we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive peaceful settlement and the beliliever mt tetest it. >> this week on "inside washington," the iran deal. can your nboss not you contraceptive coverage on religious grounds? the supreme court will decide. arere employed by these companies are legally entitled to no cost estimate approved contraception coverage. >> the obama administration moves to rein in tax-exempt organizations. immigration rereform and the limitations of the pesidency. >> if in fact i could solve these problems without passing

laws in congress, then i would do so. new pope on trickle- down economics. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> " the wall street journal" calls president obama possibly a with iran a triumph. "the new york times" says that the deal will make the safer -- the world safer for now. lindsay graham does not buy it. with peoplealing who are untrustworthy and this is a m murderous regime. it has not made thehe world a safer plplace. >> i believe in wh kennedy once said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. jerusalem post" says

this may slow down iran, but all more than likely provide false impression that there has been headway while providing cover for iran to go nuclear. >> we will see. they had six months to look at this arrangement. there are a lot of conditions that have to be met on both sides. we do not know, and we will no know until we have the opportunity to see what has happened in the six months, including whether iran lives up to its agreements, the extent to which they do that, and to the rest water rate. diplomacy,favor of but i am against what they brought home. think about the logic of the deal. here we are at a point of maximum economic pressure. the only reason the mullah showowed up in the first place after showing contempt for negotiations for 10 years is

because of the sanctions. they were biting. inflation was high, shortages rampant, the currency was cratering. here we are at the point of maximum pressure and we work out a temporary deal which does absolutely nothing to dismantle or undndo any part of their nuclear program, and we expect that after we now relax ofanctions, our huge infusion cash, reduce inflation, and economic pressure and political pressure on the regime, that after that they are going to give us the big deal where the nuclear program is stopped? that is against all logic and has no chance of success. >> the whole idea of a negotiation is that everyone gets something. we are not even remotely there yet. ,hat we gave them was some cash actually, i'm freezing their

cash. they gave us a lot of stuff that some people did not think they would, including diluting the nuclear material for now. we walked away from the bargaining table 10 years ago when they had 300 centrifuges. they now have 20,000. they may get a bomb. the odds are that they will one day. the endgame is to deal with this country and not end up in nuclear war with them. this is the first to. maybe it will not work, but it is worth a try. we have not given them the whole nine yards. we have given them a little bit. >> it makes the world safer in the sense that for the next six months we know they will not be ,dvancing their nuclear program and it makes the world safer in the sense that they will have inspections by ththe

international atomic energy agency. they will have access that we did not deem possible or consider in the past. you have two countries that do not trust each other. this is a tentative first that. i think it is an important first , and i do not know but the alternative is. one except the inevitability of war as the only other option. >> the only other option is not more, it is simple. you increase sanctions rather than reduce. once you reduce sanctions, which is the essce of the deal, you have taken all the pressure e ay any the ayatollah to, in way, roll back the program. on the issue of us walking away 10 years ago, we have not engaged with the iranians. the europeans have for 10 years nonstop. they have gotten nowhere. , and i do not know but the, alternative is. thehe 20% enriched uranium is not diluted, it is turned into an

oxide. it can then be completely chemically reversed and become active any time the iranians want. in the older negotiations, we talked about shipping it out to france and russia. iran can access it and activate it overnight. willcreasing the sanctions also probably not stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. the american people have made it clear. they want negotiations. they are not interested in war. remember what happened in syria when obama talked about striking syria. to it to the congress endorse it. he was about to lose that vote, just as cameron lost that vote in the united kingdom. the fact of the matter is, the u.s. citizens are not prepared to go to war with iran. >> we are not the only people

with domestic politics that affects what happe. moderate" rouhani won elections and there was so much bite with the sanctions, and he wants to make a deal. if he cannot, if he has nothing to show for it, we will revert to the old situation, which was no deal. the hardliners can continue to do what they were doing. we will be in the same pickle we are in. goes from history when ronald reagan met with gorbachev in 1985 and we were told by the then conservative leader of the congress that it was most dangerous meeting since munich in 1938. overcame the naysayers, the harpers, the

critics, frohis own base, to engage and negotiate an end to the cold war and save $20 trillion and countless lives. negotiation rather than isolation. those are the two options. >> if you a are talking about te negotiations in iceland, reagan walked away, unlike this administration. reagan had the backbone to say we will not accept your terms, and walked out. as a result of that, the russians understood there was no profit in continuing the arms race and they surrendered. that is exactly how you negotiate, and that is exactly how we are not negotiatingng. >> the sup

>> we do everything we possibly can to be a help to o our employees, how they constructed

their life based on biblical principles. >> this would be the first time the supreme court ever recognize that corporations are protected in their religious liberty, in the same way that human beings are. >> heres the issue. ththe owners of the hobby lobbya kitchen cabinet company, does not want to provide health insurance that provides birth control,l, as mandated in the nw health ce law. they argue this violates the employer's first amendment rights. what about the rights of women employees? >> that is part of the issue. the other issue is that the founder of the hobby lobby, which we just heard, has 13,000 employees, and is therefore a corporation. the question is, do corporations have religious rights, the same way that you and i have reliligious rights? the lowerr court said the supree court said supreme court are people for purposes of political

contribution. we cannot see what is different aboureligious rights. the other side says, if you are going to say that, then what do ,e do when a corporation says we have religious basis for not wanting to subscribe to child welfare laws, or child labor laws, or environmental laws, all kinds of things. it is a difficult subject and the supreme court will wrestle with in this spring. c courtt think roberts' has established that corporations are people. this is something we have to confront. they have ner met corporation they did not like. >> and at&t is entitled. and general electric is entitled to pay two percent taxes over t past few years because its a good person. >> the act does exempt religious

organizatis. that is settled. hobby lobby is not a religious organization. if i am a corporation and i decide i do not t want to give contraceptives to my employees, do i have the right to do that? , if they giveurt corporations religious rights, what is next? >> i do think that is a problem. this case will hingen what installment we will give to corporations. i have no idea which way the courwill go. what is more interestingng are e cases behind this one, in which charities,lic catholic universities,s, catholc hospitals, not the church itself. the church is expt. but these is to shins are considered by the hhs, byhis administration, not religious institutions.. if you arere a secularist, you

think that religion is what happens on sundays and the rest of the week religion does not exist, but the argument of these institutions is that our areolic soup kitchens embodidiments of our faith, and thus, ought to be exempt as well. those cases are likely to succcceed in the supreme court. aut a for-profit corporation is aicier one because of that issue e of, is e corporation itself e entitled to first amendment rights? >> about on obamacare, accordind o'keefe, senate democrats, the political messing operation is urging senators use the brake to publicize good news about obamacare. mewhile, senate republicans are urging their folks to push website, talkingg

about the gripes and shortcomings of obamacare. it is the battle of the anecdote. >> that is the political overlay for this whole thing. whether this is a struggle -- when you get down to it, crystallize the issue obamacare -- between those that want to do something good and decent for people, providing health care to 40 million people that do not have it, or those who have the morality of indifference. ey do not care what happens to these people. this is where thehe real battle is. this is why democrats ought not to run away from enacting this legislation. this is important legislation. ov a point of time, it is doing the right and morally. >> democrats cannot run away from this. this is the signature statute of the obama years. more thanr be anecdos. they better be stories of it is really working a people are pleased with it.

this will be -- when the obama administration -- when the rollout proved to be disastrous to -- imposed on a november 30 deadline. i remember being on the phone with a t top administratation official at hhs who said we are going to make it. i said, what makes you think you will make it? well, they didid, and i expect i will come back to bite thein the fanny. argues thatnovember that colbly anyonehoho opposes the aca has a cold heart and enjnjoys throwing orphans in the snow. to me, i do it oy because it allows lower taxes on ththe ric. >> but you do not care. care for the fact that your argument is, you want to give insurance to people at do not have it. right now, for every rson receiving insurance, there are

50 americans who a are losing i. when you are talking about is a real bill in the reaworld. you are depriving people of the protececons of insurance, rather than adding to it. >> the immigration war

i was going to the library to do my homework. it took a lot of juggling to keep it all together. for some low-income families, having broadband internet is a faraway dream. so we created internet essentials, america's largest low-cost internet adoption program. having the internet at home means she has to go no further than the kitchen table to do her homework. now, more than one million americans have been connected at home. it makes it so much better to do homework, when you're at home. welcome to what's next. comcastnbcuniversal. argues that

anyone >> you have the power to stop deportations. >> actually i doot. what you need to know, what i am speaking, as president of the united states, and i come to if, inmmunity, is that fact, i could solve all these proble without passig laws in congress, then i would do so. that pesky congress. the president in campaign mode on behalf of immigration reform. what is his plan? exceptplan is to noww

apparently in small doses. i do not know howhat ever happens, honestly. how they tested in the senate was to put it all in. i had to give, you had to give. when they got a vote on individual components of this plan, it is going to be tough on the rder. there will be few republicans endorsing a path to citizenship i think that is where the president willll stumb. >> politically, it plays out the way the democrats wanted to, if ththat were toto happen. when doeoes boast are cast in te house, if done on a piecemeal sis, and they do the thinings the republicans want, the border uff, but then ththey start to waffle on the other issues that the immigration advocates want, then that score goes against them in the coming elections. >

if the replicans wanted a deal here, they would go with a big deal with a path to legality and citizenship at a later popoint. i just think a substantial part of their caucus does not want any immigratioatreform. >> the speaker claims he wanted do it one step at a time. >> i am re he does. there isason opposition among republicans that supported the senate initiative at the beginning, like marco rubio, was that they really thoug they would get toughnforcement. i have advocated for a long time, you get top enforcement, a committee of outsiders that could decide, there has been a reduction -- whatever you want standard -- and then i would do a path to legalization. i think you could get a vast majority of the country behind that i think there is a chance -- >> a vast majority of the

country is behind the rubio plan. would be conservatives and others who think like him and me, th if you got that as your startingoint, and you believe it will happen, and there are safeguards, then i wouldd support a generous legalization. on the question of citizenship, i personally think the first generation oughtot to get it, the second obvusly will. you could argue about that. legalization, absolutely. if you a an illegal immmmigrant worrying about deportation, living in fear, worried about losing your job and home, 90% of this is to be legalized. stay the rest of your life, pay, work, pay taxes. think you could have a deal. enforcement and generous legalization. dies, let's be blunt, this is a tension pointnt

between congressional repuicanand national republicans. candidate,a national if you are chris christie running for the presidency, you want immraon reform, you want your partsupporting it. if you are in the house republicanaucus, you are out to s sabotag it, frankly, becaue you are reflecting your own constituents and your own outlook. democrats, at some point, have to papass sometething. that is where the pressure is, on the democrats. >>he pope on trickle-down [ male announcer ] give yourself the ultimate holiday gift!

now get the fios triple play for just $79.99 a month online, guaranteed for the first year, plus get a $300 holiday bonus with a 2-year agreement. this is the year to get america's fastest, most reliable internet and get an amazing deal that fits your holiday budget. hurry. this offer won't last!

visit verizon.com/holidayoffer to give yourself the ultimate technology gift today. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 800-974-6006 tty/v. >> the new pope is shaking things up. in his first major publication this week, pope francis is talking about income inequality. the popepe asks, how can it be that it is not a news item when

an elderly homeless person dies from exposure, butt is news when the stock market loses two points? howould you answer that, charles? >> the pope is a democrat. he ought to run for the presidency. this is a traditional position of the church. there are arguments inside the whoch, catholic individuals write in defense of capitalism, but he is from that tradition of the social gospel. it is the message to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. he is not just a man who preacheses it, he lived it in hs .wn life i think there is an incredible authenticity behind it. i think it will have a lot of influence and unfortunately will set back the movement in the church to recognizing how capitalism and the free market allows for the flourishing of individuals in the way that socialism and communism never did. i do not know how that will

affect that argument but i credit him with sincerity and an incredibly good heart. >> 2009-2012, the income of the americansrcent of increased by 34%, the other 99%, .4%. >> under a democratic administration, i remind you. thehe united states has highest economic in equality all industrialized nations. when we had a higher tax rate, this country was more equal. as we cut them under ronald reagan and that point forward, the country has become less equal. the pope is brillnt, not just you mean and decent. he understands the fundamental truth that john kenneth galbraith expressed, and that is communism when man exploits man. capitalism is the opposite. when you look at the twouality, what you see is

classes of people in america at the moment. we are less mobile than european countries. that is not always the case. i beg pope said it well, the lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor. we do t have that now. as they say in the baptist church, he spoke and he convicted us. >> thank you. see you next week.

m a this thanksgiving weekend, a best of edition of "government matters your co--- of "government matters." the role of the federal cio. >> they don't have the same legal restrictions that we do. employing these capabilities right now. >> the u.s. military plays catch-up on small sick gail -- on small-scale cyber attacks. >> this is huge. workk patent offices strategy pays off. >> from abc 7 and news channel eight, this is "government matters."