>> we are live from the conservative political action conference. all were coverage starts at 2:15 p.m. we will hear from john cornyn. and at 4:30 p.m. eastern, remarks from sarah palin. long, caucuses -- week-long caucuses back up

today. on tuesday, caucuses in alaska, oklahoma, tennessee, georgia, of virginia and massachusetts. >> just the way i remember. here is that wonderful moment when senator lott revealed his last ounce jar for the states' rights of the south. >> talking points memo publisher on the internet and his website's emerges in the breaking news business. >> it is hard to believe that was 10 years ago. things like that happen all the time now. there are many big stories that

tpm has had over the last decade. we had an editorial staff breaking stories right and left. it has almost become commonplace. it is not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. >> more on tpm and josh ."rshall on c-span's "q & a >> more than 100 students gathered at the white house on tuesday for the second annual white house science fair. the president announced private sector grants to support science education. this is 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the

president of the united states. [laughter] -- [applause] >> welcome to the white house science there. -- fair. i just spent some time checking out some of the projects that were brought here today. this is fun. it is not every day you have robots running all over your house. i am trying to figure out how you got through the metal detectors. i also shot a marshmallow through an air gun, which was very exciting. size is what got several of our

guests when they are today. -- science is what that several of our guests here today. we have the administrator of the epa, lisa jackson. [applause] the director of the national science foundation is here. my science advisor is in the house. [applause] we have a couple of people who have dedicated themselves to making science school for young people. we have bill nye the science guy. [applause]

it is fitting that this year's fair is happening two days after the super bowl. i want to congratulate the new york giants in all of their fans. i am looking forward to having the giants here at the white house so we can celebrate their achievements. i have said this many times. if we are recognizing athletic achievement, we should also be recognizing academic achievement and science achievement. we invite the team that wins the super bowl to the white house. we need to invite the sites are winners to the white house as well. -- science fair winners to the white house as well. i am going to talk about all of you in a second. before i do, i want to give the

parents a big round of applause. i know they are really proud. seeing your kids do extraordinary things brings the greatest happiness that a parent can have. congratulations to all of the parents of all of these kids. [applause] parents are not the only ones who helped you get this far. everyone of you can think of a teacher or a couple of teachers without whom you would not be here. i want you to promise that the next time you see those teachers that you give them a big thank- you from yourself and from me. teachers matter. they deserve our support. i want to make sure we left up how important features art in making sure you succeed and this country succeeds. give teachers a big round of applause. [applause]

now, as i was walking around the science fair, i was thinking back to when i was your age. basically, you guys put me to shame. what impresses me so much is not just how smart you are, but the that that you recognize you have a responsibility to use -- the fact that you recognize you have a responsibility to use your talents in service of something bigger than your cells. that means developing new products that will change the way we live. haley invented a new type of sugar packet that dissolves in hot water. it could save 2 million pounds of trash each year. that is just at starbucks. [laughter]

mastercard has already awarded her $10,000 to help turn your idea into a business. some of you are here because you saw a problem in your community and you tried to do something to solve it. benjamin was worried that folks at his grandmother's senior center were getting lonely. he build a robot with a monitor and a video camera. it moves around the center and it allows seniors to talk to their kids and their grandkids even though they cannot this it impersonally. this can make life better for millions of families. for some of you, the journey you took to get here is as inspiring as the work you did. there is a team from texas. where are you? stand up, guys. this is part of the fourth

poorest school district in the state of texas. i was told that teachers cooked food to sell after church. supporters drove 200 miles to pick up doughnuts for bake sales. there raffled off a goat so they could raise money for the team to compete. the majority of the kids at the school are esl -- english as a second language. the presentation they made could not make you prouder. way to go. [applause] there is a group of young engineers from malcolm x academy. nobody needs to tell them the kinds of challenges detroit still faces. where is my team from detroit? their they are. stand up. [applause]

believe in their city and they are -- there they are. they believe in their city and they are doing what they can to keep detroit's come back going. there is a man that. -- samantha. she spent years studying mussel populations in the long island sound. when she learned she was a semifinalist for the intel science talent search, the family was living in a homeless shelter. think about what she has overcome. she wants to work for noaa or epa. lisa jackson is the head of epa. you might just want to look up with her before you leave.

[applause] the young people i met today, the young people behind me, you guys inspire me. it is young people like you that make me so confident that america's best days are still to come. when you work and steady and excel -- study and excel and when you compete in something like this, you are not just trying to win a prize today, you are getting america in shape to win the future. you are making sure we have the best, smartest, most skilled workers in the world. you are making sure we will always be home to the most advanced science labs and universities and making sure america will win be raised for the future. as an american, i am proud of

you. as your president, we need to make sure your success stories are happening all across the country. that is why when i took office, i called for an all hands on deck approach for science, technology, and engineering. let's get more kids studying science and engineering. let's make sure these fields get the respect and attention they deserve. it is not just a government effort. the private sector has answered that call as well. they understand how important it is for their future. there is a group of businesses and foundations that is announcing a $22 million fund to help train 100,000 new science and math teachers. a coalition of more than 100 ceo's is expanding innovative math and science programs at 130 sites across the country. everybody from will.i.am to dean

to make sure we celebrate young scientists and engineers. many of these people are here today. i want to thank them for doing their part. we will do everything we can to help you succeed in your projects. the budget i unveil next week will include projects to help prepare new math and science teachers. 1 million more american graduates in science, technology, science and math over the next 10 years. that is a goal we can achieve. [applause] in a lot of ways, today is a celebration of the new. the believe that we belong on

the cutting edge of an ovation, that is an idea as old as america itself. we are a nation of thinkers and dreamers and believer in a better tomorrow. our founding fall others were out there doing experiments. benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson -- they were constantly curious about the world around them and trying to figure out how we can shape the environment so that people's lives are better. it is in our dna. innovation has helped each generation passed down that basic american promise, which is that you can make it if you tried. there is nothing more important than keeping that promise ally for the next generation. there is no priority i have that is higher as president than this. i cannot think of a better way to spend the morning than be

with the young people who are doing their part creating some unbelievable stuff. i am proud of you. i want you to keep up your great work. i will make a special plea to the press, not just the folks who are here, but your editors. give this some attention. this is the kind of stuff, what these young people are doing, that is going to make a bigger difference in the light of our country over the long term than just about anything -- the life of our country over the long term than just about anything. it does not belong on the back pages of the newspaper. we have got to lift this up and to emphasize how important this is an recognize these incredible young people who are doing things that i could not even imagine thinking about in that grade or a grade -- eighth grade

or in high school. they acted to do this. this will make a difference in this country -- pay attention to this. this will make a difference in this country in the long run. this is what we should be focusing on in our debates. as for the folks here, do not let your robots wander off anywhere. [laughter] thank you, everybody. congratulations. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the president and the student exhibitors have left the room.

>> good job, everybody. [applause] >> thursday, president obama announced 10 states can opt out of some of the requirements of the note child left behind law. the states -- the no child

left behind. law. they have to develop new systems to evaluate teachers and principals. >> why don't you stand up so we can see you? thank you. i want to recognize someone doing a good job in washington, d.c. that is my education secretary, arne duncan. i also have some outstanding members of the congress who have been on the frontlines when it comes to education reform. above all, i want to thank all of the teachers who are here today. where are the teachers? , on. stand up. -- come on. stand up.

[applause] earlier this week, we hosted our second white house science fair. i got a chance to shoot a marshmallow out of an air canada, which i do not usually get to do- air cannon. -- do not usually get to do -- an air cannon, which i do not usually get to do. i asked a student how he came up with this idea. he said, i have been always interested in nuclear materials. i asked if his mother was happy about that. these were unbelievable young people. before they left, i gave them some homework. i said, both by a teacher who helped them make it here and say thank you -- go find a teacher

who helped them make it here and say thank you. everyone can remember a teacher who helped save -- change the course of their lives. a single teacher can increase the lifetime earnings of a classroom by $250,000. a great teacher can help a student escape poverty and allow them to dream beyond their circumstances. teachers matter. in an economy where employers are looking for the most skilled and educated workers, people are going to have a bigger impact -- no people have a bigger impact than the men and women in our classrooms. it is about our children and what is happening to them and how they can perform. in september after waiting to log for congress to act, i announced my demonstration will

take steps to reform no child left behind. this was not the first or the biggest we cannot wait announcement. our kids cannot be held back by inaction. members of congress are ready to act. we have not been able to get the entire house and senate to move on this. the goals of no child left behind were the right ones, standards and accountability. those were the right goals. closing the achievement gap. that is a good goal. we have to focus in a way that does not encourage teachers to teach to the test or have schools lower and their standards to avoid being labeled a failure. that does not help children succeed in the classroom.

each of us has a role to play when it comes to our children's education. we need to instill a love of learning from the start. as a nation, we have a responsibility to get out or students the resources they need, from the highest quality schools to delayed his textbooks, to science labs that actually work. -- the latest text books, two sides last that really work. less than 1% of our nation spends on education each year -- we have to get every school to raise their standards for teaching and learning. when it comes to fixing what is wrong with no child left behind, we have offered every state the

same deal. if you are willing to set more honest standards than the ones set no child left behind -- set by no child left behind, we will give you the flexibility to meet those standards. we will combine greater freedom with greater accountability. what works in minnesota may not work in kentucky. every student should have the same opportunity to reach their potential. over the last five months, 39 states have told us they are interested. some have already applied. i am pleased to announce that we are giving the first 10 states the green light to continue making the reforms that are best for them. each of these states had set higher benchmarks for student achievement. -- has set higher benchmarks for student achievement based on

more than higher test scores. they are also going to be focused on lower income students and english-language learners and students with disabilities. not just to make sure those children do not fall through the cracks, but to make sure they have every opportunity to go as far as their talent will take them. the goal is to cut the number of underperforming students in half over the next six years. colorado has launched a website to allow teachers and parents to see how much progress students and teachers are making and how well schools are measuring up. nothing creates more accountability than parents taking a look and see what is going on. new jersey is developing an early warning system to reduce the number of dropouts. tennessee is aggressively attacked a -- aggressively

tackling its lowest performing schools. i like that ambition. this is good news for our kids, good news for our country. i am confident we will see more states come forward in the months ahead. if we are serious about helping our children reach our -- their full potential, it cannot just come from here in washington. it will come from cities and towns all across america. it will come from teachers, principals, and parents. it will come from you, who have a sense of what works and what does not. lift up best practices. hold states and schools accountable for making them work. we will make sure every child in america has the skills and the education they need to compete for jobs in the future and to be great citizens.

that is how we will build an economy that lasts. to all the educators in the world, thank you for what you do every day. we are proud of york -- educators in the room, thank you for what you do every day. we are proud of what you do every day. year after year, we will see steady improvement. as i told the superintendent sign that backstay, this is not a one year project -- superintendent i met backstage, this is not a one-year project. we can get it done with the kind of determination and the kind of commitment so many of you have shown. i am proud of you. i am proud of arne duncan. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

remain in your seats until the president has departed. president has departed.

>> we are live from the conservative political action conference on c-span. we will hear from texas senator john cornyn. he will be followed by grover norquist. at 4:30 p.m. eastern, remarks from sarah palin. >> when i first started the book, i thought, this must be an american story. a country that worships self- reliance and individualism. it turns out we are laggers

when it comes to living alone. it is more common in european nations. >> on "after words," the growing trend of americans choosing to live alone and what that means to the country. also, the second cousin of condoleezza rice on her work to reduce gang violence in new york and starting -- in l.a. and "revenge of the women's studies professor." >> this week on "newsmakers," energy and environmental policy. you can watch "newsmakers"

sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> president obamas says his administration is changing rules about birth control. earlier in the week, a group of catholic activists said that employers should not have to provide birth control coverage. >> catholic employers would be

forced to violate their consciences. this has received critical backlash because it forces religious institutions to fund procedures and because it violates the first amendment. the january 20 statement by the hhs secretary, kathleen sebelius, says we will continue to work with religious groups to discuss their concerns. this decision was made after careful consideration, including concerns raised about religious liberty. there is an appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and providing preventive services. the artists of the diocese of new york -- archbishop of the diocese of new york says the ohio -- the obama

administration with force catholics to violate their conscience and this will not stand. americans will recognize its for the constitution a detour that it is an urge their representative -- it for the constitutional detour that it is an urge their representatives to repeal it. after last month's hhs statement, 150 bishops have spoken out against the statement. they said, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences. it is literally and unconscionable. it is as much a tax on access to health care as on religious freedom.

in new york times columnist says the government has given religious institutions and a possible choice. play by our rules even if it means violating the moral ideas that inspired your efforts in the first place or get out of the community building business entirely. he says the obama white house is a threat to anybody who does not share the moral sensibilities of anybody to does not share the health care bureaucracy. it is the duty of religious leaders to follow their consciences. it will be the work of politicians to do what they need to do. people in all ranges of the media have been commenting on this. this has been called a battle the president cannot win. it was reported that signatures to resend the mandate -- rescind

the mandate has more signatures 5 to 1 rejecting this mandate. there are 2600 signatures opposing the mandate. on capitol hill, marco rubio has introduced a religious freedom law. john boehner has given a floor speech saying, if the president does not reverse the administration also attack on religious freedom, the congress must. this has caused a lot of speculation that the obama administration make compromise. axelrod said, we do not want to a bridge in 1's religious

freedom. we will look for a way to -- a bridge anyone's religious freedom. we have here to discuss and settle all of this and help us see i'll wait will work -great- see our way forward, we have ryan williams as moderator. he received a b.a. and m.a. and moved to kenya to implement the

classic program for the national cemetery. he is now a doctoral candidate and a teaching fellow in the school of philosophy at the catholic university of america. ryan will continue and further the discussion. >> we are having a panel discussion on the hhs mandate. i would like to introduce our panel. richard doerflinger works at the united states conference of catholic bishops. he is the secretary of pro-life activity, where he has worked for 37 years. he deals with the embryo research and other medical moral research. m.a. from the

university of chicago. mr. james capretta is a fellow at the at 6 and public policy center. -- ethics at the public policy center. he studied and provided commentary on a wide range of public policy and economic issues. kyle duncan is general counsel for the becket fund for religious liberty. -- beckett fund. he taught constitutional law and serve in the texas attorney general post office. -- texas attorney general's office. we will have some remarks given

by each of our panelists. after that, there will be a small discussion at against- -- the paddle themselves. as you listen to the topics, think of hard questions to ask these gentlemen. to begin, we will start with mr. richard doerflinger. >> thank you. i would like to begin by putting this in a slightly broader context. the debate begins with the health care reform act itself. it was passed in march of 2010. during the process of that bill, catholic bishops said, we are not experts on how use structure health care. we have certain expectations.

one of those was the protection of conscience. there were various at first to address that issue. the final bill was petitioned on that. we ended asking for an vote -- a vote against the bill. it passed over our objections. for the first time, the federal government was creating a mandate and does this list that every health care plan in america would have to include -- mandated benefits list that every health care plan in america would have to include. there was a separate requirement for preventive services, including a separate list that would include preventive services for women. the floor debate about the need

for services for women was about breast cancer screening. we have no objection to that whatsoever. there were members of the congress who wanted to use an act as a wage to create a nationwide contraceptive mandate. there have been 20 bills introduced, none of which got out of committee. there were religious exemptions of various kinds. you had a hook that could be used to create a mandate for contraception and sterilization. that is what turned out to be the case. the department of health and human services delegated the task of creating the list to the institute of medicine. at least five of the members of that committee, who were board

members of planned parenthood affiliates -- you ended up saying contraceptive services were essential benefits for women. every other preventive service in that list was about preventing a disease. until now, the american people had not voted that the proposition -- on the proposition that babies are a disease. that was proposed last august. we were against it on three grounds. contraception is not based on pregnancy being a disease. it is an elected and should remain an elected.

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. it went against the beliefs of 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 that they have to put premiums 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

your employees soft of health care -- all your employees off of health care. employeeshave 100 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. religious organizations did not 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. it is why we allow for oaths 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 in 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 mentioned this. some view it as a disease.

>> what does this imply about reproductive the and pregnancy? there is a legal precedent, but rather deeper, cultural once tried to ingrain themselves? >> let me take a step and then let others speak, too. planned parenthood's problem is set on the one hand to keep setting the statistic that 98% of women have used a family planning method or another. the more relevant statistic is 69% of sexually active women who do not want to be pregnant are using one of the methods covered by this man did and the rest areas and not -- mandate, and

the rest using nothing at all. some are using natural family planning. these are the most effective, but the most effected are what they have been spending throughout the third world, and want to get american women used to -- implantables. these methods are more independent of user motivation. they're much better for use in takeovers of -- in the course of plan. it means if you forget your pill, you are still baron. these other things that most expensive. this is where the money hits the road, and you say there is a lot of sterilization. these have a high copiague. they want to make them free. what they mean by free is there

will not be a co pay any more. it will be loaded into your standard premium, and the standard premium of everyone else in the country that did not want this to spread the cost. all of us are being requisitioned in order to meet their goal to get american women to use the more -- lasting and effective contraceptives, better also come up by the way, the most dangerous for women. so, this is the situation we are facing there is a broader agenda for all of this, and it is not to reflect reality. it is to change reality, and get american women doing more of what they think they need. >> i agree that there is an agenda to push into certain practices of american culture.

there are certain practices that are viewed as the right way. the costing is a red herring. the idea that the federal government is already subsidizing the distribution of contraception in a very abundant way, the idea that there is a gigantic barrier to those getting contraceptives if they want to use it is really not true. they are trying to put into the mainstream insurance coverage that will allow the introduction of other things. it creates a delegation appointed they find important. it is a long-term agenda they have been pursuing for decades now. >> 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 and constitution, then we have 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 here? 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 the name we get things in common 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.

that the fate something 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. they're 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% against the 39% in favor. 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? 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 contraceptve -- 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 of this. 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. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] >> now, the other side of the issue from a group called catholics students for women's health who spoke on thursday in favor of requiring plans to cover birth control for institutions with religious affiliations.

>> good morning, everyone. thank you for coming. my name is meghan smith. i am representing catholics for choice. we will have a great list of speakers for you, from local catholic universities and local non-catholic universities, followed by a brief question and answer period. we were delighted when a full package of health-care services was required to be covered without co-pay under the affordable care act, representing a step forward for millions of women and their

families. similarly, we were excited when the department of health and human services -- went against the backlash, the usual suspects, who oppose any rulings that oppose contraceptives. we did not expect a backlash from so-called liberal punditry to do the same. this is especially concerning to us. however, in light of the fact that the regulations on birth control coverage already represent a severe compromise by excluding church employees -- janitors, housekeepers, nuns, and some schoolteachers from this coverage, it is also concerning to us that the voices that who will benefit, such as those standing behind me today, and to support no-cost birth

control coverage have been drowned out. we know that 98% of catholic women who are sexually active have been using some sort of birth control banned by the vatican. 65% of catholics have indicated that they support birth control coverage under government-run or private health-care plans. the bishops are rejecting the tenants of our catholic faith by ignoring individual consciences, rejecting our commitment to social justice, and to the poor folks who will benefit from this, and by rejecting objection to freedom, and ignoring our commitment to the idea that religious freedom has two sides -- freedom from religion, and freedom of religion. we know that 98% of catholic

women who have used birth control support this coverage, and we know millions of americans stand to benefit, including not only the 700,000 employees of catholic health- care institutions, but many students at catholic universities, both catholic and non-catholic. i am going to read to you the list of speakers as they will appear in order. they will then come up and present to you. kelly is the president of students for choice. she will be followed by kathleen, the former lieutenant governor of maryland, then a catholic university undergraduate, a fordham university alumnus, a georgetown university for choice member a member of georgetown university law center's law students for

reproductive justice, and a member of american universities students for choice. thank you. >> good morning. my name is kelly, and i am a senior at the catholic university of america as well as president of the catholic university students for choice, a group unrecognized by my university. we're here today speaking out for the millions of students across the country who applaud the obama administration pose a regulation and demand our right regulationration's and demand our right to individual freedoms by a demanding personal choice in

medication. we believe that the need for comprehensive women's health care must take priority to the catholic bishops. as a student who does not practice catholicism, i chose to enroll at catholic university because it provides a world- class education, a top-notch faculty and is in a city full of opportunities. catholic university prides itself on welcoming students of all faiths, and all we are asking for is for this value to be upheld in the health care the university provides for its students and staff. we are not here to ask the catholic bishops to support a woman's decision to use contraceptives. we're only asking the catholic bishops to let them exercise their individual religious freedoms and make their own

decisions in regards to their reproductive health. during a visit to my university health center, i informed the doctor of my decision not to remain abstinent. i was told i need to start taking care of my body and protecting myself, so i asked, how am i supposed to protect myself when my university does not allow condoms or other contraceptives? and what, catholic bishops, do you propose those students who have severe medical conditions which can be helped through the use of oral contraceptives should do? have you ever felt the pain of ovarian cysts or cramps so painful you need prescription painkillers to get through the day? no, you have not felt the pain, yet you make decisions for millions of women with such conditions. the university certainly expects

all students to lead a virtuous lives. however, we all know that abstinence proves unrealistic for many college students. the university has a knowledge the sexual activity on our campus -- acknowledged the sexual activity on our campus, but the attempt to curb this by mandating single sex storms has been less than effective. it is time to consider the health and safety of university communities and provide the same access to contraceptives without copiague that has been deemed necessary for all women buy it -- without copays that has been deemed necessary for all women by the institute of medicine. i would like you to consider what it would be like to spend in the shoes of a 20- year-old woman before you impose

your values. i support the obama administration's stance on contraceptive coverage as well as the entire package. we will not compromise. we will not back down. religious affiliated organizations have the obligation to do what is right by providing women with unfettered access to health care. and we refuse to remain unheard. thank you. [applause] >> well said. this is really the students day. my name is kathleen kennedy townsend. i am the oldest of 11 children. i know about coming from a time when contraception was not easily available. i have four daughters, two of them attended catholic universities, and want to say

clearly that catholic women of this generation know that they need contraceptive coverage. they need it because they're women of conscience. they make decisions wisely and they can make decisions about what is in the best interest of themselves, their families and their health. the bishops do not seem to realize that 98% of catholic women use contraceptives. 98%. that means that the bishops have not been able to convince the women they are right. the bishops therefore should not use the power of the government to do what they cannot do themselves. the fact is, this is a moral question and a question that women can have the opportunity in the right to decide for themselves. this is what this whole argument is about. it is also about politics. 28 states already require that large institutions, catholic

institutions, cover contraception. 28 states. so why is it that at this time, in this moment, in this political season, that we have heard this problem? i think it is incumbent on the politicians to support the obama administration, who are out there supporting women, who say that women are people of conscience as you will hear. men can be people of conscience too if they are willing to listen to the needs of women. thank you very much. [applause] >> my name is derek. i am a senior at catholic university of america. i was born into a catholic family. i was baptized catholic and all of my life i attended catholic schools. but as much as catholicism has been an influential entity in my life, i must say that women have also been an influential entity as well. [laughter]

not only my mother, who taught me the strong characteristics i have, but my very first foothold and steppingstones were from women of my city, of my state, and of my country. my first internship in san francisco city hall up to congress, for nancy pelosi. i'm grateful for them all. and i am grateful to be standing here today defending women's health programs in campuses and all across the united states. let us explore how contraception is perceived by catholics. 90% of women who are catholic use contraceptives. -- 98% of women who are catholic use contraceptives. this is an overwhelming majority that the catholic church chooses to ignore. this large block of believers must -- cannot be silenced any

more. religious leaders are stipulating tyrannical measures upon a minority that heavily relies on these medications. their statements and positions not to support women's health programs directly affect my colleagues and my friends, who have to travel a great lengths to receive the health care they desire. secondly, we must take on this religious liberty complex that about leaders rally behind to push and oppressive notion of a minority. as these groups of men decide how to manage women on our campuses, they cloak themselves behind the first amendment. they speak of persecution of their religious freedom while trampling on the liberty of women. as a male student, i am appalled at such hypocrisy. all men of virtue should stand

up for equality, a special plea when it comes up to the individual -- especially when it comes to the individual decision making of the individual, male or female. equal access to health care for women is not a religious issue. birth control does far more than what the catholic church perceives, and 8 million women around the world -- and aids million around the world every day. religious freedoms are hijacked in our first amendment and they allow the church to pretend they are the victim of progress. the real victims are the 98% of catholics who have to hide their contraception use and be shunned from an important entity in their lives that should be more accepting. this is not a war on religion. if the church -- it is the

church who has repeatedly denounced the progress of women. defenders of equality must stand up against and irrationality that is increasingly becoming the status quo. president obama has done a great deal to protect women's health programs, and we are forever grateful for what he and supporters of women's progress everywhere are doing to keep health care accessible to all. we will continue our efforts to support health care for women on campuses everywhere. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i am speaking today both as a fordham university alum and as a reproductive justice advocate.

i am here as are my fellow speakers to say that where a woman goes to school or where she works should not determine her access to contraception. we're perfectly capable of making that decision ourselves, and the law should support that. i remember as an eager 18-year- old, ready to forge out into the adult world on my own, thinking there was no bigger decision than deciding where i would go to college because it would help shape where -- who i would become. i chose fordham university in part because of the catholic teachings and traditions that i learned as a child and because i connected to the jesuits traditions of quality education and public service. for them helped to nurture my am ividuality -- ford com

promised to nurture my individuality, and i deeply respect the jesuits education i received in a lasting values they instilled in me. but they also let me down. not to sound cheesy, but i was a single, 18-year-old female, looking for contraception, and finding it at fordham university was about as easy as finding a good man to use it for. [laughter] by denying us access to contraception, fordham university did not support us as they had promised to do. they put obstacles in the way of our reaching our potential and the filling our promise to them -- fulfilling our promise to

them, and challenging social injustice. this social injustice that affects me and so many catholics seems to be lost in the current battle over contraceptive access. social justice is a value the requires us to recognize the needs of others and help them to fulfill those needs so that they can lead healthy and productive lives. the u.s. catholic bishops claim these same values when they say that the h. h. best decision violates their catholic beliefs, -- hhs decision violates their catholic beliefs, but they do not consider the beliefs of catholic women. most women use contraception at some point in their lives, including 98% of catholic women. judging by the fact that only 10% of u.s. catholics believe the church leaders have the final say about contraception, i think we can all agree that a woman's own conscience matters

the most in matters relating to her health and life. the affordable care act is about fulfilling a need many women face, helping us to access quality, affordable health care. contraceptive access plays an important role in doing that because it will make women healthier and families more economically secure. the u.s. catholic bishops want to move us away from what the affordable care act aims to do by limiting access to contraception to certain women based solely on who they work for or where they go to school. this is simply wrong, and an injustice to all women. i am here to stand with the president and hhs and their decision to stand up for me and the health needs of women on campuses like fordham

university. thank you. [no audi[applause] >> hello. i am a senior at georgetown university. i am the president of an organization that is not recognized by the university due to our stance on abortion, birth control, condoms, and other things. i had a lot of reservations about going to catholic university, but i chose georgetown because of their belief in pluralism and their founding principle to nurture the whole person. i was assured the point of view that differed from those considered to be the catholic norm would be respected and even nurtured in my four years at georgetown, and for the most

part they have been. the georgetown community except me as a person of color, as a bisexual, but it accepts me as a person of color, -- accepts me as a person of color, as a bisexual, as a person from a different background, but not as a woman. university officials have an obligation to respect the health and well-being of their student population, and the majority of students at georgetown are women. for those women, their partners and their families, birth control is not just a matter of convenience. it is a basic necessity for every woman who wishes to prevent pregnancy. as long as catholic universities continue to deny access to reproductive services, they're also ignoring a fundamental part of women's health. i've heard horror stories of friends who are unable to use their student health insurance plan to access contraceptives

and have been forced to pay out of pocket for these expenses. when not covered by insurance, birth control can be $50 a month or higher. that is an expense my friends and i are simply unable to afford. by ignoring women's health, by putting women aside and leaving them to gamble with the availability of these necessary preventative services, catholic universities are failing in their responsibility. so when bishops asked me what i expected when i went to a catholic university, it is not this. like too many universities, there is an environment of stigma and shame around sex at georgetown. no women should have to be exposed to that for making irresponsible decision to access birth control. if you have a problem with birth control, catholic bishops, you can choose not to use it. it angers me that georgetown is trying to take that decision

away from women. they are violating our consciences. finally, i am so happy to be standing among these brave men and women. i'm so glad the catholics are standing up and saying that catholicism is not at odds -- is not synonymous with opposing birth control. women at georgetown should have the same right to contraceptives as our peers studying or working at george washington university. i'm happy with the obama administration decision to stand with women. i hope the religious affiliated colleges and universities will not continue to be denied their basic rights -- i hope the women and religious affiliated colleges and universities will not continue to deny their basic rights. it is not my right to tell the catholic church what to believe,

but it is my place to stand up for what i believe. it is the job of colleges and universities to support and nurture us so that we can grow into the best people we can be. the nine contraceptive services is no way to support yourself -- denying contraceptive services is no way to support your students. that is not pluralism. that is not respecting me as a whole person. i am not, nor will i be ashamed of my decision to access birth control. and university the disrespects women and their health care providers by denying -- in any university that disrespects women and their health care providers by denying access to birth control should be ashamed. we will not back down. we will demand access to birth control and women's health care services. [applause]

>> the morning. -- good morning. in the third year student at georgetown, a dozen law school. -- h as it -- a jesuit law school. we are so thankful to the obama administration for faithfully implementing the nonpartisan recommendation of the institute of medicine. this needs a critical need for young, vulnerable women on the campuses -- meets a critical need for young, vulnerable women on the campuses of some of our largest institutions. female students struggle with a lack of contraceptive coverage at georgetown because of financial, emotional, and other burdens. without coverage, contraception

could cost as much as $3,000. that is an entire summer salary. women denied contraceptive services risk pregnancy, and frankly, abortions that could be awarded. -- avoided. they sit in class wondering how they will get affordable birth control. they find us in the hallway and whispered questions to us as if they are looking for drugs and we are dealers. women in law school do not have the time for this, let alone the time to travel on the bus to a place that may not even have the prescription you need on the day that you go.

you are messing with my rhythm, dude. [laughter] in the worst cases, women denied medication have suffered dire consequences. a friend of mine has ovarian cysts and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. her prescription is technically covered because it is not intended to prevent pregnancy. but when you let your employers and university decide which medications are acceptable and which ones are not instead of letting women and their doctors decide this, that is zealotry. for our female students to be interrogated by insurance representatives and university

medical staff about why they need these prescriptions and whether or not they are lying about their symptoms -- would you want your employer to ask you questions like that? for my friend and women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover that prescription. despite verification from her doctor, after a few months, she could not afford it anymore. she was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. she is gay, so i'm pretty sure she is more concerned about cysts' than pregnancy. after months of paying out of pocket, she could not afford it anymore and had to stop taking it. in the middle of her final exam s, she had been in be emergency room all night in excruciating

pain. a massive cyst had developed on her ovary. she had to have surgery and have the ovaries removed. she had an appointment last week because doctors are concerned that this may have sent her body into early menopause. if that is true, she has no chance of having babies, none at all. she also has increased risk of cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis. in the "new york times" georgetowns response to my friends tragedy was that these situations are rare. thank god, except they are not rare. we surveyed women on campus. nearly 40% of them had significant financial burdens because of lack of contraceptive coverage.

another friend of mine new -- was aware of georgetown's policies, so when she was raped, she did not go to the doctor, because she did not think georgetown would cover it. this policy says that women's reproductive health care is not a necessity, is not a priority. it communicates to female students that our school does not understand their needs and does not respect their choices. these are not feeling is that male students experience and they're not burdens that male students must shoulder. in the papers, people have been asking what we expected when we enrolled in a catholic school. we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that interfere with our academic

success. we expected that when we told our university about these problems, they would help us. we expected that with 94% of students opposed to the policy, the university would respect our choices about insurance we pay for as students, and subsidized by the university. we did not expect that the university would continue to refuse female students this critical care. we did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we want comprehensive insurance that meets our needs, we should have gone to school and elsewhere, even if that meant a sacrifice to our education. and we did not expect the religious sanctity from the university that provides coverage to its staff and denies it to its students. 70% of catholic law schools

already provide contraceptive coverage to their students. we did not expect that the voices of conservative, wealthy male donors and the catholic hierarchy would be more important to our university than the voices of students in need. that is not any of us expected, but that is what we got. now what we expect is that the laws of our country will protect vulnerable students. we expect the obama administration will stand firm in their decision to care for female students at catholic schools. it is the only morally right thing to do and we are confident that they are not going to let us down. [applause] >> good morning. i am 19 years old and a junior at american university. i'm very lucky and privilege to be able to attend the

university, especially one trusts that i can make positive decisions for myself and my future. i'm here today to stand in solidarity with fellow students attending catholic universities, students who deserve the trust and respect that i receive, students who have the right to make decisions about their bodies, students who came to college so that they could grow independently and become successful adults, students who do not have access to affordable birth control. it is well known the birth control saves lives around the globe. it has been practiced for years. yet in 2012 we have to fight for young women to access contraceptives. i am elated to stand here today in solidarity with other young people in favor of this basic human right. unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infection, and the growing number of young people

with hiv/aids -- the thought the people my age would be prevented from accessing contraceptives terrifies me. i went to school in chicago where i saw several periods -- several friends have unplanned pregnancies, contract a sexually transmitted diseases, go to local clinics to get tested for hiv, get kicked out by their parents. i have waited for results and held a friend's hand and she told her parents she was pregnant. we should not blame them for listing to trusted adults. we should blame the adults in

their lives who shamed them for having sex, who lied about the effectiveness of condoms and birth control, and use their positions of power and authority to tell them that god would not love them if they used contraceptives. we should place blame upon those who did not trust my friends, me, or any of us to make positive, educated decisions for ourselves. we are the generation born during the first wave of aids- related deaths in the 1980's and early 1990's. we have been for nation to protect ourselves and save our generation, yet -- we have the information to protect ourselves and save our generation, yet we're told we're acting immorally. i believe it is immoral to let another generation be lost to hiv. it is immoral to lie to young people about their options regarding sexual health. it is immoral to deny life- saving measures to young people.

it is immoral to infringe upon the rights of another person. while we are living in the reality of hiv, we need to the knowledge that sex is not a death sentence. it is a natural part of being human, and chances are, most people are going to have sex it some point in their lives. we all need to the knowledge these basic facts. women deserve to make decisions -- acknowledge these basic facts. women deserve to make these decisions for themselves. i have often heard that the youth are the future of this country. how can you trust us with the future of the united states of america if you cannot trust us to make responsible decisions with our own bodies? i'm 19-years old. i believe that every person in this room, the city and this country deserves access to birth control without judgment, without a copiague, and without secrecy.

ay, and withoutpiagu secrecy. we deserve to voices. we deserve a future. thank you. -- we deserve choices. we deserve a future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to all of our speakers. i am now going to invite all of them up for a brief question and answer period. are there any questions? >> for kelly, the catholic university student, is the issue that catholic university does not allow doctors to prescribe, or that they do not pay for it?

>> catholic university does not allow or prescribe it for cover it. we cannot have condoms on campus. you're penalized for that. we can i get birth control of our health center -- cannot get birth control at our health center. what we are asking for is to be able to get these things and to not have to pay for them. >> are there other medications that are prescribed that you do have to pay for or are they covered? >> others are covered. >> no charge? no matter what the medication is? >> most of it. >> i have to go to a health center, and i received

penicillin, antibiotics and other things for free from the doctor. these medications are available and accessible at no cost to students, but things like contraception and birth control are absolutely not prescribed, not given, not covered. >> the church as bishops in particular have been framing this as a religious issue, that they should not have to pay for a medication they find unconscionable. do you think the church should have to pay for them, or would you be satisfied if the school provided access even if you did have to pay for them. >> i am paying $50,000 a year to go to college. i think there should be able to get birth control with that $50,000. >> with the religious liberty

complex, i find it very troublesome that they are trampling minority freedom. to negate the freedom with another freedom is very hypocritical that the church is using rainout and must be stopped with rationality and with the my -- using right now and must be stopped with rationality and with the minority standing up and saying no. >> the obama administration appears to be considering some sort of compromise on this. [inaudible] what sort of compromise as might be acceptable to you and which will not? >> from my perspective, any

compromise would represent an extreme step back for all of the folks standing behind me today as well as for all of the other students and employees at catholic institutions and non- catholic institutions. as i mentioned earlier, this decision already represents a compromise in that it allows certain institutions to opt out. >> i would also like to speak partially to the previous question in terms of the catholic bishops not wanting to pay for something they find objectionable. they have a student body at these universities, a student body that they have excepted, -- accepted some responsibility for. they should be able to realize how important contraceptives are to the health of that body. to say that you find a certain part of my health needs

objectionable and that you do not want to be irresponsible for them, that is a huge cutout and one i do not want to allow. one that i do not feel should be allowed. >> any further questions? >> be on the groups that you all have participated in, can -- beyond the groups that you have all participated in, can you tell me what the general feeling is on campus about this? how big of an issue is this? >> i can speak to this. at georgetown law center, we conducted a survey prior to the administration's announcement. 94% of our student body strongly agrees that this policy needs to be changed. that is before it got all of this coverage. when the news broke that this was happening, that the obama

administration was going to do this, stand up for us, help us accomplish something that we have been fighting for literally four years -- for years. when students found out that the administration was going to help us in this way, there was an environment of jubilation, celebration. i told one person that students went out that night and celebrated. there was some drinking. there was some cheering and yelling in a bar that was not over a sporting event. it was over access to birth control. the person i told that to was incredulous. really, you went out and cheer about health regulations?

yes, we did. because it had such a huge impact on our lives as students. i think people who have not gone to these schools, who have not seen the types of terrible situations i talked about my not realize that. but on campuses, people are talking about it, they are excited about it, and the vote. -- they vote. >> about a week ago, catholic student universities for choice had an event where we collected petition signatures -- catholic university students for choice had an event where we collected petition signatures, and i was so excited about the response we got. it was such a good feeling. some students are afraid to speak out because they are afraid of the consequences.

you do not hear much about it. we've put it in their face, they were so happy we were there. it was overwhelming the amount of response that we got. before that, going down to the march for life, students who identify themselves as pro-life for signing this. they supported it. it was absolutely incredible. washe petition she circulating had over two hundred signatures in the first hour before they were asked to leave. if we had another hour, we might have well over 500 signatures by the end of the day. there is a lot of support on campuses at catholic universities all over, and i feel that needs to be pointed

out, alongside the opposition we are having with the catholic conservative groups and the bishops and so forth. >> could you speak to the issue a little bit further on the political ramifications? >> i want to thank not only all the students who spoke so eloquently, but if you could look around the room, each of you are here because you are in support of women's conscience and their right to choose what is best for their health. this indicates that the obama administration, kathleen sebelius, who is catholic, who went to trinity, who understands these fights very well, understands that what we have to do in this country at this time is support women's health, women's conscience. they have consciences. they are smart. they can use them.

you have seen it here today, and i think the obama administration will be strengthened by all that these young people are doing for themselves and for the country. >> any further questions? to thanki'm just going our speakers one more -- seeing none, i'm just going to thank our speakers one more time. please give them another round of applause. [applause] and thank you all for being here. i think some of our folks will also be available after were to take questions if you have any. wards to take questions if you have any. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> yesterday, the president announced a change to the law regarding providing contraceptive access to women. under the change, if the employer refuses the coverage, the responsibility falls to the health care provider. >> good afternoon. as part of the health care reform law that i signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. that means free checkups, free mammograms, immunizations, and other basic services. we fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money for families, for businesses,

for government, for everybody. that is because it is a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one. we also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the institute of medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. in addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risk of ovarian and other cancers and to treat a variety of ailments. we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services. nearly 99% of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives. 99%. and yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. so, for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical

experts and make sure that free preventative care included free access to contraceptive care, whether you are a teacher, a small businesswoman, a nurse or a janitor. no woman is held should depend on who she is or where she works, or how much money she makes. every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health,. . -- her own health, period. this is already law in 28 states. there is another principle at stake, the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right inscribed in our constitution. as a citizen and a christian, i cherish this right. my first job in chicago was working with catholic parishes in poor neighborhoods, and my salary was funded by a grant

from an arm of the catholic church. i saw that local churches often did more good for the community than a government program ever could, so i know how important the work of faith based organizations is and how much impact they can have in their communities. i also know that some religious institutions have a religious objection to directly providing insurance the covers contraceptive services for their employees. that is why we originally exempted all churches from this requirement. an exemption that eight states did not already have. that is why from the very beginning of this process i spoke directly to various catholic officials, and i promised that before finalizing the rule as applied to them, we would spend the next year working with institutions like catholic hospital in catholic university's the catholic

hospitals and catholic universities -- institutions like catholic hospitals and catholic universities to define rules that help women get the health care they need. this became a political football. it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option. we needed to move faster. last week, i directed the department of health and human services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. we were going to spend a year during this period we are going to spend -- a year doing this. we are going to spend a week doing this. under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care, that includes contraceptive services, no matter where they work.

at if a woman's employer is charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health care, the insurance company, not the hospital, not the cherry, will be -- not the charity, will be required to reach out and offer the woman health care free of charge without copays or hassles. the religious organization will not have to pay for the services or provide them directly. employers will not have to pay for or provide contraceptive services. but women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women. they will no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars of year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries. i have been confident from the start that we could work out a sensible approach here, just as

i promised. i understand some folks in washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue, but it should not be. i certainly never saw it that way. this is an issue where people of goodwill on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone. with today's announcement, we have done that. religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women. we live in a pluralistic society where we're not going to agree on every single issue or share every belief. that does not mean that we have to choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all americans. we are unique among nations for having been founded upon both these principles, and our obligation as citizens is to

carry them forward. i have complete faith that we can do that. thank you very much. >> we are live from the conservative political action conference this afternoon from c-span. hours -- our coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we will hear from senator john ornyn followed by grover norquist. at 4:30 p.m., we will hear from sarah palin. on super tuesday, march 6th,

caucuses and alaska, idaho and north dakota. the start of wyoming's five-day caucuses, and primaries in oklahoma, tennessee, georgia, ohio, virginia, vermont and massachusetts. >> when president lincoln was shot on april 14th, 1865, he was wearing a black coat made especially for his second inaugural by brooks brothers. the coat is cared for by the parks service and periodically displayed. american history tv document anded -- documented the process of displaying the coat. lincoln's coat on american artifacts this sunday at 8:00 a.m. >> this weekend on "newsmakers," the chairman of the energy and

natural resources committee will answer questions from reporters about the agenda in congress for energy and environmental policy. you can watch "newsmakers" on c- span sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> just so that i will remember, here is that wonderful moment when senator lott revealed his nostalgias for the states' rights segregationist south. take a look. >> when strom thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. we were proud of him. >> the media ecosystem is such a different world today than it was -- it is hard to believe -- 10 years ago. i think things like that happen all the time now. there are certainly many big stories that cpm has had over

the last decade, more and more. now we have an editorial staff of 20 people breaking stories right and left. it has almost become commonplace. it is not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. >> more about cpm and jon ash marshall sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q1 de." -- "q &a." >> eric cantor spoke saying the white house is using "dangerous rhetoric" on income inequality.

>> welcome. i am david thompson, moderator and author. i would like to introduce our distinguished panel this morning. house leader eric cantor who represents virginia's seventh district in congress. tim scott represent south .arolina's first district susan sorry, a jobs creator alliance member. times standard -- , stanford -- tom sanberg, former ceo of

staples. steve case, american online co- founder and case foundation chairman. we have a great panel this morning, and we talked about growth. we all view it from our own perspective, and we define growth as companies that achieves high sales growth. you have an individual products that meet customer needs. it is the hardest line item for a management team to achieve and it truly defines fundamental. sales growth is the driver for job creation.

it allows the management team to make a profit and hire employees to meet customer demand. revenue growth cycles are cyclical. we are coming into the next growth cycle, but the types of job-creating growth companies are different. this one is more infrastructure driven, energy, goods, software and services. retailers following, because the money being spent to create those jobs is creating employees with investment that they can go spend money on retail. finally, we need to optimize our regulations and policies to improve the velocity for allowing companies to grow to create jobs. america used to have a 50% share

of the world's sales growth companies. those are companies to find a small business -- are defined as small businesses. but some of those small businesses become large businesses, like apple. we had 50% of those companies in 2003. today, we a 14%. we are not the leader we used to be. more sales growth companies will create more jobs and get us back to full employment on the next cycle. the gap is different than we think. the forecasts indicate we are not going to get there, unlike in previous growth cycles. our challenge is daunting. no one golden bullet will solve it. we need to restart america's growth engine. our a theme today is to talk

about what are the sparks in every cylinder, to take a systematic approach to fill the gap. let me let me open up the panel. washington plays a key role in job creation in the economy. >> first of all, i appreciate the opportunity to be here on such a distinguished panel. and really, the spirit of today's discussion is what this town needs more of. it is about sales growth, growth and innovation. washington can do a lot to inhibit the growth in entrepreneurial activity, it can to elect to inhibit the formation of capital, and can dissuade people from doing what we need them to do, to go about the process of taking risks, because from risks comes growth

in sales. we also know that we can do positive things to create an environment where you do have extraordinary stories of sales growth. you mentioned a specific industries that most economists are looking at in terms of going forward, and whether it be infrastructure, energy, technology, services, this seems to be, as you indicate, where the high growth and the prospects for high growth is place. washington's role should be to try to focus on policies, tax policies, regulatory policy, that can aim in those industries' growth, but it is not washington possible to pick another way and jack up the economy -- not washington's role to pick another way and jack up the economy.

when washington is in the business of choosing which industries should win and which should lose, when washington is in the business of saying people should spend their money here or there, it generally does not work. we have seen policies over the last three years of stimulus spending, we have seen increasingly intrusive government regulation of capital formation in the health- care arena and others that have not worked. that is why i think you will see us in the house of representatives talking about new policies, new ways to accomplish what we are trying to do, which is to get people back to work. as you said, small business is something that i believe most people think is the backbone of america. every business started as a small business. we know that growth and the number of jobs is really about small business growth, and the high sales growth companies feed that more than anyone else.

that is what we intend to do, and tim and i will bring policies forward for small business, a triple tax policies, and to cut small business taxes. those are bills we will bring to the four straight up. that sends a signal that washington really is in the business of trying to encourage entrepreneurial activity. the idea that you are focused on this panel is one that all of us need to spend a lot more time to engage in in a helpful way. >> steve, excited to have you here today. you took a risk in founding aol. you had the velocity to grow. now you're sitting in the interesting position of looking

at a situation today with your personal experience of being one of the 4%. what are the top lessons that you think can be applied? >> first of all, it is great to be here. when eric asked me to be here, one of the young guns, because i am an old gun. i am in my fifties and it is always nice to be included in a young guns forum. it is a nice to have washington focused on the role that entrepreneurship plays in our nation. in tyson's corner, virginia, in 1985 we will a pretty significant company. i've been focused on investment in companies, including livingsocial, another company in massachusetts.

i kind of pivoted from being an entrepreneur to backing and helping entrepreneurs and create jobs to it more recently, probably why i was asked to join this, is that in the last year or so i spent a growing amount of time on a policy in washington and get people focused on the role that entrepreneurship has played. we're not the leading economy by accident. in tire industries were based here. we've kind of lost sight of that. when people think about business, they tend to think of it in overly simplistic contexts -- the fortune 500 companies. it is these tight rope companies that have the potential to create significant jobs.

in the last three decades, 40 million jobs have been created by tight rope companies, accounting for all the net job creation. if you want to focus on the economy, you want to focus on jobs, this is the place to focus. the data recently has been troubling. the number of new start-ups is down 23% since 2007. it gives you a sense of that. meanwhile, ipo's have contracted significantly. when aol went public almost 20 years ago, we raced almost $20 million. now companies, because of sarbanes-oxley, they often get sold and when companies are sold, at they decelerate instead of xl right. -- instead of accelerate. startamericapartnership.org website -- we have launched 18 startup regions around the

country because we really believe that while providing an overall umbrella of resources and focus it is important, ultimately the real action is what happens at the regional level. also last year i was asked to join the president's jobs council. we came out with our report, i think in september or october, and met with the president. this was a bipartisan group. it is to the president's credit to get a gather and understand what is going on here. i was focused on entrepreneurship. what we did was instead of reinvent the wheel, we set a bunch of smart people have been working on this for years and what we get them together and prioritize and figure out which ones can have the most impact

and recommend those? that is what we did. many of the things we recommended are the things that eric and kevin and others in the house have been leading on for some time. there's not a lot of good news these days in washington around people coming together and solving problems. there is a moment in the next couple of months where we do have bipartisan support perhaps for pro-entrepreneurship legislation. the next month there was a bipartisan bill introduced in the senate by senator rubio of florida and senator koons of delaware -- senator coons of delaware. a bill was introduced by senator warner of virginia and senator moran in kansas, again with bipartisan support. last week, --, prison the white

house released the start of america -- last week, the white house released the start up america package. things are brewing in the house and senate. there really is an opportunity that we have to capitalize on it and focus less on press releases and more on working together to forge a partnership around and the legislation. sarbanes-oxley is a key one. the aol spirit is less common these days, and that is a problem because much of a a well -- much of aol's business happened after it went public. there are a number of things in the house and senate bills that will deal with raising the cap and having an on-ramp, which is

a big deal in terms of job creation. the second, which also has bipartisan support, is called crowd funding, along platforms used to fund projects like a documentary to also fund businesses, with certain precautions. the proposal has some support. if you are raising less than $1 million and the individual investments are less than $10,000, they essentially have been carved-out. that is a big deal that a lot of companies that have a problem because they rely on their own money and informal friends and family money, from that point to real venture- capital it is quite challenging. third, which i think is the most important, but i recognize the most sensitive, is immigration. we have got to win the global battle for talent.

the companies are created by people passionate about their ideas. we attract some of the best and brightest to come to our universities, we give them a ph.d., and then we kick them out of the country. we say to china, come to our naval academy, but then we kick them out to work for the chinese military. let's staple a green card to their diploma, at one of the key things. an act with a stem visa -- these are not going to solve all the problems. there are things around the dream act and comprehensive immigration reform that people will debate for some time. but focusing heavily on this issue that is about entrepreneurship and job creation is important.

there are opportunities in the next month or two to work on the house and senate, where there is enormous overlap. we agree that something is important for the nation to focus on, people essentially agree on 80%, 90% of the solution. how do we make sure the politics, particularly in an election year, don't get in the way of the right policies for our nation? i encourage, i am optimistic, but it will take everybody working on this and focusing it together. aaronson and young, which has its entrepreneur of the year for every year, ast previous winners to come to washington later this month, at a march on washington to make this a real cry for pro-entrepreneurship legislation. >> excellent. susan. >> before i talk about energy, i want to talk about criticality of energy, specifically alleges become a to the american economy.

20% of the gross domestic product was dependent on electricity. in 2008, 60%. that is reliability, affordability, and optimizing of those three things. for our business, when our communities grow, when businesses grow, when our residential customers have jobs and more income out of business growth, when i talk about energy and electricity, it is and i just about our industry. it is the impact that energy and electricity has on the tire economy. -- on the entire economy. couple that with, from 2007 to 2010, the most lost in a recessionary period. we find ways in to make sure

that blind date and our creed, they are successful? steve was talking about two keep things. for us, it is about the creation of jobs for companies to continue to grow and be successful bid the second piece is the skill issue. i have been very involved in education for companies. one of the concerning long-term things is that we need 21 million new jobs by 2020 to reach 5% unemployment and to meet the growing population that -- in this country. even if we are able to create those jobs, only 30% will have college degrees, about 2 million scheider it also, the decrease may not be in the right fields. business -- we have got to get

in there and build the skills that we need. we can create the jobs through things you already heard. your key issue is regulation, overreached in regulation. what can we do to make sure that we can start businesses quickly so that foreign direct investment chooses to come into this country? so that we are a draw for foreign direct investment. the world bank recently stated that the united states is 27 in the world in terms of construction permits. if i'm going to invest in manufacturing facility, that is an issue. the price of electricity -- we have been very successful in attracting automotive, steel manufacturing. the last big steel manufacturer from europe who located in power area for the price of electricity is a key part of the decision.

the sectors are so tied together that we have got to make sure that when we make decisions on health care or we make decisions on energy or would make decisions about infrastructure, we look at the impacts and make sure there are not unintended consequences. at the same time, that we make sure we are investing in our future workforce, that not only with the numbers, but the right skill sets. that is not just college graduates, but skilled technical professionals, craftworkers, nutritionists, health care specialists. >> you love education. it seems that there is this real world education happening and we are trying to get on the same age, and there is the need for management teams for -- you have less friction, more velocity, more people on the same page, make decisions faster.

from your experience in education, how do we do that quickly? it is easy tb not on the same page in just be focused on his core growth or conservation of capital. from my time at mckinsey, a management team working cross- functionally is the hardest thing to do. >> from a business standpoint, i think some can help as long as everybody is moving to the same goal. there is a healthy tension that i think is very good. for education, what is most successful -- when i was in florida, i was on the state school board -- integration of the curriculum of the schools, where superintendents sat down with businesses and said, "what kinds of workers do you need?" spending $3.5 billion a year on remedial activities so that they could participate in the workforce with the skills and they need it. we have got to do that earlier.

courier academies -- career academies, the same academic record. by the time they graduate, they were at 100% passage rate on our pre-employment test ban would just as qualified to go to college to be engineers or accountants. graduation rates were 96%, and this included at-risk kids. i believe that to make good decisions for education, we have got to have stronger partnership between business in these communities and the schools, and that businesses are not just saying, well, shame on you, but we are going to help you develop whatever kinds of skills force it unique in the future. >> on that topic, one of the things we've done in charleston

county -- we have forced protections for military vehicles. we had to create an alliance for technical colleges and county schools in order to create that integration so that we would have the work force for the futur. they are partnering with my old high school to make sure they create a workforce they need to be competitive on a global scale. without that integration, we see the lack of necessary tools to be competitive in our country. from a global perspective, we that it completely. look at the fact that overall taxes from the local government to the federal government is 30% of the gdp did you add that to the untrained work force, in a global economy, it just doesn't work. attracting more revenue into our local schools and treating the integration necessary to

create a platform in the future. >> i appreciate steve and eric and others working to change policies in washington. there is a big divergence from the theoretical policy of the top. we have an easy money policy. it is not easy for small and emerging businesses to get a loan. it has to do with incentives we create for bank examiners, all of whom are covering their butts. the risk in compensation as part of the dodd-frank. every company has got to write this treatise as to how senior management is not induced to take risks.

in theory, that is ok. i am chairman of the conference committee. the staff came up with a letter indicating their approach to this policy. they went all the way down to the assess it. -- associate. i don't think this is what the sec has in mind. "would you give us a detailed analysis of why you induced your sales associates to take on risk?" give me up r -- give me a break. i am sure there is no immigration policy that says we should harass people and our borders, and yet we do it every single day. if we had at administration -- but it -- if we don't have any m -- an administration devoted to helping small business instead of getting in the way.

>> the administration is devoted to micromanaging small business in order to wipe out any risk to a business or an industry. what has built this country is the fact that more people from different backgrounds have gotten more opportunity through economic freedom. it is not through a government informant that tends to come in and describe what kind of risk profile or scenario is going to take place on the floor a of a showroom. it goes back to come in the very broad sense, we don't want policies that this town determines is through a certain industry or this is where capital needs to be allocated. the role of government should be that we want to create an

environment where laws are properly and transparently enforced, that everyone is operating under the same rules, and that we make sure we bite out unlawful behavior -- we wipe out unlawful behavior and enforce the law. we don't want this town and its regulators and its policy makers coming in and telling companies like compaq, aol, or boeing -- >> in boeing they cannot work in south carolina. >> that is a sure way to snuff out the innovation and ingenuity that has given rise to the greatest nation with the greatest prosperity in history. it's unbelievable to hear that. i go home and talk to people i represent, and it is very difficult for them to access to financing. because of the pendulum has swung so far and everyone is worried about getting in trouble, so there is nothing

going on as far as access to capital and business formation. certainly, there's some, and there are signs that perhaps it will get better. but right now we ought to take a thorough look at the things that are standing in the way. that is why for the last several months, the house that steve referred to has been aggressive on smart regulation. ideologicald pursuits in this town that will snuff out the growth we need in this economy. maybe there is intention to want to do good, and washington can wave a magic wand and make everybody better. but again, the success that america has been built on, free markets, an almost chaotic but incredibly attractive, innovative society. it is not through some sort of

machine that washington creates that we are here to go and tinker with. we are here to have a set of laws equally applied to everyone, and to ensure that those engaged in unlawful behavior are held to account. >> i should probably say at the beginning that i bring a certain perspective to this, which is i don't think of myself as republican or democrat. i think of myself as american. my focus right now is trying to build bridges and get something done. there is an opportunity to get something done. there are big issues facing this nation around fiscal policy and the deficit, the right level of regulation, what is the right of love that. around taxes, what should be simplified, what is the right level of taxation, particularly in a global economy. military issues, foreign policy -- those are big issues. they needed to be batted around.

that is what elections are for, and we want to debate this year, and the american people will decide which side of the issues they are hundred but right now there is an opportunity to get something done around pinetree your -- around entrepreneurship policies. everybody agrees it is important, everybody understands how america was built. there is interest in the house and senate, republicans and democrats, and there is interest in -- and considerable momentum at the white house around these things. if you look at what we put out last week with the legislative agenda, the state of the union, there is clearly a recognition that i.t. is an important thing to focus on, and it is time to try to -- >> i will hop in. let me tell you, i agree. all of us want growth, more entrepreneurs, more volume in terms of height with sales companies.

the words have not matched the actions. we are trying to force that, we really are. all of us want to work together. when you deal with the sort of rhetoric that has been so omnipresent in this town about dividing the rich and the poor, instead of saying we are all in this together, we need people like you, we need all people in this together, because successful people can help those who are not. the tendency to want to go and pit sectors of society against one another is very dangerous. i think tim will tell you, that this is the frustration that we want to do some good. we have to set aside the kind of nonsense. >> he hit the nail on the head really well when he underscores the philosophical disconnect in washington. there is a philosophy that i guess our responsibility to divide the pie is equally as

possible and protect american citizens. the other side says that we have to grow the pot, and the goal is not to protect citizens so much as it is to unleash the individual and see what the maximum potential is. steve h h.r.2930, an opportunity for small investors to get in the game. do we want to be a high-growth market place? if we want to be a high-growth market place, what are the remedies we can bring to the table? most of the remedies that business owners what have nothing to do with washington. when i started a small business in 1999, i thought might 199240sx was an asset. my banker helped me realize that you cannot get a loan. ok, good. it taught me about forming partnerships with people who would have investments in time this is with a long-term plan

for growth. because i had good relationships, i was able to start my business with a loan from a friend. when you look at the restrictions and constrictions from capitol, because of some the policies we have, we can destroy jobs. we simply cannot create jobs. there are legislations we have been working on that will move forward -- allowing for advertising and marketing to invest in the resources and make your company grow, whether or not it is simplification and phasing in of sec requirements that allows for ipo's to happen faster. when i went out in my district ended a regulation tour, we

found that dodd-frank has had a major impact in an negative way on our construction growth. he talked about 42% of our developers gone permanently. finding a long, having a 40% or 50% requirement of skin in the game is a hurdle to high for most developers to get involved in. because the department of energy wants to now regulate your decorative fireplace as a primary heating source, another loss of 10,000 jobs. over and over again, not even mentioning boeing at the effects of big corporations and big business. the fact of the matter is that we restrict the formation of capital and eliminate the incentive to loan money, you find yourself in a quagmire that it is difficult to come out of. eric has been saying for the last year and half, almost, jobs, jobs, jobs. >> 90% of john grisham comes -- of job creation -- thereat and suggestions about raising capital.

-- there have been suggestions about raising capital. but the theme of execution of regulation so that companies can grow efficiently is paramount right now. as you come through that inflection point of 50 million, it is all about velocity. you cannot spend more time looking at risk. it is all about planning for next year's growth and hiring more people. how do we solve the problems of regulation reform so that we can move faster? >> i think there are two levels to it. i recognize it coming here that this is a strongly republican audience. i also recognize two weeks ago when i met at a democratic

house retreat, it was a heavily democratic audience. some of the things i told them, they did not want to hear it may be some of the things i'm telling you, you do not want to hear. but i think there is a time to come together, and if you look at the specifics of what needs to get done building bridges around that is critical. this is a moment we don't want to lose and requires us coming together over the next few months. there is more support than there was a few months ago from the white house. it will solve all the problems you are talking about here, but it will solve some of the problems. the broader issue of regulation i break into two parts. instead of the macro-regulation issues -- some of these aspects with capital is critical, which is why sarbanes-oxley is important to focus on trade and then there are regulations that relate to specific industries -- energy, manufacturing, the internet space, things like sopa.

one of the things about the internet that may a -- that made aol possible is that the government did it right did they invested half a century ago with the defense department to essentially create the internet -- >> was that al gore? >> a little before al. although he was a big advocate on these issues when we were starting. but then they adopted a relatively hands-off for regulatory policy that has allowed to flourish. because i.t. is now such an important part, it is not surprising that there is some of these debates. that is a good model.

there is a role for basic research, there is a role for university research. we need to a better job of commercializing it and getting those ideas into the entrepreneurial sector. that is figuring out how to unleash these industries so they can grow in the united states. there are a lot of corn plants that i do not want to lose sight of. the big focus on globalization is on manufacturing. the story as told is that over the last decade, we have seen a real acceleration in the globalization of entrepreneurship. what had been and still is the secret sauce of america is being replicated in other nations, who are putting aggressive pro-entrepreneurship policies themselves. very successful than to cabalists now have more people -- the china -- very successful venture capitalists now have

more people in their china office. this is not the time to get complacent. the only way to do that is to come together and pass pro- entrepreneurship legislation, whether it it is and the house, the dream act. we did not want to put too many ornaments on the tree and not get anything done, but regulation around sarbanes- oxley, tax policy in terms of the right types of tax incentives around capital gains. if we get those in place, we can usher in the next wave of american entrepreneurship and remained a world posthumous entrepreneurial -- the world's most entrepreneurial nation. >> there is a couple of you ready to jump in. >> i used to be a democrat, too, but then i started a business. i realized what these policies

mean. the problem is, we're taking two steps back at the same time. let's talk about venture capital, the business i'm in today. dodd-frank now -- god knows the systemic risks on a venture- capital -- is going to regulate a venture-capital firms like hedge funds and everything else. thanks to the fact that with a venture-capital money for president, we will make the taxation on carried interest an election issue. we have to start taxing that as ordinary income? what? i doubt that we care about that one way or the other, personally. but if you start taxing and capitalist -- taxing venture capitalists at 40%, the prorate is going to change, the valuation for start-ups is going to be affected. we are making progress on one

side, we're taking it away on the other side. >> when we talk about regulation, the majority leader mentioned smart regulation. smart regulation does not choose winners and losers. in the energy industry -- the president said this in the state of the union also -- we need all arrows in the quiver. the genius of the and, tyranny of the or. i would not have just southern co. stock, because you need a diverse portfolio. we are all in all five of those areas. we have to incentivize the list and say that we want to take smart is, educated risk, have education to help us be safe and secure. beyond that, the markets work.

you will see that the winners will come up. it is not mean you don't need short-term incentives. a lot of them going on through the department of energy through the decades. 21st century coal is going to catch up 65% of carbon dioxide. we worked out for a decade researching that with the seed money from dod. people say that china has -- they own all the new developments. we actually licensed that technology in china. government has able to provide seed money and incentivize. we are an industry that take that and find who the winners are. when you find out who the winners are, that takes care of that. >> do you think there is a

misperception about with companies that categorically, they are doing the right thing, but there is always 10% that are not, and the regulation is always going after 10% that are not. >> i don't think it is 10%. i think it is less. >> this goes back to the statement, it is almost like three -- three steps forward, two steps back. when the president unveiled his jobs agenda back in the fall, this all-or-nothing approach that he came forward with is not going to work. no two people are going to agree on everything. we ought to try and find places where we have a vision in common. i think thomas edison said, there is vision without execution it is an hallucination. we need to go and execute.

there are plenty of bills, we are up on 30 bills, the house has put over into the senate for them to pick up. there has been, in the rudder, as far as small business is concerned, i would like to see some actions. again, there has been an indication that there was some other motive around the policy- making and support coming out of the white house. it was not all growth. it was not growing. it has been much more about dividing, not multiplying. we do need to think about multiplication, not division. that is what growth is about. we should be able to agree on that. if we can set aside this rich

versus poor stuff and say, we want everybody to be successful. we know that some are not as successful as others. how do we create that environment? you go to growth-oriented companies. that is the way other people can become successful. i hope we can put it into execution. >> the middle class grows and people reinvest into the community. how do we get everybody on that page, which has a bigger impact, then being divisive? >> i think it is important for the people of the country. if those who are feeling they do not have an adequate job

opportunity or are out of work, how do we get them back to work? it goes back to the mention of these industries where we know there is a lot of growth potential. we should go about trying to put a sign up to the world. our governor, and even governors passed, on both sides of the aisle, have been very effective. we are open for business. we want success. we do not want to punish success. come back to the bed at is that you indicated. we want to punish them. we need to get the job and the wealth in a way that people can believe we have a growing economy again. when washington says, i want to

tax you because you are too successful, the buffet tax, that is anti-growth. we need a rule that says we need to stop the government from overly including into the innovative spirit of our country. if we can stop that kind of talk in say we are about trying to level the playing field and give everybody an opportunity, we can be a lot better off. that goes to the point about finding a sweet spot. >> if you focus on customers, everybody can focus on customer needs. if the customers are the job creators, small business, start-ups, amid market, those creating jobs, how do we get everyone focused on that job creators to rally around what they need? >> ultimately, it is the private sector. the government creates the

context. ultimately, the action happens when people take risks and starred companies. many failed. that is the nature of entrepreneurship. there can be huge successes like a facebook, there are also many, many failures. that is a story of entrepreneurship. not just because the country was built by entrepreneurs, the people who came over in the first place, they were pioneers going to take risks. that is what has made us unique. it is the envy of the world. not to silicon valley, the american eagle system is the envy of the world. -- the american eagle system is the envy of the world. i think we are doing the right thing in terms of what is happening in the house and

senate, republicans, democrats, and the white house, trying to focus on this rule -- will of the entrepreneur were. there has been great work that highlight the importance of this issue. if you are concerned about unemployment and want to find people jobs, high-growth companies are the answer. if you are concerned about the economy, entrepreneurship is the answer. if you are concerned about our competitiveness in the global world, people and getting smarter about this thing, other than your ship is the answer. it was not true a year or two ago. people are focusing on this as a key thing. there is, a bipartisan support to try to get something done. there is reasonable clarity. there is still disagreement. there is clarity of a rumble immigration plays, funding, regulations around capitol, sarbanes oxley.

the question is, how do we get things done? in all the conversations i have had, they look at me like, you are so naive. do you really think anything is going to get done? [laughter] i think something has to get done. we have to see this moment. my focus has been narrowly on this. i say narrowly on this. how do we bridge the divide and bring people together. it is the best way to get our economy moving. >> in the last few minutes, i want to raise the bar. we have to give -- its 5 million more jobs. we are doing great things. that is not enough. to create the millions of jobs we need, we have been a great nation in the past, our share is declining.

it is not going up. yes, we are still a leader. quote we are talking about is good. there is a window of opportunity. what do we need to do to raise the bar? our country is in crisis when it comes to jobs. there is not a lot of patience. people are giving up. what do we have to do to raise the game? we do not have time to keep arguing. we have to improve the velocity. vella ideas have to be bigger and bolder. we are talking another two dozen growth companies, an average revenue growth rate of -- and other 2000 and growth companies. an average growth rate -- a big number. >> i agree. we have to be bold. it has to be above growth for america. all of the things that divide us, whether it is the fiscal

issues, we know that elections are there for a reason. some are going to be decided there. we can all agree, you need to create, how many new jobs? >> it would be 3500 in construction and 800 permanent jobs. it is what we need by 2020. >> when the 21 million new jobs. that is our goal. we ought to put that out there as our goal. we have eight years to get there. what is that, two and a half million jobs a year? how do we do that? it is going to take immigration, we need the smartest and best in the world to come here and help us. look at graduates. there are so many foreign nationals outpacing americans.

we want to attract them we have moved in the house toward that end. we have lifted country capps on highly skilled immigrants. we ought to do more of that. we have pieces. we ought to expand that program. we will take human capital. we have to say, what kind of capital formation, what kind of risk is going to be required to create those new jobs? let's plug that in. this is not rocket science. this is about running a pro- growth agenda so that washington does not inhibit the growth. as i said earlier, this country does it better than anybody else. there are a lot of people trying to copy us. let's set out a plan in the let's do it. it is easier said than done. i have also seen so much effort

and attention put on the division rather than the multiplication. we have to come to the fact that if we do not do this, we are not going to have the success story. it is about being old. it is a but green to say, the things we disagree on, let's try to get to that goal. >> one thing we have to do is, we look at all the jobs here for america. also, in a global economy, our american workers need our share of the global economy. what that says in the southeast is it has been flat for us. industrial has been doing well. a lot of it has been exported. we would like for that to stay. it is great to have these exporters. we have american companies who are selling products all over the world. those are great jobs. they help the economic cycles

in this country. when latin america or china is growing. part of what we have to do is, how do we make sure that american companies and workers get our share of the global tide? >> let me throw that in there. if we are going to be serious, how do american-based multinationals get their piece? how do they get their piece of the global pi? taxing is huge. multinationals operate with both hands tied behind their back. you can see the problems in this town. there is so much rhetoric about saying, if you implement a full tax policies, they are going to create jobs -- implement favorable tax policies, they of going to create jobs overseas. it means success at home. that tax policy needs to be a part of it. we have differences on that.

incrementally, we can do things to help pro-growth companies, we ought to be doing it. let's let me close on an optimistic note. -- >> let me close on an optimistic note. it is time to focus on what we can get done. while i am worried about america's position, and give some of the statistics about globalization and entrepreneurship is accelerating, the reason i am optimistic, if we can get our government to put the right framework in place, my day job, 90% of my time, is meeting with entrepreneurs who are excited about the future. across all sectors, not just technology, but services and manufacturing.

i made a lot of entrepreneurs. they believe they are going to change the world. the culture, they were going to go work for wall street. more and more are interested in working for start-ups. there are a lot of great ideas out there. health care, it is going to be revolutionized by technology. the next decade is going to be the glory years. a lot of things happening around at energy. a lot of things happening in education. those three industries, health care, energy, and education, are huge pillars and have not been constructed in the way that other industries have. there is enormous opportunity. there is a thirst and a hunter and a passion around entrepreneurship. we need to make sure we accelerate that by having the right policies in place.

>> time enough for questions. >> looking for opportunity for common ground. we are on two different pages. common ground is used based on what was said and what they're -- eric has said. the all of the above strategy. the second area,2010, he talked about restructuring of the corporate tax rate. it was huge. it would allow repatriation. talking about bringing capital back to the market. the third is the capital gains tax. we talked about eliminating it. i think those are three areas where we already have common ground. if we can get him to move on those issues, we already have leadership that is moving in

that direction. here is an opportunity. >> i want to piggyback on something steve said. this country still has the largest number of patents in the world. the entrepreneurship is alive and well. we have to help it grow. talking about colleges, i was involved in an effort, i was not part of it, there was the school, courier academies, this young man was a junior in high school. he started his own company. by the time he graduated, he had been certified in microsoft and had his own business with five employees. we have people out there starting very young. let's teach this in our schools. let's get business involved. we have the talent. i believe in innovation and

entrepreneurship. hud and the harvest this? i grew up in rural alabama. how do you make this crow to where we continue to be the biggest country on the face of the earth? >> i can see your wheels turning. >> i want to believe but i do not. [laughter] look at trade, we talk about foreign trade. this administration has not done a single trade deal. it took three years to approve the ones from the bush administration. public companies go to someplace in africa, we cannot compete because your choice is to not go to the business or go to jail. you of fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

getting a lower tax rate, it would be great. you can already hear the rhetoric, if you give it away to the big corporations, here we go again. it is not going to happen. >> i understand why there is cynicism. i understand why people feel like nothing will happen. when we started aol, nobody could figure out what of is doing. entrepreneurs are used to people not believe in something can happen. the quote from last night as a super bowl, there would two great advertisement. one was about entrepreneurship. the patriots did not like it so much. the other one i enjoyed with the clinton eastwood at the tasman. it said, it is halftime. -- advertisement.

it said, it is halftime. it was not just about detroit. it is about what we can do more of the. entrepreneurship was the key driver in the first half. we need to make sure it is the key driver in the second half. [applause] >> i can open up for questions. if you would like. >> thank you. it has been a great discussion. i am with the boston consulting group. a leading competitor has been mentioned a few times, mackenzie. we have great news from a recent study. but it would be useful to share with the. -- i thought it would be useful to share with you. economics and a driving manufacturing back to the u.s. from china. this is driven by an increase in wages in china. they have increased at a

consistent rate. when you go from two dollars to $6 it matters. this is beneficial -- beneficial to states like south carolina. it is also driven by increases in the won. we are much more productive than work is in europe and the rest of the developed world. we think the u.s. can be served better from here. some of the ideas that came up, we have been suggesting. we have been sharing with the house and senate on both sides of the aisle. immigration is critical. your store it -- your point about vocational training are very important in germany, you have college and university mixed with vocational training. the whole idea around supply chain clusters, being able to invest behind an anger. if you get bmw to come to south

carolina, build the small businesses that will be there in order to provide the network, the suppliers that drive the huge jobs, a multiplier effect from the plant. those are some things you mentioned. a few others, awareness. you should think about the numbers, not just today, but in the future. when we first did this, the 2010 numbers said, manufacturing will be in china. 2015 said, manufacturing will be in the united states. you need to look at it you need to look at the total cost of ownership going forward. appreciation is a wonderful way to encourage business today. promoting awareness and having promoting awareness and having