>> here on c-span, newsmakers is next with the house committee chair bob goodlatte. then a christian science monitor breakfast with bobby jindal to that is followed by house speaker john weiner. -- john boehner. >> >> our guest this week is bob goodlatte. thank you for being here. >> it is great to be with you. >> let me introduce our two reporter guests. to start, the house has now gone until after the election.

if your party is really successful, does that change your agenda? >> i'm hopeful it will accelerate the agenda because we have an awful lot of hills let him test out of the judiciary committee that are sitting in the senate and have not been addressed. some have been completely ignored, some have been made efforts at, but have not succeeded. we have a whole host of other bills that have come out of the judiciary committee that are a part of that now more than 380 bills that have passed the house that are not in the senate. >> top of your list? >> the patent litigation reform, and the fisa court reform. these are opportunities i think

that we should not miss. >> what are your thoughts on where congress will [indiscernible] for further military action in syria? >> i think that the authorization for the use of military force, there are two of them that are in existence now that are related to afghanistan and the war against terror and the activities in iraq, are very old. and circumstances have changed very considerably. the measure that we passed gives the president authority to train

fighters in syria. hopefully they will become for carefully vetted to make sure that they are supportive of the united states and other western nations and are committed to fighting isil. i think there is a lot more to it. i think this war against terror will be going on for a long time and i think it is important for congress to review the authority the president has. i think that is the authority that the congress has that the president should respect. >> nancy pelosi said she wanted a really narrow authorization, if there was going to be one, so that the president would have to go back into reporting like he did with the resolution to arm and train the syrian rebels. what do you hope is in that

military authorization? >> this is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. he needs to have the flexibility to act under exigent circumstances. sometimes emergency circumstances. you have to be very careful how you write that language. i also am not interested in giving the president of the united states a blank check. we need to make sure that we are, especially as it pertains to carrying this fight into new countries, and now the situation in syria is quite unique because of the number of different forces at work including the assad government with which we have concerns as well. how we handle that is important for congress to have its input in there. certainly if we were to be expanded in other areas, congress should be consulted on that. >> i want to turn to

immigration. are you interested in looking into some of the immigration bills that you've passed in the past two years? >> we have passed four bills. two that deal with enforcement, and some that are dealing with enforcement in the interior which have not gotten a lot of attention. also another one that protect american workers and american jobs i making the verification of employment more secure. the mandatory electronic verification legislation is important as well. and we have two bills that deal with immigration reform. one deals the shortage of agricultural workers, than the -- and the other deals with what i perceive to be a missed

opportunity when brilliant young people in the stem fields have skills that are needed by u.s. companies or even want to start a business, i want them to start it in the united is rates. -- united states. so the legislation, the skills these introduced is something that a great many people are interested in seeing move forward. i think that would pass on a bipartisan basis right now. i think the others would pass the house with at least some bipartisan support in each case. i am hopeful that if we have a new senate, we will have the opportunity to get a fresh start on this step-by-step approach that i have outlined. enforcement, immigration reform, and finding the appropriate status for people who are not lawfully here. all of those things have been harmed, in my opinion, by the president's earlier actions and

now his threatened actions to take unilateral steps that i do not think the law in many other people do not think the law allows him to do. that is a problem both from the , standpoint of his constitutional duty to safely execute the laws, but also a problem from the standpoint of the congress' legislative authority. article one, section one of the constitution gives the president all related powers. when the president says i want you to do this, but if you do not do what i will do it myself, what that says is to the people who agree with what he wants to do they do not have to make the hard rush for it that many americans want to see. and for those who are concerned, their reaction is we are not going to negotiate with the president or a party that

supports the president's unilateral actions because we cannot trust the president to enforce the laws as they just now, why would we trust him to enforce new laws that we might agree upon? >> it sounds like you would be open to a piecemeal approach. >> we call it step-by-step because each step leads logically to the next up in terms of the problems with immigration reform. i have for many years advocated addressing each and development problem as it has come up. but since that has been blocked for many years on a unless you could do everything you can to do everything, now we are the situation of trying to address many problems here. we need to do it step by step. >> sounds like you are open to a bill that does create some sort of status for people who are here illegally. secretary johnson has frame this from a security standpoint. if there are 11 million people

here, we should create an opportunity for them to come forward, so we know who they are and allow us to focus our law enforcement resources on those who do not come forward. >> we first need to assure the american people that there will not be another wave of illegal immigration because we believe that what has happened at the border, which came to a head in terms of the public conscience over the summer but has been going on for two years has been directly related to both the president's action under the deferred action for childhood arrival, and with regard to the talk about a pathway to citizenship, which i do not support because that would give people who have entered this country illegally an opportunity that people who have attempted to follow the law and entered legally do not even enjoy. they actually get bypassed in that process. that happened in 1986, the last

time we did so-called comprehensive immigration reform. we should learn from those mistakes. if the question is do we need to , find a way to address the status of those people? yes. that has to be an overall part of the examination of this. that can only come after we have the confidence of the american people, that enforcement of the law is truly taking place in -- and going to take place in the future. >> so far 400,000 people have received work permits through this administrative program. >> it is more than that. >> would you be interested in strip to do anything to away the privileges that those people have received under that program? >> one of the issues that congress has been addressing for about a year now, since i started raising it last year, is the president's duty to execute the law. and the concern that there are

literally dozens of areas in which we believe the president has taken that pan and own and -- has taken that can and phone and done things that the law does not allow him to do. one of those areas is a different action for children arrival. i believe that the program should be terminated, and have so voted in the legislative package that we passed prior to the august recess. it also has been on the short list of issues that the congress , the house has looked at very closely in terms of bringing a lawsuit against the president to reestablish the principle of separation of powers. and the fact that the president is exceeding his authority. as you know, the house chose a different one which is the issue related to the employer mandate -- or there

affordable care act. i believe there are other instances to do that. if the president takes further steps as he seems to be promising to do, i'm glad he deferred it in till after the election, but i want to know the significance to take this action that many think violates the law. i think that would be a strong candidate for the house seeking an injunction and taking further legal action because we do not think he has the authority under the so-called prosecutorial discretion provision in our immigration laws to take what is intended to give discretion in the really tough cases and actually have it swallow the law is self i applying to hundreds of thousands of cases. this is a serious area that is harming our ability to move forward on immigration. >> our program is halfway through. lauren?

>> really quickly back to the question about immigration. you say that republicans do not trust the president to faithfully execute the laws passed. even if the republicans to win the senate, obama is still good to be president for two years . should we assume that immigration will not be able to go forward until after obama leaves the presidency? it does not seem like the trust issue is resolved with the outcome of the election. >> i think it would afford us the opportunity to actually put legislation on the president's desk. most right now do not get past the harry reid's desk so the president does not have to take any action. the fact that legislation is coming towards them, would be an opportunity to test that out. secondly, if you take a step-by-step approach where you have a large number of bills we may be able to get consensus on some of those. we should be doing immigration

reform because our immigration system has many flaws in it, and enforcing the law would help a lot, but it would not solve all of the problems that we have with our current immigration laws and policy. i look at that as an opportunity. and it would in the discussion about whether the senate, who have already passed a deal that the house republicans have rejected, with not be on the table. i think we'll have more openness to the step-by-step approach. >> going back to the lawsuit, everyone was discussing the fact , but we have not heard about it over the summer. it seems like you are hinting that if the president does go forward with further executive immigration, boehner

and others are looking to do [indiscernible]. >> it is certainly from my standpoint very important to immediately take action and challenge an administrative step that would give work authorization and other legal benefits to people who are not lawfully here in the numbers of the millions. it might be 5 million, 6 million, or more people. that is as opposed to the 700,000 that have taken place with daca. i don't have an update on when the lawsuit will be filed, but i moving that has been forward on that. >> is there not a risk for republicans there?

it did not seem to grip voters like obamacare did last fall. it never got picked that. if republicans keep suing the president over these issues, does it not become something that seems to be very partisan? what do you think the risk is? >> there were a number of democrats, not a majority, but a number who have approved of this action. i wish there were more because really this is about separation of powers. yes, there is always politics involved in washington, d.c., but this is more portly about the united states constitution and congress is article one power to write the law and there power to faithfully ask you next -- faithfully execute the law. no matter who the president is, the representatives of the people should stand up for the authority of the congress. that is the body that is closest to the electorate. you have two elected officials

in the entire multimillion member executive branch. your 500 and $.35 at an house members in the congress who is authority is stripped away if you have a president who says i will do it my way. presidents do have authorities under the laws. no argument there. when we write bad laws, and want to change them is the exception. i would definitely agree that the congress over the years have asked some bad laws, and it gives him some authority. what he is -- has found is that obamacare was not working as contemplated, and he has made 40 changes unilaterally, one of the most glaring is that if the employees are mandated to ply -- supply insurance, the president should come back to the congress and rewrite the law or agreed to

drop law and start over with new health care reforms. he has shown no willingness to do that, and he does not have the authority to do what he is doing. he has got to be challenged on these issues, and they will not always a popular issues. the reason why we have picked the employer mandate is in part because that is an issue it is not likely that the employees are going to sue themselves. they're going to be told that they have more time to do this. well, the law does not say if you have between fifth the or 99 -- between 50 to 99 employees, you will be treated differently than if you have more than 100 employees. he is rewriting the law, and there's nothing in the law that gives him the authority to do that. it has got to be challenged. otherwise, the power will continue to grow. it will be even worse for future presidents of either party to see this as an opportunity to do what they want to do.

>> seven minutes. >> i want to talk about the crisis of children who have been coming across the border. there was a dramatic increase in the number of children crossing from central america. i wanted to get your assessment of the president's actions so far. the administration put out a public relations campaign to try to tell families in central america not to send their children here. to educate them about the dangers. they have also dramatically increased the number of detention beds that they have for families caught crossing the border with children. numbers of children coming across the border have gone down slightly, and i am wondering what your assessment is a so far and the administration's response. >> we appreciate every step that they are taking to implement the laws that exist now.

the congress is not a full agreement about additional steps to take, but we agreed that there should be funding provided and we passed a bill for that. we think there are some tweaks to the curtain -- current law. i am pleased that the numbers are going down. that is also a cyclical thing in many years. the number seemed to go up, and then in the summer months they tend to tail off and we need to be prepared for making sure we do not see a new surge moving into the new year, and we stand ready to give the president the resources that he needs to stop people from coming in, to detain those that come in until they receive a fair hearing, which i think will result in more than being returned to their home countries, and hope many more people, and this may

be part of the slowdown we are seeing right now, many more people who decided is not worth the effort to put little children through the effort of exposure to human smugglers and all the dangers that exist there. and paying thousands of dollars to these people. it is a big business. there are links to organize drug cartels. it is a bad, bad set of circumstances. i hope this president space outlouding than he has. -- speaks out louder than he has. when i went down to visit the border a few months ago, i saw that being taken advantage of right people as they were crossing. we saw a couple of people across a field, and by the time we got there they had disappeared into a national wildlife refuge which

is largely accessible. there are things that could be done to address this. the chief of the border patrol for that entire region along the texas-mexico border has stated the number one thing he wanted was not a wall, but that it is hard to get to by road. he said, a road across the entire border would allow them to connect and to mitigate it be more of. those are the kinds of things that i would like the administration to step up and get to. >> one thing the administration has asked for is more immigration judges, and the obama administration's view, would help speed that up. people are not being turned up around and sent home as quickly

as they could. when you think about that? judges,immigration along with tweaks in the law, would require in most instances the people that they have before them are required to leave the country. right now they can immediately turn around, coming into the united states from mexico. but that is not the case with people from other countries. their going to be taken, detained, and then sent back out. if you have the right public policy attached to more judges to process this more quickly, that is a good thing. but if you have the wrong policy, you will be processing into the united states, rather than telling them that this kind of entry into the country is the wrong way of doing it. as you know, one of the proms we where peopleklog come in now and are released

into the united days where they have a court date to come back for. it is not how soon that court date is, it is whether or not they will show back up in court. detaining them would be a part of this process, but the other part has to be the right public policy to change the losses that that change the laws so the same laws that applied to mexican nationals coming into the united states also applied to the other south americans. >> do you think the money that was allocated for this order crisis will run out? do you imagine that republicans will insist on changes as a condition to release funds of the supplemental money that is needed? it is my hope that it will. >> it is not the 2008 law. it had a good underlying purpose which was to make sure that children were not turned back into the hands of human smugglers, subject to the very

-- the various types of mayhem and violence. it is being abused. parentsinding that also and single adults are when they arrived and are apprehended are claiming political asylum. is that thing they say i want political asylum when they know they're being detained. they laws need to be reform. >> that is it for our time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and newsmakers is back with ryan bennett and lauren after our conversation with rob goodlatte. let's start with the president's plan for combating isis.

what authority does he have? what can we anticipate about the november debate? >> right now he has the authority to train and arm moderate syrian rebels. that is what the senate approved yesterday and the house approved the day before. that is where they will be trained, in saudi arabia. it puts a lot of responsibility on the white house. they have to report back a very frequent intervals about who these soldiers are how the money , is being spent. >> we saw tough questioning from the republican members of the senate. why do you see as framing the debate for november where they will have a more robust and fuller debate over of authority? >> the u.s. has said they justified the airstrikes because

they are protecting u.s. personnel that are in the kurdish region of iraq. they also have been acting in humanitarian interest to protect minorities in iraq. as the above administration -- obama administration rolls out this expansion of strikes which they telegraphed and talk about, can they rely on the existing authorizations? they also authorize the person -- the president to go after al qaeda. they also authorize the president to go after people who attacked us on september 11 and associated groups. there is a feeling that the current authorizations are being stretched at the moment, especially as the u.s. involvement in iraq expanded. the administration and the tension in the debate will be whether congress feels they have to step in and give more authority to the president.

>> you are seeing liberal democrats and conservative republicans making the argument would not have the authority beyond arming the rebels. he would have to go back, because like he was saying, the past authority does not extend . members notg many feeling comfortable with how far the authorities stemming from 9/11 is being stretched. >> how does that set up the debate with congress? >> the chairman was very firm in his stance that if the president goes forward with an administrative action, he is going to push within the leadership of the house for a lawsuit against the president. that was striking to see how definitive he was about that. >> i agree. this is not an issue that is a

-- has taken over the electorate, even if he says he does not really see it. continuing lawsuits against the president and this constant battle between the two of them could degrade that relationship. an additional lawsuit could help the republicans, but if it is after the november elections. it will be really interesting to see if they go forward with this or wait to see the outcome. the opinion is split right now on whether the congress has the authority to bring forward a lawsuit before it can have its day in court. >> immigration appears to be more of a hot button with the public rather than the employer mandate.

how does this set up the democratic incumbents and the democratic want to be's. ? >> i think in the republican primary we're going to see immigration be a very important issue. i think the republican candidates are going to be competing with each other over their stance on immigration. it will be interesting to see how the field spreads out. if you have some republicans who believe it should be repealed and rolled back. you have other republicans looking forward to the 2016 race who see that stands as a little too extreme for the general electric and wanting to not go as far on immigration. >> one last quick question. the chairman said there could be a whether cause on whether the cycle might be going down. >> we don't really know.

summer --e cross the border every summer because of the heat. we will have to see what happens in october and november when the weather cools down. >> the radically, it gets a little quieter. we will see. thank you for being with us this week. >> on the next washington identifying homegrown ices threats. former chair of the joint chiefs of staff and the u.s. military strategy to combat ices. i washington post writer looks at the money provided by medicare for end-of-life care. as always, we will take your calls. you can join the conversation on

line. washington journal is live on -- at seven :00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the pennsylvania governor's race between republican governor and democratic opponent. that is thursday night at 9:00. next sunday, the i we u.s. senate debate between u.s. congressman democrat and republican. east van, campaign 2014. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> bobby jindal was the featured guest at a recent breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. the republican governor talks for about an hour about climate change and the u.s. strategy for combating isis.

>> ok. he we go. .hank you for coming i am dave cook from the christian science monitor. we have bobby jindal. his last visit was in march. welcome back. our guest got off to a vast -- fast start in life. it is a degree in biology and public policy. he studied at oxford as a rhodes scholar. acceptances to harvard medical school and yell law. of guest became head louisiana's department of health hospitals. at 27, he became director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. president bush nominated him as the secretary of health and human services and 30.

in 2004, he was elected to the house. the first indian american elected to congress since 1956 read was elected as governor of louisiana in 2007. he was the youngest in the nation at that time. he was reelected with 60% -- 66% of the vote. the governor and his wife are parents of three young children. that in the biographical portion of the program. we are on the record here. no live tweeting or filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo on the session. to help you resist that urge, we will e-mail that to reporters as an is the breakfast ends. please do the traditional thing and send me a non-threatening

signal. we will start off by offering our guest to make some opening comments and then moved to questions around the table. 100:05.stop at >> it is a great honor to be here. back in the spring, we did unveil a health care report. organization that i helped to start devoted to creating specific policy institutions to move our country forward. i'm here to talk about our second policy drove -- proposal. we have given you a copy. 42 specific policy recommendations. for the sake of time, i will not go through each and every one of those this morning. i thought i would give some opening remarks and then open up to questions.

can read the report and recommendations at your leisure. if there was a country that had more oil, coal, natural gas combined in any governor country in the world, imagine that. there is only one other country that has more than half the resources this country. imagine there was a country that the most advanced renewable energy sector. imagine that same country having the longest nuclear power base as well. is thatus my guess country would be saudi arabia, russian, our china to the good news is that countries united states of america. we are blessed with natural resources. we are blessed with an advanced energy market. that is the good news. the bad news is we have a choice to make. ofhave policies in the way are taking advantage of these energy resources. the reality is that we have an are scienceon that

deniers when it comes to harnessing america's energy resources and potential to create good paying jobs for our economy and our people. right now, we have an administration policy that are holding our economy hostage. we have a choice to make as a country. to release the energy we have got? to develop our own energy to create good paying jobs. that is for our families, consumers, to grow our economies. or, do we continue down a path towards where energy is made more scarce, more expensive, and energy intensive jobs, especially manufacturing base jobs to other countries all over the world. that really is the choice in front of us. what we have outlined today in our paper is a path forward. we want america to harness our energy resources, develop our potential, run our economy. one of the most concerning things to me about the about administration, and there are a lot of things, $18 trillion in

debt. come incoherent foreign policy, obamacare, and many other policies. one of the most troubling things is this new normal. about tow accepting present economic growth as recovery. the new normal where we have near record low workforce participation. you have to go back to 1968 as it is record lows through the new normal with more and more people who think this is the best week do and become more and more dependent on government, instead of creating good paying jobs that will help our children, grandchildren into the middle class. harnessing america's energy resources is one very specific towards creating the kind of strong economy we need so that our kids can visit the american dream. that is why we think this is an important policy that i should mention a front that the co-author is a congressman from texas but you will see the names in the report. i want to thank for a limey to come to speak to you. -- thank you for allowing me

coming to speak to you. i will take your questions. if you have a lot of expense on health issues. today, president obama will be at the center for disease control prevention where he will announce additional measures in response to the ebola epidemic in africa. the ap says he will assign 3000 military personnel to the region, train up to 500 health workers a week, erect 17 health care facilities with a hundred beds each, and set of a joint command and library. whathealth policy expert, is your assessment of the u.s. response to the evil outbreak? i think it is appropriate that we are stepping up our efforts in direct and indirect assistance. even know it is unlikely we would see a widespread epidemic year, compared with using overseas. supportwe have got to

the humanitarian basis and vested interests. when you think of the impact on the political and economic stability, you think about the potential impact on the entire region, and ultimately the world, it is important that we lead for judah does not surprise me that america is the first among all nations offering assistance. i think more could be done by other countries. i think that the world health organization could have been more effective. i think another countries could have been more aggressive. this is an epidemic that is clearly overwhelming the limited resources in those countries. they don't have the training, the medical personnel, the basic containment equipment. you can see it in terms of the spread of disease and of occult in providing treatment. is a good thing that our president government is leaning forward. i think that there are american charities that have been leaning

forward, providing assistance as well. it is a part of the we are as american people pray we are the most generous people in the world. we respond to humanitarian crises all over the world. whether or not there were direct strategical interests, in this case, there will be if we don't act, but i think it's the right thing to do. i think it is a good thing that we are stepping up our assistance. i think not enough has been done by the government and other countries today did i think it has been -- fortunately it does show some glaring gaps. this might be the last potential epidemic that we will have to confront. fix whate do need to did not work when it comes to who. it will relieve the human suffering from the epidemic regret you told msnbc this morning that you are thinking -- praying about 20 thousand 2016. i was running a your thinking

and praying was affected by the new cnn poll of new hampshire voters showing you among the also ran a potential republican presidential hopefuls did what does that say to you about your name recognition and the effectiveness of the strategy of rolling out position papers? >> i don't have as many readers as i thought. [laughter] this is the last breakfast. >> another nail in the coffin. you need to go straight to the bloggers. which we are doing better today, by the wicked that is another story. a couple of things, there is no reason to be court. i am thinking and praying about whether i will run in 2016. i will make a decision until after november. no i don't look at fault.

irst time i ran for office, was pulling within the margin of air. i was at zero at that point. --hink at this point, polls regardless, if i were to run, every time i ran for office, it had nothing to do it all numbers are fundraising, i made the decision to run for governor. i made the decision run for congress because i thought i had something to offer. i have a unique perspective that i was offering specific solutions and experiences that i did not feel other could then it's -- other candidates were offering. we're the only state in the south where 25 years in a row we had more people being mistaken coming into the state. we needed to make big changes. that's what i got elected to do. i am not going to go through a long list of what i've done in louisiana. after 25 years about migration, we have six years of in migration. we have more people working now than ever before.

they are earning a higher per capita income. there are more people living in louisiana them before. increased capital investment and development. objective to thousand of jobs coming in. it is the best economy in over a generation in louisiana. we did at my making big changes. it was not easy. we cut our state budget 26% and 28,000 state jobs. that, if i were designed to run profits again, run for 2016, it would be based on the same tack is that i made when i ran for congress or governor. do i think i can make a difference? extra think i have something unique to offer? it is something i'm supposed to be doing. we are not going to make that decision until after november very let's focus on winning the senate back. we have 36 governors races.

rick scottted with on saturday. i was making a deal in georgia last week. i will be campaigning with some other governors in the weeks ahead. we have other elections between now and then. >> i was hoping you could [indiscernible] >> we actually have to beat mary landrieu's. she is out of touch with the voters. on somedoubled down failed policies did well under 90% of the time, doubled down on her vote for obama care. even though she is now chairman of the senate energy committee, she has not been able to do anything like getting the keystone pipeline approved, an action that would create thousands of construction jobs. you can now see the canadian prime minister calling president the frustrate or in chief. they are looking to send their oil towards the chinese instead

of us. it makes no sense. first, we do need to replace her. that is going to happen this year. it is very possible we will have a december runoff. we have an open primary in november. we used to do are open primary before november. the first collection is now on november. a runoff would happen in december, if necessary. it happened in 2002. look possible that i forward to seeing everyone of you in my state. i think that would be very bad. she has run from her record. she is tried to hide from president obama and harry reid. she can hide in a runoff. she could lose in november. possible.runoff is in terms of energy policies, energy is a very important part of louis is in -- louisiana's economy. we have many companies that

support the industry. we are also involved in other aspects of energy production. in the last couple weeks, two major capital investments from companies using sugarcane waste products to convert that into energy. we have also got significant companies that were in nuclear and other industries. , think the fact that she will despite her position and security -- seniority in the sea, she has been able to produce policy results that are beneficial to our economy and energy industry back home. that her x-rays will be a disadvantage for she has not gotten it done yet. i think she will be one of the senators that we will beat as part of taking the majority this year. governor, you were the originator of the new republican position on birth control.

in any specific senate races where candidates have adopted this decision and if it's making a difference for them. do you think that insurance companies should be required to cover over-the-counter birth control? >> a couple of things good one, i do see this becoming more common in many different races. that the fact that the loudly showsed so you that it is working. they realize that this is no longer a tactic they can use. they can no longer characterize our position. -- when irish may offer this idea, we were oflowing the recommendations the medical societies themselves. the doctors themselves saying this is a safe product and it should be offered of the county. two things, one, allowing the

product to be offered over-the-counter does not stop a woman from being able to get the product with a prescription through her doctor. it will still be covered. i know some of the democrats are trying to attack these candidates, saying the insurance have does not pay for play we are not saying that he cannot still be offered with of restriction to the doctor. they would still be covered by insurance. in terms of whether the --urance company would still nothing removes her obligation to pay for it. nothing takes that away. in terms of over-the-counter, in i am not in favor of a one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government. i do think insurance companies will continue to pay for it. under current law, they has to pay for it as a prescription product. it would be cheaper for them to pay for it when it was over-the-counter instead of going to their doctors. secondly, i think it will

respond to market pressure. third, unfortunately insurance companies 10 to do things only in terms of dollars and cents. i think the birth control would be cheaper than paying for the pregnancy. would be in their own economic interest to pay for it over-the-counter. clear, it is not taking away a woman's ability to get the product with a prescription from a doctor where would be covered under current laws. we are not taking anything away. hypothetical, do you know of any plans for any company to sell it over-the-counter? or is this a good political answer to the war on women? >> i think we see collusion now. right now, you have these big companies benefiting from the current system.

you have big pharmaceutical copies you make more money when prescription, rather than lowering the cost over-the-counter. we have seen drug companies resistance previously. historically they have done this in some cases to protect patents. when they did not have exclusive rights. in general, drug companies have veryecessarily done this eagerly or aggressively. i think right now you have the ,overnment and big pharma pressure does need to be put these are products that have been out and use for several years. they have been sacred when you look at other products, they have been used as safely as they have, they have become over-the-counter products. there is no reason she should have to go to her insurance company and dr. grant there is no reason her employer should have to be involved in this decision issue does not want them to be.

making them over-the-counter does not stop them -- our ability to get it as a description -- prescription and paid for under the current law. when it is offered over-the-counter, insurance companies will pay for it. it will be cheaper for them to do so. it will probably be cheaper. they look at it in turns of dollars and cents. it would be cheaper for them to pay for this over-the-counter the drug and pay for the number of births that prevents. the insurance companies will pay for it. finally, they will respond to consumer pressure. the customers will demand. they will pay for. were used signaling main? -- signaling me? david lowder. >> i want to go back to the energy policy for a minute. harshve a number of

things to say about the administration's policy regarding climate change. your recommendations on this subject seem to be to overturn the supreme court decision, which allows the epa to regulate and withdrawal from the international negotiating process. in terms of dealing with toblems, university research cut down on forest fires and tinkering with the air traffic control system to improve the module airplanes. my question is, can your party succeed by writing off those voters who regard this is an urgent issue? i actually recommend doing more than that. one, when i say with draw from the international negotiating system, i said withdraw from a very specific system, the

u.n.-kyoto protocols. even some voters are concerned about voter -- climate change. i went on to say that i think that the united states should engage in realistic international discussions with our major trading partners on major economic competitors. one does not have to be a believer or denier to be convinced that it is a good thing for us to control emissions and be more efficient. i've explicitly said, let the scientists the side. -- decide. my point is that unilaterally hurting our economy will not help the environment. it will destroy millions of good paying american jobs. china has added more new coproduction saudi in the past year than the entire

coproduction in our country. the majority of co2 and growth in emissions is coming from developing countries. makes more co2 than america and all the western hemisphere countries put together. it will only drive energy intensive companies overseas. nothing for the environment and hurts our economy. i will give you a practical example. in my state, one of the largest deal companies was thinking about where to put the most modern steel plant ever. when we were competing for that project, we were competing for georgia, we were competing for brazil. they ended up building it -- wait for saying that -- we persuaded them to build in st. james parish. 1200 direct jobs. -- pay is $75,000.

they said that they are building the steel plant. we need this as part of our operations. the only question is to build a here are overseas. my concern is that if we unilaterally hurt our economy, companies like that will ship investment overseas and create jobs elsewhere. i am saying, absolutely, let's listen to scientists. let's listen to job creators and work with our major trading partners and competitors. let's have china at the table. let's of europe at the table grid let's work together. let's not do so in a way that unilaterally hurts our economy. i also say we could pursue a no regrets policy. we talk about megawatts. there are many late and's, policies, that actually reduce the amount of energy we use. cheapest energy you have is the energy you don't need.

we encourage the use of sustainable's and renewable forms of energy as well. we want a level playing field. i think we can i address the concerns based on sound science and strengthen our economy. a stronger economy and a protected environment are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. we are saying that we can do both. own of it is harvesting our energy resources and working with our trading partners and competitors. given some of the policies this administration is adopted, we are exporting 10% of our call to other countries. china andding it to other countries and increasing their use of coal. we are simply exporting our energy resources as well energy intensive manufacturing jobs. that is bad for the environment and our economy.

>> he believes that aids is god punishing us for immoral behavior. i'm warning if you could comment on that and the cultural wars. is that something you should stay away from? >> i have said this several months ago. he is perfectly capable of explaining and defending his own words. he does not need me to do that. i said at the time that he , heainly could have used said some things i would not have said. he is a friend. i stood up at the time. i stand up for his right is to speak. whether people agree or not, it was wrong for people who wanted him to be silence. you have a remote control, switch the channel. company, theyvate

don't have to carry any show they don't want to. they have the right to cancel his show. i thought it was wrong to try to silence somebody. we don't have to agree with everything we have on tv. i will not try to explain everything he said. i will leave it to him to do that. he is a friend. i don't agree. i did not agree back in without he said it. i don't necessarily agree with everything he says. in terms of the bigger issue of cultural -- i will say this, i would certainly think as governor as a husband and father , i want everybody to be treated with compassion. i think that just like we would treat 70 with cancer or any other ills this, we should do everything we can to help them recover from that illness. we should do everything we can andead a fulfilling productive life. everything we can to ease whatever challenges they face. i say that about anybody. it is matter if they have cancer, aids, or diabetes.

any ailment. if any one of our loved ones has any kind of physical or mental we'd want as a society to do everything we can to help that person get better. i certainly wouldn't treat somebody with aids any differently than i would somebody that had heart disease or cancer or diabetes or for anything else. i think we need to continue researching and providing compassion and care to those in any health challenge. in terms of the cultural issue, i gave a speech at the reagan library earlier this year and at liberty university where i outlined what i think is the biggest challenge when it comes to social -- you look at the social views and perspective in our country and i think it's the war on religious liberty. right now there is an assault in our society on those of sincere, religious faith. when you hear the president, when you hear secretary, then former secretary clinton talk about religious freedom or