should russia say they are no longer going to give us a ride to the space station. >> congressman, i am not going to engage in a debate about history. if the fact that the decision to phase out the shuttle was not made by the obama administration. that was made under the bush administration. >> when the space station was mothballed, president obama was president of the united states. he could have made the decision >> when the space station was mothballed, president obama was president of the united states. he could have made the decision to use the space shuttle, or he could have made the decision to keep it available in a state of emergency. he chose not to.

>> i was the one who recommended to the president that we face the shuttle out. i would have recommended we phase it out quickly. we were spending $12 billion over the same time that we have spent $12.5 billion. >> let me interject again. you said you were not going to go over history. you were able to divert from my question to history. if russia cuts us off today because of of vents, what is nasa's plan? >> we engage in contingency planning every single day. refusing at the international space station is not something i consider feasible because russia is dependent upon the united states to operate the international space station. russia has one thing we need -- access.

>> back to my question, is it your testimony america has no plan? fax this is like asteroids. we have a plan. the plan is commercial crew. this nation has no plan. >> i have looked at your written statement that says basically we are looking at the end of 2017, which is three and a half years away. is that the plan if russia decides to terminate our access to the international space station? >> i am confident that based on my conversation with russian counterparts that they are equally worried about terminating activity on the international space station. i am not going to deal with suppositions. i don't expect our partners will

abandon the international space station. >> i see my time is expiring. i appreciate the inside, but if all i hear is that the plan is three and a half years away i have to worry about what happens if russia does cut us off. thank you for indulging me. >> thank you. let's not dwell on the past. let's look to the future and think about where we want to go. we were informed by the council, but we also plan for the future. just playing off what my colleague talked about, it's my impression that we also have leverage with regards to the space station. >> exactly. in a partnership, we have that leverage. they have leverage, but the end goal is commercial space travel and moving folks forward. when i look at the building

blocks and our conversations previously, we have a long-term goal to have human space travel to mars. you are laying out some steps here and so forth. i had a chance to visit southern california recently, and it does look like they are quickly advancing. they have been able to take supplies up to the space station, and they are now advancing fairly quickly on space travel. can you give us an update on the partnership between nasa and commercial entities? >> i think we should all be proud that during the time i have been the nasa administrator, we have stood

with commercial cargo dependability. we are diligently working to bring about the capability and the united states to have a commercial crew capability. nasa does not deal with lower orbit access, or should we, because we have to use that money to execute a deep base -- deep space exploration. >> as a building block going to deep space as well as returning? >> there are things we need if we want to go to mars. i hope all of us in this real will agree with me -- in this room will agree with me that the world ultimate goal in our lifetime is to see humans on mars. if i can get the chart up because it would be helpful. in order to get to mars, there are things we don't have. we don't have sufficient for colston to take cargo there. you don't -- rope pulls and --

we don't have sufficient propulsion to get cargo there. we need increased capability and something like solar propulsion. our proving ground is the earth moon system, where we intend to take the asteroid so we can interact with it. we can develop procedures for activity. things we cannot do in lower orbit because that system is different from what we know. i need a proving ground. the moon is two days away. if something goes wrong there, he can come home. if something goes wrong, the crew is eight months away. imagine apollo 13. the crew survived because it was a loop around the moon and

nature took care of it, to be honest. and apollo 13-like incident, part of the model blows out right after liftoff, we are going eight months to mars and another eight months or more to come back. we have got to get it right. we can develop life-support systems that are robust. we cannot have a cooling system that fails. we cannot have the kinds of things that happens sometimes in the international space station. that's why u.s.-based nation is used to develop technologies. they have got to be more robust. >> if we stick with wanting to be forward and wanting to dream. we dreamt big, and we went out and did it.

that's what we have to do now. with this goal, we don't know how we are going to get there just yet, but we have to think about these technologies, and we have to start making these investments. is that accurate? >> i would ask people to start thinking about we are approaching 2013. we are getting ready to go to mars. what should we be thinking about now? we haven't even started talking about landers. we haven't started talking about service systems. that's where international partners and service partners are going to be vital. this is hard. if you look at earth reliant, we cannot get too deep space if we have to come back to earth every time to pick up stuff. we go through this all the time. we need things like cryogenic propellant storage. we don't need that right now. we are in the just-in-time business. the reason i don't spend the money you would like me to spend is because i don't need a 31 ton

metric vehicle. i do need to send my astronauts to lower orbit. hopefully everyone agrees to going to mars. if we do, hopefully everyone agrees we have to crawl, walk, run. we have got to have a proving ground to develop the technology. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california. >> perhaps a crawl, walk, orbit would be -- how did you know what i was going to ask? >> i was hoping you would, because i need people to be consistent with what they ask emma and you have been

consistent. >> all these great complements. >> i try to speak the truth. >> i have two issues i wanted to talk about. one is what you brought up, refueling in space. for the record, not all of us believe that putting people on mars should be our number one goal in space right now. let's go to that. we are talking about the option of refueling in space. wouldn't that give us a great deal of leverage to accomplish other missions in space, perhaps on the moon, perhaps other goals we would like to achieve at a much more cost-effective rate

because we wouldn't have to build such a huge rocket that is going to cost tens of billions of dollars? >> we don't know that it would be much more cost-effective. to get the kind of people in space, we have talked about this before. the number of flights required to get the number of people in space we need is extensive. while it may cost significantly less, by the time you fly 10, 12 atlas fives or five falcon nines, you have exceeded the cost of sls, so forgetting humans into space, getting large scientific halos into space, you want something like an sos so we don't have to do these venous flybys to jupiter. we want to be able to go direct. sls will give us the capability. in time.

we are not ready yet. we need to orbit to develop the technologies, and we are trying to do that. we are using ground tasks -- tests right now. we are not going away from it. >> i am watching this. let me say that presents a much more cost effective way of achieving sufficient goals, rather than achieving a goal that is so expensive it would drain other projects in space. let me ask you this. are you confident that if an object from space that was discovered or there was an object that threatens to cause massive damage on our planet, are you confident that object will be detected and we can deflect it? >> i am highly confident we can detected. if there is an object larger

than a kilometer that threatens earth we probably have already identified it, and it's in the 98% that have already been identified. nothing in the next 100 years in that category. if it's less than 140 meters, i'm less confident. i know we have not identified it yet. we are developing the capability to do that. >> we are trying. the asteroid redirect you should will inform -- i don't want to fool people. we are not going to save the planet with the redirect mission. it will inform our capability to answer his question and your question, which is does the united states have the capability to protect the public if we can develop something fast enough. in the near future, when

we fly the redirect mission, that will inform our ability to say, i am very confident we can deflect anything down for earth. it will inform us and give us capability. >> the word can and will are two different things. we will deflect an object that could murder millions of people. >> we will have that capability, i am confident. >> is there an established procedure and chain of command to take the actions that would be necessary if we do spot this three percent chance that there is a huge object heading towards us, is there a chain of command, and necessary procedures to make the decisions and get the job done? >> there are procedures in place. there is a definite chain of

command. i am going to be traveling to langley research center next week. every year we practice a continuity of operations nationwide or governmentwide, so i will be moving with my chief of staff to langley because something bad is happening to washington. fema becomes a critical player in the role. the national command authority springs into action. the president is the guy who makes the big decisions in the national security council. nasa is a tiny player. we provide data as we continue to do.

>> of the near earth object were coming? >> that would be a pending natural disaster, and there are distinct procedures in place for what fema would do with the nation to get prepared. something like a near earth object we don't ethically have the capability like a hurricane to give you a percentage probability it is going to strike new york. it's going to strike earth. we would have to prepare. >> i now recognize the gentle man from texas. >> good morning. i wanted to touch on russia very quickly. most recently one of the official sanctions because of the ukraine crisis is dimitri, deputy defender. you have stated if we provide the president's request for a commercial crew, so my question to you is how do we ensure launch capability returns to america?

>> the way to assure that is more money. i cannot tell when a company thinks they are going to fly, but all of our partners have given us schedules. sierra nevada has a flight for themselves. i want to say it is 2015 or 2016. the companies are moving as rapidly as they can based on the funding we have given them to be able to fly as soon as they can. i would be hesitant to say we can accelerate it more than a year, but we could potentially accelerated by a year if we were given adequate funding. i can say that companies are poised. >> the heat of funding, what are the impacts of reducing nasa's education programs -- speaking of funding, what are the impacts

of reducing nasa's education program? >> has to spend $6 billion on education. i don't think people get it. i spend a lot of times in classrooms. i spent a lot of time on skype because i cannot go to every school. i don't make a trip anywhere, particularly outside the united states that i don't do an outreach event and try to help nations with their stem programs. everyone is concerned about the reductions we see in the office of education, but it's making us hungry to find new ways to collaborate with other agencies. we did a program with the department of education. it is the 21st-century and learning program. nasa essentially did the program

for them because we can bring astronauts via downlinked tv to the space station. we were paid to put it together. they invested. we are learning how to collaborate with each other. i know everybody is worried about losing money. we are finding that synergy among federal agencies is working for us. for ages and every single county in this nation -- 4h is in every single county in this nation. compare nasa. we are talking about working collaboratively with four h. that is going to magnify the amount of kids we are able to reach with enrichment. i am not worried about our ability to do our jobs. stem outreach we do that every day. >> and your opinion, is there any way to evaluate -- >> yes. >> are there real ways to

evaluate whether the cuts have an impact on future achievement, or we talk about being able to inspire people who want to reach certain goals as it relates to jobs? >> without a doubt. nasa's education program this year is outcome based, which means you have got to have metrics. now we are not allowed because of privacy -- we can't map a child from elementary through college. the department of education can. the national science foundation can because they are authorized to do those things. i our collaborating with the department of education and the national science foundation, they can do the metrics that tell us how many kids participated in the summer of innovation last summer 10 years from now our doctors or lawyers? those are the metrics from which

use be. i can get it now based on collaborations. it has taken time. we just started something now. i think it has been around for years. we are now seeing factual data, not anecdotal data. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> inc. you, mr. chairman. i had a chance to thank seth and bob for the commonsense, no-cost outreach nasa did to reach thousands who now seem to be enthusiastic. i haven't had a chance to thank

you personally for that, and i think it's great. that's how we help spread the message. as to funding, i don't think any of us are where we would like to be with funding. i think we are in a whole lot better place than we were a year ago with sequestration. i am trying to look at the glass half full in that regard. we need a deep space plan, moon and mars. we also need low orbit options. i know it's tight balancing that. i hope we will continue to understand we need both and go forward like that. a concern that i have, he referred to the department of energy based on the fuel supply. i wonder if you can update me. >> they produced plutonium pellets we need. we are still in negotiations

trying to help them understand how do they improve their facilities, just the infrastructure needed to prep for propulsion. we have enough in our stockpile to be able to fly the mission's presently on the books for us. but we have to work better with doe to make sure they make improvements to infrastructure so they can efficiently make the pellets we need. we have lots of fuel, but it's old, and it needs new fuel to make it good. >> they are not in the process of destroying any or getting rid of it or using it for anything other than space? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> will you find out?

i would like to have that assurance it is not being used elsewhere. >> i would. for the record, i don't know. >> any other comments you would like to make about keeping on track? >> it's a balance. i come to this hearing, and i feel better about where we are than ever before. i wanted to commend the chairman and ranking member because of the way they are working together. we have got to do better. i don't want to sit here and say what was the responsibility of the bush administration, what was the responsibility of the obama administration. what's done is done. we can't undo that. we can make a difference for the

future. none of us are going to be sitting around here in charge. i have some young people who had to leave mid-level leadership programs. they are young and growing leaders, and they wanted to see how we do this stuff. deep space exploration is hard. we cannot jump to mars. we have to develop technologies. we have got to be confident our system is going to work. that is why the chairman asked about the mars flyby. it's great, but it doesn't do

anything in terms of deep space exploration. if the crew survives, and i have doubts. that's why i'm not a fan of a one-time mars flyby. as great as apollo was, and it was awesome, we never stayed on the surface of the moon for more than days. >> do we agree that unless at some point there is the ability to leave this earth, the survival of our species is threatened? >> i am not a fatalist, but we knew deep -- we do need to learn how to be a multi-planet species. one of these days -- you and i won't see it, but one of these days our son is going to burn out. it would be nice to become a multi-planet species by them and we are just on mars. by then people will be living in other solar systems because the solar system will go away. we have got to get beyond. my granddaughter says, you are thinking about mars. i am going way beyond that. she's right. when the sun gives out, this solar system goes away. qwest we have to think about

planting trees -- >> we have to think about planting trees for other generations. space is truly the only investment we make for future generations. >> i agree. >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. part of what i want to have a quick dialogue about is just the mechanics, how you set priorities and decision-making and those things. i know you have a lot of voices and people tugging on your coat saying, we want this or we want that. something like sophia, that was really coming online in the last six months or so. is that correct? >> sephia has been under development for probably 10 years. it was beginning to fly and to fly well. >> internally, when you are doing prioritization's or mechanics, tell me the review process on how you prioritize a program like that, that you have

a decade of time and money. >> i forget what they call their counsel, but every year they get the wise people of the science community, and they evaluate our programs to see, what i have asked them to do right now is we have a lot of programs that have been flying for a long time, long past their planned lifetime. they are expensive. we have to pay for those. when we prioritize what we are going to get from our portfolio, we try to make sure we have a balance. sophia ended up in prioritization -- sophia was down here. you talk about other sources

very similar to what sophia gives us. sophia is a unique asset. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. it may have been a year or so ago, but you were actually a fan of sophia. >> i am a fan of anything that has wings. >> mechanically, share with me the internal process under your authority on how they would prioritize sophia and how it ended up where it is. >> we would go to the science community and ask him based on what we expect to get from our budget, what do you want to continue to operate, and one thing i keep cautioning is if we are going to put new systems

online, if we are going to bring about better sensors that we have today, what are we going to give up? >> does that become more of a conversation of let's enhance what we have, or is it more to cancel? >> you never say, what are we going to cancel. the question is how do we operate within our budget and provide responses to the scientific objective set by surveys, set by the outside advisory committee, set by congress. >> right now you understand your budgetary request. tell me where sophia sits. >> low in that. >> it is low priority. >> it is not low priority. i should not have said that. in comparison with other projects, sophia did not rise to the level where we decided we were going to terminate another

program. we have options with sophia. we don't know what the 2015 budget is going to be. we could end up with enough money. we have not stopped flying sophia. everyone is panicking. we are working with our german partners to find ways we can enhance sophia for the rest of this fiscal year. >> when you are doing your layers, security initiatives and those, i am trying to get an understanding of how something like this falls. >> if you look at our list and the opportunity growth security initiative, almost everyone of them is something in existence right now and i am trying to bite down risk. $113 million of congress grant our request.

that is buying down risk. >> do you think the germans would be willing to take on more of the heavy lift on the cost? >> that's one of the alternatives. to be candid, they don't seem to be willing to do that. >> if we put their flight first on the airplane. >> we are looking at all alternatives for sophia. sophia is a joint object. nasa is unable to assume all responsibility for sophia. >> this is outside my skill set. space station. how long can it go unmanned? if there is a maintenance curve, i am curious if there is a data point. >> if you really want me to tell

you how long we can go -- >> let's say it set up there for 36 months. >> if you had it up there for 36 months unoccupied, the ammonia pump that went out, that was an emergency. that was a contingency for which we had to do a contingency spacewalk. if there is no crew, that doesn't get done. you talk about leverage. everyone is excited because the russians have leverage on transportation. when you talk about navigation, communications, power, the united states has significant leverage. >> i am so sorry. i just looked at the clock. i was having fun here. thank you for your patience. >> great question. >> we welcome the gentleman from new york.

>> there is nothing wrong with having fun. >> around here there is. >> i question surrounds the chart you have already shown and human exploration roadmap and the authorization bills in the senate and the house as well as the minority virgin that we need to help us -- minority version that we need to help us. this does not address the requirements for the surface of mars or the proficiencies the house version asked for. it doesn't include information on plan intermediate destinations or potential risk of emigration approach is required by the bill. it does not include a description of an extended human presence toward enabling missions to orbit. until the administration provides detailed information including how it fits into a

broader exploration architecture, i assume congress is going to continue to view some of these projects skeptically, which brings the question. nasa's budget request includes $180 million for the mission. last year i was in here, but i have been informed you told the committee to review would be done over the summer, but now it's been a year since the mission was announced. nasa has not completed the review. i was told last week he released a broad agency announcement for information and held an open for him yesterday to solicit even more input.

when is nasa going to have a plan the committee can review, and how can you be sure the mission is in fact a stepping stone to mars without a roadmap? >> my estimate would be over the next year we will continue to refine the concept. there are two big potential ways we can do it right now, and that's what we are evaluating. that's why we continue to go to the industry, academia, and entrepreneurs, trying to determine whether we want to use a small -- small is a relative term, where we grabbed the asteroid and thrust against it or whether we go to a large asteroid and take a large boulder from it. that will determine the specifics of the mission.

we know that we are into propulsion. we have identified that as a hurdle to being able to do a redirect mission. we know that is what we are going to use for cargo. >> clearly i would say the more information you can provide to congress, the more likely you can get by. if things start to slip or commitments are made and not met, i think you can understand it is viewed problematically. what i was told yesterday when nasa presented to the scientific immunity, it was the opinion of some that it was a broader set of information than has already been shared with this committee or with congress. in a priority setting i would encourage nasa to give us more data than we asked for so we are not feeling as though we are

left out of the loop or we are not important, because you can understand the result. >> i appreciate and intend to respond to that request. i am told we have been regularly briefing with the redirect mission. if that's not true, somebody shake their head, and i will go back. >> i think the staff should be shaking their head no, because somebody asked me to probe this because they don't feel like it has been so. >> they have not been getting any information or not been getting sufficient information? >> not sufficient. if you are not getting sufficient information you might as well not. >> if it's insufficient information it's because we don't know.

if it's no information it's because i am being misled. >> i don't think anyone would suggest it's no information. insufficient information means decisions can't be made. >> it means we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. that's all it means. >> i would encourage you, the more information you can get to this committee, the more likely you will see. lex i will go back to my comments earlier. there are big things happening. i would encourage people, part of getting ready is having a vehicle to take a crew. you will see a o'brien. it's a spacecraft. -- o'brien -- orion. it's a spacecraft. you will see components under construction. that's real hardware.

we are not talking about drawings anymore. that's all a part of getting to the asteroid redirect mission. that may not he sufficient, but that's all we have is hardware. if that's not sufficient, i don't know how to do better. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> that's fine. great questions by all the members of the committee. this time you aren't going to get off without a second round of questions. i will open it up for myself. this is similar to the follow up with commercial cruise. last year the associate administrator said 90% of all the development costs for the commercial crew is being paid for by the american taxpayer. we know the commercial crew contract is going to be similar to what the cargo was, anywhere from 7 billion to $11 billion. or greater.

we are just taking you mentioned if we don't get the funding the schedule will slip beyond 2017. is there anything nasa can do to entice these companies to put more skin into the game? >> i am confused by the number you just gave. our total expenditure, unless my charts are wrong, the total expenditure over the five years i have been an nasa administrator from the taxpayer is we were appropriated $782 million, and we obligated 780. >> i am talking commercial crew. >> i am talking about the value of the contracts these companies are going to receive. a $11 million. the estimated value for flying cargo and crew, so i am saying we are basically paying 90% of the development cost. is there a way to get them to

maybe put more money into the program? >> they do. i mentioned earlier when you said how have we managed to stay on schedule that you haven't given us what we asked for. it's because the companies have given more than they would normally pay. we only paid them what we have. i would have to go back. i would be surprised if we are paying 90% of the cost of commercial crew development to this date. i would be really surprised. >> that's from a hearing we had september 14, 2012. i am told the information is proprietary, but i will take that for the record. >> this time i recognized the ranking member. >> i do want to follow this up because earlier i thought you had misspoken when you said the

industry participants of the commercial crew program were providing more money than nasa. that doesn't seem to be the information we have. is it possible to provide the committee with the amount each of the industry participants is putting in with nasa so we can see that? otherwise i think all of us are under the impression that the taxpayers are providing the bulk of support for commercial crew. is that wrong? >> i will take that for the record. >> i don't think we have coordinated our question for you, but what you can hear is concern around the asteroid retrieval mission. i wonder if you would be prepared by a date certain to provide the committee with a

roadmap and an analysis of the various options there would be with different types of technology for this plan to mars. some of us have thought, maybe the moon makes sense as a test bed. for others the iss and others the asteroid retrieval mission and may be some other combination, but when would you be able to provide a roadmap with the analysis comparing these options and the technology that would be derived for the committee? >> it is my impression that we have two matrices. one shows human performance, human concerns. the other shows technology gaps. i have been looking at that for a couple years. i thought we made that available

for the committee, which shows these are things we are accomplishing on the international space station. these are things we will accomplish with the asteroid redirect system. i will make sure we have shared those matrices with your staff and with you. >> what about lunar? here is what we are wrestling with. we have different ideas about what makes sense, but you are providing us with a real roadmap that outlines technology and may be says, here is our scientific analysis of why this makes sense over the other. it would help us make a more informed decision from a budget perspective and from an authorizing of of what it is we need to look at. i think the questions you have heard on the committee though to

that point. it would help the chairman and i very much to have that on hand. it would help for you to say, here is a date certain by which nasa can give that to us. i want to incorporate that date if we were to do authorization because then we can evaluate what makes sense going forward, and that deeply impact budget. don't leave the moon out because you can hear concert. quest we won't leave the moon out. -- >> we will leave the moon out. the reason we don't talk about that is because there is no technological advantage to go to the moon. there is no advantage accept money. >> in providing something to this committee, it would be very helpful to have that analysis, to have a scientific basis for that decision and also to have the buy-in collectively from the community about the direction.

i think if we have that we would make some very important decisions. >> i have to caution, hoping the community, if you are talking about the science community, hopefully by and will never happen. there is the lunar community. they are not in favor of anything. now we are talking about ideologues. >> give us an analysis and let us know who is for and against. what nasa needs is for this committee to be on the same page about the direction. that will help you as much as it will help us.

>> now i recognize the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks. >> enqueue. -- thank you. back to the issue of russia and the ability to get to the international space station, what would be the consequences if within the next year russia chooses to deny us access by no longer allowing us to hitch a ride on their rockets? >> as i mentioned before, we provide navigation, communications, power, and would probably -- i hate to deal with conjecture, but the partners would probably have to shut the space station down. if you are thinking the russians would continue to operate the international space station, it can be done. >> if the space station is shut

down for an extended time? >> i will go to the president and recommend we terminate because without the international space station i have no abilities to do the development. everyone agreed if we want to do this global roadmap to which 12 different nations sign up, we have to have the international space station. that's the reason the president said, i will agree to extend it. i don't want anyone to think i need orion if i don't have the international space station. >> let me make sure i understand the sequence of events. if the russians deny us access to the international space station, it's your testimony that because of the services we provide you would have to shut it down, and if the international space station is shut down you would see no reason to have the space launch

system or a o'brien, so is it fair to infer you would recommend -- or orion, so is it fair to infer you would recommend those be shut down? >> i don't know that the russians denying us access -- you are assuming they come to us today and say, we are not going anymore, and we are not going to help them get home. i don't think those contingencies are going to happen. >> i understand. there are probabilities

involved. >> i don't accept that. >> i am one who believes in planning for all contingencies. it's much like the effort to acquire an asteroid. i don't think the odds of an asteroid hitting us are very big, but that is an interesting mission because of the risk associated with one of eventually hitting the earth and are having the capability to eventually work that. the russians may not shut us off from access to the international space station. if they are willing to attack other nations it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that they would deny american astronauts access to the space station. however, if the space station was shut down for a time, can it be resuscitated? >> anything can be done. you are asking for assumptions. >> i am asking for your assessment. >> i will take that. there is no either or in terms

of sls and orion and commercial crew. i don't know how many ways to say that. >> you answered my question. the chairman will give me another minute. >> if i don't have commercial crew and i can get to lower orbit i don't need sls and orion. >> if i could go to my final question, there was a study, and it concluded in part that income inequality contributes to the classless society. it has come to my attention that the study also states this work was partially funded through nasa grant and that nasa

contributed $26,000 to a study on income inequality. why is nasa spending money that should be related to space exploration on income inequality issues? >> nasa did not request such study. we have not reviewed sets ready. the study was done at the university of maryland as an offshoot of a study we did request on another subject. we don't control what a principal investigator chooses to do if they can get additional studies in. >> its $26,000 in nasa funding. are you telling me nasa doesn't control what the money is being spent on? >> and investigator performs the study we request, and if they choose to amplify the study with additional information or additional data for their own

use, we don't prohibit them from doing that. it is not endorsed or requested by us. >> but paid for by nasa. >> time is expired. at this time i want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter. at this time i recognize the gentlewoman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for staying for another round of questions. i want to follow-up on international cooperation, which we have talked about a lot in this subcommittee, and we'll all appreciate the importance of it. we have had discussions this morning. what i want to talk about is in light of the proposal to shut down sophia, what are the risks

of international partners coming to view nasa as not a reliable partner? what has been the response from the international community when they found out about the proposal? >> the only one so far had been the germans because that is our principal partner. before we announced the budget, dr. berner and i had a long telephone conversation, and that's where we decided we would set up a cochaired working group to look at options for sophia. a final decision on sephia has not been made because we don't know what the 2015 budget is going to say. as congressman brooks says, we are planning for contingency we don't get additional money in the science budget for sophia, we would then have to phase out. >> to follow-up, even though germany may be the only partner that has expressed concern, what kind of message does that send

to the community? have you had any response from others about questioning why this might happen. >> everyone was up in arms when we announced we were having to step back from the initial agreement on xo mars. times were better. we were going to provide launch vehicles for the 2016 mission. when the 2013 budget was about to come out, i talked to the european partners and said we have teams in paris. this was leading and christmas. i said this doesn't make sense. we have teams working on all of this stuff. i don't know what the budget is going to be. i cannot allow the teams to keep working toward something we do not support. give us time. let us look at the budget. then we will determine what happened.

we couldn't provide the launch vehicles we had promised. they negotiated in russia as a partner, and agreed they would do that. we agreed we could hold up our end of the bargain on communications package. a very important scientific package. they go through the same thing. when they don't make a payment, it doesn't make the front page of the new york times. >> i asked you about earth science. i would ask you about monetary science. could you talk about the continued cuts being proposed for nasa science programs, and whether that is consistent in light of the work that nasa plans to take on the 2020 rover? >> we are holding to a planetary science portfolio that we have

brought for a long time. we have to find ways to do missions when budgets are reduced. our budget has been reduced over time. the president requested a certain amount. the misappropriated has always been less. that is forgotten by most people. we have taken the of appropriations and figured out alternative ways to do things. sometimes you have to cancel it. we have canceled very few missions in the time because we have found alternatives. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the general millon -- the gentlewoman yields back.

i ask unanimous consent to share this letter. >> may get a copy? could you remind me? >> we will get you a copy of the letter. >> is a good or bad? >> both. >> they want more money. >> do they like europa? [laughter] thank you for your testimony. the members of the committee may have additional questions for you. we will ask you to respond for those in writing. the record rule main open. the witness is excuse. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> tomorrow, a person from the heritage foundation about u.s. to cancel -- u.s. missile defense policy. we discuss reaches of private security data. in american legion executive talks about veteran claims backlog and the impact of budget reductions on members of the military. we will take your calls and you

can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. congress returns to work on several issues. we are joined by john shaw, the senior market correspondent. >> it seems like there's little bit of momentum on the senate side. as they goar forward. a lot of republicans wanted to have republicans to consider as part of the package. harry reid will want to keep

amendments very limited. somenk there is still struggles in the senate. to say nothing of the house. in which house speaker john boehner has said his package, which is a compromise of a compromise, is still not something he could support. he questions whether it is workable or enforceable. he has reservations about the offsets. that the focus should be on creating jobs rather than standing unemployment insurance. it is likely to pass the senate next week, but faces a tough hurdle in the house. >> one item they have to work together on -- the payments for medicare doctors. it passed the house on a voice vote. >> the senate is likely to approve it on monday. it was a little bit controversial.

we kicked it over to the senate. harry reid said he did not love the, minds. -- love the compromise. patch ratherear than solving the problem which has persisted since the late 1990's. it is likely they will pass the fix.lled talk -- doc >> one area they have been handling the early is the ukraine bill. they had to come together on one common piece of legislation for the president to sign. perks that will get done early next week. the house well except the senate version. there was a thought that they would accept it at the end of this week. doc fix,se of the there was a reticence to do the voice vote on the ukraine bill. the bill is largely the same. the senate backed up on a provision the and administration

wanted pertaining to the imf. the democrats have largely pushed aside in -- an issue that they wanted. the two chambers are in agreement. by early next week, congress will have passed the bill. harry reid says this is the first of other measures to help ukraine. this issue will be on the table for a while. >> one of your articles has the headline and says, u.s. budget week next week as the house republicans ready to week i did blitz -- two week budget blitz. >> there is a two-pronged attempt a going forward. the main attempt will be paul ryan's budget. that is his 10 year plan to balance the budget. very interesting, controversial. this will be the focus of congress's debate.

couplell be working on a process reform bills. they are not huge bills. one would alter the way in which baselines are put together. another would allow for the use of dynamic scoring. as conventional scoring when assessing major bills. another would change -- would kind of shift some off budget items to on budget during the budget process both are to set the table for the bigger debate on the house floor the following week. the ryan budget will be interesting to watch. a lot of people wondering how he is going to balance the budget in a decade. wondering whether he will use all the economic assumptions or make some of his own. it will be interesting to see if he embraces the tax reform program that the house ways and means chairman put forward. it will be interesting to see

how he response to this into anti-poverty initiative. a lot of aspects of ryan's budget that will be interesting to look at. it will be the focus of an intense bait. -- debate. >> john shaw covering it. a senior correspondent. you can following his -- follow his reporting. >> thank you, bill. >> the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument in a combined case testing the contraceptives mandate. at issue is where there -- mayher profit companies provide contraceptives to their workers. we will have the audio at 8:00 eastern. until then, a discussion from washington journal on the two cases as jason -- as guests

preview how the court might rule. this is 50 minutes. >> to continue our discussion on the supreme court arguments, we are joined by ed whelan. and elizabeth why draft, -- wydra. we will begin with you. we have been talking about this case. what do you think will be the one or two key arguments that this case turns on? whelan. guest: one of the questions is whether hobby lobby as a corporation 10 ring their claim that these particular forms of contraception are being covered under the affordable care act violate their religious liberties. host: this is a standing issue? guest: it is a question of whether the corporation can claim the rights to free exercise of religion in the same way a living breathing human being can do.

my organization filed a brief that said if you look at the original meaning of the constitution, you see the founders thought of religious liberty protection as being very personal, a right of conscience and dignity. it doesn't translate well when you are talking about a an artificial corporate entity. do you think this is going to turn -- guest: i think there may half dozen issues that the court will explore. address thisy question of corporate exercising religion. the history of exercising religion is deeply tied to corporations. , the closely held corporation can engage in exercising religion, what does that mean for an incorporated culture delhi -- incorporated kosher deli?

one can even imagine a court .andate -- a pork mandate i don't think any corporation can exercise religion as several steps too far. i think the case is going to really come down to the religious freedom restoration act. there are two components to the scrutiny test. first is the government's obligation to show the hhs mandate. is to show the hhs mandate as a least restrictive means. host: explain where that test came from for those that aren't familiar with it. guest: this is a strict scrutiny test you see under various constitutional doctrines. it was actually the test under the free exercise clause from

the 60's up until the 1990's when the supreme court called division v smith, that is no longer under the exercise clause. unanimously nearly the freedom of restoration act, which restored, as a statutory manner, the standard that had applied previous to the smith decision as a constitutional manner under the free exercise clause an. to show the mandate advances a compelling governmental interest. thatecond is to show through the least restrictive means. i think it is easy for the challengers of the mandate to say that the government did provide this accommodation to religious nonprofits that you say is less restrictive means. why not also revive that to us? -- also provide that to us?

host: can you talk about the religious freedom restoration act, the history of it, and how it is being used in this case. freedom -- the religious freedom of expiration act -- religious freedom restoration act, some people are wondering why you are bringing in principles of the free exercise clause. with what congress is intending is to try to codify and restore the free exercise principles prior to the supreme court case. when you look to those free exercise principles, never more than 200 years since the ratification of the free exercise clause has a secular commercial enterprise been given

free exercise and protection in the same way individuals. even if hobby lobby and the companies that are bringing this particular claim, even if they can bring their claim they haven't been able to identify a single case in our nation's history. commercial enterprise can use the religious freedom exploration act -- freedom restoration act -- you might want to give a call because he is probably arguing the case in two hours. host: before we get too far into talk about who you groups are and what they do. what is the constitutional accountability center?

guest: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan center focused on looking at the constitution's and usingistory arguments rooted in the constitution to further the progress of promise of our founding documents. we filed a brief on this particular case. we often filed briefs on supreme court and lower federal court appeals. guest: the ethics and policy center is a d.c. think tank dedicated to applying the judeo-christian moral public policies. specifically that corporations under limited circumstances are indeed capable of exercising religion. i would say in response to elizabeth's last point, what is unprecedented is the intrusion religious liberty of

corporations, the effort by to use employers as a means of advancing their particular objective. elizabeth failed to mention one of the three companies that his brain these challenges. the third company is a company called martel, a for-profit christian bookseller. how could it be that a company like mardel would not have the religious rights of a nonreligious bookseller? they are operating identically but one loses religious protections because it is incorporated as a nonprofit instead of a for-profit.

there were five justices in the case. they recognized the incorporated grocery store indeed had religious liberty rights under the free exercise clause. host: we talked a bit about the contraceptive coverage in the final rule from health and human services on the affordable care act. just to bring everybody on the same page, we will show you a bit of information of what it requires. it requires insurance plans to cover contraceptives with no copayment, coinsurance, or did dr. bos. these institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques would be exempt.

that is the heart of the age age rule on contraceptive coverage. h rule on hunter rule oncountry -- hh contraceptive coverage. if you are outside the u.s., 202-585-3883. we will start with felix calling in from carolina on the line for democrats. caller: how are you on this beautiful morning? host: excellence, go ahead. vietnami am a disabled federate them -- vietnam veteran. 1990'sd to the early case where justice scalia wrote that's native americans do not have a personal individual religious right to partake in

ceremonial peyote. clause i christians seem to pick and choose religious beliefs of the bible. they go home to a disobedient wife and children and don't stone them to death but they hate christians -- but they hate homosexuals in the morning. i preach thego gospel. sometimes i even use words. toocrats utilize capitalism their advantage. simply don't patronize their businesses and go to democratic businesses. several comments there from felix. your thoughts on any one of them? atst: i think when you look the constitution's protection of religious freak exercise, it was intended to protect the vibrant

pluralistic religious society we live in. people will have different views and religious beliefs. the caller is talking about the president that is against hobby lobby. i think there is a plethora of case law to choose from that shows that the claim being wouldt by hobby lobby fail before the court. i think it will be interesting to see the way the justices address those previous precedents. i think the government did a great job. there will be a strong argument that our constitutional principles established precedents going back to the 1990's. it goes back long before that and really supports the government's position in this case. guest: the color referred to

this decision by justice scalia, in step -- the smith case 1990. that was an interpretation of the free exercise clause. the charge that the caller is picking -- the charge the caller made that people are picking and choosing among religions is unfair. after the religious freedom restoration act was enacted justice scalia was part of the unanimous majority, holding that the minority religious claim had a right under the freedom restoration act. the difference between 1990 and now is the road -- the existence of the freedom of religion restoration act. james is from tennessee. the morning, you are on. i am a veteran like that

other guy that was on a minute ago. we fought to protect the which is freedom of religion and right to bear arms. there was a republican that got on there it a while back those talking about these muslims in america that was traced back to that they werens involved in fire bombings, murder, and kidnapping. i'm a christian down here in cap -- down here in tennessee. if anybody comes in here, they are a dead duck. they will be leaving in a body bag. on, we wantl move to stay on the subject of the hobby lobby case. i want to read a piece that you did for cnn. you talked about this case being a roadblock to the affordable care act and was almost more

problematic than the problems associated with the health exchange website rollout. why do you think that? i think the affordable care act has had a lot of flack lately. i think this adds to the theative, which i think administration is probably not incredibly excited about. just as the affordable care act got a victory the last time it came up in the supreme court, i think it should get another victory. i think that would be a welcome win for the administration, just as we are seeing an uptick in for people who will successfully sign up for coverage under the affordable care act. a lot of people are getting access to quality affordable care they never got before. i think that is incredibly important. if there's one thing that comes out of this case, i think there has been an increased awareness

for the great preventative health coverage that was provided for women under the affordable care act. a lot of preventative screening and counseling for women that have come under the affordable care act is one of the great benefits of the law. host: who will be the key voices here you go -- voices here? justice kennedy is often a swing vote in cases like this. i will also be interested in justice breyer, justice kagan, -- justice kagan. it will be interesting to see if they try to craft a narrower approach. on this question of obamacare more broadly. i want to say here that the narrative of the failure of obamacare is the reality. matter after matter the administration offered waivers and exemptions.

i think it is very striking that won'te set of folks who get the benefit of an exemption is those that have religious complying with the hh a mandate. it says something about the way in which obamacare is being rolled out. this maybe you can take e-mail question -- guest: my understanding is that groupuise -- the insurance plan did provide coverage for these forms of birth control and when hobby lobby then reviewed its plan after the passage of the affordable care act today, they discovered this act and try to

not encourage those forms of birth control. the law actually allows companies like hobby lobby to avoid providing coverage for these forms of challenge contraception the law does not require coverage of these forms of contraception. ant it requires is if employer offers a group sponsored health plan then it must meet -- must meet certain minimum requirements and federal law, which cover many different aspects of health insurance plans. if hobby lobby chose not to offer a group sponsored insurance plan it could avoid covering these particular forms of birth control and perhaps a party employee compensation package to offset the loss of the approved health insurance

plan, and then they would just pay tax instead of meeting these contraception requirements. that gets us into situations court upheld paying social security taxes against a religious objection. i think that puts us squarely into the realm of constitutionality. the constitutional account ability center and public policy center. perhaps you can take this question from jan in wisconsin, who writes -- the situation if hobby

lobby prevails will be exactly as it was before the hhs mandate. an employee is entirely free to obtain contraceptives as they see fit. i want to emphasize that no one questions -- the obama administration does not dispute hobby lobby's and its owners sincere religious beliefs against a particular subset of so-called contraceptives that -- operate in and an embraer -- operate in an embryo killing manner. nobody spews that hobby lobby has religious objection here. the problem any player recognizes is you are in a competitive market for employees and employers make the the session to offer health

premium -- insurance. the pressure hobby lobby faces is ample literature through the threshold issues under the freedom restoration act. host: let me talk about those fines. waiting in westwood, new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning, you're on with ed whelan and elizabeth wyder. good morning. i find callers are just as interesting as the guests. of i don't -- i don't want anybody placed in a body bag. i go back to a commitment, love your neighbor as yourself. i have in my hand a copy of the declaration of independence.

this was unanimous. the rights which were given to of 1776mously on july 4 have now been taken away. i think president obama could restore them by an executive order. i doubt he is going to do that. the right to life was taken away by the congress, which should have been supporting us, in rovers his weight. clearly unconstitutional. -- the affordable care act is clearly unconstitutional. persony the right of a or citizen to have a doctor or hospital of their choice. they gave it to the non-caring government who only wants power, power, power and more power. harry reid and the senate, they took away the pursuit of happiness because they know what will make us happy.

and what will make us happy, in their opinion, is certainly -- what would you try to say? they refuse to consider all the bills passed by the house of representatives that would give us happiness, that would give us jobs. host: we are going to let elizabeth jump in and offer her views. guest: i love the colors enthusiasm for the declaration of independence. i disagree with a lot of the conclusions he draws i share that enthusiasm. i think it is important to think just --at it is not what we haven't been talking about are more than the 13,000 employees of hobby lobby across the country who are going to be by -- going to be affected what the companies trying to do in this case. i think when the justices hear

this case we will hear all the uncomfortable with the idea that individual owners of a company can impose their religious belief on employees that were not hired on the base of religion. hobby lobby does not higher on the basis of religion. the employees are not required to share their religious beliefs to the individual owners of the company. are statutorily granted the rights to have these particular covert forms of health care, they should not be sacrificed so there could be the fullest effectuation of the religious beliefs of the individuals involved in hobby lobby. there was a case called united states versus lee in which the court said that when you voluntarily enter the world of

the limits that one individual might take on his or her conduct as a result of their faith cannot be imposed upon their employees. i think that is something that should really come into play when we are talking about this case. the libertyst about of the green family that owns hobby farm -- hobby lobby. we are talking about choices of the employees and their families. pictures of the supreme court. protesters are there. i saw you jotting down some notes. there are tens of millions of employees whose employers are exempt from the hhs mandate in virtue of the so far grandfather plan exemption. the government does not care but they are getting these supposedly necessary benefits from their employers and yet it

is eager to compel those employers with religious objections to provide this coverage to the much much smaller -- infinitesimally smaller amount of employees they have. this is not a matter of imposing religious beliefs. hobby lobby and its overtures have against the government, individuals remain entirely free to obtain contraception as they see fit. the government's obligation will fund the least restrictive means -- there are plenty of ways the government can provide contraceptive coverage to these employees. --entioned before the calm the accommodation arrangement. we are not talking about rights here. we are talking about a that tries toer

elevate to the highest level, something that government never saw fit to put into the obama care legislation. there simply is not a compelling interest in requiring hobby lobby to provide benefits when all of these employers with their millions of employees don't have to have the secular exemption. that goes back to the rf ra? guest: it goes back to the religious freedom restoration act. host: on twitter -- a question from an e-mail --

guest: a think what we are talking about here is health care and public health. the experts that congress specifically tasked with coming recommendations -- ed talks about how these forms of contraception were not specifically enumerated in the affordable care act. that is not the way congress legislates when they talk about coverage for vaccinations. expertsked the medical with coming up with what vaccinations should be covered through regulations. i think most of us are pretty please with that as we don't think of congress as being a medical expert freedom -- medical expert. provisions -- -- it sending full range

was important a full range of contraception be covered here. i think most americans are into it for common sense. contraception to use are largely governed by cost. some of the safest and most effective forms of , areaception, like an iud also the most expensive. that decision of what form of fda approved contraception is really a decision made between a woman and her doctor. the link is so indirect to the individuals who own the corporation and to our sponsoring the group insurance plan, administered by a third .arty maybe there will be a choice made by a woman and her doctor to use one of these challenged forms of contraception. attenuatedt link is

as a substantial burden under the court case law. david green quoted -- michael waiting in arkansas on our line for independents. i am a disabled veteran, which has nothing to do with what i am going to say. i live in the state of arkansas. let me tell you what happens when religious believes decide loss. under mike huckabee we had a law called a blue law.

whether you are religious or not you are not allowed to purchase any item, medicine, toilet paper , anything on sunday. they didn't believe in doing anything on the holy day. under xsed that law baptist preacher mike huckabee. day you are not allowed to buy any alcoholic beverage on sunday. michael seems to be concerned about the role religion plays in his choices. that is obviously the broader question of what role these informed fees play and public policy. a lot of people have different views. address the to burden on hobby lobby that is supposedly attenuated. hobby lobby is forced to pay for this.

if you want to make it so it is attenuated, don't make hobby lobby pay for it. never before has the government sed implicitly in wrongful conduct. on the review board that involves a person objecting to manufacturing carets to be put on takes. -- put on tanks. his objection was summoned to make the decision to use the tanks and conflict. no one said that is to attenuated. he is objecting to what he was forced to do. the court said it was not the business of the courts to that religious judgment. it is not the right of the course -- of the courts to second-guess hobby lobby and

moral complicity. host: let's go to gabriella in florida on our line for democrats. you're on the washington journal. lord, i'mank the waiting for the rapture is what i am waiting for. i am a christian democrat. world i don't think subjects like this would even come up. when you have people saying in -- a sundayhat school story or people killing other people for reasons -- i think if jesus was in the world right now he wouldn't the running after women who made a mistake, even if that would be the case. i don't think he would be running after those people. i think he would be upset at the hierarchy of a country that is

very sad. i'm a true blooded american. i believe the rapture is coming and i believe that people need to get right with god. we will -- host: we will stay in california. donnas on our line. is on our line. caller: i wish people would get it through their heads that the bible is not a religious book. people have taken the bible and take in -- and turned it into the rule of the people. the word of god is meant for only one group of people, and that is the hebrew israelites, the black, spanish, and native american indians in this country. but the white supremacy and white supremacists have taken

the bible and turned it into a thegious type thing when bible was not meant to be for religion. it was meant for a group of people to take this bible, which is the instructions of how to live on this earth, and governed this world. the hebrew israelites were to -- want to talk about the implications of what could happen depending on the decision on this case. is the affordable care act under threat here? a previous correspondent said no, the actual still stand even if the justices side with hobby lobby. guest: exactly right. not only was the internal -- not only with the affordable care act, this particular provision would just mean that the companies would get an exemption

from having to comply with it. the actual integrity of the provision and act are not in question here. i want to get back to that quote you mentioned from mr. green. he is wrong about that. the court has said that when you choose toe and exercise a business in the commercial realm, which these business owners have chosen to do, even the christian bookstore is a commercial incorporated enterprise. when you choose to do that you are put to these choices. the court is upheld against religious challenge, not questioning the sincerely held religious beliefs. they upheld latest challenge -- upheld religious challenge. sometimes the commercial business owners are put to that choice and the court said they

have to comply with generally applicable laws that often work to the public's health and benefit. if hobby lobby were to get this case we could see an under binding of principle. -- undermining of principle. and also in antidiscrimination principles when it comes to treating people of all colors equally in the treatment of gays and lesbians. host: on our twitter page -- ed whelan, we will let you jump in. of course there are federal laws that will survive the scrutiny test. of i think every example in elizabeth's a of horrible's would survive.

i did not meet over speak there. -- the courthas has never said that under the freedom of restoration act if you are in business you lose all right. that is a remarkable proposition. imagine the operator of the kosher deli and whether that makes sense in that context. theirk people are letting biases on a particular substantive issue here work their view on the underlying legislative key issue. yes, social security taxes can be imposed to satisfy the scrutiny tax -- scrutiny test. the court recognized a unique interest there and a comprehensive system. that everyot mean claim a business make loses. host: on our twitter page -- a few minutes left with ed whelan and elizabeth white re

-- elizabeth wydra. oral arguments are being heard. are both of you planning to attend the arguments today? guest: i'm happy to review the transcript later and not fight the crowds. guest: i'm going to -- over when this is done. it should be great. host: we are showing our audience some of the crowds there. down at theng supreme court at this hour. let's go to ron waiting on the onnes from hudson new york our line for independents. good morning. morning.ood i have a multipart question. i hope you give me a chance to get it all out, it works together. first of all the constitution .oes not grant us any rights in the declaration us as we were endowed by our creator with rights such as free street

should -- free speech, freedom of religion. the constitution says that the government may not take away those rights but rights existed before the government even existed. first part of the question is aw do you tell what religion corporation has seattle isn't the religion of the ceo or the stockholder vote required or can the president of the corporation decide what religion is of the corporation? if i am working for that corporation and i have a different religion and the government exempts the corporation from a particular law, isn't the government establishing a religion which is prohibited by the constitution? issuey, wasn't this already decided when the supreme they have been using it for thousands of years, the

native americans couldn't use peyote in their religious ceremonies because it was late -- it was illegal. have three questions. what police does cbs have when it -- what belief does cbs have what it decides not to -- what belief does cvs have when it decides not to sell tobacco? it is a matter of addressing who under state law decides what policies are. recognizeortant to that it will be extremely rare. it will be extremely rare for a corporation to set forth and that here to a policy of religious beliefs. ity ought to be respective. is not a matter of establishing religion. abilityployees have the

they had before to obtain contraceptives by whatever means they want. concerning theon 1990 case, the freedom restoration act statutorily restored the standard that had been employed -- that had been abandoned in the smith case. we saw a case that went the opposite way of division v smith under the restoration act. bys case was not decided division v smith. i think the caller brings up some interesting points. when you think about what religion -- what religion the corporation has. an artificial corporate entity does not have religion in the way that the founders understood religious liberty at the time the bill of rights were drafted. a corporation cannot pray. i have never seen exxon mobil in the pew next to me in church on

sunday. leaves into one of the of the individuals behind the corporations? the artificial corporate entity is a separate legal being from the individual investors who own it. by trying to blur that distinction, there are a lot of unintended, but definitely very worrisome consequences for basic rinse bowls of corporate law in principles of- corporate law in this country. willnk the justices thely be concerned with undermining of fundamental principles of corporate law that hobby lobby is pushing in this case. host: where do big business

groups stand on this case? big businesses do not exercise religion. hobby lobby does. the administration recognizes that there is nothing about the corporate for him that makes -- makes a business incapable of exercising a religion. is a case from a couple weeks ago from the fourth circuit that involved whether a corporation can have a racial identity. , yes, a corporation can have a racial identity. i think it is a little odd that folks would recognize that corporations can have racial , that somehow when

they are implementing religious beliefs of their owners, they cannot possibly have religious beliefs. host: did you want a quick response? guest: the fact that some incorporated entities like churches and synagogues get protection, they have got protection since the time of the founding. the founders distinguished between ecclesiastical corporations and corporations. i don't think anyone thinks that walmart is the same thing as a church or synagogue. we have a couple minutes. carol is waiting in illinois on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. it seems to me that hobby lobby

's position is inconsistent because they sell a lot of products from china. china has a one child policy. we all know that there are lots of abortions in china. it seems to me that at hobby lobby can make money by selling things from china, which their practices and china should be against their religion, that is ok because they make money. but if it might cost them money by providing birth control coverage for their employees, well then it is against their religion. guest: i think there is confusion there. it is not up to the u.s. government to tell hobby lobby what it's religious belief should be. , under the government's own arguments, hobby lobby is costing itself money or is at best neutral and not providing contraceptive coverage.

this is not a matter of hobby lobby saving money. it is not a matter of the government having any right to tell hobby lobby that it's religious beliefs are not coherent because it is doing x in one place. host: fort lauderdale, florida. republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question. if hobby lobby is mandated to provide contraception, which i believe is the morning-after pill which is abortion, would toy be able to hire people they woulder that not have the services provided? i am a christian. i want to follow god's rules. how can the government tell me to go against god's law? i would like to know the answer to that question.

guest: i think that the caller raises an interesting question. i would clarify that the law does not mandate hobby lobby to provide this form of contraception. offer the not want to full range of fda approved contraception coverage as a part of theother parts affordable care act, they do not have to do that, the law does not require them. i think the larger question that the caller raises is can a commercial enterprise hire people based on them sharing religious beliefs? the answer is no. hobby lobby does not profess to be able to hire people, only people who share religious beliefs. they do not hire on the basis of

religion. i think that is why it is particularly troublesome that essentially what they're trying to do is impose religious beliefs on people who might have very different religious beliefs. the caller expresses an admirable strength of conscience. there are many people in the united states that have similar strong feelings of conscience that might differ from the owners of hobby lobby in the protection of religious liberty that goes both ways. for the individuals, in their personal capacities, who own hobby lobby, and those who work there. religious liberties are a right against government, not a right against other individuals. employees remain entirely free to obtain contraceptives. the government has plenty of other ways of providing contraceptive coverage to them.

there is no reason for hobby lobby to be the vehicle for their agenda. host: we're showing a live shot of the supreme court. people are walking up the steps of the supreme court to watch the arguments today. nancy is waiting in overton, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. don't think this is about religion, i think this is about the government taking more money out of our pockets to pay for people who don't want to work, for drug addicts. i see it every day. in the last 15 years that i have tried to hire people, they used to be good. now they are all on disability and they have turned into meth heads, crack heads, coke heads. host: did you want to respond to

the business owner? guest: it is too early in the morning for me for meth and crack heads. when we are talking about employers, we are talking about a commercial enterprise. has held before, when a person voluntarily chooses to operate their , whichs as a corporation the owners of the businesses did in this case, then they have legaln to take on the statutory schemes that cover corporations -- govern corporations and there are certain rights that are different than those of individuals. the owners of hobby lobby are trying to have their cake and eat it too by having the advantages of the corporate

form, but avoid the perceived difference --disadvantages. guest: i do think that is what is going on. i would go back to the simple example of and incorporated jewish deli. once a jewish deli incorporates, it has no religious liberty rights. that position is not reconcilable with the clear set -- text of the religious liberation act. laws that will belon survive scrutiny. to the strict scrutiny test, the government cannot show that there are not less restrictive means. they cannot show that this that there are millions of employees subject to

exemptions. host: that is all the time we have with ed whelan and >> next, the supreme court oral argument followed by the reactions of the parties of the case and u.s. senators. later, new jersey governor chris christie's press conference on the george washington bridge closing. >> the supreme court heard oral argument tuesday challenging the -- thisare law constant mandate -- contraceptive mandate. touched on a