for arms control, ellen tauscher. the president of of a murieta university will discuss the administration's coverage of birth control. you can call in with your questions about u.s. international trade to stephen -- steve landefeld and ryan avent. >> dennis kucinich to last in this primary says it is very unlikely he will make another run for a house. he made a comment yesterday on fox news yesterday. looking at the senate race in massachusetts, new analysis of money raised last quarter showed that while 35% of senator brown's case -- cash was raised out of state, that came out of

massachusetts. david cameron comes to washington next wednesday -- with president obama, he will attend an ncaa tournament game in dayton, ohio. the house of representatives passed for a -- pass a jobs bill making it easier for businesses to gain new investors and with hopes of hiring more workers. our first 45 minutes of this morning, we want to take your thoughts on the passage of this bill and over all, the house and senate creating jobs. here is how you can participate. 202-737-0001 202-737-0002 202-628-0205

e-mail is also accessible or give us a tweet. here is a breakdown of what happened yesterday when it comes to the jobs bill. the "new york times" shows. kantor and others. -- eric cantor and others. taking a look at some of the details of the jobs bill that passed yesterday, here is the right up. the centerpiece would delay some securities and exchange commission regulations that were passed as a response to the recession and would create a category of "emerging growth companies --

speaker painter spoke yesterday. here is what he has to say. -- speaker boehner spoke yesterday. here is what he has to say. >> this bill will help small businesses and provide access to capital. another one of our plans that i hope the senate will take up -- i know how difficult running a business is. to jump third that your credit -- to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the business of running. this bill will make it easier for businesses in start-ups to put the capital that they need to get there in order to grow jobs in our country. host: and long lines of

support, they said more about the transportation bill. we want to get your thoughts on the passage of this bill. what do you think it will do for business? the lines are on your screen if you want to participate. they all start with 202. if you are a small business owner and this affects you directly, you can give us your thoughts, as well. twitter is also available to you. jim hines participating saying -- i wonder what kind of insider trades would be made by congress relating to this jobs bill? your thoughts available on twitter and other platforms. bernie -- birmingham, alabama.

what do you think about the passage of the bill yesterday? caller: this is not a jobs bill. this is a smokescreen to make it seem like the republicans are actually trying to get jobs. they cannot tell me directly what industry this is going to help. i am a small business owner. the republicans are doing nothing except trying to claim credit because they are trying to pick it up. eric cantor is destroying this country. we need to but the teachers and police officers back to work. host: what kind of restaurant do you on? james? james is gone. pennsylvania, democrats' line. hold on the line if i have a

follow-up. caller: to live for taking my call. it has been a while since i have -- thank you for taking my call. it has been a while since i have been able to get through. i wanted to say that i disagree -- i agree with the previous caller. this is nothing more than election-year smokescreen. i mean, you know, these guys are really comical. i mean, these republicans do not care about jobs. host: why do you think so? caller: they are not going to create any jobs. the jobs -- the president has come out with numerous jobs bills. the senate keeps filibustering everything. look at the transportation bill? but when you are talking about sen. -- the one you are talking about soon. i do a create all the jobs and the republicans voted it down with all kinds of earmarks and nonsense. they know the president is not

one to sign it. host: the u.s. for this a way because i t was senator dick durbin yesterday -- thank you for the same way because i t was centered dick durbin saying that the transportation bill was bipartisan and would create more jobs than the house gop jobs bill. here it is. >> let me say that this is the senate jobs bill. compared to the house jobs bill, the senate jobs bill has 2.8 million jobs at stake here. passing this bill in the senate and in the house will put america back to work. not to take anything away from the house jobs bill, it is good. encouraging small businesses is something we need to do in this country. when it comes to job creation, there is absolutely no comparison. host: that is senator dick durbin. the jobs bill is our topic. texas, regional, hello. caller: hello. they're talking about creating

jobs and the keystone pipeline. how many jobs did the keystone pipeline -- how many people will lose their jobs because of the pipeline? host: i do not know the exact number, but go ahead and finish. caller: they say it will create 20,000 jobs and i am thinking about in order to build the pipeline, how many businesses is it going to -- how many jobs will be lost because of this? they never talk about that. host: from twitter -- when it looks at the end isho ipo's, jobs bill? small businesses can get their ipo's no regulation required. host: the caller had mentioned the keystone pipeline bill. a write up about -- a ride up

yesterday -- the vote staves off an election year review of president obama and giving political ammunition to build a pipeline despite best efforts. oklahoma city, good morning. hello. caller: hello. host: high. -- hi. caller: they need to do something out there because we have not had a jobs bill in

ages. harry reid need to go. people need to work on elections to get rid of harry reid. he is the one that is standing in the way of all of those bills. host: were you following the jobs bill passing yesterday and what do you think about the republicans'offering? caller: they can pass itn they can get jobs if harry reid would get out of the way. host: one of the things in the paper this morning was out of mississippi taking a look at a judge of holding pardons that were made by -- that were made.

host: again, it is the passing of the jobs bill we are paying attention to this morning for the first 45 minutes. we have also set a line for small-business owners if you want to specifically give your comments to what you do in the kind of business you operate. 202-628-0184. hello. caller: i want to comment on the jobs bill. i am a small fire mark -- former in rhode island. number one, it is a good idea

that the republicans are trying to create a jobs bill or are going to pass the jobs bill. i am not too familiar with all of the legislation, but i give both sides can get together, and compromise on a situation like this, it would be better for the country. as a small farmer, i feel if there was some funding, i could hire people that do not have jobs since rhode island is a state of very low employment and this would also contribute to the economy. if we start-ups with small- business owners that is a great idea. host: are you able to a fly it -- a apply for loans? caller: i had loans in the past during the bush administration. where i was able to refurbish one of my bonds -- barnes. i have been a small farmer. i own a state -- and the state

and i am trying to maintain an old house. the government could help me to save a national monument and at the same time, i could hire workers to refurbish the house and if i could get equipment such as tractors and stuff, i could tear in the place around. i think there are a lot of small business people looking for that. not a handout, but that helps. the government would get money back in the long run and it would take people off the streets and put them to work. host: "politico"looks at the speaker's that work.

her -- host: monroe, michigan. hello. caller: this is dennis brown. i have lived here in monroe, michigan my whole life. there have not been any jobs in this town in monroe and we need to bring back michigan -- host: you have to stop listening to yourself on the tv. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: we need to go ahead because people are hurting in the monroe county. host: justin, independent line.

turn down your tv while you're waiting. our phone screener would appreciate that. ahead. caller: the ceo of transcanada pipelines have never researched anything that goes on in this country. that is why when they listen to fox news or abc, they only have one point of view. host: to the jobs bill and what was done? your thoughts? caller: they had 2.5 years to do a bipartisan bill to -- for jobs. on the second hand, the republicans only got in because they talk about jobs. in virginia, georgia, and all of those areas, they're passing

legislation for abortion. host: what is wrong with the jobs bill? caller: i think this is a last- minute thing. i drive to d.c. almost every day and everything is last minute. host: that is hagerstown, maryland. host: chicago, allen i..

democrats' line. good morning to you. caller: anna jobs bill, i was saying i thought maybe the republican had to do something because john boehner had a bad week this week. they have to do something now. host: what you think about what happened yesterday? caller: eric cantor is going to push this guy out so john boehner has to get something done. maybe they can work out something with terry re-to get something better -- carry read to get something better. maybe they can get something for a real jobs bill. host: what would that look like? caller: maybe what they need to do is build bridges and roads.

they could start on those. that is going to last another 50 years like a high waited in the ask -- the state highway did 60 or 70 years ago. this is what they have to do. they have to quit bickering. host: effort on the transportation bill to place this week. they are continuing into next week as well. when it comes to jobs, that whole report on pending job somerset to be released today. pending the report -- the economy

host: the jobs bill from yesterday's our topic. columbus, ohio. caller: about that jobs bill, i was a minor and i am one of the guys that put but on the road. i have been out of work since 2005. i am waiting for you guys to call me back. why should i go back to work? q i. host: -- thank you. host: this is in today's paper.

the irs says that the best majority of returns are issued within 10 to 21 days a returns being that goal. refunds for paper take longer. the agency suggests id has fallen down -- host: host: columbus, nebraska. good morning. republican line. hello.

hello? caller: hello. the problem with the jobs in the united states is not about jobs. it is about who gets the jobs because you are giving them to the people who spend the money in this country. that is how i feel about the jobs in america. a lot of people -- i am going to give you an example. in new york city, they are only hiring their own kind. the american citizens handle business. every day, the united states go to work, we are not a country. they are sucking the economy and giving it to another country. that is out there taking the economy down, the jobs down. the people down. the only hire people -- there

are a lot of people coming from out of the country that do not speak english and they get the jobs. host: i tease the hiring. -- practice that needs to change? caller: yes. a lot of people are coming and they are have people inside the u.s. waiting for hiring. all of the countries -- what do you ever see a chinese hire an american citizen? never. the mexicans only work together. in new york, they keep them in the basement. host: this is a twitter --

host: we are going to be looking at the trade deficit, part of our regular series. save louis, missouri. hello. caller: hello. i was calling about the jobs bill and to say that i heard a lot of stuff debt is just -- stuff that is just rehashed. host: when you say that, what do you mean? caller: a lot of them are things that they have already agreed on or semi-agreed on but just have not put through. could i ask a question? you mentioned in the beginning that 11 senators voted against what the president had recommended on pipeline. yes. one of the things i wanted to ask is, how come the democrats

in the senate put these people as heads of committees and then you have lieberman -- when that is against the interests of the democrats in congress and the president? i do not understand. host: why do you think that is? caller: i have no idea. [laughter] they take people who purposefully will vote against the president and make them heads of committees. host: orlando, florida. you are next. robert, independent line. caller: i can barely hear you. this jobs bill they put up seems to me like it is -- i own three businesses.

i have got capital. right now, my businesses seem to be coming up a little bit, but not enough to hire. host: what do you do? caller: 1 is an automotive and the other three are in lawn care and maintenance. host: what was passed yesterday's -- with those things that were put on the jobs bill yesterday apply directly to you? caller: i can barely hear you. host: finish your thought. caller: now i can hear you. this is not going to do me any good until we have got people coming in and repairing their

engines or buying a car. we just after selling a bunch of them. host: you said you had no problem gaining access to capital? caller: i have plenty of capital. host: okay. caller: i have money in the bank. host: montana, louise, republican line. hello. caller: i am calling about the gas situation. i do not believe we should be building roads and bridges. we need to put the pipeline through, first. at $5 a gallon, we will not be able to go anywhere but the grocery store. nobody is on to travel. our state depends on tourists coming in here. i think it is ridiculous that they didn't get the pipeline going first. i believe that is more jobs

right there. on this jobs. when are they going to stop listening to this muslim president? he is trying to ruin our country. he is a professed moslems. he was on george stephanopoulos 's show before he was every elected. i think george has cover that up. host: on other networks, the president has professed himself to be a christian. just to say. what do you think about the jobs bill from yesterday? caller: what jobs bill? host: chesterfield, michigan -- chesterfield, new hampshire. caller: i do not think our president is a muslim. he is a christian. he proved he was born in hawaii. again, this is just a smokescreen. i am not familiar with all of what is in this bill that the

republicans are trying to pass. they are desperate to get something done so they cannot be shown as a -- so they can be shown as something more than they do nothing congress. host: what about the bill is desperate? in your opinion? caller: this is very last minute. they have had two years of jobs bill is coming across their desks. -- jobs bill coming across their desks. the decline them because they come from the senate. whatever comes from the president or the senate is dead on arrival when it reaches congress. this is just a desperate measure on the republicans are just too keep from being called a do nothing congress. which they are. they have done nothing but obstruct everybody else's legislation. who is this jobs bill going to hire? it is not.

it is not going to put anybody to work. host: that was just revealed, new hampshire. we have 10 or 50 more minutes of this topic if you want to weigh in on the jobs bill. it is on march 15 that the obama campaign is expected to release a 70 minute documentary taking a look at what has happened in the current term in office. it is called "the road we have traveled." there was a trigger released this week -- a trailer released this week. here is a bit for you. >> our time of standing and protecting their interests and putting on pleasant decisions, that time has surely pass. -- past. >> his advisors would ask where to begin. >> which is one, which is to, which is three? where do you start? >> if we do not do this now, there will be a generation

before 30 million people have health insurance. >> if the auto industry goes down, what happens to american manufacturing? what happens to jobs? what happens to the whole midwest? >> -- host: that is a trailer to the documentary expected to release march the 15th. the president will visit rolls- royce's manufacturing plan. c-span is covering that. we expect remarks from the plant specifically from prince george, virginia near richmond. i will take a place at 1230 this afternoon. dayton, ohio. good morning to wane, independent. caller: good morning. you guys are talking about the jobs bill and i am curious about unemployment compensation for military spouses.

we are in a recession. jobs are hard. yet, tennessee, virginia, and ohio are denying unemployment compensation for military spouses because they say when you move with a military person, that is not just vacation for you to see receive unemployment. bottom line, i am trying to figure out -- they are trying to get jobs going. they will not support the spouses who move from one place to another place to support their military individuals. host: you mentioned that this -- was brought to our interest caller: to this: i am hearing everybody -- interest to this topic? caller: i am hearing everybody talked about jobs. i traveling around a lot as a military dependent. i go to places like virginia and tennessee and i applied for unemployment compensation and they do not give it to me because they are saying you are in the military and you chose -- your spouse had to leave and you

chose to leave. host: looking at the senate race in massachusetts, there is a story in the "new york times" this morning that takes a look at the money being raised in the contest between scott brown and his challenger.

host: princeton, wisconsin. howard, republican line. howard, are you there? caller: i am here. i am on the line, now? host: yes. caller: i am 86 years-old. everything was done by hand when i worked. now, there is one man that pushes a button. i do not care where it is or what he does. he takes the place of about 20 or 30 men. there is no president living or nobody living -- the jobs are

done by push buttons. [unintelligible] i do not know how you people are going to do it. host: lafayette, a georgia. democrat. caller: good morning. i hope you have better weather than we have. host: what kind of whether you have? caller: in january we had 70 degree heat. that is not why i'm calling you. host: go ahead. caller: i have to get back to the keystone because this will create jobs. the keystone is not because the president did not want it. we would not make this a mistake

like japan. we do not check on what is below the earth. we have -- the bedrock is cracked. we need to check if this could be in the earthquake area or hurricane area. then we have a terrible attitude in the united states. i have learned an almost 40 years here that nobody bothers to maintain things. those pipes are underground. when they start bursting open with all this oil -- it leaks out and god forbid it runs into the drinking water. host: what should we learn from all of this? what is the lesson we should learn from all that you have told us? caller: i would suggest that we make sure and start asking questions to create something like the pipeline. you need a blueprint to prove

that what is below is clear for any digging or dynamiteing. this is a disaster. i am so disappointed. the other thing is, the illegal aliens that come in here to work -- we have been looking for jobs for our children. it is an outrage. what makes us disregard the other jobs? we have to be very on guard. the reason -- global warming, come on down here and i will show you. you're having a stake, sir. i appreciate you taking my call. -- you have a nice day us, sir. i appreciate you taking my call. caller: -- host: "usa today" has

headlines about david cameron visiting. host: las vegas. thank you for holding on. ralph, independent. caller: good morning. you are talking about the jobs bill and i think he's cute they call it a jobs bill. -- it is cute they call it a jobs bill. when you get down to small businesses, there are very few that i know of that employ any more than maybe 12 or 50 people. you are talking about giving them the ability to raise capital in an easier fashion. that is not really going to help. i like a gentleman who said, i have all the cash i need. i just need people to use some of my products.

getting money into the economy is going to be the biggest way of getting jobs back into the economy. if the government can help with that, that is fantastic. so, passing a jobs bill might be something where they get a high bill passed that the democrats are trying to do rather than this so-called jobs bill that the republicans are talking now. i do believe it is a ploy for the election. they have that control of the house for a year and two nuts or something like that. maybe more. this is the first jobs bill that they have really done anything with that people could agree on. i do not understand what is keeping them from voting on some real action to help this economy. host: just to recap some of the elements of the jobs bill --

host: "the new york times close what has a lead story -- "the new york times close what has a lead story. "

host: supporters are holding an event outside. -- host: buffalo, new york. democrat. caller: hello. i need to make a statement. in order for adults to earn pay as they go, the house must also pass a hiring payroll bill. that bill must allow adults to are $95 or more per hour from jobs.

host: where do you get that figure? caller: that is all i have to say. thank you. host: miami, florida. henry, democrats' line. caller: i think it is great that republicans are finally doing something but i think it is a political move because they realize america is looking at them. with the oil pipeline, and i just think, you know, there is not enough jobs for everybody. everybody is coming from all the country to try and, you know, get the job. and, you know, it is not finished. the oil companies have made record sales these past 10 years and they have not passed the savings down to the consumer. now they are waging prices because of speculation. not because of demand. -- raising prices because of speculation. not because of demand.

i cannot believe they can get away with it. they're robbing america. they are already shipping hundreds of thousands of their overseas now. if they get the pipeline, they can send more. america needs to wake up. no, -- you know, the pipeline is not for america. it will not reduce prices. they have already shown that. it they're not trying to do that. it is ridiculous. america needs to wake up. that is all. host: dennis kucinich who has been a regular guest on this network in this program, as well, loss this week when it came to his primary contests. this talks about his future in the campaign.

host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. ronald on our independent line. caller: there is no guarantee that the jobs will be filled by americans. the only thing we will get out of this deal is bad. the oil prices are not going to go down because they will put it on an open market. we do not win anything out of this deal but trouble. thank you, have a good day.

host: we take a look at the presidential race. this is an associated press story. host: that is from the atlanta journal constitution. we take one call from st. paul, minnesota. caller: hi. host: turn down your tv.

caller: okay, will do. my complaint is that the bill is not going to do anything for the common man. they do not have anything in it except you can invest in these businesses now and they are not really creating jobs. the biggest thing is that the republicans retake all they do is -- the biggest thing is that the republicans, all they do is help the wrong people. if you look in detail, you will find out that they have got a big story. big story number one from the republicans -- the rich do not have to pay more or their fair share. hey, what kind of man this is that? we all live in a country that we love.

america. a rich should pay their fair share. i mean, if you have a million dollars, hey, what is $5 -- $5,000 to you? that is nothing. but, republicans say the rich do not have to pay their fair share. host: we will leave it there. at 2:15 on c-span and c-span radio, eric holder ert will participate in a an event sponsored by the u.s. department of justice. this is the consumer protection summit which includes opening remarks and takes a lot of topics in the world of consumer protection. you can see that at 2:15 on c- span and c-span radio. the president will address jobs and jobs issues out of virginia. that will take place at 12:30. you can see that on c-span and c-span radio. later on this morning, and about 830, we take on -- 8:30, we talk about religion and politics.

up next, we talk about syria and iran. our guest will be ellen tauscher. she will give us a perspective on those areas and more. we will take that when we come right back. >> congratulations to all of this year's winners of the studentcam video documentary. a record number entered on the scene of the constitution and you. watch all the winning videos at our website, studentcam.org. we should that have videos in april on c-span. we talk with the winners during "washington journal."

ernest hemingway is considered one of the greatest writers. his work employees readers today. not many people know of his work as a spy during world war ii. >> there were a couple of instances he was aware of with german submarines approaching fishing boats and saying we will take your fresh food. ernest says that he will wait for them to come along side and then my players are going to lob hand grenades down the open hatches. [laughter] the other members are into machine-gun the germans on deck. >> nicholas reynolds on hemingway, the spy. sunday night at 8:30 p.m. this weekend on c-span3. >> fire j. edgar hoover? polis prize-winning reporter and author tampa weiner details the fbi to a decade in history n.j.

and gerber -- j. edgar hoover's site. -- fight. >> hoover stands alone. he stands alone like a statue encased in grime. as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century, the 11 presidents, 48 years, from woodrow wilson to richard nixon, there is no one like him. a great deal of what we know or what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is a legend. >> on enemies, history of the fbi. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is ellen tauscher -- the former under secretary of state for arms control. the former representative for california from 1997 to 2009 in

which she was part of the armed services committee and she is currently a member of the atlantic council board of directors. welcome. guest: thank you. good to see you. host: when you look at siri as you see it right now, what is the best reggy as far as the u.s. is concerned going forward? guest: the president's strategy. he has made clear about "washington journal attacking his own citizens. -- about assad attacking his own citizens. he has built a very important coalition. you have important voices in the area, like the early. very much united. what we have is a syria that is attacking its own people. a president that has to leave. a transition that has to go forward. diplomacy is important to get this political transition form of. support for the syrian national

council and the efforts of the arab league are very important. we have an increasingly isolated syria that sees there are only a few options left. military intervention is the last auction. as with most things on the table for the president. right now, this is about the policy -- diplomacy. host: taking a look at what is going on inside, your thoughts about arming rebels within syria? guest: i think is important that we do everything to support those that are going to be hopefully leading a free syrian the future. there are many different mechanisms and capabilities to do that. you know, i think that many people have spoken out in the last weeks and months about harming people. you know, it is always dangerous when we consider the fact that farming people leads to the kinds of conflicts you have. -- arming people leads to the

kind of context you have. when you see the military choosing not to fire on their own people -- children crying because their parents are dead. it is important to understand we need a moderate and serious approach to this. i think that all things are on the table. right now, we are depending on diplomacy to lead to a political transition. and the idea of arming people is on the table, but not something we are operating. host: when does diplomacy turn to something else? guest: i think it is. it is turning to something else for the president. he has decided not to lead the people, but to kill them. that is why he is going to have to go. i think everybody has made that very clear. the question is, how do you make that transition without further exacerbating an already tense situation? i think that is a decision that the international community has to make. certainly in the area. it is important to see what the

other members of the erie are saying, especially the arab league. it is important to listen to the syrian national council on what kind of capabilities they are looking for and how to support them. it is important to look at the humanitarian issue. you know, you ought that lebanon, jordan, and turkey that have a tremendous amount of refugees. if there was a bigger armed conflict, i think you would see an even bigger a mac -- humanitarian crisis. i think there are a lot of things that have to be put in place before you look at any other kind of intervention. right now, it is important to really have a forceful diplomatic mission. diplomatic message to get a political transition. host: where do turkey into a major factor in? guest: that is important, too. the turks and tunisians -- they are important voices. we will listen. host: our guest with us until

8:30. if you went to escort a question, the numbers are on the screen. -- ask for a question, the numbers are on the screen. e-mail can be sent and we can take your tweets. first carl is buffalo, new york. -- first call is buffalo, new york. caller: let us talk for a moment about international law. most of the people in the administration, both democrat and republican, tend to view international law as kind of a dirty phrase. yet, we drafted most of the u.n. charter and the u.n. charter spells out that a sovereign nation has the right to suppress an armed rebellion

within their own nation. hopefully, they do it humanely. but get nations like bahrain -- look at nations like bahrain. there is a rebellion and we keep our noses out of itv. there is one in yemen. we have supported the government and not the our people. which of course is al qaeda. the board of being, we have a double standard. we are not happy with serial -- syria. we feel they support hezbollah. syria was with us after 9/11 helping work with us. host: we will leave it there. guest: i have a respect for both international and domestic law. this is not about winners and losers. look at the area. the area is under assad. the only country standing with him -- the only country standing

with the missiran. this is a country that is trying not to suppress its civilians but it is killing people. these are not people taking up arms against the government. these are people going into the market. international law is the role we try to live by. we are not picking winners and losers. the. assad is picking losers -- the president assad is picking losers. the people who know this area the best are against this regime. against president assad. we are for the syrian people. this is not just any country. this is a country that is a puppet of iran and has supported both hamas and hezbollah, or two terrorist organizations in the area. it is important to recognize that we are not picking winners and losers. it is assad that is picking the

losers. host: your assistant on twitter -- -- you are assistant on twitter. host: -- guest: ambassador rice and secretary clinton are working on a new security council resolution. i think it is important that we go back to the u.n. and try to get something true. of course, especially in china, members of the peace -- p5 are important. host: did they turn against sanctions in russia and china? guest: those are details. they need to get worked out of new york. it is important to note all levers of power and influence are being used, including the security council. host: what makes you think that the un will get its way? guest: i think that while we are

deeply discouraged and not happy with the vote in early january and the vetoed by russia and china of the security council resolution, those things have a chance of coming back and that is what we are working on. host: good morning to mike. independent line. go ahead. caller: i have a few points. do not cut me off. please. i have heard you make multiple references to international law and that stuns it is nearing the statements of secretary panetta -- mirroring the statements of secretary panetta. he is more concerned with getting you an approval than the ok from our own congress -- un approval then getting the ok from our own congress. in libya, we are fighting with al qaeda or we were during that conflict. i'm sure they are still there.

i am concerned with in one country, we have an enemy we are fighting and in the other country, they are our allies. it is a scam. i really wish everyone would have been vocal when these things were happening in uganda and the democratic republic of congo and these different places. there are millions of people being slaughtered and no one says anything. i do not know if it was because black people this was happening to. or they did not have oil. we already put in that dictators and a ruthless rulers in their nel at -- in their neighborhoods. they run the show for us so we do not need to have this international pressure that we put on these other countries. guest: mike, guest: let me make it clear that we have stated our position.

the president has been clear. in the case of syria, president assad has to go. the punishment and killing of his own people who are looking to have religious and economic freedom -- >> it has been thwarted by him. this is a chance for him to keep power. you have to look at the region. what is going on in the region? we have tremendous influence and economic interests and a lot of friends and allies in this region. specific to the middle east, the arab league who unfortunately sat on the sidelines in too many other conflicts became very active during the arab spring and did some choices in the case of libya and asked for help. now in syria, you see a similar position. in many of these cases, you

mentioned that terrible troubles and africa. it is about what the region is doing. if it is disorganized and does not have any advocates. that is a very bad situation. i think that was true in many ways for africa, but that is not true for the middle east. we know how close everybody is there in the middle east. it is important that these situations be contained and maintained. host: as far as the region, what are the differences between the actions taken in libya and the actions yet to be taken in syria? guest: pedro, on a case by case basis, i think that is an important way to look at things. all of these countries look homogenized or not. they have various different

forms of government and the different histories. they have the various different interrelationships with each other, and they have different relationships with us. they have a different relationship with the eu and other european allies. you cannot put one template across the whole region. host: supporting the rebels? guest: these are decisions that are made. someone who is the regime thinks is an insurgent could be a freedom fighter. i think once again these are very calculated specifications that have to be made. we need to be sure we are supporting them. host: warrenton, virginia, good morning. the republican line.

caller: thank you for c-span. we appreciate these programs and comments. i would like to ask the former undersecretary that if our government is struggling against al qaeda, atrocities that they are committing around the region in the middle east and causing a lot of problems for the united states, doesn't the undersecretary think that the taliban in afghanistan would be used to give safe haven to a former bin laden and they are doing it so in the pakistan region between the border of afghanistan. now our government is talking about they are friends with our government, and they have no way

of not talking to them to reach the peace process with them. they are setting up offices in qatar, in the middle east countries with them. and they are finding them. doesn't she think we are saving them from basically disappearing? guest: in the case of afghanistan, the taliban was in power in afghanistan. when they created a safe haven for al qaeda -- that was in the late 1990's and the early 2000's. we saw the result of that in new york, pa., and here in washington september 11, 2001. our military in afghanistan and the afghan government are negotiating with many, many

elements of the afghan people to create a peaceful solution and to bring our troops home. the president has been very forceful getting our troops out and turning this over to the afghan people. that negotiation with whoever it is always excludes anyone with terrorist ties. if you are taliban but you have proved you are not associated with al qaeda and you are someone who can have our trust earned, you are probably going to be part of a settlement. this is led by the afghan government spending not the united states. it is important to understand there are taliban elements in afghanistan, and not all of them were harboring al qaeda. it is important whoever we are dealing with have no terrorist ties. host: "the washington journal"

this morning talks about the weapons that potentially exist in syria. guest: it is very similar to the kind of work that we did after libya was freed. libya did have some chemical weapons stores. the international community is working to not only retrieve those weapons but to dispose of them. that is the concern in syria, that they have a number of chemical weapons. it is important for us to work with the surviving transitional government to make sure they are secured and put down. it is important that we are calculating that president assad does not get to use them. host: good morning. caller: after hearing leon panetta and the joint chiefs of staff saying if the u.n. decides is the right thing to start a war in the middle east,

they will take orders from the u.n. question -- what happened to our sovereignty and our oath as far as the constitution goes? i am calling my senator to make sure that these people get re- educated on the constitution. it is another reason why i think americans really need ron paul in office because the people of america have forgotten what the u.s. constitution has done, given us freedom and sovereignty. host: i saw you shaking your head at one point. guest: i know what they said. we do not abrogate our sovereignty to anyone, including the u.n. host: senator john mccain, one

of them during the exchange. this took place on wednesday in the senate. regarding the situation in syria. listen to what he had to say it. >> assad needs to know that he will not win. that is not the case now. to the contrary, assad seems convinced he can wipe out the opposition to violence and is fully committed to doing so. can you tell us how much longer the killing will have to continue? how many additional civilian lives will have to be lost to convince you the military measures of this kind that we are proposing to end the killing -- how many more have to die? 10,000, 20,000? guest: senator mccain is a colleague of mine. i think what is important is

military force is always on the table, always an option, but that has to be calibrated with the opportunity to save more lives than lose them and have the best effect for political transition and do things in a reasonable way. what is clear is that the opposition certainly is not ready for something like that in syria. it is important that we have diplomacy and political transition, that we are building the case against syria. in the region, we have the arab league of. we have isolated the country and isolated president assad. we are making sure this case is unambiguous. we are getting support for the transition, both politically and in the region. i think it is important before we decide to continue the violence, we find a way to stop the violence and mitigate the ability to have a transition.

there are many other opportunities and levers of influence and shutting assad's capabilities off. this is not a country with a peashooter. this is a country with serious armament. the president is killing his own people. perhaps he understands he has a bad transition coming up. he certainly does not have the people's best interests at heart. when somebody like this is increasingly isolated and paranoid, they do crazy things. it is important that we are prepared and we have everyone on the ground prepared for what might be happening. we believe we are doing everything we can to minimize the violence, make sure that assad is aware, and we want this transition to happen sooner than later. host: who are our strongest

allies at this point? guest: in the region, everyone is stepping up. certainly our friends in europe are very important because we would have to make sure that we were able to support what ever happened. in the region, the countries that are already taking refugees, like jordan, lebanon, and turkey -- they need support, too, to make sure those elements coming into the country are peaceful people and they have the ability to manage it inside their own country. host: nato? guest: nato -- it is important to see what the region is deciding, whether this is something that will include military intervention. host: new york for our guest, ellen tauscher. the independent line. caller: for me, this crisis can

be tackled. diplomacy, yes. there should be a clean, no killing zone. i stress no killing zone should be established and that should be protected. the way we are treating this crisis reminds me of -- we allowed him to go that way. this is not going to be another kosovo. the only countries that can make a difference for me is turkey. turkey is a strong country. turkey has to be rewarded for what it is doing now. turkey should be a member of the european union. without turkey, there would be no solution in that part of the world. guest: i think the caller makes some good points.

host: there is an op ed today in "the wall street journal," talking about their nuclear capability. they write -- how would you chime in on those points? guest: i would listen to what president obama and secretary clinton has said. the united states will not tolerate nuclear weapons in iran. host: as far as their desire for talks for the program -- show that continue? guest: we are about to begin some talks. they have indicated that they want to talk again. we have been frustrated that the indication of talks lead to not talking.

it is effectively managed by our european friends with us being part of its. e3 plus three are three european countries led by the foreign policy head of the u. we are a party, but once again, we are not leading these conversations but we are certainly there. we have made it clear that they have two things to do and things will get better for them. they have to settle their international obligations and live inside their agreements. they have to make sure people in the region and around the world that are worried about whether there are military aspects to their nuclear power program -- they have to be satisfied. it is because they have been found cheating. they have said inflammatory things about the state of israel and the united states.

their ambitions for nuclear- weapons is abated. it is important for us to be satisfied. we would like to have the iranian people we join the legitimacy of the nation's. they have been ostracized because of the regime that has been in power for decades. we have made it clear to the iranians of what they have to do. make us confident that there is no military actions. stop the enrichment. then you are going to be able to transition into a much more favorable place in the world. until you do those things, you are going to continue to have people worried and insist on accountability. host: our guest is a member of the atlantic board counsel of directors. guest: it is an ngo and is dedicated to the transatlantic

relationship, not only with nato, but increasingly around the world. it has a very long history, over 50 years. i think it is one of the do- tanks as opposed to a think tank. host: our guest, also the former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2009 until 2012. guest: i am a part-time special envoy right now. i am basically retired. host: oklahoma, thanks for holding. our republican line. caller: good morning. isn't the military actually perpetrating these crimes against their own people over there? have we communicated that to them?

i will take my answer of the there. thank you. guest: the international criminal court is a place for them. as you remember, the former yugoslavia and the coast of low war -- and kosovo war and other problems, people are arrested and held for trial -- we see members of the lower level in the regime that are starting to quit and move over to the people. i think you will see that increasingly. the gentleman is right, that the military to make the decisions. i am sure someone is trying to figure out which way things are going to go. they should be for the people. that is where the derivative of power comes from. i think you will see that is where the transition tipping point really is.

when do you start to see members of the regime and the military begin to decide they are not going to kill their people? host: good morning. guest: good morning. i would like to make one point and two quick questions. no americans should lose their lives over this matter in syria. what would happen to those americans who took up arms and vowed to kill the government leaders in this country? what gives the united states the right to go around the world saying who should be what country's leader? we need to concentrate on our people here in this country. thank you. guest: this is not about an arms insurrection against the government in syria. this is about the people of syria choosing to not live under a regime that is supporting terrorists. i do not have a lot of sympathy

for the regime here or for mr. assad. this has been going on for more than a year. these are not people taking up arms and have been storming the capital. these are people going to market, children in school, family's going to church. this is a very distinct difference. this is not an arms insurrection. are there people called it insurrectionists matter trying to fight? of course there are. they are very few and far between. this is not about some kind of organized civil war that is going on. this is about denying the people of syria the right. host: here is a viewer off of twitter. guest: a nuclear iran is a

threat to the whole world. many countries in the region have decided not to have nuclear weapons. it also changes the posture for everyone because of the iranian regime's very close relationship with hezbollah, terroristnd other organizations. one president has been enormously successful on nuclear security. we got the new treaty negotiated and ratified. so, i think president obama has been herculean in these efforts. one of the key metrics is not to have a new member of the nuclear club. his opposition to the regime's i thames to get nuclear-weapons is second to none. frankly, we have had the most

serious sets of sanctions and galvanized an international coalition that has never been put together before. host: arizona on our independent line. good morning. caller: hello. what assad should have done is have the patriot act signed first and then he could just kill his people legally like what we did. i think it is a prelude to our president doing what assad is doing. have a good day. host: next up is in new york for our guest. all republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you knew who the opposition in syria was.

also, the arab spring i think is a misnomer because it appears to me to be more like the arab fall. in egypt, the opposition turned out to be the muslim brotherhood. we began to see the burning down of churches and attacks on the christians. excuse me. also in other middle east countries, we have seen the opposition turned out to be not who "the new york times" thought they were. also, i do not think sanctions on iran will work. they were put in place a little late. they should have been instituted under bush. well, some of them were. it should have been done at least three years ago. there are close to a weapon.

sanctions have not worked on north korea. guest: let's start at the back end. we do not believe the iranians have made an absolute final decision to make a nuclear weapon. we still think there is a chance for the international community to influence them. that is the effort of diplomacy to make it clear that that is an unacceptable and an unacceptable assumption on their part that they would be allowed to do that. i think we have a tremendous amount of support and a big coalition. sanctions are the weakest will anybody has in their arsenal in diplomatic tools bought one of the few that we have because the iranian government has been isolated for well over 30 years and basically has been a pariah

in the region for a long time. it is not the best thing to have, but we are more successful now with these sanctions. we believe they are hurting the regime because they have said so. we think they are more effective than we would have hoped they would be. it is about keeping the coalition together. gas prices are an important piece of this. on syria, i think the question really is -- for me, the question is not who is part of the opposition. our intelligence community, our military, and others are looking to see to make sure that these are people that are worthy of support. i still think that the people of syria deserve our support. that is what is very, very important. these are innocent people caught in the crossfire of a regime

looking to stay in power and its military who are willing to be their agent and kill their own people. host: 5 more minutes with our guest. virginia is next. our independent line. caller: i would just like to say that you are so disingenuous. you can go to ushijack.com. guest: i may be a lot of things but i am not disingenuous. host: kevin, you are on. caller: i have a question. i understand what they are doing in syria is wrong, but what about all the people in africa that have these dictatorships that killed millions of people and the united states sit back and do nothing about it? you said that syria is backed by iran, but isn't syria also

backed by china and russia? guest: i will tell you that i think we are all ashamed by the slaughter that we saw in africa throughout the 1990's and parts of the 2000's and enough was not done. we are the united states of america. we are in north america and have a lot of allies around the world. we tend to get involved when we are asked when there is regional leadership and a way for us to be influential. while we were not militarily involved in many parts of africa, we were certainly do militarily involved and we were giving support and doing everything we could to stop the bloodshed including working with international organizations. i share your our rage. frankly, syria is different.

the country has real weapons, chemical weapons, and they have a fetish for supporting the wrong team. they support iran, hezbollah, and hamas. when we can be influential on the diplomacy side where we should be involved. host: your reaction to the recent the aol alyse saving 52% of respondents would back military action. guest: those polls are a little snapshot in time. i think people understand and i think is important and i am happy to see that the american people and others understand what it means for iran to have a nuclear weapon. it is an issue of tremendous

significance. it will change the decisions that other countries have made to not have nuclear weapons. it adds one more country to the nuclear club which is the wrong direction, and a complicates our ability to deal with non proliferation challenges of the 21st century. i hope people appreciate how hard everyone is working. host: california, the republican line. caller: good morning. let me go back in time, about 20 or so years ago, when the defense department was thinking about developing an atomic warhead with limited scope. it was designed to take out military targets buried in stone. q uite sure -- i think

it was a footnote in the administration which said this was crazy. we are not going to develop more atomic weapons. that is number one. number two, if you do not mind, let me ask the undersecretary if she thought the military hardware that the united states has sold and maintains in the middle east, i.e. saudi arabia, jordan, egypt, the emirates -- host: your point? caller: the point is instead of using our hardware to fight this war, what it amounts to is air support.

guest: once again, whenever you have all levers of power on the table including military intervention, somebody is making a plan someplace. this is really about letting diplomacy, development, and political transition to take the lead and making it very clear to president assad that there is no way out, that he has to stop and go. host: this is john on the republican line from pennsylvania. caller: hello. i would like you to tell me where in the constitution it grants the power to police the world. second, you mentioned the non- proliferation treaty. that treaty was written to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. if it did not stop any member to sign that treaty -- it did not stop any member to sign that treaty to develop its own

nuclear weapons systems. host: as you see it, what is the next step? you talk about sanctions and diplomatic actions. guest: that is right. for syria, there is clearly an opportunity to go back to the security council. i know the ambassador is working with secretary clinton and the white house to build the coalition. that, once again, is another resounding international message to building the case to president assad that his attacks on his own people, this u nwarranted killing of his own citizens and the destabilizing of the region is not a plan that is going to have a long-lasting effect. it is important for us to continue to do these things. for some people, i know these things do not happen fast

enough. they do not happen fast enough for the innocent syrians that are going to die today. this will allow political transition to happen in a good way. on iran, we will see what these new talks have to say. they have to represent themselves. they have a chance to turn the corner and make the right decisions to make it clear that they do not have military aspects to their nuclear program. host: former undersecretary of our guest ellen tauscher, thank you for your time. 227,000 jobs added last month and unemployment staying at 8.3%. in our last segment, we will talk about issues regarding the economy, specifically looking at

trade. up next, a discussion on religion and politics with jim towey. we will have that conversation when we come right back. ♪ >> fire j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. >> a former author details the fbi's in 100-year history. >> hoover stands alone. is like the washington monument.

he stands alone like a statute encased in brian. as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington and it 20th-century. 11 president, 48 years. woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him. a great deal of what we know or what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is a myth and legend. >> a history of the fbi, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> they are not fighting and dying because they are al qaeda. they are not sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists. they are fighting and dying because they want the same rights and freedoms that we guarantee in our constitution. >> i think if we do not get the international community together, we are going to look back and say we not only did the

right thing to stop innocent civilians from being killed, but we missed a strategic opportunity. >> i want to make a point that the concerns you have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, afghanistan, the war against terrorism, and we are leading in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement is that we ought not to go in unilaterally, we need to build a unilateral coalition. it is not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. >> watch this week's meetings and news conferences any time you want at the c-span radio library. with over a quarter century of

american politics and public affairs on your computer. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest you may recognize as the former director of the white house office of faith-based and community initiatives. he is also the current president of ave maria university. can we start with your university? it is dealing with the topic of contraceptives. guest: it is a beautiful, small university town in southwest florida near naples. we have about 700 undergraduate students. we are small. we are proud the catholic and follow the teachings of the church. when the mandate came out that said you have to provide contraceptive services including abortion drugs and sterilization

as a part of your health plan, the university says this of violates our free exercise of religion and federal law. we were hoping that the regulations that would, from the administration would carve out the exemptions as they have done for decades for organizations like us. we had to go to the court. host: tell us about the nature of your suit. guest: we are grateful to have the becket fund for religious liberty representing the university. they are an excellent first amendment law firm advocacy organization. i have known them for a long time. the founder, a great american and a great man. they have a great group of attorneys over there that have successfully argued cases in the supreme court, most recently won against the administration.

we were very confident that we were able to get the becket fund for religious liberty to represent us. no small university wants to go to federal court against the mighty federal government. we have a lot of work to do but we felt we had no choice. we are seeking to be -- to have declaratory relief and injunctive relief, to claim that the application is invalid and on lawful. -- and unlawful. host: what happens to those employees if you lose the battle? guest: we will not provide health insurance for those drugs. this is not a debate about contraception. people can be in disagreement about it. the issue at hand is whether the federal government can force

a faith-based organization like ours to provide a service against our police. we would discontinue our health insurance. -- against our beliefs. we would be fined by the federal government. to be fined to practice your faith is contrary to the constitution. we feel we are on very solid legal grounds but we know now that it is in congress. of course, it is in the courts. we are hoping over time that the administration will revise its regulations. host: what with that provision have to say to satisfy you? guest: that this mandate is providing contraception-free. that faith-based organizations can choose to not provide it.

the catholic church and many evangelical organizations and many individuals that are devout religious provide health plans today. if the federal government wants to provide free contraception, that is their prerogative. why force a catholic university like ours to force us to compromise our religious beliefs to do it? that is why we have had to go to court. host: our guest is with us until 9:15. the phone lines -- if you want to send us an e-mail -- you can also send us something off of twitter. does your health insurance provider allow you to provide contraception without a fee directly from you? guest: no. we have a health plan that is

very generous. $1.7 million is spent on our health plan. we have a plan that does not provide for reimbursement for contraceptive services. that has worked fine. people that come to work are not expecting us to provide these things. we know we are a catholic university. with president obama coming out in february, what he termed it an accommodation was to say that you do not have to provide it by your insurer will provide it for free. we are not dumb. those drugs are going to cost money today and tomorrow. someone is going to be footing the bill. of course, the employer is going to be paying for that.

to me, why not just -- if the federal government wants to expand this, just do it directly. that is our complaint. host: off of twitter -- guest: we do follow the laws of this country and are happy to do so. we are proudly american. what we are being asked to do here violates our constitutional rights to follow the law. we feel it is unlawful for the federal government to ask this of us. we follow all of the regulations as we participate in federal student aid programs and in grant programs. we are very careful to stay in the good graces of the state of florida and the u.s. federal government, but when we are

asked to compromise on our beliefs, and no administration has ever asked a university like ours to do this in the past, why now? today, it is going to be contraceptive services. tomorrow, it is going to be abortion which is legal in america. then they are going to come in and say when a woman is pregnant, she has to have certain tests. or the health plan will not cover that birth. you are walking on a slippery slope when the federal government is intruding on these decisions. it is particularly dangerous when you are asking religious organizations to abandon their conscience. you are serving the government as a church because they are dictating what religious beliefs

and america can be. host: on our democrats line, it is tim for jim towey. good morning. caller: good morning. the freedom of religion is an individual, it distinct idea. you have the right to practice religion. the line that is drawn is when you try to force your beliefs on the other people. when you become involved in the economic system, you are a part of the whole society. you have to live by the laws of the society. you cannot force your ideas on everybody else. the catholic church needs to stay out of the economic system all together. guest: first of all, the case law in the supreme court does not interpret the first amendment to apply only to individuals. it applies to organizations to

define ourselves and to exist in america in the public square like everyone else. we are not forcing our beliefs on our employees. they freely come to work at the university and they understand what our university is about. that we are a catholic institution. to me, the point is -- individuals are free to decide whether they want contraception or not. the point is, you cannot force an organization like us to provide it. you cannot force us to compromise our religious beliefs. i think there is case law to support this. they feel that this mandate violates the religious freedom

restoration act which was passed by congress and the 1990's and signed by president clinton. what is being done today is a radical departure from past practices by presidents that were republican and democrat alike. host: on our republican line, good morning and thank you for holding. go ahead. caller: good morning. mr. towey, i applaud your suit that you are going against the government. we need this. they are trampling on our rights and on our constitutional rights. i don't believe that anyone should be kidded that this is about abortion. mr. obama has tried to get bills through for abortion. this is about trampling our

rights. this administration has been suing the states to protect their rights. thank you very much. guest: thank you. i do think that these issues are becoming crystal-clear four americans now. -- for americans now. our country is grounded in religious freedom and the exercise of the first amendment. we do not want to establish religion either. i think the scales got to. host: the democrats' line from tennessee. caller: i have a couple of comments. its seems like a lot of people are trying to legislate religion into our government. which brand do you legislate? what brand of christianity do

you put in there? are you people not familiar with the term "freewill?" it is free will, and it is joyce. you cannot impose our will upon the. i will take your response off there. thank you. guest: we are not trying to impose our beliefs on you. employees come to the university because they recognize we are a catholic institution. we have wonderful students there and we all are wonderful institution. we are not forcing our believes. people use their free will to come and work for the university. we are not trying to legislate religion into government. when i worked at the white house, i had the great privilege to work with religious leaders of all different faiths and

individuals of no particular faith. we are not seeking to impose our views. we are trying to be freed of the heavy hand of government forcing us to violate our first amendment religious beliefs. i am not looking for the government to institute a set of beliefs to christianize government. we are simply trying to be able to freely exercise our face and not be coerced to do something that is the social policy of this administration. do not force faith-based groups to compromise their beliefs. host: there was a right up in "the washington post." they cited a ruling in which the supreme court found that if a law is neutral and applicable, not targeted against any religious group, individuals must comply.

the response to that was a justice said that it would be quoting anarchy superior to the law of the land. guest: i am sure that is going to be argued in our lawsuit. i think the becket fund for religious liberty will be able to adequately rebut this. if the government has a compelling interest, and there is no less restrictive way to implement this policy then what they propose, then in myight fly. justice scalia is a brilliant man. we think there are less restrictive ways that they could have done this. host: is your college a church

or a business? guest: our college is not a church, not a place of worship as churches are defined. it is certainly church- affiliated in that we follow the teachings of the catholic church and i am happy that we do. i point out the danger the approach that is being taken. thatustice's comments in one case, one could argue all nine supreme court justices look at the first amendment and were aghast at what the administration is attempting to do in an employment matter that involves a face-based organization deciding which of its employees or ministers. the nine justices were appalled by that. when you get into the train of constitutional law and court cases, it is a complex.

the becket fund for religious liberty is going to do a great job representing us. they are already in discovery now. the law takes effect jan.. there has been talk that there might be waivers granted to organizations like ours but we have known seemed guidelines on that. the administration has known for over a year that the big issue for many of faith-based groups was insurance. many faith-based organizations self-insure. they are large enough to do that with their employees. the administration in its new regulation address the self-insurance issues? they did not even address it.

they kicked that can up the road. to me, that shows there was a rush to get the regulation out in a process that was poorly drafted. there is still no protection whatsoever for self-insured organizations. host: the next call from florida on a republican line. good morning. are you there? caller: hello. rouge.m baton host: go ahead. caller: thank you so much, sir, for the good work that you are doing. it was drummed into our heads about the importance of separation of church and state, and that we were to be good, loyal americans. i have a question. item pricing -- i am going to try to be concise. what if the federal government took over the penal system of

all the states and did away with the states in forcing justice? and the federal government took over the execution of men or women on death row and they decided that lethal injection would be performed in catholic hospitals? am i making sense? is that similar to what they are doing now, how they are in forcing hospitals and catholic institutions to provide something against their moral teachings? guest: i think you make a good point, that once the federal government starts down a path of telling the church what it is to believe and do, i think it is dangerous. keep in mind. when you look at the greatness of america, so many faith-based organizations, different faiths coming together. very impressive to see these armies of compassion working.

i think you make a very good point that americans are starting to bristle about the over reach of federal government and big the government is crossing line after line and taking more and more of a role in your day to day lives. i think people are frustrated. i think it is going to be an issue in this election. the overreached and the heavy hand of the federal government. i will tell you that we are feeling it right now at the university. host: there is a viewer off of twitter who asks -- guest: we do not receive direct grants like many research institutions do. we participate in federal student loan programs and comply with all of the regulations and rules. we are happy to. this is across the line.

we are being singled out and being told to violate our religious beliefs. host: who it is it singling out specifically? guest: i think you have to ask the individuals who are developing the policy and what their motivation is. they will say it is to expand preventive health services, that it was a policy objective. regardless of their wealth, that people would be entitled to free contraception. our university is not part of that policy debate. host: day troy, mich., go ahead. caller: -- detroit, michigan, go ahead. caller: i have four quick questions. they take a different

perspective than the previous 12-year parochial student caller. is the university tax-exempts? how can the university prove that it is at values that motivate their resistance? third, how do you rationalize depriving those who are not catholic who work at the university? how do you not provide them with equal services? four, why are you not looking at what is being proposed rather than what your conjecturing could happen down the road which probably would not? guest: i will try to give four quick answers to four quick questions. yes, we are tax exempt. money concerns? no.

we are facing a grave threat in federal fines. the legislation is not even clear what those fines will be. we have also seen that it could be $100 at day. it is not clear that the federal government would manage these funds. it is all very up in the there. the financial consequences are very brave. it would be cheaper for the university to follow the law. it is the opposite of what you suggest. the issue of non-catholics and equal rights, we do not even scream our employees of what their faith is. -- screen our employees of what their faith is. when they come to work, they receive their health benefit plan of every 1. i do not think that is a discrimination. even if they are not catholic,

and they embraced the missions of the university. which is to educate young men and women of the truth. finally on the issue of why i am not reacting to what is being proposed instead of what i am conjecturing, i am reacting to what the federal government has laid out in this mandate. we think it does not protect our rights. host: is it spelled out that your employees would not receive contraceptive coverage? guest: absolutely. they get other benefits from the university. so, this is not uncommon. if you work in new york city, yom kippur, you would not be working from sundown until the next d