if the president of planned parenthood and the planned parenthood action fund. i am proud to be here on behalf of the 3 million patients that we see every year for health care. what i think we saw today was the importance of having women on the supreme court. i was proud to be there as a woman. have the justices talk about what is at stake in this case. whether millions of women and their right to preventive care is trumped by the handful of ceos who have their own personal opinions about personal -- birth control. it was a wonderful day for women. i believe that this court understood that women have the right to make their own decisions about the health care and birth control. it's not their bosses decision. >> several senators discussed the case on the senate floor. we will hear from republicans,

tom coburn and kelly ayotte. as well as patty murray. this is about 40 minutes. >> something significant happened. i am from oklahoma. david green and his wife started a group called hobby lobby by making picture frames in their garage. with the profits they made, it was his faith and practice in his day-to-day decisions that led him and his family to build a successful nationwide company. over the years, the business has grown. 602 stores now with plans to expand. they have an annual revenue of upwards of $2.5 billion. david has had success despite

the countercultural way. all of the retail stores closed at 8 p.m. each night and all day on sunday so will use spend time with their families. by thes is appreciated some 16,000 employees who are paid above the minimum wage. benefitbby generous plan includes an on-site clinic and eligibility to enroll in medical, dental, and prescription drug lands tom and long-term disability and long-term insurance in a 401(k) plan. this is something that they have done long before obamacare came along. at one point, hobby lobby was challenged by a competitor who the companyre bury when their money. they opened on sunday and earning the opening more money in revenue each week.

--t is over and above the what the competitor has been able to race. david green says he was challenged to go back to his policy of closing on sundays and he did. deeperistian faith runs than his desire to have a profitable, successful company. he is getting votes. when he was faced with the decision to make money oh or ok a guide, he decided to obey god. money orcent -- omake obey god, he decided to obey god. they're forced to provide free access to the pills that terminate pregnant sees. gnancies. david and i believe that life against at conception.

offering an option to end that life would be a violation of our moral compass. here is a guy who feel so and his actions have shown that he would rather pay the $1.3 million fines from the obama administration that comply with the law. in other words, killing the unborn child. today the obama demonstration is claiming that this privately owned business is waging a war on women for not agreeing to provide these treatments for its employees free of charge, nevermind that he has been offering his employees health care insurance since long before the government mandated it. individual faith of and what he is willing to do for his faith. he is willing to stand up to this abusive government. if you restrict those of faith from applying their conscience to the war around them, you have

pushed the progress of freedom. obama is attempting to write a new world code that tells people like davy green he no longer has agreed to apply his face to operates his private business. the kids before the supreme court is about maintaining freedom that starts by preserving the fundamental freedom of religion under the first amendment whether it is practiced in a temple or a public square. hobby lobby is not alone. more than 100 institutions have filed similar claims, four university my state of oklahoma along the same lines. here we have a situation. it is hard to believe this could happen in america. who has employed 60,000 people who otherwise might be unemployed, he has been providing the income and the products, he is a self-made man

that started out in his garage, he has built this giant operation all throughout america, he has made agriculture duchenne. .long come -- he has made that along comes obama administration , you will have to pay millions of dollars each day if you do not offer abortions. that is actually being considered in the u.s. supreme court. side i god is on our think we will have a good out come on this. imagine one man of taking the risk of millions of dollars in fines to show it to stand behind sure thatto make things happen. with that, i yield the floor. >> madame president. >> the senator from missouri.

>> i want to talk about the same topic my good friend from oklahoma has brought up. i was at the supreme court listening to the arguments on this case. civilians versus hobby lobby -- lobby.s vs. hobby this case starts with the and whate care act many people and i believe the supreme court will decide is really a blatant violation and religious redemption a way that act would be applied. there is nothing in the act that deals with the rule that sets those big fines or stylish is how those fines would be collected or in fact, nothing in specifies specific things that have to be in the so-called model plan. that all is up to the to thetration, all up

department of hhs unless the court or the congress does what needs to be done, which is to say there are certain boundaries that you cannot cross. act,ffordable health care the so-called affordable health care act that seems to be providing neither better health care or affordability was signed into law four years ago this week. and that for years, we have seen disastrous effects of the health care act. more and more people work less and less. why do they work less and less? because for the first time ever, the government has said that people had an obligation to provide insurance for summit who works more than 30 hours. prior to the law, many had insurances that worked well. it may not have been an insurance that the present of the u.s. would have specified they had. it was insurance that appear to be working for them.

once the government said, here is what you have to do, the government ironically also appears to be saying, here is what you don't have to do. we know that the workplace people who are working part-time without benefits instead of working full-time or part-time with benefits. medicareeen the cut in and the impact it has on seniors . we see the increasing level of amount of money that you have to spend before you insurance kicks in. there are so many people. we know him that this is not working for american families are individuals. we see a case where the law does not work for the constitution, specifically businesses like hobby lobby that was mentioned by the senator from oklahoma and others.

this is a company that has a was prided themselves on their ability to offer health care coverage that was better than their ploys might be able to get in other places. his is a company that started employees at aal rate twice the minimum wage. this is not a company that is in any way trying to take advantage of their employees. his is a company that has given every indication through the existence of the company that they want to act in a certain way that is comfortable with their faith. if you do not do what the government says, the penalties over $36,000 per employee per year. in the case of this company that has locations all over the country and has a significant amount of employees, that is more than $450 million a year.

if you'd not provide insurance at all, one of the points made by the government lawyers today was your options would be that you would only pay a $2000 penalty. $2000 a year if you do not offer insurance at all. $36,000 per employee if you do not offer exactly the insurance of the all-knowing government has decided you need. what a foolish position for the federal government to be in. -- this happens to be a big and successful company, but not a publicly traded company. if you do not pay, if you do not

do what the government says, your penalty would be less than the insurance you are providing i quite a bit -- by quite a bit. if you do not do exactly what the government says, it is thatbly them out of money put your company out of business. iss company, a hobby lobby, a company that is being joined by anothere today company that manufactures cabinets. their case was presented at the same time. this company was founded by a family from pennsylvania. a smaller company than hobby that, but a company still wants to uphold their religious beliefs and have a tradition of holding those religious beliefs in everything they do.

two companies of very different size. these are not companies that object to all of the things the list of government says you have to offer. in fact in the area contraception, the object to of the things that happen after conception. the things that would create an abortion in their view. both traditionally offer other kinds of contraception, but this crosses the religious boundary. only, thehings government would say you have to pay $36,000 per employee a year. there are at least 46 cases filed concerning for profit companies that have the same kinds of religious objections. more than 10 of those lawsuits in my state in azeri. it is not just about one set of religious beliefs. it is about protecting all

americans first amendment rights to pursue their faith and principles and what they believe. the largest christian group in america, the cap the group has a broader set of what they think smiley spare religious beliefs -- of the catholic group has a broader set of what they think would impact their religious beliefs. if the government under the laws we have passed should not be able to force two that make you violate your faith principles. there might be different faith groups. i have met with many groups over the cast -- course over the last two years since this rule came out. there are 84 different briefs that have been filed with the court on behalf of these two cases. it suggests that you should

think about and look at these. for those amicus briefs, there theat least 3-1 in favor of families that own these companies that will not be able to run their companies based on their faith based principles. but only over numbers for the people concerned about this large, but includes id. first set of coalitions of people who care. includes a set of coalitions of people who care. it protects the freedom of religion, not to mention the -- itself. it is important in the history

of who we are. anyone states have joined this case on behalf of these companies. doctors and women's organizations have filed briefs advocating that the court respect to religious rights of these companies. protestant and catholic theologians have filed briefs. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the international society of christian company,ness, a food the church of latter-day christian saints, christian colleges and universities, a broad diversity of religious views, but they agree on one thing, which is this is a principal tenant of who we are. just as president jefferson said 1809,etter he wrote in and all of the right to vote, we

should hold the right of conscience most dear. once the government tells us what to believe and how to apply what you believe, we have given up the most fundamental of all freedoms. congress has a long history of protect liberty. there should be brought protection of religious liberty. that is a position that i hope the court upholds. the mandate is an enormous government overreach and it violates americans constitutional rights. this mandate severely finds religious individuals, it exams plenty of other nonreligious institutions. administration has exempted 100 million employees from the mandate for commercial or political reasons. people should also not be forced to give up their business to

hold onto their faith or to give up their faith to hold onto their business. these family businesses are not publicly traded corporations. -- i is not one court case have been told this on the best authority -- there's not one case where these kinds of corporations -- numerous federal courts have upheld the ability of what for-profit organizations -- you could have a racial profile as an organization, but not a religious profile as a corporation. this is an untenable position .or the government to take the supreme court has heard this case today. i join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both tombers to urge the court preserve the fundamental religious freedoms that americans have enjoyed and that the constitution demands

overwhelmingly and it continues to be the standard that is applied to our right of what we want to believe and must believe and do believe. i'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues you talked about this very same topic. >> met him president. -- madame president. >> senator. as an oklahoman, we cannot have a finer company or a finer corporate citizen than than the green family in terms of their chain of stores around the company and what they've done. successfulthey are is because they care, nurture, and support every one of their

employees. they have worked on principles that they truly believe in. it has been the key to their success. there never open on the sabbath. pay someone aou livable wage, they are big in the community. there are some of the largest contributors to organizations that are funded in the charitable round. they go down to help people. they come with peer motives. the senator from missouri mentioned thomas jefferson. here's what he said in 1809 -- no provision in our constitution ought to be due to man than that which protects the right of conscience against the inner prices of civil authority. enterprises of civil authority. listen to that.

jefferson, one of the key framers of the very constitution thatve under recognized the most important thing is to protect this conscience of the green family to do what they think according to their faith is the right thing to do. referenced the religious freedom act. why was that necessary? -- that is why it was pastor why it was signed. this is going to be a seminal case. it has nothing to do with the birth control. has to do with the fact --

can we allow the civil government to impede at such a level that the government can tell you what your values are, what you have to think, and how you have to act? on the basis of what they say your values are? as someone who has delivered children as an obstetrician, some because for every competition of pregnancy, as someone who believes in the value of newly created human life, all they are saying is that we should not have to pay money to abort a baby when we takeit unconscionable to an innocent life. peoplen't mean that the cannot get an abortion. is is that they do not want to violate their own conscience by supplying it.

the other thing that ought to be evident is that plan b is over-the-counter. it is not even part of your health care. there's not even an age limit on it now. a 12 world can go buy it old-the-counter -- 12 year can go buy it over-the-counter. it is about the conscience of a very successful company and the reason they are successful is because they follow the teachings of their faith. now we have the government in a position that they're going to tell us what our faith is. let me reiterate what jefferson said -- no revision in our constitution ought to be dear to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. felt and upheld .eliefs based on their faiths

the other side of this is that we see the deeply held beliefs and how they rescued universities and how they have come to the aid and how they have been active in the community. they are out following the same deeply held beliefs of helping the poor and giving people opportunity that they never would have had, giving people a day of rest. the stores are not open late. they could sell more products if they were open later. the consumer-products of their open on sunday. the choose not to because they think the physicals of which they operate their business based on their faith has created an environment in which allows everybody to succeed. if you go through the businesses and if you go through the warehouses and the stores, what you see is the smile and almost

everybody's face. why? because people enjoy working there. they're treated like human beings. they are given opportunities. they're given the very thing that we all want for those that are neighbors and ourselves. that the constitution be looked at as the supreme court considers this case and that the religious freedom restoration act will be looked at in the supreme court. the affordable care act is not affordable. it is unaffordable for americans. of how disaster in terms it has been implemented and will be a disaster in terms of quality care and delayed care because of the increase that everyone in this country is facing here and we shouldn't let it be a disaster in terms of destroying businesses. this familyembrace

and their businesses for what they have done. they have taken advantage of the american enterprise system that has built to mend his success and benefit not just the green family, but hundreds of thousands of people through their generosity, through their capability to empower people to get ahead. and glad to see my colleagues here and i yield the floor. >> madam president, i would like inutes an additional -- m to the senator from a hampshire. >> with no objection. >> i come to the floor today to talk about a very important case that the u.s. supreme court heard arguments on this morning. it goes to the core of our nation's foundation, the future of religious freedom in the u.s. as americans, we cherish our religious liberty. it lies of the heart of who we are as people i we know that we

must always guard against freedomto our religious . that is why i am here on the floor today to join my in speaking in support of the constitutional right that all americans have under the first amendment that guarantees the right of freedom of conscience and religious liberty. here is what is at stake -- american should not be forced to give up the religious freedom were the rights of conscience simply because they want to open a family this mess. american should not be choose to choosing -- family business. american should not be forced to choose between the two. this case that is

being heard today by our supreme court is so important to the american people. it provision of president obama's health care law includes a mandate that threatens penalties on private organizations unless they involuntarily agree to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. if religious institutions and faith-based organizations are forced to comply with the government mandate that violates the core principles of their faith, this is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. it is contrary to what we stand for as americans. i have heard from people in my state who are deeply concerned about this mandate an issue that is being considered by the supreme court today. it are simply asking to have the

same conscious rights that they had before the president's health care law was passed. that is conscious right enshrined in the constitution that protects all americans regardless of what our faith is, regardless of our background. this is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role of our government. it is about who we are as americans. if the government, through mandate, could take away our conscious rights, what does that say about other rights we have? under our constitution? down to thecomes legacy left behind by our founding fathers and over 200 years of american history. we have a choice between being responsible stewards or allowing the federal government to interfere in an unprecedented way. protecting religious freedom and

conscious rights has been a bipartisan issue. congress has a long history of protect and religious liberty. i have heard my colleagues talk about the religious freedom restoration act that was signed into law by president clinton to ensure that the government would be held at a high level before interference was summons free exercise of religion. that is what is at stake in the supreme court decision in the mandates that are being rendered by the health care law against private companies like hobby lobby and others. this is what is at stake under the president's health care law. , weanies like hobby lobby are proud to have them and they provide health care to their employees. my should they have to say over $36,000 per employee unless they that violatees their religious beliefs and conscience rights? why should they be forced in this position?

if the federal government is able to violate the first amendment in this way, what is to stop other rights being violated? believe this effort that is so fundamental to our character must bring us together once more. to seeing the supreme court's decision on this issue. this is a case that never should have been filed. of the affordable care act or obamacare should never violate the right of conscience of these companies or religious organizations. it is time to turn this around. i look forward to the supreme court vindicating their right under the first amendment of the u.s. constitution that should have been respected by this administration. that is why the supreme court is there and a look forward to the supreme court decision that i hope will uphold the first amendment right and for all

americans. thank you, madam president. >> with that, let me change gears a bit and address one of the significant pieces of legislation for women -- the affordable care act. on sunday, this law celebrated its fourth anniversary. it is a stark reminder of where our nation's health care system was four years ago. for years ago, our health --urance company women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance had to pay more for coverage than men. four years ago, women do not have access to the full range of prevented care like mammograms and much more.

four years ago, insurance companies had all of the leverage and all of the power. too often, it was women who pay the price. thanks to the affordable care act, for the first time, women and not the insurance companies or their employers are now fully in charge of their own health care. in fact, women make up over half of the 5 million people that have already signed up for coverage in the new marketplace. over 47 million women have received guaranteed access to preventive care services thanks to that affordable care act. that is why i feel strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. we can never stop working to make improvements. we owe it to the women of america to make progress and to move forward and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs.

unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country, including here today in our nations capital to severely undermine a woman's rights for the some critical life-saving services under the affordable care act. no provision of this law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing affordable , quality, reproductive health services for the women of america. it is this reason i was proud to lead members of my caucus in filing an amicus brief with the supreme court in the two cases that are being considered there today. both cases were brought by ceo's who want to take away their employees rights to insurance coverage for birth control. it is guaranteed under the affordable care act. there are those out there who would like the american public to believe that this conversation is anything but an

attack on women's health care. to them, it is a debate about freedom except of course when the freedom comes to the women's care. than -- thaterent it is somehow about religion. emergencye told by junta section is not about the woman's ability to make family .ecision were last week when it was have a pregnancy test in barnstable doubt providing contraception because without providing contraception because -- this is an attempt to limit a

woman's ability to access health care and this is about women. oh -- someone else to toow someone else's access or control should be inconceivable in this day and age. it takes is back to a place in history when women had no voice and no choice. there was a nonprofit institute and other medical experts because is is essential -- we know ensuring access to effective work control as a direct impact on improving the lives of women and family in america. towill be able to to link it reduce risk of ovarian cancer and better overall health care

outcome for women and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions which is -- what is at stake in this case is whether a ceo personal believe could trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the affordable care act. i strongly believe every american deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage regardless of where they work or where they live. each of a should have the right to make our own decisions without being dictated are limited by our employers. just at the coverage is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand how important it is for women and families. in weighing this case, my hope

is that the court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paychecks. for-profit,low secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female guiseees access under the of a religious exemption. because you are a ceo or a shareholder in the corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who happen to be women? listen to the arguments being made on both sides. i cannot help but think if these this,re allowed to do what would happen to the other legal protections for employees? could your boss decide?

out of havingopt to comply with anti-discrimination laws? corporation should not be able to use religion as a licensed to discriminate. toam president, i'm proud join in filing the previous with others who are in office when congress enacted the religious protection due to religious freedom restoration act way back in the day when we made access to women's health care affordable. we have senators who know that congress is not intended for a corporation or its shareholders to restrict a woman's access from to preventive health care. we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. we know it will mean healthier women and healthier children and healthier family and healthier americans. we all know it will save money

for businesses and consumers. madame president, i know many that it is somehow a political winner for them, that this law and these provisions are a winner for women, men come the children, and for our health care system overall. very ground to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure that the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of america. politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care that they need at a cost that they cannot afford. thank you. i yield the floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next is governor chris christie's news conference. after that, the supreme court

usars oral arguments in sebeli versus hobby lobby on the controversial health care law. therobably when you look at threats that we face, when you look at things like improvised nuclear devices, we know know when jurisdiction will have the capability to respond to that. we will have to be resources from across the nation. looking at the various threats, some of which are terrorist base and some which are hazards, we have started adding up the numbers, casualties, search-and-rescue, need it recovery needs. looking at that, we began identifying critical capabilities and gaps in them. part of this was to address and not only hope that by jurisdiction it adds up the but inl capability, overall national response.

how to build that? the other has to be competitive so we can see the areas where maybe sponsorship i went state or community group provide resources versus each jurisdiction try to build the capability. there's not a lot of trust out there. cannot agree it up on arsenal's ability to work together as a team, -- if we cannot agree to work together as , but multiple states and multiple jurisdictions responding to these types of events. >> this weekend, fema administrator craig fugate on

the budget request. in the book tv, the tucson festival of books. on the order. -- border. on american history tv, the regions of the cell phone with the motorola researcher who led the team and invented the first cell phone in 1973. sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. new jersey governor chris christie holds a news conference with reporters regarding the george washington bridge closure controversy. on thursday, an internal review team hired by the christie administration to investigate the matter and released their report findings to the public. the attorney says the review shows that governor chris christie had no knowledge beforehand and played no role in the implementation of the lane closure.

this is one hour. >> good afternoon. i received a report from the review team. on wednesday and thursday i reviewed the report. it was an exhaustive report that follows the mandate that i said that when we commissioned a review. toldhing was cleared -- i them to find the truth no matter where it led. turn over every rock they were able to get to to the bottom of what happened, and let me know what the truth was. they convicted over 70 interviews and had access to both the personal and business devices, e-mails, and text of my current and former senior staffers.

consistent with the colonnade in january, we made the report public as soon as we received it. to the team of former federal prosecutors and others for the extraordinary amount of work that they did in a relatively short amount of time. as for the recommendations, i am embracing the reforms that pertains to my office. it is been my resolve from the beginning to learn from this. to do whatever we can to do better. to be a better staff. to be a better administration. we owe that to the people of new jersey. that is what i will attempt to deliver. there will be further announcements as the word to effectively implement these recommendations and to find the best possible people to fill these roles. as to the port authority, i agree with the main thrust of the report and the need for fundamental structural change the port authority. particularly the idea of

dismantling the port authority operations. from under one roof, to two. i intend to work with governor cuomo to further explore recommendations and other ideas to bring a new day to the port authority. lastly, i received a call from david samson, who informed that after reviewing the master report, he supports the recommendation laid out for the port authority. it's the best way to start the new year the port authority is with new leadership. in line with that belief, david tendered his resignation to me this afternoon. i want to thank him for his service. and look forward to discussing with governor cuomo a new era at the port authority and might of

the recent events, past history, and recommendations laid out in the master report. >> you talked about how this will not impact your decision. [inaudible] how is this possible that it will not impact a choice to run for president? >> two different questions. running as a choice, it won't. the fact the matter is, i had nothing to do with this. this report has supported exactly what i said. in the sweep of things come any voters, if they considered this

issue at all, in considering my candidacy, i have a feeling it will be a small element of it, if any at all. in terms of my decision-making, simply not the way i would make a decision. the way i will make a decision about whether to seek any future office would be directing it is what is best for me and my family? do i believe i have something unique and particular to offer that office at that time? the answer to those questions is yes, i will seek that office. if the answer to either of those questions is no, i won't. there will not be anything else that will enter into it. anyone tries to game the politics of this kind of stuff, years in advance, the last 11 weeks have shown. [inaudible] >> yeah, sure. there is nothing that is

permanent about that. there is nothing permanent about my standings being a story very high. there's nothing permanent about this stuff. anybody who thinks that, i said that all along. but my polls were good and you work here, i said that all along when my polls were high. get ready, they will come down. when you make decisions, you do things. if it's occur. the impact you. it is of no moment to me though. if i were running for reelection tomorrow, maybe it would be a moment to me. i already ran for reelection. i got 61% of the vote. they don't mean anything. in the end, i forgot to tell you, they are not what i most concerned about. i'm the governor of new jersey. i have a job to do. i'm going to do my job the best way i can.

as i have said dozens of times, i do the best i can, my future will take care of itself. brian? [inaudible] laws, state and local were broken. that there was a threat to public safety. you are made aware of this in early october. you admitted to that. your staff was made aware of that. most of whom are former federal prosecutors. how is it that this went on for roughly eight weeks, where these former federal prosecutors's salesman? >> colorful. why don't you just get to the

questioning cut the commentary? [inaudible] >> can you get to it already? reporter: [inaudible] >> they didn't, first off. the first time this came into my conscious was the "wall street journal" story, when he laid his memo to the newspapers. and i said to two former prosecutors, find out what is happening here. the way you do that in a normal circumstance, to go to our people at the port authority, and ask them what is going on. they came back and said this is a legitimate traffic study. we blew the notification. that is our fault. it was a legitimate traffic study. he is upset because he didn't

know about it. contextually, that made perfect sense to me. otherwise, as you can see from the report, a history of conflict between these folks the port authority. i heard about conflict between chris ward, the former executive director. a regular basis. it is by believe that the best way to deal with this, taking the hatfields and the boys in move them into separate homes. they haven't been able to get along with each other despite my best efforts and many of our that assessors. nobody dropped the ball here. you are looking at this through your editorializing in the question, and everything else from the perspective of what you know today. if i knew then what i did today,

i would have done a lot of things differently. we went, we asked the question. the government believed to be satisfactory answers. we believed was an operational issue at the port authority they needed to deal with. we told them to deal with it. that is where it ended. part of the problem with this is all of us, you, me, provided is looking through the retrospect oscope. oscope.ro-spectr we didn't have that then. it is unfair to say our folks didn't do anything for three weeks. they pursued a number of avenues all the way through my december 13 press conference to challenge people and question people about what went on here, and what each individual's role was. it wasn't effective because people didn't tell us the truth

read it is not fair in my view to say that people didn't do their job and try to get answers. some of your closest aides thought this behavior was appropriate. what did you learn from this experience? i would say one of my closest aides participated in this. for that, she was fired. that is the first thing i did. thate need to understand if you participate in this kind of conduct, you will not be permitted to hold the public trust and authority that goes along with the senior position and the struggle. secondly, i have done a lot of soul-searching over the last few weeks. for me, it is going to be about making it clear to people what is acceptable conduct and what

isn't. i will say that anyone who works for you and who believes that something like this is going to be something that would be pleasing or acceptable to me did not know me in the first place. from that perspective, i am not only disappointed in them but it is obvious to me that i have to make even clearer, as we move forward in the future, about what is acceptable conduct and what is not. it is a constant challenge for you are running a large organization and it is one that i did not do as well as i needed to do, obviously, with this happening. it is one i intend to focus on as we move forward. >> we were informed that samson declined to participate in the investigation buyer outside counsel. does that concern you?

did general samson ever talk you about this? >> as i said in the statement, effective immediately. he called me this afternoon. on the first part of the question, i spoke to general samson on january 8 and asked him what he knew about this, if he had any involvement in it, if he authorized it or had any idea of the planning of it or any of the rest. he said absolutely not. that rang true to me the time not only because of david's reputation for honesty over the course of his career, but also because the role of the chairman of the port authority is not a operational role. it is a supportive role. i would not expect him to be involved in a traffic study of the port authority.

in terms of his firm's lack of participation in the investigation by the master group, he thought there would be a compromise if there was an interview. that was the information he gave me at the time and i have no reason not to believe that. again, i think that his role was not central in any of these things or has it been alleged that his role was central in any of these things. those were decisions he had to make based on his ethical obligation to his client. and the decisions he made is a different matter. in the end, everyone has their own individual obligations to their client and what they can or cannot say publicly because of that. >> [indiscernible] did he ask you to stay on?

>> yes. no. he said he would stay on as long as i think i am able. yes. no. he said he would stay on as long as i think i am able. reporter: [inaudible] >> this proceeded his discussion with the port authority about leaving goes back a year. reporter: [inaudible] >> he is 74 years old and he was tired. that is what he told me. i said, i am in the middle of a reelection campaign and will be going through a transition if i'm reelected. why don't we do with these things at that time and not while i am in the middle of all this. i would prefer you to stay. in deference to me, he did. david has been talking to me

over the better part of a year about moving on. he is 74 years old. he said, chris, i would like to do other things. i asked him as governor to please stay and give me a time to what i hope would be a transition to a second term. in deference to me and our long-term relationship, he was >> [indiscernible] >> not really. my view is those of the type of operational things that the port authority works on all the time. governor cuomo and i came to an

agreement about what we thought an appropriate toll hike would be. heather. speak up a little, i am sorry. >> [indiscernible] could you comment on that? >> sure. >> [indiscernible] >> sure. a few things. one, when an administration needs to respond appropriately and, in my direction, swiftly to inquiries from both legislative committees and a prosecuting office, you need to bring offer meant to do that. we don't have the capacity in-house to do that nor would people think it appropriate for us to do that. there was never any question in my mind that we would have to bring in a law firm from the outside to be able to shepherd all of the responses that were needed to the subpoenas served both by the legislative committee and the united states

attorney's office. we wanted to do that as quickly and cooperatively as we could. we wanted to have a significant law firm with the type of resources available to them to be able to do this job as quickly as possible. it also made perfect sense to me and it is press practices in the department of justice that when you have a problem like this, you conduct an internal review. to find out what happened and to make recommendations to try to prevent this type of conflict in the future. having the same group do all that made absolute sense to me for both an efficiency perspective and effectiveness perspective. no matter who i chose to do this, questions would be raised by some quarters as to those people's objectivity. my answer is, look at the report. we give them unfettered, complete access to everyone in this government. we allow them to interview

people multiple times if they so desired on multiple occasions in order to try to get to the bottom of thing. we gave them complete access, not only to people's professional e-mails, but their personal e-mails and their personal devices, to be able to review text messages as well. the objectivity in this report is based on two things. one is the breadth of it and the information access to anything or wanted, and the reputation of the six people that are running these things. these are six formal federal prosecutors who have worked hard to develop the reputations they have earned over their career and would not give away those reputations to do some type of slipshod job for me. lastly, as relations with the firm, after seven years, heather, as u.s. attorney in the state in nearly five years as governor, there is probably not a major law firm in this country, if not -- and certainly

not in this region -- that i do not have some relationship with over that time and some personal connect to. i decided to pick the people who are best to do the job. i did and i think the report will stand the test of time. it will be tested by the other investigations that are ongoing and it is limited, as randy mastro pointed out, in small part by some of the access that they had and did not have to certain people. in the end, all that is fronted in the report. it does not claim to be anything but what it is. it is exhaustive and thorough and i do not have any second thoughts about who we selected for the process. no matter what, you're going to be criticized in this instance. when you are coming up to answer directly in that is what we have done in the report. matt? >> [indiscernible]

given there has been other salty language coming out of the staff, do you think that was -- and can you imagine a time --? >> let's be clear. it was not the salty language. as you know, i have been known to use a word or two myself and so have a number of you, as well. it is not that. what it is is the content of those e-mails showed me a lack of judgment that caused me to lose my confidence in bill's judgment. that is the basis upon which i made the decision, a decision that i stand by today, because it was made. on that basis and not on the basis of anything else. no, i don't have a change of heart on that at the moment. as far as the future goes, i am not get into hypothetical

questions about the future. it does not make sense. kevin? >> [indiscernible] >> i would've liked it on january 8 if i could have had it. i've said many times before. i would have hoped that everyone would speak to this group. i also have a healthy respect for people's constitutional rights. i am, again, not going to be critical of people for exercising, with the advice of their lawyers, their constitutional rights. in the end, i don't know what the motive is. as i said on january 9, it mystifies me on every level why this was done. i hope someday to have an answer to why it was done, but i

certainly don't have a crystal ball and i cannot tell you if or when i will ever know. do i hope to after all this? you bet i hope to. charlie? >> the issue -- which has been connected to david samson -- did you raise that issue with him before he tendered his resignation? did he raise that you with you? [indiscernible] >> if you look at many of the commissioners, both currently on the port authority and over history, there have always been those type of connections and potential conflicts. this is what happens when you ask people to come from the

private sector and serve in a non-compensated, part-time position in the role at the port authority. the way to do with that is appropriate refusals when the port authority comes into contact with a business interest you might have. my understanding is not only general samson but others would engage in appropriate recusals in those instances. that is an issue for him to deal with brightly. i'm sure that he will. i have every faith and trust and confidence in david's integrity, as do people on both sides of the aisle in the state over the course of last 40 years he has been involved in public life. i've complete confidence that he acquitted himself in a way that was appropriate and ethical. if it turns out that there were

some instances that were not handled in a way, then that is something that we will all deal with. to get to the core of your question, i think, is that you can expect that when you ask people from the private sector to come in and do these jobs in a part-time, non-compensated way, that you can ask them to give up their private sector life which they used to support themselves and their families. the way to deal with that is to try to have an effective, robust the system were folks recuse when it's appropriate. it should be attended to with great care. you have a follow-up? >> we don't know that -- his relationship with the port authority -- >> that is your assumption. i don't believe that is a fact. it is your assumption, as you often do. that is your right.

you are a columnist. you get to assume and suppose certain things, but you need to base them on facts. i have not seen those facts draw a direct line between. david? >> do you still believe there was a traffic study, and you still believe that those lanes and closings are dedicated to the fort lee residents? >> the record seems to show a traffic study of some kind. the record of the traffic study is disputed in a completely blown away on the parts of mr. wildstein and ms. kelly. some sort of nefarious or inappropriate motivation for. as for the fort lee lanes

dedicated to residence, i said they were dedicated to fort lee. i understand that there are people who get off the highway and drive to the neighborhoods to get the easier route to the george washington bridge. maybe once or twice i have done that in a previous life. i understand that. if i did, i misspoke that there were dedicated to fort lee residence. they are dedicated to the town of fort lee. my understanding for development was to relieve traffic congestion going to the bridge. that was my understanding at the time. it is an understanding i've only come in to knowledge of in the last number of months. even when i went that way couple of times years ago, i did not know that they were committed to fort lee or any of that history.

you are going to follow-up on a two-part question? i did answer that. i said it appears that there was a traffic study that may have had behind it and ill or inappropriate motive. >> [indiscernible] >> i believe with the report told me. >> do you think is stepping down was essential -- >> no. no, i don't think he was essential. but he did. he called me this afternoon and told me that if you're going to have a chance to institute these type of reforms, i think you have to have someone in there who will take a brand-new look at it and not have to worry about the things of the past and so i'm going to go. in response to an earlier

question over here, this comes as no big shock to me because david started talking to me about wanting to leave a year ago. the only reason you state is because i asked him to. it did not come to a shock to me this morning that he called and said it. i did not expect the call this morning, but his action is not a shock to me. i did not think it was essential because if i did, he would have asked to resign by me. i accepted his resignation this afternoon. >> earlier, you talked about the -- [indiscernible] >> as i have said all along, we will respond and cooperate appropriately with all investigations and requests. which we have done. as far as i have told, we have been sent over 50,000 pages of

documents to the legislature in response to their subpoenas. let them work their way through that we can see if there's anything else they might need. yes, in the back. >> [indiscernible] on december 9, 2005 -- >> no, i joked -- christine, stop. you have to get the facts right if you ask me a question. i made the joke on december 2. not after -- excuse me. excuse me. not after pat foye's testimony. what is your question? >> you are aware of what was going on, yes? you joked about it and -- >> again, christine, i'm not going to answer question whose premise is absolutely -- i understand. it is nice to get to the question.

the premise of the question is sewn from that i am not answering. >> they're been remarked that not only did you describe her actions, but you described personal details about her life and they're very unflattering to her. [indiscernible] >> i think the report laid out the facts as the investigators found them. however anyone wants to interpret them is up to your own particular interpretation. >> you said it was the most difficult experience of your professional life. you can see it is not over yet. you have a feeling of when this will be the ideal? and how has all of this affected your confidence, being such a confident man? >> i have no estimate on when this will be the high knee because i do not get to decide

exclusively when it is behind me. i can tell you that, as you have seen over the course of the last six or seven weeks, i am back to work. i'm out there, meeting with the public, doing my job, working with the legislature on important pieces of legislation that they are dealing with just as late as yesterday doing that. i can only do what i can do. i cannot control everything. the judgment of when this will be behind me is not left purely to me. what i can do is do my job, which is what i'm going to do and live my life, which is what i'm going to do. in terms my confidence, listen. there's no question that the shakes your confidence. if it doesn't, you're arrogant. some people that i trusted and relied upon let me down, and as a result we let down the people of the state of new jersey. of course that shakes your confidence.

in the end, what it has resolved me to do is to get better. i have said any number of times, for those of you who do not cover the town hall meetings on a regular basis, that i never promised i would have a perfect administration. they're going to be mistakes that are made by human beings, myself included. what matters is how you respond to those mistakes and how you act. i hope that as we go forward we can avoid this type of stuff. this is not been pleasant for anybody, starting with the people who were caught in the traffic in fort lee from the ninth to the 13th of september and everyone since then. it has been unpleasant and continues to be. i will continue to do the best i can and cooperate in places where it is appropriate for me to do so, but most importantly, i will continue to do my job and hopefully, over the course of time, some of the confidence loss will be restored and will be based upon the work that you do and the results that you produce.

that is what is most important. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't know the answer to that question. not something that i deal with. that is with the attorney general's office deals with. that is where you should direct your question. >> [indiscernible] >> listen -- the facts are the facts, melissa. read the report. they can't make up facts. i have read the report.

every one of the factual assertions the report is footnoted, endnoted, backed up by document or testimonial evidence they got from interviews. that cannot be manufactured. i have relationships, personal relationships, with most of the major law firms in this region who could handle this type of task. in the end, i decided not to worry about it for two reasons -- you will be criticized for who you picked him out a lot, and i wanted the best possible people i could find to did to the bottom of this and get answers. as a result, this is what we have got in the report that was issued. i think it is a report that is thorough and exhaustive and will stand the test of time. >> [indiscernible]

>> no. my intention was to not turn the whole place over at one time. what i wanted to do was have some measure of stability to get deb in, acquainted, accustomed to the place, and then try to come to an agreement with david as to when he would move on. it was not that i was trying to get him to stay for four years. i knew for the last year that he wanted to go. he had made it clear to me. what i said was, give me a chance to do things in an orderly way. you're too important a presence to do all of this at once. that may get rid of the underlying staffers and we will do what we need to do when you move for. events that intervene cost the plan to go differently. >> have you choose to new chairman? >> i think it has to be in

elevation from someone inside. i will work as i normally would to try and find a replacement and we will go from there. i just got the call about two hours ago. initially, from what i understand from counsel, an initial elevation would have to be done from within the port authority. to get a new person on, have to nominate them and get advice from the state senate. that will take some time, as it always does. in the interim, we will have to have someone who will take over. don't ask me to. i haven't thought about yet. there is a number of folks, a limited number, the remaining folks of the new jersey commission. we will go from there. >> [indiscernible] >> because this is my press

conference, not hers. >> here is a woman that does not like you. you have an opportunity to talk to her instead. [indiscernible] >> no. i couldn't have, and put him in the same situation that i did not want to be in myself? the accused later on of coaching or intimidating someone who had been involved in wrongdoing? no. what you get with me is what you get. shed who i am. i am a former federal prosecutor. what i thought about that choice and balanced it with what i would get from a conversation with someone i already know that light up my face versus a look

at this later on when you could say that we try to do something to manipulate, do whatever, i decided that the more prudent course was to let her go, fire her, and move on. i think the risk of that -- i can only imagine the speculation that some of the more you're responsible members of your profession would be engaged in about what went on in that meeting between me and bridget kelly. i have been in this business a long time and i made that decision. it was my decision and i have absolutely no second thoughts about it because i have note great degree of confidence that

i would have gotten anything different from her then than i did in december when these questions were asked of her. >> you said you would been doing a lot of soul-searching for less couple of weeks. we heard about some of the things that david wildstein has done the port authority and they have resonated through the halls -- i'm wondering if you did that soul-searching, what did you find out about yourself? >> nothing that relates to the premise of your question. the premise of your question is so riddled with inaccuracies that it is hard for me to respond to it. david wildstein, as i have said, never was and never has been a close personal friend of mine. david wildstein is a close personal friend of bill baroni. it was him who brought him into the port authority with my permission, but not at my suggestion. i know you continue to try to report the single back to every high school friend that i had to

try to get them to save, were they friends? every one of them tells you that we were not. you continue to do a question where the premise of it is that he was my close personal friend, therefore the soul-searching. what led to soul-searching was the fact our ministries in this point the people of new jersey through the conduct of some of its members. that is the entire premise of what i have tried to do as governor, store faith and trust in the government. in the motivation of the people who do work on their behalf. when you fall short of that, as we did, that causes soul-searching. as i have said a number of times, it is a question that i need to the much clearer to people about what my expectations are. that i need to be even more direct about what i will permit and what i won't permit. that is the extent that i did not do that and have led any of these people to conclude that it is appropriate, that is my

feeling, too. that is a result of my soul-searching over the last couple of weeks. >> what is your opinion of this guy? you said you don't have a close personal relationship. >> listen. i obviously believe that having david wildstein at the port authority was a mistake. let us just leave it at that. >> i said phil. i meant bob. sorry about that, bob. >> we know at the town hall

meetings that you are very proud of the fact that you introduced -- and called for -- if the attorney general like furniture? [indiscernible] >> that's not fair. i think to characterize the attorney general as a piece of furniture is really beneath what you guys should be doing. the attorney general is doing an outstanding job. they are to enforce the law. they are not there to act as an ethics advisor to the governor's office. if you find that in the statue of regulars, pointed out to me. >> [indiscernible] >> no, he is not. he may have to provide an investigative function in some

later time. imagine that. imagine what you would be saying if that happened. the same guy who's supposed to have an investigation of his own is helping us to comply with the mitigation of others. >> would you be opposed to an election -- >> at as a whole different story. i'm not getting into that now. >> [indiscernible] my support of kevin o'dowd has never wavered because i knew how kevin conducted himself throughout this entire episode. i think the report backs that up in terms of the efforts he took, particularly with bridget kelly, to try to get to the truth than bottom of this. my support of kevin is unwavering.

i was not going to resubmit his nomination in the midst of all this while i report was pending, but kevin on i will sit down and talk now that the report has been issued about the future and whether that is something he wants to pursue. we've been occupied with other matters, so we will sit and talk about that. as far as i'm concerned, everything i said about kevin o'dowd on the date i nominated him to be attorney general applies just as much today as it did then. i chronicled on the ninth and just again in response to matt's question. my reasons for severing my relationship with bill. there is nothing new to add to that. >> [indiscernible] >> my decision was that all you would do is ask me about this.

i did not have the facts i needed to be able to answer your question. it was not going to sit up here and play dodgeball on your questions. it is not much more competent than that. you know me. i have had regular press briefings throughout my administration. i am certainly not afraid to answer questions from all of you, any of you. if the fact is i know what you're going to ask and i do not know the answer, why would i submit myself to that? it does not make any sense. that is why i did not do. it is merely to me when you write stories about what you think you're entitled to. i think you are entitled to the answers when i get them. if all you're going to do is ask me these questions and yelled them at me at every town hall i walk through, i am not stupid. i get with this would be. i was going to answer these questions as soon as i had answers to give them. remember, when i gave answers before when i thought i had complete information and he did not, it turned out to be a big mistake.

one of the things i've learned is to try to not make that mistake again. yes, i will hold regular press availability. we will quibble over what regular means. >> you hear about retaliation after the lanes have been over. >> i asked him directly says yet no idea what they were talking about. >> [indiscernible] >> matt, and this is for all of you. anything you ask me that asked me to speculate on david wildstein was thinking or what bridget kelly was thinking, i'm not going to answer because i do not know. i'm not going to get into the speculation game because it will put me in a spot where i'm throwing stuff out against the wall and i drowned have a factual basis for. i will not do that. the thing i remember for sure is asking him what about the bridge

lane situation he knew. and he have any prior knowledge or prove it, and the answers were no. i do not remember if i asked them about that particular piece on that day were the days after that. i clearly asked him at some point very early on and he said yet no idea what he was talking about. in the back. >> [indiscernible] >> i'm not saying that they cannot do an internal review. if they want to, they can. that is certainly within their purview. i think they are descended to the inspector general, so i think the inspector general will serve that purpose. this is not to be exclusive. what i think the report is recommending is that you need a group of people who have not

been involved with the port authority. one of the things i find him for what the port authorities up to right now is they recommend bringing back executive directors who created the situation in the first place. let me tell you, this not the first time the port authority has been involved in incidents that grow out of the inherent conflict between new york and new jersey. i think bringing in the very people who helped to lay the foundation for this problem to examine the problem does not make a lot of sense to me. that is why this type of independence commission may make sense. in the end, let us be clear. if anything is going to be change, it is going to have to be something i work on with governor cuomo. i have not had any conversations with him about this yet. he and i will talk. we have a good relationship. i think that the idea of splitting the port authority into two may have some real merit to it.

i've only been thinking about this for the last 24 hours, so i don't want to jump to conclusions. i think it has merit to consider and something that will be part of a lot of conversations that i will have with our friends in new york over the course of the coming weeks. kelly? >> [indiscernible] >> kelly, i give them anything they asked for. my cell phone and my e-mail accounts. being interviewed? it's -- a number. i don't member exactly. anytime they asked. they called and they asked and said they needed x amount of time with you. i said fine, cleared my calendar, and did it. remember how many times. kelly, i really do not remember.

it started all the way back in january and has continued through to very near the time to issue the report. i don't remember how many times and i don't think it really matters. the bottom line is that whatever they asked, i said yes. however long they wanted, i try to give them. if they needed more time at another time i give them more time. in the end, my desire from this was for them to get all the information they needed to put forward a comprehensive result, which i think they have done. it is incumbent upon me to do that myself. i did. >> [indiscernible] as a government, we need to have higher than -- >> yes. >> you're accusing something wrong is potentially something that could come back on your administration.

[indiscernible] >> i have up here trying to very carefully answer questions. i don't know if you can take notes or if you are not listening, but for you to characterize my last answer as i did not want to ask her because i did not want to know is so awful that it is beneath the job you hold. what i said was that i made a decision, that given the likelihood of a chance i had of getting honest answers out of bridget kelly because you like to meet weeks earlier, versus the appearance that it would create in a later in cory that i attempted to course, influence, and anyway intimidate this person and her story, then i made the decision that the cost benefit analysis of those two, wait on the side of me not

having a private meeting with bridget kelly in the aftermath of these revelations. that is far from saying i did not want to know. those kind of questions are just ridiculous. melissa? >> [indiscernible] >> i assume the only reason for that is the did not get testimony or have documentary evidence that gave them a window into the emotional side of those folks. i don't think there is any other reason why that would have occurred. brian? >> you made a strong point of protecting fifth amendment

rights, and yet the report uses the terminology in talking about the same individuals that says they asserted their fifth amendment rights "from which adverse influence can be drawn." >> in a civil context, which is what this is, the the examination was a civil examination, in a civil context, an adverse inference can be drawn. in my instance, and adverse inference cannot be drawn from having their constitutional rights asserted. it is the distinction tween a civil and criminal inquiry. in a criminal instance, it cannot. the judge will charge a jury to

say in a criminal context. >> [indiscernible] >> first of all, i don't know where they got the $1 million from. i don't know where they got that number. i saw it. i don't know where the number came from. if we want to have a search for the truth and we have an incident that people are concerned about and you have investigations which are asking for the production of enormous amounts of documents and testimony, you need to get lawyers to help you shepherd that process, to do it appropriately. that means they get paid for doing that task. >> [indiscernible] >> i assume it would come from the attorney general's office, who are the people who hired the

lawyers in the first place and who reviewed the bills and authorized payment of the bills. that means sure you. we're not going to do anything to try to hide what the costs of this are if that is the thrust of your question. i do not know and have not been focused at the moment on what this is costing. i'm more focused on the result it will produce and if it met my mandate and it appears that it did. how the process worse, when it happens, i am confident that we will make it public under the appropriate circumstances to do that. >> [indiscernible] >> tomorrow. >> for a meeting -- [indiscernible]

>> no. not at all. the report had nothing to do with it and i have gone to seven or eight states in the last four or five weeks. i'm not going to have any meetings until i get the report? no. there is significantly less interest around the country in this report then there is in this region. i think appropriately so. i don't know if i am having a private meeting with sheldon and miriam or not. you're thing i know for sure i'm doing a las vegas is i'm speak to the republican jewish coalition. that is the resigned going to las vegas. i will be doing that as the rga chairman. often times they set up with private meetings for me with donors are potential dover stood the republican governor's association. i don't know you. i usually wait until i get on the plane tomorrow and i look at what i'm going to be what i'm doing that when i get there.

>> how much responsibility -- [indiscernible] >> i take complete responsibility for bridget kelly being in the position she was in. it was my decision. i take ultimate responsibility for david wildstein being in that position because i permitted bill baroni to hire him. you can bet that i'm sensitized, even more than i was before to this, when you go to experience like this. i think the people that advise me on the stuff are more sensitized to it as well. >> [indiscernible]

>> a pot that he had? all right. >> to the never come and talk to you about what the alleged -- was? >> my understanding is that what david wildstein said that it was a legitimate traffic study and it was his idea. it would not be news to me the time. it had been related to me numerous times since october 1. i don't think david wildstein said anything different than that. i think that he also said at that time that bridget kelly had some knowledge about it.

that, again, triggered us to go back to bridget kelly and asked her, and she said she did not. mike did not bring it directly to me. that is not our relationship. you need to understand this -- that is not a revolving door. it's not where anyone can walk in on any topic they want and have at me. there is a process around here. people report to certain people. if they want to get information to me, they go through channels. the people who had unfettered access to me were kevin o'dowd and charlie mckenna and everyone else in the office reported to either kevin o'dowd were charlie mckenna. i have seen some recounting of this in the press and the section about, why did not this person come to you? i'm the governor of new jersey. i don't have everyone walk in my door saying, hey, something i

would like to tell you. to be able to run an efficient and effective office, you have to have lanes of traffic, especially moving towards me. i thought you would like that. [laughter] come on, everybody. we have to have some sense of humor. in this instance, those access points are guarded and covered by kevin o'dowd and charlie mckenna. what i will tell you is mike, always appropriately, went either to his direct supervisor or his indirect supervisor to report on all of those things. not erect we to me. know what i expect him to. nor would it be appropriate for him to do. his job is to report to the people he is supposed to. i believe that is what the report shows.

when mike had information that he thought was appropriate or relevant to the rotation, he shared it maria or directly with kevin. that is how you are supposed to do it. believe me, if i didn't do it that way, all i would be doing is taking people into my office and hearing information. mike conducted himself clearly appropriately. there are other instances in the report where he went to maria to provide information about pressing quarries or other things about this issue. in the end, from my perspective, that is the way and effectively. if you look at most good governor's offices or any chief executive, whether it is in the private sector or other areas of government, that is the way you have to do. if you don't do it that way, you will be overwhelmed by the people want to come in and have

face time. i don't have the time to do that all the time. that is why i set up a two-chief system, as opposed to the three-space or four-chief system we have had in the past. i wanted authority that ran to me. those clear lines of authority exist today. the chief of staff and the chief counsel. they divide up the office as they see fit with my approval and then folks beneath them, like my, follow that course of conduct. if they do not, they will have trouble. this is the way we have to run things. i appreciate all of the questions. it is such an extraordinary joy and relief to be able to come back and interact with you in a kind and gentle way that we always have. i would love to say that i missed you, but i did not.

but, i'm looking forward to having you all back. the fact of the matter is this -- the single most important thing for me to do is to learn from this experience, to learn from what i have read and what i have heard, and to do my job. all other considerations are really not even secondary, but tertiary. my job is to do the job of governor of new jersey. i have another 3.5 years to do that and i intend to do that as vigorously as i have done it in the years that i did before any of this occurred. i look forward to seeing you all again soon. i don't know when that will be. i will see you all again soon and be prepared to answer questions them. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, a house hearing on the president plus environmental budget. live at 7:00 a.m., your comments and calls on washington journal. tomorrow on washington reveals michaela dodge u.s. missile defense policy and how it applies to russia, ukraine, and crimea. ofn discusses reaches consumer data at companies including target and universal -- the university of maryland. and we talk about the veterans back lock claims -- claims backlog. on can join the conversation facebook and twitter as well. washington journal c-span.

mr. speaker, my colleagues, i rise out of concern for you. all of us. the united states house of representatives. --one who has been involved those of us who are interested in reform are inched in just that. reform. to bash this institution or our colleagues. you have talked to your constituents. i talked to mind your it they are our age. held in the lowest esteem in the history of polling. why? because the people look at us as ineffective and unaccountable. if we are going to do something about real reform, those are the issues we have to dress -- address. accountability and

effectiveness. ofknow the problems committees and subcommittees. the rules under which we operate. one only has to look at what happened last year during the consideration of baking reform legislation. we never could get our arms around it. look at health care. we need real reform. that is why many are supporting me resolution to set up to sell select subcommittee. when it comes to accountability, we come down. congress is not willing to live under the same laws we expect all americans to live under. we are the first body to call for an exit -- investigation into the executive branch of government. americanay to the people, don't hold us to the

same standards. today, we have the october surprise. another issue that will diminish our credibility and accountability. today, -- seconds.-- i yield 30 >> we have the opportunity to set up a step to set up an independent toddy to put this house on the right step. to take be for step towards real reform which will increase the credibility of the american people. which will once again start the process of building some competence and faith in our constituents so one day our constituents can have respect for this institution, the greatest in this democracy. >> more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook age. -- page. c-span. brought to you as a public service a year cable or satellite provider.

>> environmental protection ginay administrator testified at a hearing on capitol hill. she answered the 2015 $7.9t billion budget request. decrease of $310 million from 2014's request. >> welcome to the fiscal year

2015 budget hearing. we are joined by gina mccarthy. to discuss the president's proposal for epa's fy 15 budget. i believe this is your first formal hearing before the subcommittee. i know members on both sides look forward to discussing some of your ongoing work. proposal -- budget proposes a level of $7.89 billion. three percent below the enacted level. at this level, the budget would be reduced for the fifth consecutive year. i see this proposed reduction is good for the first step in the budget cycle as it brings the agency's budget in line with more historic funding levels. inbrings the agency's budget

line with levels under sequestration but avoids employee furloughs and some of the other consequences associated with indiscriminate cuts. the epa appears to be identifying strategic it it's these in its work force. for the been a priority subcommittee since 2011. i'm glad to see we are aligned in this mission. i appreciate that epa's budget 2000sal reflects a reduction compared to 2011. a level not seen since the late 1980's. budgets previous proposed payroll levels that were higher. we were wondering how they were

actually going to use the funds. i have concerns about the state of the nation's aging water infrastructure, particularly as it relates to the california drought. last year, the subcommittee held -- there to discuss are options to complement the funds. it is important from a security and economic standpoint that we and efficiented water infrastructure system. we tend to discount the value of clean drinking water until it is not there. i understand the budget is full of tough choice is -- choices. one proposal is the elimination of the diesel omissions grants, also known as dear a. -- dira. few epaone of the programs that has been reauthorized in recent years.

which is a testament to the bipartisan support for the program. program is important because diesel engines power over 95% of commercial trucks. everyone dollar spent on upgrades has resulted in $13 worth of environmental and health benefits. i don't know why the administration would propose to illuminate this program with such a high return on investment. the budget eliminates funding for the rural water technical assistance grants for national what a research grants. .tate radon grants more than 21,000 people per year die of radon related lung cancer. it seems the administration is cutting successful bipartisan pogroms knowing congress will restore the funding. in doing so, this allows the

administration to propose new programs we do not have the funding to pay for and constrained budget environment. prioritieshe wrong to cut. these are successful programs that achieve results without the heavy hand of top-down regulations. proposes, the budget increased funding for the --inistration's oversell us go at it alone approach. not one that lends itself to building partnerships or developing sensible policies that lead to economic growth. -- epanately, it ep pa serves as a conduit to carry out the agenda. when the president issues a directive that says the epa must regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants by june 1 of 2014, it is clear that the white house does not care what the rule says or about impact to jobs. when the white house direction before a mining permit

the company has applied, it is clear the administration is not serious about creating jobs. the latest example was revealed on tuesday, when epa proposed the greatest expansion of federal control over land and water resources in the 42 year history of the clean water act. now every small business and farmer could be subject to fines if they disturb a puddle on their land. meanwhile, epa has stated that science supported the rule. on conductivity of streams and wetlands has yet to clear the scientific peer review boards. it is clear the administration peru's to go at it alone. of impactnsideration on jobs or what the scientific

community has to say. let me be clear. the subcommittee will continue to take whatever actions are necessary to inject some common sense into epa's rulemaking process. and provide certainty to small -- farmers and small business. so they do not have to look over their shoulder. the epa. details pointthe to the right direction, the devil is in the details. i look forward to keeping the lines of communication open. with that, i know members are interested in discussing details. now to yield to my distinguished ranking member and friend, mr. mann. -- moran. >> thank you mr. chairman. we may have a couple of points of disagreement on the bill. but we will remain friends. welcome, administrator mccarthy.

this being your first hearing in went of the subcommittee, we greatly know respect your dedication to public service. and that of your staff. taking on this role.