alone. it is much more common in european nations, especially in scandinavia. is much more common in japan. >> will get the growth trend of american adults living alone. and what that means. it is sunday at 3:00. condoleezza rice on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a.. book tv every weekend on c-

span2. >> japan will lower its combine corporate rate to 38%. that leaves the united states of the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. it to make it that more challenging to attract businesses. >> someone said it is like seeing sausage made. you just not want to see its. >> it is time for american businesses to put aside our wish list and to work collectively to support its a more coherent and equitable tax policy and corporate taxation structure. >> the house ways and means talked about publicly traded companies and how to encourage job growth by lowering tax growth. but the discussion on line at the c-span video library.

>> the latest issue of national journal features an article about the nuclear programs of persian gulf states. we talk with the author of the story. this is 40 minutes. host: everyone stay in our last hour, we take a look at a recent magazine piece. we're looking at a piece in the national journal. you write that there is a choice focused on just having nuclear

energy to meet their demands? or do they respond in kind to iran? guest: the answer right now for the program that exists is this is kind of a gold standard for civilian programs. s find every protocol for transparency. the u.s. government backs it. think about the program in iran. the whole world is saying, this has to stop. the u.s. is actively supporting it. it is sort of fascinating the way the probe -- the world is treating it. that program is peaceful. if it tried to get a nuclear weapon, you'll see dominoes start to fall. and then you have this kind of nightmare scenario. host: we're talking to the congressman who is the vice chairman of the committee earlier, he said that if i were a neighbor of iran, i would keep my options open. guest: it is very interesting. if you talk to saudi arabia, one of its neighbors, it is very interesting. we often look at iran from here.

but the saudi government, they see it as a direct threat to themselves. they see it as a hostile country that threatens the gulf states regularly. if they get a weapon, they have to get one. host: let's give the history of them pursuing nuclear energy, nuclear power. how did we get to this point where we are at now? guest: that is a great question. it is actually been a pretty big reversal. the scientists who ran the nuclear weapons, he sort of bought this weird, futuristic city.

he had bank accounts and apartments. he had the ability to sell and smuggle nuclear weapons. there were a lot of people in the u.s. to remember that and do not trust them. there's opposition in congress for that reason. they say it is a hub for this nuclear smuggling network. how can we trust them. host: when was this announced? guest: in the last weeks of the bush administration. it did not have to go through congress. host: but the bushel administration signed off and said go ahead, build these nuclear reactors? guest: and then the obama guys said -- the bush administration -- the obama administration review it and it is full speed ahead. they are concerned about the past history. they had more controls and what exports and what is allowed to come in. now, it is very interesting. congress as well, the people who raise those concerns are strongly behind the program.

host: tell us about the nuclear facility. how are they checking off all of the boxes by the international community to say, it is peaceful, go ahead. guest: a few things. they signed the uiaa, the nuclear watchdog. they signed them all. the former head of their nuclear program. u.n. officials coming pretty regularly. it means that the nuclear sites, you have all these weird folks. what is interesting, when you got there it is just flat terrain. they're hoping to begin construction this summer of the actual reactor. when you go there, you see a red flag which is exactly the

reactors can go. iran is only about 100 miles away. there's this big red flag or the reactor will be. host: you have been there. you have been there with this facility. why does the -- why they need this to begin with? guest: it is for two reasons. their energy consumption is skyrocketing. devi's vanity projects like the indoor ski club. they need energy. right now they import a lot of gasping. -- a lot of gas. with oil prices, as we know, there are at record highs. that is the reason for going forward, how easy is it to go from a so-called civilian program were your discipline energy to a so-called nuclear weapon? guest: it is a big step. yet to build a processing facility which could be spotted by neighbors and satellites. they could do it. it is not impossible. they have some amount of

uranium in their country. they have a nuclear infrastructure which none of their neighbors have. there are -- they are several steps above their neighbors. host: what is a dirty bomb? guest: it is an explosive. it takes radioactive material and blows it up. we think about a nightmare or the whole city is flat. it is not that. host: is that a threat when uae is getting nuclear energy? guest: they could try to get a nuclear bomb and pass materials onto somebody else. host: what safeguards are put in place?

guest: the addis its monitor pretty closely. they've already agreed not to on their borders. you have a constant watch dog presence of their program which is something you do not have or the iranian program. host: if the united states is in favor of the persian gulf states trading this university -- because, we're helping them. we are adversaries of iran. guest: that is the question going for. they've given every kind of assurance that you can. the big question is saudi arabia. and the one hand, they are a u.s. ally. on the other hand, there's a lot of mistrust. they already face hypocrisies about israel.

host: sean is a democrat in pennsylvania. you are up first. caller: in a second time caller. i have a comment and question. since we have over 100 years of oil left in our reserves, why can't we pull our troops back and secure our border -- and secure our borders? and then at the persian gulf were about themselves. and my question is -- host: i think we got your question. guest: that is a good question. republicans and democrats are making the same point. they're saying the iraq war costas trillions of dollars and lost american lives. we to pull our people back and save money. that said, the persian gulf is a source of oil. there's also a lot of natural gas.

the feeling is that our economy depends on that oil, unfortunately. because we depend on it so much, we cannot just withdraw from that part of the world. host: what is the states of iran's royal bank industry? guest: it is not thriving. it is coming to a halt. not just the eu, but japan and korea. we are seeing their oil sales beginning to come down. to a historic low. this has hit the heart of iran. host: in "the washington times quoted -- times." guest: you have the people on the street who may love them and support them because they do not know anything else. then you have this educated class.

you could alienate that class. you might see that government fall. that is with the iranian government is saying. you do this, we do not like it. host: let's go to tony next. democratic line, california. caller: my question was do you think diplomacy is better than just going over there with bombs? and right now, in the election year, do you think diplomacy is better right now instead of going over there to just -- you know, to bomb israel -- i mean, not israel, but iran. for what they are doing. keep it local right now until the election is over with and then we can come back to the table on the issue. host: your question comes as we're here from cnn reporting

that the pentagon is weighing its military options in syria as well. this whole question of what our military does next. guest: it is kind of a shift. use of the iraq war was winding down only a few months ago. now there is not just a possibility of a new military strike, you are seeing the israelis, it is sort of this drum beat toward some kind of military operation. the hard part, the reason why there is skepticism about the plaza, is it has not worked. there has been years of effort to try to get something to the table. is has not worked. the economic as you indicate, hit their oil sector. by late spring, early summer, they'll have the ability to move some of their facilities over grounds of a can of the

scene from a -- from the air. we feel there's a window of about five months that is closing. this is just an open discussion of a timeline for a new war. host: here is a tweet. guest: that is something you hear in the gulf as well. you this question with the iranians. we have not tried to do that with the saudis. the feeling there is that this is a country that threatens other countries. they threaten israel. they have a sort of taken themselves out of the normal confines of the country. as a result, the u.s. can come in and say to the, you have to change your behavior or else. host: total nuclear weapon in the tour across all the countries. about 11,000 in the united

states, following that with 8500. rick, a republican in new york. go ahead. caller: i was not sure about this young fellow on the show. i did not use a member of foreign relations. i have been following this whole thing about the president of iran saying he's going to wipe israel off the map. i would be more trusting of ron paul's agenda to bring the troops home. iran is not a suicidal mission. we have to be more worried about another -- host: what about iran motivations? their agenda? guest: i feel very old these days. that is a question of iranian behavior. this is a country that has never started a war.

basically, with u.s. backing. there is a feeling that i have to agree with that it is not a suicidal country. if a trade weapon against the u.s., it would cease to exist because of retaliation. nobody would be willing to take the risk of nuclear attack. it is not such a fear that it would use a weapon knowing they would cease to exist as a response, but that they would have this umbrella of comfort where countries just would not be prepared to fight. host: beyond the uae, where else are people in the -- eyeing? guest: saudi arabia. kuwait. they both talked openly about it. host: but nobody has signed off on that? guest: correct. egypt in some ways is the

furthest along. turkey has talked about it. pretty much, every country in the region has indicated to us. with the saudis it has not just been rumors, but some believe that saudis in the 1980's tried to purchase a fully operational nuclear weapon or build a nuclear program.

>>, so far, what we have worked with, there are a couple of things they are doing before delivery. i will take the applications side first. but when people download an application, they rarely think about whether it is secure. the purposely download something with a big smiley face on into, but it is actually a

platform to enter your corporate network. that is one risk. some companies are very careful in their app markets and only approve those that are for sale. others are not as careful. >> from the pedroia operating system to ios to microsoft, the first thing we are working on with them is how to secure the device itself. if you do not know it is connected to your company, then that is your first issue. the second thing becomes, how do you then work with the applications that go into that

phone? each one of our ecosystems do that differently. some use our security or others to make sure they know they are putting that there. they all three have very different testing mechanisms to test those apps in terms of the sandbox to tell us how they go back and forth. and then how you secure content and communication with mobil, and it is no different than laptops and desktops that we did before. >> the ability to lock, locate, and wipe those devices on demand. >> we are getting close to maybe have a solution to authentication. it has been the holy grail for about 20 years. there used to be one government approved private company in north korea. do you know what they made? they made mobile phone apps.

i see a pattern. [laughter] >> just another general question for the panel, you think the fcc has any role in increasing mobile device security? and what should it be? mr. connor. >> absolutely. you look at the sec and the infrastructure is there. i spent 10 years at at&t and another 10 years putting electronic systems into those kinds of companies. you can look at the mobile network as either good or bad. it cannot stop the crime i talked about today -- if used correctly, that technology can now be broken today. if you think of one governing body trying to own each of these pieces, it is folly. i think doe needs to work with public/private partnership in its domain. i think the fcc needs to work around that ecosystem. the tactics the bad guys are

taking against us, the idea there are one size fits all is ludicrous. >> thank you. >> this question is for the entire panel. we will start with mr. conner. similar with doctors, we should heed the hippocratic oath and make sure that in the first place, we do no harm. if you could offer us that advice for legislating, would that be? >> the way i would start is with government employees. i spend a lot of my time with this team and others educating. i think quality is a great example that government ought right. if someone started quality, they would not know what it

meant. you hear cost of quality. i hear cost of security. your focus on what cost? the total cost of security, or just the cost to implement something? i would start with the education in your bully pulpit. the second thing is, start on the inability of businesses to talk to governments or to themselves because of antitrust and the patchwork legislation in the states. i am tired of it being a one- way communication street to intelligence and nothing in return. i understand they legally cannot do it, but if it is a company that is tasked with protecting our government and

enterprises and the citizens, it is folly to me that i can only give you information and you cannot give me any. >> two quick things. one is, continued to inspire an environment that supports innovation and investment. and be cognizant of the fact that the bad guys move fast. we need to have speed and agility and our ability to respond. attempting to comply with a compliance model that takes a long time to build and implement slows us down and is an impediment to our ability to have speed, nimbleness, and agility. >> in 2007, we had an intelligence disaster in this country that has yet to be declassified. in 2008, we were about a week -- we were able to get them out in about a week. last year, we saw the ability to destroy a physical

infrastructure using cyber attacks. we have a list of major cyber events. i got tired of people asking why we would have a cyber pearl harbor. the list is now up to 90. we need to have coordinated the event. >> you think we definitely need legislation. >> i do. and i think there's one thing we can say now that we could not have said five years ago. we now have a pretty good idea how to do this between the experts appear and the agencies that have done a particularly good job. we now have an increased idea how to reduce the risk. >> i agree we need legislation. the question is, what is the

legislation that we need? i do ascribe to the "do no harm"theory. the problem we have is that in cyber security world, all of the incentives to favor the bad guys. attacks are cheap and easy and profitable. it is a really terrific business model. defense is hard. we are following the attackers around. it is hard to show a return on what you invent, and criminal prosecution is virtually nonexistent. understand that you are dealing with the invention of gunpowder, like i said before. it is an entirely new thing. you cannot take traditional models and plug them in here. you can take legislation that will do harm, that will take away needed resources from where they need to be. we need a creative, 21st

century approach. a lot of what we are seeing in the public policy world is not that. >> thank you. in the last 12 seconds, dr. schneck? >> let's unleash the private sector. we built this thing. incentivize us so we can still eat when we get done doing it, but let's build business models around building security from the hardware up, and i think he will see this world changed in a few years. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we are going to lock the doors and not let you out until you give us all of the ideas that you give us here that we need here. we will let you out, but i need

it in terms of we have got to understand in order to get this right. if you could help us grow down in a jurisdiction that we have, we would appreciate very specific suggestions back. we will go down to ms. matsui from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the system of the most interesting and at scary testimony i have ever heard. i think that, quite frankly, our country does not realize what risks we have. i think the things we hear about over the news are not necessarily -- it talks about hacking, but it is at a personal level that people understand. this could affect our economy, our country, the way we live. i truly believe this education process is going to be very important. and i also believe that people like you have to step up to talk about it in ways that they

probably could understand. the cyber security, everybody sort of understand it, but does not understand it. with every advance in technology, we open ourselves up and our daily lives could be impacted so much. i wanted to follow-up on little bit more on the cloud-based services. businesses and governments are now going into the cloud. what are the unique challenges facing the crowd with respect to cyber security, and are we prepared and thinking ahead in regard to these challenges? >> it is something that is getting a lot of attention from everybody. i think a lot of people are running before they have thought it through. i think it is very application and business sensitive, depending on what you put in the cloud. some things that you put in

there is a a password sensitive. that is fine. but if you are putting a valuable information and intellectual property in the cloud, you have got issues. the security within the cloud is not what it is within the main frame center today. and how do you communicate to the cloud is still a matter of how you choose to implement that. i think that is very naive. >> are we have a place where we could start looking at that and incorporate how we integrate some of these things into the information sharing activities? >> absolutely. >> we are still ok right now, but right now, you talk about it as a very sexy things. people are still jumping to it. dr. lewis, you mentioned the government should find ways to incentivize companies and dr. schneck was talking about the

same thing. what types of incentives would be the most effective, in your opinion? >> four kinds of incentives. there is regulation. we will need some of that, not too much, and it varies from sector to sector. there are tax breaks -- and i mention this to other republican tasker is in cyber security. they thought this was not the best year to go after that. there are subsidies, and we might need subsidies for research and development and other things. finally, there is a coordinating affect. someone has to lead. you could find this is a good story from the australian example. if you pull these things

together and point them in the right direction, they will come up with some good stuff. we have found some good examples of the defense department were that has worked well. regulation, tax breaks, subsidies -- and that might include building something into the rate structure and that could include infrastructure. >> doctor, do you agree? >> not necessarily. i think regulation draws a box around what you are protecting and takes it away from research and it shows the bad guys what we are not protecting. anything that allows a company to be creative and invest up front in cyber security -- because the upfront investment is a lot easier than the cleanup. we do not realize this, but the small and medium businesses make up 90% of our fabric. to think about where the newest technologies come from, not just cyber, but maybe the next

jet engine -- they will not necessarily invest a lot in cyber security when they get that huge grant. but if it is built into that grant, extra money saying you will get this money from the government only if you promise to secure it, and we can provide that. >> government does have a role, though. how do you do this so you all work together? you are right. the business sector can work together and have solutions, but how do we get to the next place? >> the thing you have to do is go over the legal obligation when you sit with cdo's. they all agree until they talk to their legal counsel. then it went completely dead. nobody wants a public antitrust issue of sharing. and if you go public, you

create a standard to be sued criminally as well as civily. and as soon as i say something, that is the standard it is held to. >> thank you. >> we now go to the representative from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for some of you, those of you that do not serve on the committee, you go home and you say, do i turn that on or not? i have been told that as soon as you see the "http coxf" you are safe.

-- "https" comes up your are safe. are you telling me that is not true now? >> i hate to say that my daughters are on some social networking, and we had our problems, about four days to get that thing fixed. i am very cognizant of the fact, of watching that httpf come up because i do online banking. it is one thing that we need to think of. you both mentioned in your testimony the idea of creating

trust of relationships online either through authenticated e- mails or through wide listing. could you explain that? >> our focus on trusted relationships and the macro is a little bigger. we all work together, and we do. i think we are dealing online with a world that is much different than spam filter. what we but that was only the e-mails sector. now you have the mobile vector. the enemy is factor. when you look at relationships, we have 30 different parameters we but at.

it was all kinds of things. now you multiplied that. we have 1000 different parameters of trust that we but at. it is what has your behavior been lately. >> continuing to advance the implementation of the identities in cyberspace. it is a step in the right direction. it is an example of them gathering together to address this. it is a root issue in this entire trusted discussion. there is a collaborative effort under way. it is moving to implementation. it could be a step in the right direction. >> the irony is about this.

>> let me go on with this. people are testing what they're doing on the internet. this is what we're talking about earlier. you need to buy from the trusted source. how do you know that even if you buy from somebody that is trusted that the step is still good? how do you go through unless you are testing? are you testing constantly? >> i will take that first with your permission. you have authorized to issue the shares and sellers that we utilize.

that is a place to start from, understanding who those providers are. there is a great deal of war going on in the open group to create a certification and accreditation progress with suppliers to address this issue. the fundamental piece of this is cultural. we are evaluating people on their ability to meet the schedule. this drives a certain behavior. it does not have security as a paramount foundation of that contact. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> you are now recognized for questions. >> thank you. this is a general question. the communications security reliability council has been formulating recommendations for

best practices to ensure reliability of communication systems. had you see this process contributing to success? what is the role in the coordinated defense? >> i am glad you said that. i was trying to remember. i have gotten all but two of the letters. we have all said that we are moving to a world where the role of the service providers is going to be more important. that is where they are the lead agencies. we looked at this issue. they were afraid that's if they took to active of a roll, they might be seen as trying to regulate the internet. they wanted to avoid that.

they have taken on an approach that works more of coordination with the experts with developing venues for the private sector and encouraging them to come up with the voluntary approach. one thing i said to the sap a while ago was try the voluntary approach. if it works, great. if it does not work, we need more mandatory measures. it looks like it is working. congress has some other things they are doing. this is where the service providers and their regulators will be one and the key elements of cyber security in the future. >> anyone else that strikes their in a position to serve in this campaign in coordinating that at the national and system level to help deliver messages to stakeholders. they're working with carriers to be able to deliver that

message. i think there is a key role. >> they are setting a good example. they are reaching out to private sectors, saying what are the best practices. when you talk about the need to get the house in order, that repeats. they have a group of people really looking at these policies and issues. we never seen that before. this is a good time for them to not only builds on the awareness they launched last spring on the hygiene program but to jump on it for the larger enterprise as an example. >> mr. connor, this is probably what you referred to. your testimony said the report

having been affected by cyber attacks, what is the role in preventing the small-business is. >> the networks underpin this. >> it is not always outside or those attack factors come from. just like organized crime found its way inside, increasingly will have to look at that as an attack factor. it should be something that the sec takes into consideration as we look at how to do that in addition to the filtering. one thing i would caution, i hear a lot of rhetoric around building separate networks.

i am old enough that we had separate networks and only had cleared people doing it. to the reliability when things like 9/11 and tsunamis happen, the benefit of multiple networks outweigh the need to protect the isolated network. and do not believe that is a real answer in today's world. >> i will yield back the value of my time. >> we believe mr. blackburn is next. >> thank you for the panel. we do have two competing panels. let me go with mr. lewis. could you describe the problem with the current implementation

of domain name systems and why it is important? >> what you have heard is the people who designed the internet designed it as a dod network and it thought it would grow out. they did not worry about trust or authentication. we did not have to worry about this. the domain name system comedy addressing system, it is vulnerable to spoofing. it can be manipulated. you think as far as you can tell on your machine that you are going to a legitimate site. it could be the government of iran or a russian site. you can spoof it. they use communication so there reduce the ability to

impersonate another site. >> the challenge with this committee is that it is so high-tech. it is very tough for people to understand. a lot of people understand why you have a demand. now they have exploding domain names. this is one for the whole panel. should i be working to rule it out? >> beware of newfangled toys. it has liabilities better equal to the liabilities we have today. will it be five or 10 years later? we hope sooner. if it turns green you know you are safe.

and someone says your identity is to it is, it is. that is where i put the focus instead of buying authentication technology to taking responsible liability for your identity. if the cost you 500, that is where the poll but starts to make sense. >> does anyone else want to respond? that is fine. we followed them years ago. dismantling by china and russia and their neighbors. they tend to be very concerned. they are allowing democracy movement to get their word out to communicate. that keeps evolving.

the losses governments try to clamp down on that. i have also been concerned about. that is just a statement. it is like a competitive market. people want to get information. it is so we can really regulate. i serve on the energy committee and he power plants of the time. the opening statement talked about you could be secure if you have a desktop alone and no longer connected.

vinifies what votes could and of doing. the power utility system relies so much on data going to rtos. what they are producing is excitable electrons to get on the grid. if that is all we had to worry about we would be fairly safe. it is all the calculation. >> i testified earlier. we have to start within the power production plant itself. we are working with large manufacturers. you want to know whether the

original ones or the ones coming in, who they are and where they are from. we need access in both systems and sharing the information. the third thing we're working with is how that data is shared. only the people with the right authorization can see it. data at one location will not solve a grid by definition. >> to other quick points. it does not make any sense. people bring their iphone to work. the plug it into charge. we have seen that with allegedly isolated air gap networks. they are talking about the networks.

this is an avenue of attack. right now when you buy in the password is password and the user name is admin. it does not take long for opponents to figure that out. they look to how their infrastructure affects the internet. the the lawyers to tell you you're not connected. when you do the survey, you find you are. we need to have some way to bring the industry -- >> the good news is a lot of these are the same. if you can get some best practices and incentives, they multiplied. authentication is one vector. you have technology in the opponents.

this is pretty simple. the only do one job and life. they are an opponent on the system. you can lock down what they do. >> thank you. >> we will now go to ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you all for being here and for your patience with us. i want to say just a couple of things. i think it is so important. anything we do is going to be passe before the ink is dry on what ever it is we do. another thing, we have spent some time on this committee and

a trade looking at the issue. there is the data security and a brief vacation issue. it is a component of what we have here. most people do not realize the vulnerability that exists in their home with a computer that is there. i hear about it a lot with my district in tennessee with all the songwriters and entertainers and individuals in financial systems. this is compound in every day. as we look at the privacy issues, and let me ask you about federal preemption.

as you look at our standards, i wonder if you have any thoughts of putting in language and making certain that we are working with this. >> i am supportive of preemptive notification requirements. we have 47 different ones. these are things i have been hammering on. we have to understand that it involves costs. we can have good standards. we do not have to have multiple good standards. we can have the increased security, better privacy. i think that ability to cut through the government's

falling all over itself is critical to getting that. i'm very supportive. >> i would tell you it the single largest legislation issue that has bought security this probably california 1386. why? if it happens, you have a carrot and a stick. if you try to encourage yourself, you are safe. if you have not, you are looking at a class-action suit. this is the shot that was heard around the world in the u.s.. this needs to be worked with. it is an inextricable link to cyber-security.

the second piece i would tell you is the regulation that was just passed about disclosure. it is going to have a profound impact. >> that disclosure is pretty nebulous in terms of being meaningful. as a small business person in terms of what that means to you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> your recognized for five minutes. mr. bilbray. >> thank you. to you believe the law enforcement has the tools they need to go after cyber criminals as described in your testimony? >> they do not. if you look at it since that are being made to have the criminal network geared up, i think part of the problem where look at their onetime uses.

unless you use it every day, the system will never be ready. the internet is treated like a country. we were able to put the passport information so it has biometrics. this country does that do with that. it is first-generation digital. the second thing it has, and this is all on commercial chips, it was 6000 agents. if they go after a tsunami, they can go on any network included in an internet cafe and can be secure. then access to any interpol office. it all resides on this little card that 6000 agents use around the world today as they

fight crime. it has three different standards and cases that allow them to do their job. it is what he or she uses every day. it is not something you use everyday, it will not be useful at the time of need in some of that. >> we are replacing cyber crime with where we were in the 30's with the cops caring 30 revolvers. >> worse than that, we are isolated. we are the most at risk. there is no ability to enter work on global capability with the good guys. >> most of us here will remember after 9/11 this issue

of technology security, biometrics, was one of the top priorities of the 9/11 commission. we passed the real identification bill. not everybody has found excuses to keep dragging on. we are granting the states for common security. the state are refusing. we have given them money and they say we want to spend it on other things rather than the first priorities. you think we may want to revisit that whole situation rather than ignoring? >> i spoke after bush addressed the house and senate. other legislators were leading this effort. i spoke at nato after 9/11. we learned how to defend air, land, and sea.

the next frontier is cyber. we have made progress but the bad guys have made more progress. they can jump across jurisdiction with no legal barrier. >> this is a point where we may want to talk. this is a place for both sides should be able to cooperate. we have a consensus. the obstructionists are on both sides of the aisle, too. maybe they can look back and see how we can address that issue. i appreciate the fact you draw the line about i am concerned. they brought two interesting things. when we bring that strategy, we do not want to greet a box that has people litigating private sector. we also do not want the bad guys to know how far outside they need to move to avoid it.

can you elaborate again how that may be utilized by the bad guys? >> this issue is so vast. if you start saying you implement these five things, the adversaries are always looking at how to get around it. they know their targets. they know what they want. they spent many months and people to find the intellectual property they want. they get it. it is quite clear that if we say we are going to seal up these gateways and these are the best practices we must follow, that is where the money will go. after that, the money will not go to anything new and different. the adversary always goes outside that. it is just like the industrial

control system. they say they are disconnected by you find that put the modems back to a person can monitor the game. there is always a way. we want to incentivize. we're not incentivized to do what is good for the greater good. if you put that money toward innovation, we will end up building better technology. >> that is a great question. i am less concerned about what we say we are doing. did say anything you want. by the time you do it, they have already figured it out. they're not waiting for us to regulate. the model is very clear as joined forces. we still have strong army, air force, marines, coast guard. they have done their own.

they're highly integrated with their suppliers. i served on the joint force advisory board as a private sector person. there is what you do that is public and what you do that is not public. that is how cyber security has to be treated. did they have to get their best and brightest. and they had to share what is public is public and what is not is more important. >> they refer to australia. it reminds me of a story of a notorious australian bush man robber named ned kelly. he was notorious for putting so much armor on so that nobody

could shoot him and his armor slowed him down so much that he shot him in the back where he was not armored. that may be very symbolic of the ned kelly syndrome. we create an opportunity for the bad guys to get around us. >> i thank all of our committee members. the value of the content we got from you all is unparalleled. i think my colleague and i will be reaching out to each of you to say come back to us with what really would work. we got a lot of that. we're going to move forward on this. i think there is an opportunity to look at device manufacturers, perhaps the phone or router side, the education side. we really appreciate what you're doing out there. we appreciate your input to us so we can try to get it right and solve this problem.

>> i would say bravo. thank you very much. every member drew so much for your testimony and the answers to our question. it was most helpful. thank you. >> with that, the committee will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> up next on c-span, some of yesterday's's debate on health care and the federal mandate requiring insurance plans cover birth control. we will hear from house republicans, the white house, presidential candidate mitt romney, and then senate democrats. today, the senate to this theory committee considers a bill that will allow tv cameras in the

supreme court for oral arguments. committee members will debate the bill. the meeting begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> i get fewer than 60 days, effective april 1, 2012, japan will lower its corporate rates. that will leave the united states with the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. that will make it much more challenging to attract businesses. >> someone said the same tax -- seeing tax law made is like seeing sausages made. you just do not want to see it. quite we need to work collectively to support a more "-- a more coherent and equitable tax policy. >> this week, house ways and

means to cut tax policy for publicly traded companies and how to encourage investment and job growth. follow the discussion on line at the c-span video library, archive and searchable at c- span.org/videolibrary. >> republicans said yesterday they will try to overturn provisions in the affordable care act that requires all insurance plans to belfort contraception. house speaker john boehner commented on the issue on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker: my colleagues, 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 and abortion -inducing drugs, devices and contraception. in an -- in imposing this requirement, the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encoaching -- encroaching on religious freedom in a man that are affects millions of americans 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. the 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 and 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 >> the contraceptive issue was also the main topic of a press briefing held by senate republicans. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell kicked off this meeting.

>> it was kind of a slow day today. all of the news makers or someone else. down at the baseball park i heard. is that right? they are at the nat's stadium? we had a republican conference this morning to discuss essentially the jobs issue, our economy, and the way forward. our new conference chairman, john thune, conveyed that issue. i will call on him in a minute. we would like to address another issue that has risen in the context of obamacare. he has gotten the government involved in all aspects of our health care. he may have gotten us involved in other things as well.

we have three senators with us who have been involved in developing a response to the most recent discovery of yet another government interference with our lives in obamacare. we will do that shortly. with that, let me call on our conference chair, john thune. >> we had a good discussion this morning. the thing you are reminded of is we are an entrepreneur we have a lot of people with really good ideas about how to move our country forward. the one thing i think i would say and everybody agrees on is the president's policies have made our economy much worse. because his policies have made our economy worse, he is trying to distract and divide americans by and talking about divisions and those sorts of

things to get groups of americans pitted against each other. we think there is a better way. we ought not be talking about how to redistribute the pie, but how to make it bigger for all americans. how to expand our economy and create jobs. this morning was about coming together on those key agenda items and hopefully be able to work with the democrats on that, although it looks very much like they do not want to do a lot this year. i think the leader on their side would like to insulate his leaders on making it difficult vote in an election year. the path forward in terms of how we are going to deal with spending, debt, jobs, and the economy -- we are at a loss right now as to why the democrats are not going to produce a budget for the fourth year in a row. there are some things we can get done between now and the

election. the american people expect us to act. we do not have a lot of time. the issues we face are big and the consequences of inaction are great. my hope is we will see some willingness on their part to work with us to put policies in place that will make it less expensive and less difficult to create jobs for small businesses rather than making it more expensive and more difficult, which is what we have seen with the obama agenda. we have some folks who been on the lead on religious liberty. it is pretty clear we have, in this country, a heritage. the people who founded this country left other parts of the world because of the issue of religious persecution. that is the distinction about america. religious liberty is not something that is known in other parts of the world -- like the middle east.

what we have seen from this administration is the trampling of the first amendment protection and a systematic dismantling of religious liberty for people in this country. we believe that the president and, hopefully as a administration, will walk back from that. this is clearly an issue that has gotten the attention of not only the people who would subscribe to various religions -- catholics, protestants -- but those perhaps who are not that religious because they see this as an attempt to grow government and make it bigger, more expensive, and more interested. that is one of the very things we warned about when obamacare was passed in the first place. kelly ayotte. >> we have seen with the president's health care bill as

the regulations are released by health and human services unprecedented -- if we put religious institutions and faith based organizations in a position where they have to comply with government mandates that violate the principles of their faith, it is an affront to what we stand for as americans. also, this is not a women's rights issue. this is a religious liberty issue and it can apply to all faiths. i have for from my constituents who are deeply concerned about this. we need to respect the rights of conscience are all religions. when you look at what this administration has done, it has awakened a whole group of people who are deeply concerned about an unprecedented expansion of government into issues that we have always left in the quiet people's homes, churches, and faith based institutions. i will say this also.

what the administration has done is really unprecedented. both parties have respected religious liberty. if you look at what was signed into law in 1993 -- the religious freedom restoration act -- what this administration has done also violates not only the spirit of that law, but also the letter of that law, which was signed into law by a democratic president. again, i would say this is unprecedented. this is not a women's rights issue. this goes to the fundamentals of our constitution. i would call on the president to overturn this health and human services regulation, to stop infringing on religious freedom, and to change the direction on what we have seen as an unprecedented expansion of obamacare.

>> what we have is the administration trying to act like they are backing away from this bad policy. jay carney saying we want to talk about this for a year. we have given them a year to think about it. that may be the most offensive part of this whole idea. you have to do things that are contrary to your faith principles. by the way, we are going to give you a year to figure out how to accommodate that change. it is offensive, it violates the first amendment of the constitution, it shows what happens when the government thinks they can not only defined health care, but deliver health care. it should not be allowed to stand. it is fundamentally a religious principle issue. the government is saying here is the specific kind of coverage you have to give your em