wydra. whitlock on the investigation into the safety of american drone use. ♪ host: president obama will call on congress to approve more road and bridge objects and renew the highway trust fund. onk for our coverage www.c-span.org. the president came to the rose garden to say he will move on immigration by executive action because house republicans continued to block comprehensive approach. yesterday the supreme court announced its hobby lobby decision, ruling against the contraceptive mandate and the affordable care act. can call in with your

thoughts on the court's decision. the phone lines -- also send us a tweet or you can post your comments on facebook.com/cspan. you can also e-mail us at [captioning performed by national captioning institute] journal@c-span.org. this from the washington times bang -- from "the washington times" --

that is in "the washington times" this morning. here's the reaction from the hobby lobby cofounders yesterday. [video clip] >> the supreme court reaffirmed that america was founded on religious -- we are truly thankful for the decision that allowed us to continue our family business according to our principles. one of those principles is gratitude. we are the plea grateful to our employees, to our customers, to whomany many individuals support the word, action, and prayer. we thank god for his many blessings and ask for his continued grace to shine on our nation.

host: the hobby lobby cofounders reacting to the decision ruling against the contraception mandate in the affordable care act. from "usa today," --

here is the reaction from the white house press secretary yesterday. [video clip]an.or >> today's decision jeopardizes these for women by companies. as millions of women know, contraception is often vital to their health and well-being. that is why the affordable care act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care, along with other preventive care like vaccines and cancer screenings. he will work with congress to make sure any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else. resident obama believes strongly in freedom of religion. it is why we have taken steps to ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or

provide for contraceptive coverage. we have also made accommodations for nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds. the boy believe -- but we beieve the owners should not allowed to assert their religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits. court rulingreme against this mandate in the affordable care act for contraceptive coverage. today" this is what they report --

we want to get your thoughts on this this morning. the phone lines -- there has been lots of reaction

on twitter about the court's decision. let me begin with some potential 2016 candidates and what they had to say. senator ted cruz from texas -- and then you have this tweet from zeke miller, which shows a --ter that ted cruz sent out fund raising over the hobby lobby decision. jindal -- or bobby and also senator rand paul from kentucky -- hillary clinton said this -- and elizabeth warren out of massachusetts, a democrat up

there -- and then "politico" has this story -- the dnc put out this statement after the supreme court decided yesterday, saying, --

doris in chicago is a democratic caller, you are up first to get what do you make about the decision? caller: i don't like it at all. this is on par with what conservative republicans have done in the past. they are trying to redefine rape and shaming and punishing women. conservativeber male catholic court made a ruling that punishes women. this ruling is for only one group of people. women are over 50% of our population.

they have ruled that these women who want or need birth control can be discriminated on by these so-called religious zealots. this is a private for-profit corporation. 80% of their merchandise comes from china. china has a government program for abortions. and on top of that they have slave labor. what kind of religion supports that? host: where did you read that? of these things have their products based in china. that is why they can sell them so cheap. costs nothing. you can look things up for yourself. host: thomas in las vegas, republican collar. good morning, go ahead. [indiscernible]

there are other forms of contraception. host: a little trouble hearing you there. let's go to alex in virginia area -- in virginia. go ahead. american in my early 20's i see a lot of people in my demographic who are all over social media and outraged that companies don't have to provide contraception. we need to recognize that as far what you are entitled to and -- if you are on actual birth control for hormone

treatment or for a health reason outside of not getting pregnant, it really shouldn't be the obligation of the government to pay for your fun time. is a democratic caller. what are your thoughts on the supreme court's decision on contraception coverage? caller: i agree with everything from the person from chicago. turn thisay we can around is to join with the who are looking at coming up with a constitutional amendment to say that corporations are not people. thisepublicans are using hurt a lot of issues like contraception. host: next up is an independent caller. good morning, tom.

caller: good morning. this issue kind of validates why under no circumstances will i vote for a democrat at the senator level. the people who called in example, oner person quoted the constitution, the first amendment. it "-- "congress shall make no law in the establishment of a religion." also when they lose an argument they start name-calling. somebody yesterday started the -- "well, it is the old light republicans that are stopping it." this law was written by catherine civilians. -- the by sibelius. denied?it you are being

i did not see any old white republicans on tv celebrating the victory of the lawsuit that was decided in the supreme court. i can go on and on about why this doesn't make any sense, your argument doesn't hold water. thank you for having me on. host: we will go back to "usa today," where they report --

one caller said what needs to happen next is the constitution reflects that corporations are not people. reports -- let me go to brandy in millington, michigan. a republican caller -- good morning. caller: i am a democrat. the first thing i would like to do is thank you and all the folks behind the scenes that we don't see for putting on this great show.

my second comment is when are the crusades coming? is what we have started. this is what al qaeda did. you live my way, you believe my religion. me what god we are supposed to represent or who are we supposed to be humble to create this is getting carried away. i am dealing with al qaeda people. we are not dealing with americans anymore. nor an american justice system anymore. host: emmy is calling in next. what are your thoughts? caller: i am really disappointed with this ruling and companies like hobby lobby, where most employees are probably getting paid minimum wage, the fact that they are now not going to be providing contraception for these women through their insurance, how are these women supposed to support their children? i'm sure the company is going to for theng more money

pregnancies than they would have saved. they are putting women at such a disadvantage. i will almost guarantee that a lot of these women probably are going to be single moms. aside, all politics looking at it logically, it doesn't make any sense. host: "usa today" reports -- richie in mount vernon, new york, republican caller. caller: good morning. if the womanhat were to go to walgreens or rite drugstore,ng to the

you get what is called a condom. that will prevent the situation from ever happening. why should i have to pay to help you with a problem you caused yourself? pregnant c is not like a disease. a disease attacks you and you have no -- pregnancy is not a disease. a disease attacks you and you have no control. they have to go into their pockets and pay for you, i think it is unfair. host: cynthia in georgia, go ahead. caller: i just want to say i am not want tond i do pay for other people's contraception. i took the responsibility for it. for anyasked anyone help of any kind for it. it one thi i would like to sit

-- one thing i would like to republicans need to get behind the employers. democrats whohese choose this way a lot. worry about this monthly charge with contraception for their partying. host: this is reaction from will begin with the house speaker john boehner -- on twitter --

that you have nancy pelosi, the leader for democrats in the house -- also senator john mccain saying -- senator mitch mcconnell, the minority leader for republicans in the senate, said -- patricia in libertyville, illinois, what are your thoughts? caller: i am outraged by this opinion. i believe this is further evidence and rationale for changing the law as it regards the supreme court. i do not believe the supreme tort should have the option

say in the court for life -- as a woman who has taken advantage of the morning after pill, i am grateful it is out there. i find it stunning that the thisme court has taken position, particularly at a time when this nation is fighting against al qaeda, who would repress women's rights. towardsa move repressing women's rights as a whole. this couple sanctimoniously stayed that they are pleased that the supreme court has moved in their favor. the al no different than qaeda faction stating they will do what they can to repress women's rights. , theythis is from online

tweeted this out -- 40% strongly disagree. 19% strongly agree. theoyer should not have right to prevent certain forms of preventative health care, including contraceptives, from being provided in their health plans based on religious beliefs. majority, strongly agreed. 32% somewhat disagreed and strongly disagreed. that is a poll by reuters. onare getting your thoughts the supreme court ruling against the aca contraceptive mandate. let me show you some other news in the papers this morning. we will begin with foreign affairs. secretary of state john kerry

rights in the washington post opinion pages that time is running out for iran to choose its future. the world is simply asking iran to demonstrate that its nuclear activities are what it claims to be. tech -- the secretary of state sums up his arguments by saying -- this is in the "washington post this morning -- in the "washington post" this morning. we will begin with "the financial times" --

below that, the headline -- tellingt obama congress yesterday he is sending more troops to iraq. next to the hemline -- to that

headline -- we will be joined in our last hour to talk about a year-long investigation into drones. we will have that conversation later on in the "washington journal."

back to our conversation with all of you this morning about the supreme court's decision on hobby lobby. sharon is in texas, a republican. you're up. caller: good morning. i think thiso say whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. , wish democrats would listen because hobby lobby is not denying anybody anything. they just don't want to pay for the morning after pill and iuds. fullese women would take responsibility for these own sex

life, 24 hours a day, three days -- seven days a week, 350 -- 365 days per year, this whole birth control issue would be non-existent. argumentt about the democrats make that some women use birth control for health reasons? not related to pregnancy. themr: nobody is. denying -- nobody is denying them birth control. nobody is denying them anything. host: you say this is narrowly limited to the certain types of birth control -- you have the iud and morning after pill, etc. caller: the company does not want to pay for that. they can get it themselves. they can pay for it themselves. they are not denying them anything, they just don't want

to pay for it. host: we will have that conversation coming up this morning with two different voices on both sides of this issue. we can ask those questions later. supreme courtshe decision is later. susan is a democratic caller. caller: i am furious that my premiums go to pay partially for viagra and cialis and some of these other drugs for men to get it up. the supreme court, since 2000, has decided that they are a lawmaking body, which they are not. granddaughter who had her first child three years ago. came home, about

three days later, she had a bad seizure. weeks laterleft two to go to afghanistan. as it turns out she was pregnant again. that child was premature and they didn't think he was going to live. she must never have another child and needs anything that would help that. unlike these contractors that serviceut in, these guys don't make that much money. anytime people are paying in at their work on health care and cannot receive what they

--there are many reasons for these drugs other than birth control. host: on twitter -- president obama will move on immigration himself through executive action -- that is the front page of "the houston chronicle." it is because house republicans refused to act. here is a little bit from his announcement yesterday at the white house. [video clip] situation, the failure of republicans to pass a bill is bad for our security, bad for our economy, bad for our future.

while i will continue to push house republicans to drop the excuses and act, and i hope their constituents will too, america cannot wait forever for them to act. i am beginningay a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as i can on my own. without congress. i am directing the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general to move available and appropriate resources from our interior. protecting public safety and deporting dangerous criminals remains the top priority but we are going to refocus our efforts where we can to make sure we can do what it takes to keep our borders secure. i have also directed secretary johnson and attorney general to identify additional

actions my administration can take on our own within my existing legal authorities to do what congress refuses to do and fix as much of our immigration system as we can. at theresident obama white house. the reaction from the speaker of the house to john diener -- john boehner -- speaker of the house john boehner was this -- "the washington post" reports --

and then roll call, which covers capitol hill, reports -- that is this week as congress is back in their districts for the

fourth of july recess. story from capitol hill, this from "politico" -- louisiana representative vance mcallister will run again. from illinois, republican caller , what do you make of the supreme court's decision yesterday? caller: it is almost

comical. it doesn't say anything about the two actual ability of the society when we have to provide for the reproductive rights of our citizens. -- about the intellectual ability of our society when we have to provide for the reproductive rights of our citizens. no one seems to care we are heading down the socialist lane. we can't seem to take care of ourselves. somebody owes us a living. now we can't provide for our own sexual desires, and i think it -- a no -- it is a, call comical situation. host: next caller -- caller: thanks for taking my

call. and 88-year-old woman. i have used contraception all my life and i want my fellow women to have that opportunity. they cannot afford it often. that is a crime. that is my comment. host: you may be interested in what the hhs said on contraceptive coverage. this is the rule they made in the affordable care act --

that is the part the supreme court struck down in a 5-4 saying companies with very few shareholders do not have to provide health insurance -- contraceptive coverage if it violates their religious leaf. joseph in kentucky -- their religious belief. -- ph in kentucky caller: thank you for taking my call her. to the previous caller, the 88-year-old woman and to the people using contraceptives and considering abortion, you may want to take a second to think about the special judgment that awaits you when you die whenever you choose these things. the commandment in the bible says thou shall not kill.

it does not say for specific reasons. whether you are on death row or an unborn baby, it says do not kill. bishop in cleveland, ohio, a democratic caller -- my comment is the gop -- the supreme court is terrible. everything wrong. they are going backwards since the 1960's. [indiscernible] women vote, 50%. thank you. your thoughtstake here on the supreme court's ruling yesterday against the affordable care act contraceptive mandate. we have a few minutes left.

let me show you the front page of "the detroit free press" this morning --

here's a little bit of what he had to say -- [video clip] >> money is a poor substitute for loss. it is the limits of what we can do. unfortunately we can't bring people back, we cannot restore limbs. it is the best we can do. hopefully the program will work. -- how many people

participated. -- this summary, the only thing that matters at the end of the day is how quickly did you get money out the door eligible claimants? me, it soundsy to this way or that way, i have heard from some lawyers "will see." "we'll we are ready to start the process. on august 1 we will be ready. host: that was ken feinberg talking about the compensation fund. overseas, i want to show you this tweet from kiev post, the ukraine --er in the

the "kyiv post." here is a headline from "usa today" on the presidents hitch pitch forpresiden't's the new va secratary. -- va secretary. many of you know that. under the new senate rule for nominations, usa today points out the republicans will not be able to block mcdonald's nomination, even if they were inclined to.

a couple of more phone calls. idaho, a republican caller. what you make of the scotus decision yesterday? wondering if you are going to have someone talk about the different types of written jewel. plan b has to be taken 72 hours within 72be taken hours of unprotected sex. put in place when certain birth control pills -- they prevent you from ovulating. i was told plan b was not an method.

carry plan b and you can buy those over-the-counter. was wondering if you are going to have anybody talk about the specifics of the different types of birth control. host: certainly it is a good suggestion and if you have others you can send us a tweet --h the hash tag we will go to sean in st. louis, missouri. i think the supreme court decision was uneven and unbalanced. they always way on issues concerning women. asody has mentioned anything far as the court is concerned about the viagra or those types would allow me to be reckless and the women always having to make the decision.

it is not lost on me that it is never a situation where men are brought in to the situation as the perpetuators of these abortions. cutting are going to be about the impact of this supreme court decision coming up next with the president of the ethics and public policy center and the chief counsel at the constitutional accountability center. whitlock on his investigation into the safety records of american drones. we will be right back. ♪ >> booktv sat down with former

secretary of state hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her new book "hard choices." peaceting people to make is never easy because you don't make peace with your friends, you make it with people who are your adversaries, who have killed those you care about, those you are trying to protect. it is a psychological drama. you have to get into the head of those on the other side, because you have to change their calculation enough to get them to the table. we did in iran -- we had to put on a lot of economic pressure to get them to the table. that has to be the first step. in i write about what we did afghanistan and pakistan, trying to get the taliban and to the table for a contracts -- for a comprehensive discussion. , i think what we have to understand is it is a

primarily political problem that has to be addressed. the ascension of the sunni advantage is taking of the breakdown in political dialogue and the total lack of trust between the maliki government, the sunni leaders, and the kurdish leaders. morning at seven on c-span2's booktv. >> for over 35 years c-span brings public events from washington directed to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or

satellite provider. watch us in hd, follow us on facebook and on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. is elizabeng us now th wydra and ed whelan. thank you both for being here to talk about the hobby lobby decision. i am going to ask both of you this question. in your opinion, what is the impact of the decision yesterday? 5-4 in the supreme court. this is animpact is important victory for religious liberty. it is a victory all americans should celebrate. it is a profound declaration congress -- government really needs to have a good to burden the exercise of religious liberty. that is an important victory. defeat for the obama

administration, which has been forcing this hhs mandate with no exceptions at all. giving some tiny exemptions, the court has said at the very least we need more. can do to see what you to provide these benefits without objecting employers in the process. the court made clear the obama administration can achieve entirely its goal of providing access to these contraceptives. there's no question about that. it is not an issue. they just cannot do so by conscripting these employers with religiously-based objections to some of the drugs. host: how do you see it? caller: -- guest: if the court objective for the religious liberty of people i would celebrate the ruling. instead the court ruled for the very first time that for-profit

corporations have the benefit of free exercise rights under the law in our country. i agree with justice insperity who wrote that that is a decision of startling breasts. tling breadth. it is troubling that under this ruling you can have some corporate employers through the artificial entity of the impose their religious beliefs it on employees. they may have different beliefs than their employers or may have different views on how to live their lives. in this decision the court not only took this president to recognize corporate religious exercise rights, but in the andess it disallows women employees of these companies from accessing important health benefits to which they are

legally entitled under the affordable care act. more to you think corporations like hobby lobby are going to be saying for religious reasons they don't want to file all these other mandates? guest: that is not going to happen. what is startling is justice ginsburg'sdistend -- dissent. very small corporations are categorically excluded from the -- from religious liberty exemptions. it would mean a kosher deli could be required to provide nonkosher food. it is remarkable justice innsbruck embraced that proposition. -- justice ginsburg embraced that proposition. that was way too far for them to go. there is nothing surprising about the proposition. nonprofit

corporations have religious liberty rights, so to for-profit -- so do for-profit corporations. everyone agrees hobby lobby had religious objections and their rights had been vindicated. host: this opinion -- guest: while the court try to limit too closely held , they did not limit the overall point that for price privatelyr-profit owned corporations can exercise the free exercise of religion -- the overall point that for-profit privately owned companies can exercise the free exercise of religion. they did not rule out the aiken have these free exercise interests in the first place. that they can have these free

exercise interests in the first place. some of these companies that are privately held employee hundreds of thousands employees in this country. i think the idea that this is going to be some small mom and pop corporations just is not a reflection on the reality. justice kagan and justice breyer said that because hobby lobby would lose on the merits of the claim, that they wouldn't be able to show they were a stamp shall he -- that they were substantially burdened by the affordable care act, that they did not have to reach that issue. it is not that they disagreed, -- just didt not reach the issue. can call in now. the phone lines are -- you can also send us in a tweet.

@cspanwj is our handle. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. ms. wydra, let me go back to you and point to what the court appointed in 1993, the freedom -- the religious freedom restoration act -- it was approved overwhelmingly by the congress. resident clinton signed in july. how do you eat at? -- president clinton signed it in july. how do you read it? person's refers to a exercise of religion. says when you act interpret the person --

," youret the word "person include corporations except when the context would suggest a different, more narrow interpretation. when you look at what a person's exercise of religion has meant over our 200 protection -- 200 years of protection for free exercise, you go back to the founding of for-profit secular corporations not being included in that free exercise. conscienceght of deeply personal to individuals. the courts and the founders never understood of for-profit corporations organized for financial gain -- artificial corporate entities that exist at the state. guest: there were in fact some cases in the supreme court in

the early 60's involving kosher supermarkets where you had a majority of justices recognize that there were religious liberty interests at stake. you can't say that person includes nonprofit corporations and doesn't include for-profit corporations. "person"onary act says includes corporations unless stated otherwise. this line between nonprofit and for-profit makes no statutory sense. host: first caller is bill from louisville, kentucky. caller: i would like to mention the fact that the language pertaining to contraception wasn't in the original bill when it was passed. it was added i catherine civilian us -- added by catherine sibelius. this is the president and people making up this law as it goes

along. they take it upon themselves to notify them. host: bill makes the point this was a rule put into place after the affordable care act was put into place. it says -- let me begin with you. guest: it is an important point. nancy pelosi famously said after obamacare was enacted we have to read it to find out what is in it. what it really means is this massive delegation of authority to bureaucrats to define the obligation of americans. this is a big state a solution that is guaranteed to be a huge failure.

solution that is guaranteed to be a huge failure. i think it will be very dangerous for this nation. it is part of the broader alliance on big government regulatory solutions. that point is taken to the extreme here. this is exactly the sort of issue in which you want congress to legislate broadly. in this case what congress said in the affordable care act was shouldsurance plans cover certain preventive screening and health services and then delegate it to the actual medical experts, the u.s. preventative task force, that look at what, medically in their opinion, the source is of screenings and services that would vest promote women's health -- would best promote

women's health in this instance. this group of experts said that providing the full range of fda approved contraception was preventingo unintended pregnancies, which is a public health interest. fdaiding the full range of approved contraception would allow a woman and her doctor to choose the safest and most effective form for her and her family instead of the decision been driven by what she can afford. woman whoou are a works at one of these companies, we can talk about what it means for you. jack, a democratic caller. caller: this is the same thing as the muslims. it is just with the christians. they cannot see it in themselves

but they can see it in the muslims. they are not electing normal people to run for congress. they are representing -- they are represented by christian zealots. host: how do you respond? guest: is any response needed he echo i -- is any response needed? the indication reflects on a threat of christian theocracy. he seems to have a anti-religious perspective he is trying to impose. host: we will go to j, a republican caller. why do you say that?

caller: i have two children who cannot even bite. the affordable care act was passed by people in congress. it went through a constitutionally described process for becoming a law and signed by the president. that does not mean people have to necessarily like it. that is how democracy works. on trying tonning repeal it and many are running on the many benefits to americans. host: a number of headlines are calling it another blow to the affordable care act. it is important to note that in this case, as opposed to the supreme court picking up in obamacare case two years ago, whether the whole act would

survive or not is not the issue. it is just whether certain companies can get exemptions based on religious beliefs. that said, i believe this allows poked in to be pope -- the contraceptive provision. a lot of health advocates are nervous around the country, particularly if we wait to see whether other companies will join a hobby lobby economist with respect to coverage or other health services like vaccinations, blood transfusions, or medical products that drive a certain way. >> a blow to the affordable care act as some of the headlines say? >> not really. it is a blow to the way the obama administration has implemented the law. the court has said, you can pursue your objectives and you have plenty of ways of providing these devices.

-- you cannot do wonder, would america not be better off if hobby lobby stopped providing health insurance and its employees had to decide whether or not to spend their money to get health insurance in these dysfunctional exchanges? what the supreme court has done will help the administration get things right and implement the law in a way that does not infringe peoples relived -- religious liberties. corporations and individual owners, the plaintiffs. and yet, justice ginsburg would say neither the individuals nor the corporations had any rights at all. whoe are individuals here are running the corporations and have rights as well.

the otherout companies involved. it was not just hobby lobby. >> that is right. it has a sister company, a christian bookstore often overlooked. i believe it is a cabinetmaking company run by mennonites who have objections to these devices. the case came up through a different route, and it lost and now it has this important victory. host: on twitter -- let me go in missouri, independent caller. caller: thank you, c-span. i just feel like it is very much so a war on women. we never talk about these men producearound and these. some of these men have 6, 7, 10 babies at a time and they do not

even take care of them. you cannot even force them to take care of their children. i feel it is a war on women. >> to the point earlier, women of the nation would be better off if secular for-profit corporations followed general josh -- generally applicable the affordable care act paired a lot of women will read this rolling and think that the five justices in the majority do not consider providing for their preventive health services. something as important as other of generally applicable interestsy compelling the federal government has, and therefore can withstand religious objections.

i want to get to one of the points reminding us there are individuals who own the company and not just corporate entities themselves. no one is disputing those individuals have free exercise rights. in a way, it was unnecessary for the conservative majority to say we have to imbue the entity they own in order to protect people behind it. the people behind it would have been able to prevail on their own in this case because the affordable care act places requirements only on the entity, not individuals who own it. saidwe have traditionally is that the corporate entity has distinct rights and privileges from individuals who own it. them in thentermix decision in hobby lobby. that also gets at this idea of corporate personhood that is

unsettling to a lot of people. >> i want you to respond to the caller's accusation that this is a war on women. this statement, they said nearly 60% of women use birth control for more than just family planning. it is no surprise republicans have sided against women again -- on this issue. arek for starters, there women who are the owners of these companies. there is a war on women rhetoric that is politically charged but meritless here. the majority says the interests of women can be served directly by the government. i am sure a lot of people will try to misread the opinion to say otherwise. there is nothing here that supports the rhetoric. i agree the caller -- with the caller when she talks about

irresponsible men but that has nothing to do with this rolling. that is a bigger problem. doing this much harm to women is another part of the problem. writes minneapolis, she in, once again, they do not copy -- comprehend. iuds are used by patients who --rmona e i think that e-mail makes a good point about why that is important. one of the challenged forms of contraception is the iud, something used by many women who

already have children and need it for other reasons or it is the safest and most effective means of family planning for them. that particular form of contraception, if it is not provided in this co-pay free manner the affordable care act for iris, as justice ginsburg noticed in her dissent, that could cost up to a full month's pay for someone working on a minimum wage job. the decision of what form of contraception to use will likely be made by what she and her family can afford, and not between her and her doctor as to what the safest and most is.ctive means cut that is not true. iud's are available today. guest: not for those who cannot afford it. guest: they should have provided .ther access

the caller should have no difficulty getting her iud from the doctor. at allill be no issue for those who need subsidy for this. it is simply a nonissue. host: springfield, virginia, independent caller. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have been listening to the conversation and i am unnerved by all the moral implications being added to the dialogue. i think this position is not about religious freedom. it is really about allowing employers to assert themselves by women.ions

i find it mind-boggling we are having this conversation. i do not think under any other circumstance we will talk about whether or not we should fund medically approved forms of need. eople decide they lot of protests outside the supreme court yesterday. up,of the signs being held bosses do not belong in the bedroom. you have people saying, the board room should not decide your health care. >> when you are asking your boss to provide your health care, it is difficult to see how you could not have the boss involved . this is the system the health care legislation is building upon and trying to migrate away from. i think it is inconsistent to we want our employers to

subsidize and provide health care insurance. question is interesting all this --guage about the grinning about employers when the affordable care act went through all of this with health insurance instead of going -- people would've howled and screamed about instead of going through this health care system. opposed arefolks asking for when they say the government should pay for the contraceptive coverage gets away from the existing market-based employer-sponsored health. they cannot really win on that. >> barbara in west virginia. caller: good morning. i might suggest to all these

liberals and people who are saying this is all against they would watch fox news, where you get the true facts, these women can still get 16 different contraceptives in order to prevent pregnancy. the only thing they are being denied by hobby lobby are the four that cause abortions. there was a lady on one of the earlier segment that called and is probablylobby only paying employees minimum and the poor lady will not be able to afford anything. let me tell you, hobby lobby pays double the minimum wage to their employees. let's take our first

point. on fox news.ften i hope she takes my viewpoint as well. i think as we talked a little bit about before, having a range of contraception is important so the decision about what is the best form of family planning for particular woman or other health needs unrelated to family planning is a decision made by a woman and her doctor, and not based on what she can afford. data shows if you can only afford -- if your choices, i get this health service or put food on a table, you will make a decision based on budget and not what is necessarily meddled -- medically appropriate for you. in the interest of presenting all of the facts and getting the truth out of the caller, the fda and a lot of science presented to the court in this case, argued that these forms of contraception do not actually

cause a fertilized egg implanting. we dovernment wisely said not second-guess the religious police in this country. that was probably a smart move for the government to make in this case. i think the caller was mistaken suggesting hobby lobby is denying any of these devices to anyone. they will not be subsidizing through the insurance plan, but these remain fully available in the courts as to the government, you have other means of providing these and you should do that. elizabeth mistakes the state of the scientific record on some of these drugs and devices. it is confused by everyone that preventcould implantation of the embryo. as the department of justice and

if conceded in their brief, you read carefully, the scientific evidence is on how some of the other drugs might operate. it is possible they might operate to cause the death of the embryo. >> two different headlines. from politico, he wrote the majority opinion for the court. then you have this on the front page of the huffington post. it says the 35 page dissent, 82 companies set to drop. birth control is what the huffington post says in their essay. let's go to john, independent caller. caller: hello. good morning. court of the supreme

the united states, they are standing as far as me in -- as an independent. they do not have any standing. you look at the ruling of citizens united, which provides a voice to a system which, in the case of obamacare, allows the companies to receive 80% compensation when they fail. [laughter] is a failureystem from the get-go at zero interest, ok? host: what is the argument you are making? look at the you senate decision in this case, from a religious perspective, as what is being, confirmed here is an image of antichrist or anti-religious reality.

said from the beginning, the court does not have any standing to begin with with independence. neither does the dissenting view how can we claim to be independent if we are providing a non-independent, fascist style of ruling? ok.: that is john's opinion. let's go to adam, a republican caller. caller: i am an independent. the rhetoricvable, and the non sequiturs flying around on both sides. i did want to address the lady, points,h, on one of her saying that they may not be able to afford this and they should have access to the full range of

available. depending on where you work, you will have different insurance plans. he insurance plans may or may not cover certain drugs people need. there are people in that boat anyway. secondly, just because you cannot afford it, does not mean the company should pay for it. a lot of people cannot afford to eat well. should the company subsidize them to be able to read better? i am not sure we would take that route. perhaps people should stop and think for a moment before they let some of the comments fly. thank you for your time. you know, i would like to point out the affordable care form the system of health care in the united states. that -- differences would not occur. minimumd have

requirements for employer-sponsored health plans. the caller may not like that, but that is what the affordable was intended to do. because of the invention of unintended pregnancies was considered an important public would beterest, that put forward by the affordable care act, that is why these screenings, counseling, and medication and treatments were going to be included in the minimum requirements in all employer-sponsored health plans. >> elizabeth referred to the existing system we had as market-based and seemed to suggest critics of it were trying to have both ways. indeed, there are market-based reformers that have alternatives to the system that would enable providers to customize their for particular

patients who could pursue what they want. ,hey migrate over the long-term insurance away from employer-provided systems. when you lose your job, you do not lose your insurance as well. we do not have car insurance or home insurance. it is that policy with health insurance through our employers. the challenge really through the market-based reform has come up it is better system area not single provider or we have obamacare. there are better options available. five let me get your reaction. they asked people this question. do you agree or disagree with the following statements -- 40% strongly disagree. disagree.at

19% strongly agree area -- agree. have: the employees will all this anyway through another means. the numbers will be quite different. i do not think the poll question reflects the reality of the issue. >> i think the poll results get to the fact, not just of access to these particular forms of contraception, but it shows a discomfort from the american people with the idea of corporate employers being able to impose their religious police, particularly in a personal field of medical decisions on the people who work for those companies. when you punch your time card when you go to work, you do not give up your own liberty at the work lace. i think that whole reflects the american intuition that there is something not right with that. let's go to bonnie in

florida, a republican caller. welcome to the conversation. >> thank you. i'm calling because my husband worked with a union. i am in my mid-60's, retired now. they never covered birth-control. my daughter got married, her husband was a union worker and they did not cover. but they would pay to sterilize her, but not give her a birth-control pill. now these democrats are all up in the air over a birth-control pill. where in the hell have they been? host: indiana caller. people need toe understand when you work for a company, corporation, or a business, that is not a right. it is a privilege you have to work for them. be forced to have to pay for contraception's or viagra for anybody if you do not want to as a business.

on the other hand, that business needs to put a list of their packagesand insurance prospective employee can read it and decide, do i want to work for that company because of their beliefs or do i not want to? >> the caller's point about transparency, his latter point, i think is a good one. if you want markets to work, it is good to have providers of all sorts make clear what they are providing and what they are not. i generally agree with his observations. >> do you think working for a company is not a right but a privilege? guest: we are talking about a appliedy applicable law across the board, the affordable care act. the question in this case is whether a company can exempt itself from that generally on theble law based

purported religious police of the company itself. the caller's point may be a broader objection to the law as it stands, but when it comes to the actual issue in this case and whether the corporation should be able to deny statutory rights to its employees based on corporate free exercise of religion, that, i think, is wrong. i think the defense was right in that case. >> independent color, richard. good morning. >> yes, i was sitting here looking at this mr. ed and i am amazed at how conservatives feel as if they know who are and who are not christians, that if you women, there is a war on if women do not get out and vote , because you can see the smirk on his face.

aboutreally not concerned your freedom or what you feel is best for you. what he feels is, he knows what is best for you. host: let's give him a chance to respond. guest: i do not profess to say who is christian and who is not. i do not profess to make decisions for anyone else. we are talking about an opinion from the supreme court who made the right decision in my opinion. i am surprised there was not a majority nine decision. is trying to engage in rhetoric against me. that is his right to free speech. i am not going to return it in kind. it was a divided decision, 5-4. how did you think it would go down? guest: one thing that really surprised me was roberts.

that he wasument, not more concerned about the implications for changes in corporate law if you take the personal views of the folks who own a corporate entity and transpose those onto the artificial corporate entity itself. that is something i see that works to seachange in the way we understand the corporate law in addition to religious liberty law. lawyer, ir corporate was surprised he was not more troubled by those implications. i think we all expected this decision to be something that would be divided closely and i think we were not surprised at to see a sharp dissent by justice ginsburg. when you are listening to oral arguments, did anything stand out to you or concern you that it would not go the way did yesterday? to count oner want

victory, but i thought the signs were there and i believe the justices recognized the implications of the case. corporations could be required to provide insurance for third what,ter and they say, so that is the employer's decision, who cares. i think, again, it is just right -- it is striking she continues to rely on the argument that only justices ginsburg excepted that somehow for-profit corporations are uniquely disabled from having religious liberty rights, even though nonprofit organizations have them. i think it is untenable and it is telling she keeps going back to it. host: were you in court yesterday? no, i prefer to get work done in my office. host: were you in court? guest: yes i was.

voicingassionately their opinions on both sides, supporters of health care and other groups road testing outside. but i think it is not just justices ginsburg who think this. it is going back to the founders who thought that for-profit did not share in religious free exercise in the same way living, breathing human beings do. asbsolutely disagree with characterization of my view. i would say an individual who owns the company has free exercise right and can bring claims like that. a sole proprietorship can. has you incorporate, as been the law since the founding, you are an artificial corporate entity with the rights and duties of that xt and not of the individual owners. the supreme court has said that clearly. a personal, free exercise like the right to self-incrimination,

is something that is owned by the individuals of the company and not the company itself. that is something i think is interesting about what the courts did yesterday. host: we will go to nic in washington dc, a republican caller. i am a fryer and we have businesses where we pay taxes on it everything. i know there are certain thatlic nonprofit groups are given exemptions to pay for third parties and then the third parties give out the contraceptives in question. as it relates to your previous comment, we have certain mission statements and whatnot that we try to operate our businesses like, but the exemptions that these nonprofit religious groups have been given, what chances that this would apply to them, or it would be another big supreme court case, what is your opinion about the exemptions

coming to our groups? guest: this is a constant area. initially, the obama administration gave no protection at all to nonprofit religious entities other than a tiny number under a core exemption. exception totical that came out with an accommodation, eliminated throughout courts right now. the religious have been offered a so-called accommodation that some sort of fix reports to remove the employer from the provision objected to coverage. we will see a lot more. the litigation will advance over the next year. we have had injunctions granted yesterday on behalf of catholic entities in wyoming and also the catholic broadcasting network.

so, part of the court's reasoning in yesterday's case was that the existence of the accommodation, whether or not the accommodation itself turns out to be lawful, shows that the was not theelf least restrictive means under the test. we will see a lot more litigation over the accommodation and you will probably see the obama administration say, ok, we will .xtend the accommodation it is not a transition. it is a permanent thing. arrangement to those for-profit businesses that have religious objections to the mandate. we are probably in agreement. raises a greater question that i think a lot of eagle reading the rolling, after the initial ruling came out,

like, what does this mean about the court case for the accommodation. they can certify and sign a form saying they have these objections and the coverage will be provided by a third-party. that played into the majority's decision because they said the obama administration lost on the ground, that they could provide this coverage through a means that was less urgent some on -- burdensome on religious liberty. i think the folks who were bloomberg it -- litigating on behalf of the support of the religiously affiliated nonprofit, were made a little -- and iy that because am expressing no view on that. i'm just stating commentary, because it would be somewhat surprising if that accommodation played such a role in the analysis of the majority, and

then was later held the insufficient or somehow still burdening religious exercise. guest: i do not think it is right. we know it is less restrictive. in saying that, i do not think we have decided it would itself satisfy the act. it is telling that yesterday, precisely because hobby lobby came out and said what he did, that you had court of appeals in the 10th and 11th circuits that issued these in favor of challengers to the accommodation. there is no question in the battle ahead -- there is a battle ahead. the court's ruling on the substantial burden question here has corporations help challengers. what about the majority

opinion saying congress can adjust this? what did they say? the religious freedom act is itself an act of congress. in , regarded by congress as removing important free exercise protections for religious liberty. what the court said in the religious freedom act, we are providing these protections, because -- but if you want to override them, say you're doing so in a particular case. theress could have said religious freedom act does not apply to this particular provision. it could still say that going forward. it is striking it did not say that. there is a game here the caller whereed to earlier congress passed open legislation and then delegates to the agencies all of the discretion

to fill in the details in ways that can be very controversial. how do you see congress reacting? guest: certain leaders in congress will try to ensure women are able to continue to receive these important health care benefits the affordable care act put in place. i think the accommodation or something else, they will try to ensure health needs will be met. on a larger point, it is important to remember other force -- first amendment finance a congress would have difficult time overruling the supreme court on that because the court says what the law is. with respect to the ruling interpreting the freedom restoration act, congress could amend that law to say this does not apply to for-profit corporations.

it is certainly an option available to them when it comes to corporate personhood that is not available incidents and united context. >> i think we are in agreement. host: good, let's move on. caller: i am calling about a comment made earlier about some people who cannot afford earth control. i think we would all agree no birth control is 100% effective. if you cannot afford it, you will not be able to afford a baby. this is also a question of personal responsibility more than anything. i will wait for answers. guest: i think unintended pregnancies, medical studies have shown they are a substantial public health interest. they had adverse effects on women, their families, and the economy. that is like contraceptive

coverage revisions are included, as well as preventive screening and so forth. the colors point emphasizes why it is important for a woman and her doctor to make a decision about what is the safe this -- safest to use. that is why this contraception fora compelling interest not only public health reasons, but also to promote gender equity. women have traditionally paid more out-of-pocket for health coverage than men did. go to peter next, democratic caller. and thankod morning you for having this discussion. it seems to me that justice alito's response or statement to this shows a certain amount of, i am not sure if it is smugness

or if it is just tone deafness, in that, he surely understands the lack of ability of congress .o act on anything to simply make a statement that can solve ors provide a remedy for this is just like being tone deaf. i think the caller mischaracterizes justice alito's position. recognizes there may be regulatory available that do not require action. he relies heavily on the existence of this accommodation, which is an entirely regulatory accommodation. i have not looked at analysis on whether it is actually something the industry has the authority to do what it did, it is not

something i've paid a lot of attention to. even if the only option were congressional action, that does not change what a justice's obligation is. misses the caller point of the comments. >> ok. we will go to charles next, independent caller. i would ask the lady and thee president democrats getting on tv and lying for two years straight to our face on tv about the affordable care act. host: what about it? caller: it was supposed to be so much better for everybody. they live straight to our face. women are leading the world in obesity and we killed

more babies than anybody. host: i will just leave it there. guest: i am not sure i can really take on the mantle of the administration and defend their truth telling over the last how many years. i think they would probably point out that while there were probably hiccups with the getsut, that as it implemented, the benefits are and felt by the american people in a way they have already been dealt in terms of preventing insurance companies from dropping you if you have a pre-existing condition, staying on, and so forth. questions in an e-mail, let me pose them to you. what is the cost of birth control? what is the price point where it prevents access? why did it need to be free? guest: that is a great question.

government, in supporting the importance of providing the full range of contraception, at 's,s point, particularly iud particularly for women who already have children, the safe this and most effective contraception. they are expensive up front. that is where we get these studies that i think comport women,mmon sense, that if they do not have a full range of approved contraception available to them without ok, will have their decisions motivated in substantial part by cost. that cans one of those be several thousand dollars up front and that is why just as in spurts said people who are working a minimum wage job, that can be something that is almost up to a full month's pay. there is a compelling government interest in preventing unintended and nancy's and providing gender

equity in health care services, which the supreme court assumed was a compelling interest in this case, that is why it is beortant for all of these to available under the affordable care act so the decision is medically made by the woman and her doctor. free is a termt that misleads a lot of people. the employer is obviously paying for this. in addition, most employers, the employee is paying a premium for health insurance. this stuff is cost free only in the sense that it is all paid for upfront. if you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, everything is cost free once you pay the initial charge. it is designed to make sure there is no disincentive as a decision point, but in no

broader sense can this really be called cost free, except in a washington dc cents. -- sense. hi, nic. caller: i want to make a comment about the ruling on the spin court. president obama more or less has the right to body, if sheer wants to choose whatever she employer doeser not have, apparently, any more the first amendment and is , because heeligion said and so did ms. clinton, that the first amendment should not override her right to choose.

well, ms. clinton, president clinton is the one who signed the bill that they used to make that decision. is president clinton a war on women? thank you for my comment. host: final thoughts. guest: i will limit myself to this caseation that has nothing to do with the broader question of what the government can do to ensure contraceptive access for women. all it says is the government cannot should be an employers with religious objections. guest: not artificial corporations which the court said yesterday, free has to suck

-- they share in the free exercise of religion. in the process, they allowed employers to impose their religious beliefs on female employees who may have very different views on how to live their lives and what they believe in their hearts. click more to come. thank you so much to both of you. the chief counsel for the u.s. constitution.org. you can go to eat ppc -- ep pc.org. coming up next, we will open up the phone minds. you can weigh on this. on, craig whitlock will join us to talk about his year-long investigation into the safety record of american drones. first, a news update. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama is in

washington today. the white house says the president will call on congress to impose tax loopholes and lose that -- will be covering the event. turning to international news, violence is continuing in iraq. officials say the u.s. is sending another 300 troops there to increase security in the u.s. embassy and elsewhere. they say that brings the total presence in iraq to approximately 750. the pentagon is holding a briefing this afternoon and c-span is often -- also covering that. the opening session of a rack's new parliament ended with members at an impasse over the election of a prime minister. this was as a sunni militant group was taking over a rocky cities. a short break when most of these legislatures and lawmakers did not return.

carnegie endowment for international peace is holding a discussion for the future iraq this morning. can hear it live on c-span radio or watch it live on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. and author shares a tale of two mississippi's. ross, as founded by revolutionary war veteran. when he realized he was going to die and the slaves would end up eating sold or would just come, he wrote in his will that at the time of his daughter's death, the plantation would be sold and the money used to pave the way for those slaves to immigrate to liberia where a colony had been established by the american colonization society. trinization. repa

these people, most of them were americans and they had been there for three or four or five generations. it was not like they were just going home. they were going back to the continent their ancestors originally inhabited. risk. was quite a they took their culture, what they do here, there. some of them took the bad aspects as well. but that was all they had ever known. like this oneses because, after all, they're the ones that built this house. of remodeledlot houses the greek slaves -- the slaves built in africa. a -- in louisiana, georgia,there was kentucky, maryland county, all those people came from those

states in the u.s.. explorer the history sunday at 2:00 p.m. "washington journal" continues. back for the next half hour. you can weigh in on anything you have seen on public policy debates. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. you can also send us a tweet or join us on facebook.com/c-span. storieshare some of the in the newspaper this morning. you have heard our conversation on the supreme court decision on hobby lobby. have the president saying

that he will act alone on immigration, saying house apublicans are blocking commonsense approach. he will take executive action and redirect enforcement and the border. you can weigh in on that this morning. then you have got the front page, the financial times this morning. general motors recalled 8.2 .illion cars yesterday it says the news came hours after kenneth feinberg, an attorney, presented his plans to compensate victims of crashes due to faulty switches. you have the president naming a new veterans affairs secretary. this was a headline from usa today. --edging to pu

we have got all of that in the news this morning. you can weigh in on those issues or the supreme court yesterday. and the president today here in washington will be talking about the economy and will be calling on congress to renew more bridge and road projects, as well as the highway trust fund. we will get to your thoughts in open phones here in just a minute. first, joining us on the phone this morning is a reporter with the new york times. here is his headline in the newspaper this morning. -- steven greenhouse, you write in the first paragraph here the supreme court dealt a limited blow to organized labor. >> good morning. the supreme court decided a group of public sector workers do not have to pay mandatory .nion fees to unions

specifically, the case involved home care workers in illinois and the supreme court said these workers who paid for by the state funds, but they also work said these records are partial public employees and not full public employees. thehe majority opinion, justice said this limited group of partial public employees should not be required, it would be unconstitutional to require them to pay the fees. justice alito distinguished this group from full-fledged public employees like teachers and firefighters and police officers and social workers. host: what is the impact of the ruling? guest: it is a limited impact. they were worried there would be a broader rolling. they said all public employees would have the right to opt out of paying union fees.

this ruling affects a much smaller subset, partial public employees who are basically childcare providers. i think it might affect several hundred and maybe even up to a million of these home care and childcare workers throughout the country, whereas if a broader ruling applied to all public-sector rulings, that could have affected several million. >> what does this mean for union dues? >> it will reduce them, unclear how much. year,e alito said it each the 25,000 or so unionize home care workers in illinois pay a total of three or $3.5 million in union fees toward the international union. it means some of the 25,000 or so home care workers in illinois were -- will opt out of these. it is all unclear, but come you

know, there are some home cam -- home care workers who are happy to pay. unclear and we will probably not know for another year or two how many opt out of the paying union fees. another big question is, will the court brought in and apply it to all public sector workers and not just limited employees. >> what are the prospects of that happening? what is a writer front -- guest: a writer for the new yorker says it will take a baby step to set new precedents and uses that precedent in future cases to extend its reasoning. it has done that with the afford -- the affirmative action cases and civil rights cases. it is predicted the hobby lobby case will the extended and he casects this labor law

will also be extended. in his decision, writing for the majority, justice alito made it he did not want to stop here and he wanted to extend it. have thet he does not five votes to do that, i imagine he will be working to try to get to extend this to all public-sector workers. >> is yesterday's ruling seen as a win? >> no, they see it as a loss. the 7 million, 8 million private-sector union members in the country, it really affects a much smaller group. they feel it is a loss. they think -- they argue that are private-sector workers represented by a union, any public-sector workers should have to pay his or her fair share contributing to what the

union does, helping raise benefits for them. they say, it is only fair, everyone should contribute. many conservatives -- justice alito said no, these people do not like unions and do not agree with seniors and even though they are represented by the union, they should still have the right to opt out of paying anything whatsoever toward having the union represent them. these are really two very different views. one says it is only fair for every work your to pay union fees. others say it is not fair to require others who disagree with the union to have to cough up any fees with the union. host: all right, steven greenhouse. the new york times. thank you very much. let's get to open phones. gary in texas, independent caller. you are on the air.

i am a hobby lobby employee. pay $40 an hour. all this information is wrong. there is still contraceptives available through hobby lobby insurance. they just not want to pay for four different kinds. i have been there for three years and i am a general employee. to apply toou went hobby lobby, were you well aware of religious believes? very much caller: aware. if they do not want to work for hobby lobby, that is fine. host: is it well known in the

community about hobby lobby's religious believes? caller: it is and i have had a lot of customers come to me and say, thank god the supreme court ruled in favor of hobby lobby and we feel like we live in america again. it has been a long time. host: have you seen protests? caller: not at all. our customers are loyal to hobby lobby and they agree with the supreme court's ruling. do you think there are colleagues in the company who disagree with the leadership of hobby lobby? i have seen.hat if they disagree, they should quit their job and get another one. host: the majority who work there know about the religious police and support it. caller: they supported totally. host: how old are you? caller: 56. host: did you work before somewhere else? caller: yes, 10 years.

i worked at walmart. a previous caller say hobby lobby gets most products from china. caller: a lot of it is made in america. that is one of the pros of working here. a lot of our products are made in america. i am proud of what they did. they sell crafts and home accents and fabric in framing. all sorts of home accents. jerry who works in hobby lobby in texas. we go to danny, independent collar next. i was looking in the news lately about google by .sing nuances, images how they play with peoples emotions and get them to think completely different. i think that was facebook. nothing new in

this country. there are corporations such as the heritage foundation who has existed through exactly that. they have sold a bill of a good -- bill of goods to a bunch of americans. the mission for your show supposedly is to educate people. but talk about this. those people are going out of my mind paying to have the station that is fair and liberal. nothing fair in liberal about that. we need to have this discussion on the show. have a suggestion for something for us to talk about, you can send us an e-mail or tweet. lilly and clarksville, tennessee. independent collar.

i wanted to discuss hobby lobby. i am amazed at the american women. and want abortions for free i think everyone should pay for it. do not mind aborting their own children but we are importing hispanic children from guatemala and all the central american countries and i cannot understand. to abort your own and abort others. makes no sense to me. host: florida caller. chris. you are on the air. a couple have different things i want to address. i am 40 four years old. when i was 12 i went to the

florida supreme court inside of -- bench and was to simply pretend to be a supreme court justice. they set us up with a case about whether they should make school year-round. that age thenew at right decision might not be the decision i might like the most. i voted school should be year-round because there is too much knowledge lost in the summer break. on that case i find the supreme court is very -- i feel they have been very competent. i feel like if they want to allow corporations that have the freedom of speech and religion to be held to the same guides and laws civilians are, i -- if ithe people of gm were to killed 12 people, what would happen to me?

bank of america and banks if i were to steal millions of dollars -- billions of dollars worth of money, what would happen to me? the same thing should happen to these corporations if they want to have these rights. the issue of things on the front page of the financial times this morning. it missed sanctions -- and agrees to pay and a point billion dollar fine. -- a point $9 billion fine. they agreed to plead guilty in the settlement were conspiring to violate sanctions that prohibit transactions with sedan and other regimes. it is the first time they have pled guilty and stiffening of penalties against financial institutions that have paid 100 billion since the financial crisis. this is the story in the and nation section of the washington post about senator rand paul and his plan

over the fourth of july recess. he will be in guatemala. it is a vision thing. >> talking about running for president 25th team, giving speeches a deal party conventions in texas and idaho, attending a reunion of top supporters of the presidential candidate mitt romney and robert murdochde at the kentucky derby. paul is planning a summer trip. that during the august recess, not during the fourth of july recess. that is where rand paul lands to

spend his time. you gm has decided to recall another 8.5 million cars. take a look at the graphic. dating back to 19 97, chevrolet malibu on the list. we will go to john and texas. good morning. when president obama was sworn into office he took an oath of office to uphold and execute faithfully the laws of this country. on immigration, it is hard for me to understand how he can turn around and not enforce the laws but try to make law based on the oath. when he violated, he broke his oath. if i did that in court, i would

go to prison. >> obama bows executive action on immigration amid standoff with congress. debra in bethesda, maryland, outside the capital here. you're on the air. caller: i am calling because i in generalrustrated not with the decision of the supreme court yesterday but so much of the focus being on women's preventative health. a -- i feel like it is the media

and the government and the general public that should be focusing on the really serious policies, which is coverage for whether it is drugs yourimary care doctors that really don't know about. when i compare maybe having to contraceptive over-the-counter or having to pay a co-pay, as opposed to finding out that my cancer drug is not covered or my cancer specialist is not covered. i just feel like the high deductibles and lack of coverage and policies is something that really needs investigation by the media. these highly

politicized war on women type of issues, which ultimately do not cost that much. the michigan. haver: i am a veteran and been waiting since 1982 for my disability claim to go through. i filed in 1982 and never heard anything from the ba. i filed an 84. i reapplied 2012. i filed an appeal. i was told by my congressman's office that the appeal could take up to four years. is this how we treat our bets? -- vets? i think we should dump another 20 or $30 billion into taking care of our veterans. wesley in texas. democratic caller. quick comment from

another who spoke earlier, and the constitution is by the people of the people. so him making the statement about the policy, we don't care about the public, we care about the rural. by basic thing is the cyprian decision ise, their for mitt romney statement that companies are people, that is absolutely wrong. they have made a public gesture mitte old yesterday that romney was actually right. and eagle point, oregon. what do you think? i am going to comment on the supreme court ruling about

hobby lobby. i lived in the southeast for 20 years. i did love hobby lobby. but my daughter has a condition that many young women have it is called polycystic alvarion syndrome. ovarian syndrome. you start out when you're young taking birth control pills and evolve to when birth control pills finally fail, which in some cases liked my daughter isy did, then the iud necessary to combat a real problem. and it can lead into cancer eventually if you don't treat the problem. so hobby lobby -- if my daughter worked for them she would have to pay $1000. unhappy that they can be so -- i just do not understand why they deny clients.

i am not born to shop at hobby lobby anymore because i feel like they have really let a lot of women down. president obama going to georgetown. in virginia he will talk about these conditions of our nation's bridges and roads and will be calling on congress to approve more of those projects and renew the highway trust fund before road -- runs out of money in august. we will be talking this afternoon a little after 2:00. tune in for more details on that. john kerry riding in the paper today in the opinion section of "the washington post." he says the time is running out for iran to choose its future.

the situation in iraq, the financial times has the headline from that occurred prime minister. deputy prime minister calling for decentralization. warning that a semi autonomous region would gain independence is the chaos continued. also yesterday, president obama announcing 200 more troops being sent to iraq. florida, democratic caller. good morning. is the first time i have called in but on the hobby lobby.

ruled, soe court has we have to follow that, however, i think there is another way of dealing with this, and that is the power of the purse. think we are to take a page from the republican way book and throw it back at them and those the politicians agreeing what they will cover and what they want should continue to shop there. those who don't, shop somewhere else. next, turningp our attention to a year-long investigation, craig whitlock looking into the safety record of american drones. we will get to that after the news updates and c-span radio. >> us home prices are rising. data provider corelogic says home prices went up 8.8% in may compared to 12 months earlier.

the company says the pace of games have flowed as more homes have come onto the market. prices rose one point two percent from april to may. nasa has postponed this morning's launch a barack at carrying a satellite designed to track co2. nasa says it was stopped at 46 seconds because of a failure in the launchpad waterflow. the delta two rocket was supposed to launch over and in burke air force base in california. a similar rocket launched in 2009 but it crashed into the ocean and antarctica just minutes after liftoff. an update in ukraine. officials say they have renewed a military offensive -- offensive. now that the country's president has called off a unilateral cease-fire. the defense ministry says the ukrainian forces carried out strike from air and land. this happened this morning about separatist positions in eastern

ukraine. the ministry says one service member was killed and 17 wounded. more of the ukraine and russia situation from the woodrow wilson center. the discussion begins at 10:30 eastern time and can watch it on c-span to or listen to it live on c-span radio hd three. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone, anytime on c-span's radio audio now. hear congressional coverage, public affairs forums and today's " washington journal" program. every day listening to the audio. you can also hear audio of noon the public radio program sundays at noon eastern. long-distance phone charges may apply. story whose lie is

way orspect is and one another threat to israel. my gender is male, mike religion is muslim. ethnicity is persian. my culture is middle eastern. everything about me cents off all of the warning signals or israel. iranianxperience of an american single man trying to get through the airport in the 21st century is a reminder to everyone that this by the way globalization has brought us closer and has diminished the boundaries that separate us of nations, ethnicities and cultures, despite all of that, all you have to do is spend a theminutes trying to get to

airport to remember those divisions, the things that separate us are still very much alive. ---hem selling author r za aslanling author ree live noon eastern for three hours. at starting this friday at c-span2. otb, television for serious readers. -- "book tv." craig whitlock with the washington post. focusing on national security. launching a year-long investigation recently into the safety of american drones. let's begin with why you decided to look into this. guest: this has prompted a lot

of conversation about surveillance with drones. congress passed a law that said essentially to the federal aviation administration that we need to legalize the widespread use of drums in the united states by next year. while the other subjects had gotten a lot of attention, there has been very little public record on the safety of drums on whether they are safe to fly in the same airspace as passenger planes, is the technology up to snuff? how will this work you got that is what we wanted to look at. host: the faa is supposed to be studying this and issuing some sort of role but your headline today is they will miss the deadline. guest: >>. has been a number of reasons but it really is a this technological and regulatory hurdles. the faa has not been able to figure out how to set rules for on how to keep the skies safe.

host: part one of the three part series, inside the newspapers, when drums fall from the sky. statistic.how this more than 400 large military drums crashed in accidents worldwide between september 11, 2000 one and december 2013. how did you find that information out? it was not easy. it took us many years. the reason why the book that military plane drones is they have more experience than anyone in the world. they did not invent drones but use them more than anybody else. they use them in warfare. they have the biggest record by far to examine. we went back to september 11, two thousand one and with a number of freedom of information act request, we sort of painstakingly put together all

of the major crashes over certain threshold over that time and tried to examine and determine the patterns, the commonalities to find out why these things were crashing, how often, what were the lessonsances and what did the military learn as the faa tries to figure out how to fly them safely in the united states. host: let's take those questions. each of those. why are they crashing, the military drones? guest: we are talking about large drones. people are familiar with the predator drone's. we are looking at drones that are the size of regular aircraft almost. not small little helicopter drones you might see online. the reason these are crashing is pilot error in a lot of cases. they still require a pilot to fly them from the ground.

host: you are talking about pilate city miles and miles away and they have a joystick essentially and that is how they are controlling it. is right.t two ways you can visualize this. sometimes pilots flying by satellite plane thousands and thousands of miles away. come in fory landing, a lot of times they will hand them off to a local crew. they can almost see the drones coming in. ,hey will take control remotely but maybe from a few miles away but not so far. those are the two sets of pilots they would have. dronewhy are these remote pilots cause them to push the button or a crash.

procedure.plicated you have to get the landing just right. you have to take into account wind conditions just like a regular pilot except for the regular pilot is sitting in a -- feelnd can see the the wind and see if something does not look bright. if you are doing this by remote control, it is not as easy. there is also a lag of the second or two between the satellite link. you are doing it with a slight time delay. back and be tricky, too. imagine driving your car and do not feel the brakes go on for a second or two. [indiscernible] the second or two has led to crashes? guest: in some.

by before lanza when death comes in, something is not quite right. in the space of a second or two by the time the pilot feels it or sees it, sometimes it is too late. i was wondering, do these pilots sit in a simulator? one of the stories you write about is the pilot did not realize they were flying at sign down. guest: these illuminated the kinds of mistakes that could be made. they train on those constantly. a pilot flying a drone and afghanistan have been warned by other crew members, don't press that button because if you do, the plane will fly upside down. she thought they were kidding. the plane kept going and going and they were sending her text messages and computer messages,

but i think she was befuddled and told investigators afterward she did not realize the predator drone was flying upside down and thought they were joking when they warned her not to hit certain buttons. wherefor the military, are most of the crash is taken place in what has been the impact of them e. guest: more than half were in iraq and afghanistan, which is what you would expect him in wars going on. more than a quarter in the united states. more than 49 took place on training missions since 2001. increasingly as they are used elsewhere in the world like africa, we see more and more happen in places like that. pakistan, dijibouti. force by fare air

has the most drones. they have the most experience. second is the army. they have their own fleet of drones. under different conditions and different pilots. the navy has a much smaller fleet. the lease by far is the marine corps. host: what about the cia? guest: they find them too but unfortunately that is really classified. nothing about the cia. that is kept in the dark. the first part of the series taking a look at the military safety record. what does that mean for the faa decision making and flying drones in the united states? guest: we found a lot of patterns for what they're trying to do. one major problem that still has theyhen result is what

call the links between the pilots on the ground with the joystick trying to control the aircraft. these are done through radio transmissions. wireless control. most of the time they hold up pretty well but pretty common for the links to be lost, to go down. imagine gps with your car went out for a few seconds or even a minute. what would happen pretty frequently is the links would be disrupted and the pilots would lose control. it is only a second or two and not a big deal but if this goes on for several seconds, a couple of minutes, even longer, then you have real problems. that is something the faa has had problems figuring out, how do we fix that for when drones become common in the united states? guest: independent caller. the morning. caller: good morning. my question is since the supreme said that money is speech

for the first amendment, how is outlaw throughot the fourth amendment fourth search and seizure, patriot act, national state registry and homeland security spying on citizens in the united states, etc.? thank you for c-span. you bring up a couple of really good issues. our newspaper has filed a legal brief on behalf of a young man who has been flying drones for commercial purposes and the fda -- faa had find him. our newspaper as well as many others filed a legal brief singing the faa in french on the news gathering rights of the country by banning drones. a lot of news organizations get use them to

footage of crowns. fairly inexpensive way. how does the first amendment factor into this and how do you balance that with safety how will they: deal that with security? presidential candidates and the crowds that gather around there and news organizations or otherwise with their drones above them. good: that is a really question. right now is the guide is you are not supposed to fly them around crowds or airports and cities but as they become more legalized, that is exactly the scenario. how will that work? who will be flying bees and will they be well-trained or will people on the ground going to be safe? the caller brings up fourth amendment search and seizure and to what degree can may be used for surveillance? if you are in your backyard and you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there and

someone wants to fly a camera drone overhead and take pictures of you, who was in the right and who was in the wrong their? guest: it may have been answered already. these are not that easy to land. wouldn't that stand to reason that maybe it is easier for them to hit a target also? they might not be so easy to control. what did you find out? caller: that is another good question. the use gps coordinates to pinpoint very specific locations to file a missile. he haven't found any missiles going off course in that way. you can argue that people being targeted, in afghanistan or iraq

or places like that, by and large the missiles go where the crews portland to go. host: bill is in florida. caller: i would like to thank the gentleman for his words. an indifference to collateral damage that occurs with these drones. from theof coverage news organizations such as fox -- host: let me take those two points. the connection with you is not good. four the washington post, we have devoted a lot of ink and coverage to who is being targeted in counterterrorism strikes with drones. it is not an easy subject to get

information about. it is an important one. news organizations should and do -- devote a lot of attention to it. focused on safety. that has gotten less attention. host: when you focus on the military in part one, the military has flown 4 million hours. how does that compare with domestic use? guest: the vast majority of that has been overseas. more and more, is happening in the united states as the wars have ended. afghanistan, that is drawing down and more drones are coming back for training purposes in the united states. the military has been applying for more hermits. in shared airspace with civilian

traffic, there has been a significant increase in that. the pentagon says that will go up up. we will see more drones in civilian airspace. host: what does that mean for possible crashes or other accidents? guest: that is good question. the military says they take every precaution and they are extremely careful. they say they have more experience than everybody else. we will not fly them in certain aircraft or overpopulated areas. we will take care with this. at the same time we have found that there is a number of crashes taking place, including in areas where you would not expect a military drone. will give you an example. armyril, there was an drone the weighs about 400 pounds. it is still pretty big. it was flown from pennsylvania. it crashed.

it crashed right next to an elementary school in pennsylvania. the drone came in over the treetops and over the playground. it crashed right in front of the school. it was 30 minutes after the kids had gone home for the day. you can imagine how that made people in that community feel about the interaction and the proximity they have to these kinds of aircraft. host: we are talking with craig whitlock. we are talking about the safety records of american drones. we just showed you the map of the united states. let me explain this. the faa is creating rules for drone use in the united states. diamonds are accidents involving faa approved drones since 2009. the black circles are close

calls involving rogue drones from only 12 to the present. this is part three of his series. we have an independent caller in maryland. caller: good morning. i am complaining about these aircraft in the airspace in baltimore. aircraft overese , i amand shopping centers a freelance reporter. i have put several articles about-face -- on facebook about it. you can see them coming toward you on highways. it is unsettling. host: are we seeing many more in u.s. skies? onet: i haven't heard's of -- heard of one's around baltimore so much.

you hear about small drones that maybe you are just between five and 20 pounds that people can buy online for several hundred dollars. without much training you can fly those. aircraft.ike model they're pretty harmless. they are so easy to fly and can go up to significant heights, people are flying them in places they should not be. this is something we found the third part of our series. there havet out, been 15 dangerous encounters between small illicit drones being flown over airports and airliners or other private pilots trying to land at an airport. that is something that gives safety advocates and the faa and others nightmares. even though it is a small drone, it can cause a lot of damage when it is flying at 3000 or

5000 feet at a high rate of with af that collides passenger plane. that is a nightmare scenario. to new yorkl go next. caller: has he done any research on the use of xbox in desensitizing the youth. to see if is used they would be good at being a drone operator. i have a son who's friend applied for the air force. he is a college dropout. he does not have much going for him. addict. xbox they put him on a list grade they gave him money to join. they put them at the top of the list for special training. xbox -- they have statistics about how they're using xbox's. they probably do.

they said he just about everything. there is a huge demand for drone pilots in that sort of service. i don't know of xbox as a good experience. i don't know if you should put that on your resume. i am sure hand to eye coordination assented to do with it. pilots need good eyesight and response time. a factor that is translates to different skills like that. host: we will go to a democratic caller in brooklyn, new york. is what isquestion the public reaction to drones? some withre have been amazon. public opinion is unsettled. surveys finding that the majority of the american public has concerns

about the legalization of civilian drones and united states. there are a lot of people who see potential in drones. they can do tasks that would be too expensive or complicated for irregular pilot to do. amazon thing.e he is been very public about using drones to deliver small farmers with large-scale agricultural operations might want to use drones to apply fertilizer. filmmakers would like to use drones to film movies instead of having helicopters or manned aircraft. there is an endless list of martial potential to use drones. aloft much longer than regular planes. you don't have to have a pilot on board. they are much safer in some ways. you're not risking a highlight in the plane.

the question we try to answer is, that sounds good. but what when they are flying the same airspace as everybody else. ? drones beingl allowed in airspace, 63% believed it would be a change for the worse. changeieve it will be a for the better. americans support the use of drones to target extremists. 61% say they support the strikes. you can see how that compares with other countries. the number of people who disapprove grows in different countries. there seems to be widespread operation outside the united states and israel when it comes to military strikes. guest: i think that is right. there is a disconnect in america. you're more likely to support drone strikes overseas, where

people might do you harm or your country harm. when it comes to should they be home,hat -- flown at 's concerns tend to grow. host: what is the chance of someone crashing a drone on purpose as an act of terror? not wantedakers have to talk about that very openly. it's that is a risk. tore is a big difference between a small drone that weighs five pounds and a predator drone that has a missile on board. i think most people understand that the chances of a terrorist causing trouble getting on a predator drone is remote. if they wanted to find a 20 pound drone and fly around an airport and crash into something, there's not much to

prevent that from happening. democraticve a caller in utah. caller: there was drone training in the neighborhood where i live. one of the pilots was bringing a drone to earth level. see how that would affect somebody's heart rate. he was not a medical person. he thought that was ok. guest: i am not too familiar with the circumstances with that. we see a lot of training for military drones out west. host: what about crashes? guest: we see a lot, particularly in nevada. if you are flying over a

in nevada, there are not very many people and it is not a concern. they are seeking more permits from the faa to fly in shared airspace. they have so many that they need more room to do training. host: matt is an independent caller from baltimore. caller: hello. dronesbeen involved with for quite a while. i helped develop the navy runs. -- drones. you can get a lot of information from operations of drones. that is the technical organization. the principal thing that we have been looking at was jamming and traffic. that theyevident would be wonderful as traffic surveyors.ners --

with multiple news agencies flying, the traffic in the air serious rash problems. good points.ose are i am familiar with your organization. i am not a member. the navy has developed a helicopter drone call the fire scout that takes off from ships. it looks like a regular helicopter but there is no pilot on board. hacking in jamming and the congestion in the air is a concern. how will the faa can's -- handle that? of newset a lot organizations over washington wanted to get views of traffic on the beltway, there have to be rules of the sky to keep them from running into each other. host: we are talking with craig whitlock who wrote a three-part series about drones. the safetyng at

record of american drones. it is a year-long investigation. liz is in a maryland. caller: i guess i got cut off. thesebeen seen drones. i complained. in the woodlawn area. they do, on the highway. do come up on you on the highway. i have complained to organizations like the department of homeland security. faa and thested the for ad border patrol response. i have not gotten a response. i want to ask mr. whitlock what his position is on people complaining or critics complain about them?

people have concerns about what is going on over the homes. they should have a right to complain. it is frustrating to figure out who is flying the aircraft. that is certainly not a new problem with drones. host: what is going on with the faa? ? guest: congress told them to integrate drones into the airspace by september of next year. at the same time they are under statutory obligation to make sure that this is done safely. that is what they are all about. they need to make sure these guys are safe. safety rate of passenger air traffic is amazing. if you get on an airliner, you are not worried that you're going to crash.

that has been very, very rare. how do they incorporate drones into that equation? host: the disconnect seems to be the faa control towers can talk to the pilot of a manned aircraft. how can they talk to the pilot of a drone? to.t: they will be able they do this now with the military. if they are trying to land a drone in afghanistan, they take a from the same airport as a military jet. whoever is flying the drone has radio contract -- contact with the tower. host: the faa will require the smaller drones to be online with some? guest: if you are a hobbyist and you just want to fly one, that is ok as long to keep it under 400 feet. if you get above 400 feet, that is where you can get into

problems. it is ok if you keep away from airports and from urban areas where there are crowds of people. if you want to go to a field somewhere and fly your drone under 400 feet and it is just a hobby, the faa says you're not a danger to anybody else. once you start going higher than that are going over urban areas or airports, problem's and concert -- problems can occur. ask hisi would like to opinion about the situation with the nsa and the irs and a lot of politicians on the left mainly accusing people of anarchy and terrorism. it would be unsettling for those people to see drones flying all around.

if anybody in this country --osed the government host: the cultural aspect of it. guest: there is an interesting political mix in this. you have conservatives and liberals on both ends of the spectrum. they are concerned about government intrusion and civil liberties. the revolutionary aspect of drones is going to be their ability to conduct surveillance. it is not just that you have a remote controlled airplane. the cameras are very powerful. these are amazing technological advances. they can zoom in very closely. that is a technology that is going to be affordable for anybody in the marketplace. that is going to shake things up as we know it in terms of conducting surveillance for the government and for rival

individuals. host: gary is in kentucky. said something that very much concerned me about these private drones. if they can fly 400 feet, birds can bring down a jetliner. are they good enough to fly a drone into a jetliner engine? they have mandated that they have to do this. homegrown have terrorists. they can get these drones online. we've got your point. guest: i think it would be difficult to aim a drone and a jetliner engine. it is coming in very fast. i don't think they're worried about intentional targeting. it is the accidental targeting

by a drone flying overhead, they move slowly. what if an airliner can't see the drone. this is a we found in a number of cases. date can't really see it, it is too small to show up on radar or traffic collision systems. a jetliner can be going several hundred miles per hour. the drone goes much lower. if they cannot see each other, there might be an accident. that is what they are concerned about. host: william is in texas. caller: if people thought this way when cars were invented and ify was killing people, these drones that are talking to had a dronening over their neighborhood and felt secure with it, it only happens

when you get here house invaded and then he would say thank god for the drone. drones bring a lot of capabilities and technological advances that we did not have before. -- changes are going to be it is hard to get your mind around how much this could change aviation. there are technological processes. when cars were invented, people worried about how this would affect the horse and buggy. there have been a lot of safety improvements in a cars. we have airbags. traffic accident deaths come down. people recognize the capabilities of these advances. how do you do it safely? host: where is the studying and being done on drones and why? sixt: the faa has set up

test sites around the country. they are in different locations in states where they will start gathering data by doing experimental flights and feed this data into the faa to say we used this drone in this weather in this condition. here is how they responded. ,his is going to help the faa with rules. these are rules for certifying the airworthiness of different kinds of drones. you won't be able to build one in your backyard and fly it over and airport. certain drones will have certification for being airworthy. they will have rules for certifying pilots. altitudes be certain that they must be trained for. what will the standards be and how many hours? these are the kinds of things that the faa is sorting out. other than the military, not

that many people have experienced trying these things. dead -- entire show was dedicated to the test sites. if you missed that, you can go to www.c-span.org. areer: if the drones getting legalized, what is stopping citizens from weaponize in them to protect their own a property? the drone as part of their property. technicality the for doing that? guest: it would be easy to buy a drone that has a camera. it would be easy to buy when they can fly 500 feet. to have someone read it with a weapon and fired from remote control, that is a military grade weapon.

just like people in the united states can't buy tanks, cap by fighter jets, there would be restrictions on that. this is not the kind of thing that someone would be able to cook up in the garage. i am sure the authorities would have concerned about anybody flying a weaponize drone. there would be a stop put to that very quickly. by the end ofid this year they will introduce proposed rules for flying small drones. they mean it five pounds or less. -- they mean 55 pounds or less. this is where the burst in market will be. they don't need to fly at high altitudes. aircraft youind of can fly. here is where you can fly them. here is who can fly them. it will take another year or so to take them public comment and finalize the rules. that will be the first days that we will see in the next one to two years. host: we will see more about

consumer drones. tonight we will cover the churchill love of california. p.m. east coast time. we are talking with craig whitlock. it we have a caller from lexington, nebraska. caller: sorry. host: go ahead with your question. how are these powered? guest: that is a good question. .ome have batteries the larger ones that we see the military fly use jet fuel or diesel fuel. , there these things fly

isn't a big technological advance in the aircraft. it is how they are operated with these remote control links. they figure out where they are flying and they navigate by gps just like you would if you had a car with gps navigator. they fly of the same thing. that is the technological advancement. it is not the aircraft so much. it is the remote control operations and navigation. host: what is that technology like? guest: it has come a long way. just like your car can figure out where it is based on gps, it is the same way with drones. tois telling the drone how move in certain directions and slow down or speed up. it can make adjustments. it is just staring at by remote control. it depends on how big the aircraft is. these are things that must be done right. i have to be tested.

we are talking about aircraft that range from something they can fit in your hand to something that is as big as a regional jet. you can imagine the range. they all have to be controlled by remote control. host: what is on these military drones? what do people mean when they say payload? guest: what kind of equipment are they carrying? we are talking about the military, they call them censors but they are cameras. they can take full motion video. they have infrared cameras so they can see at night. sensorse classified that have not been made public. they can listen. they can do all sorts of pretty amazing things from a military standpoint. you also have some military drones that can be armed. it could be missiles or

munitions. that is used on the battlefield. host: what is the reaction to your story? guest: the commercial industry rapidly was not thrilled. they thought we were focusing too much on risks and not enough on the rewards. we quoted theme, number of people. they are concerned about this lack of rules and the lack of rules in the sky. -- a collision would set things back. that there are problems that need to be resolved. the faa has to step in. craigyou can follow whitlock's reporting. him there.low he is a writer for "the washington post."

thank you very much for speaking with our viewers today. the carnegieto endowment for international peace. a conversation about escalating violence in iraq. the president is sending more advisors to the area. the ambassador will discuss the country's future. coverage will begin on c-span. . .