hungary, which was an allie of nazy germany. his assignment was a result of a recruitment of oss to save the remaining hungarian jews from the holocaust. in this effort, mr. raoul wallenberg exceeded beyond all reasonable expectations. he provided swedish passports to thousands of jews. literally made the difference between life and death. mr. raoul wallenberg raised the swedish flag and protected by diplomatic immunity. within these buildings, he housed, protected, and saved almost 100,000 precious lives. mr. raoul wallenberg's bravery and will to act as an example to all of us. raoul wallenberg once climbed onto the roof of a train with jews departing for auschwitz, handing protective passports through the doors amidst threats from guards. he got dozens of those is a in a diplomatic convoy. as adolf eichmann moved to kill all the remaining jews in budapest, raoul wallenberg had a plan to threaten hungarian leaders with the promise of hanging for war crimes. raoul wallenberg was taken prisoner when the soviet army liberated budapest. when we look up the word hero in the dictionary, it tells is a person who is mired for great acts of bravery, a legendary figure and endowed with great state. the word hero is sometimes used gratuitously. raoul wallenberg truly personifies it. he was willing to raise his own life for the others. dedication to humanity and a responsibility for all of us to seek out against atrocities. his enduring legacy lives on in the countless descendents of those he saved. i want to close reflecting on dr. barry black's prayer to open the ceremony. raoul wallenberg was placed there for a time such as this. all of us are placed where we are in our lives for a time such as this. we should never forget. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, mr. olander. ♪ in the midst of the black storms came a breeze of cleanest air. and nobody could call behind words like trapped in ensnared. the solitary man amongst us. glory to his name. he came a gleam of hope in a world. he stirred farm to his ways. or from true go far away. no shields upon his arms. no sword. and with cunning tricks, he snatched the victim. this solitary man amongst us. now with glory to his name. he came a gleam of hope in a world of guilt and shame. like something in churning waters he stood firm to lead the way so that no one could deny from true then far astray. when the light poured in and freedom they could name my twin headed dragon he was stolen without shame. ♪ [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the democratic whip of the united states house of representatives, the honorable steny hoyer. [applause] >> as you have noticed, i am not nancy pelosi. she is out-of-state. she wanted me to give you her very best and great respect. mr. speaker, leader harry reid, leader mitch mcconnell, eric cantor, kirsten gillibrand, gregory meeks, who sponsored the legislation. members of the raoul wallenberg foundation. i am pleased to be here. unfortunately, nancy pelosi could not be with us, but she asked me to convey her greetings to all of you and express her gratitude to the entire family along with her congratulations on the presentation of this gold medal. whoever destroys a single soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world. raoul wallenberg saved 100,000 worlds. the descendents of those whose lives were spared, because of his courage and conviction, number like the stars. today's gold medal ceremony as not only a moment to reflect on his heroism and his role as one of the most consequential righteous among the nations, it is also an opportunity for all of us here to remember the lesson he taught us all through his example. a lesson as applicable today as it was amid the horrors of the second world war and the holocaust. that lesson is for us never to be indifferent. never to be a bystander in the face of injustice. never to say, someone else will do the right thing. so i don't have to. like his countrymen in sweden and those who paid tribute to him in israel, in hungry, around the world, americans honor raoul wallenberg. we see in the man and his incredible act of resistance a reminder of the same values that led our nation to fight for the liberation of europe during the second world war and to support movements for human rights, self-determination, and democracy ever since. congress honored him by making him an honorary citizen in 1981, as the speaker pointed out. accepting a bust of his likeness that stands in emancipation hall. today, we continue to work to celebrate his life and his heroism for which millions continue to give thanks. on a personal level, i am grateful to your brother, raoul wallenberg, for making possible the years of close friendship i was so very fortunate to share with an extraordinary american, an extraordinary hungarian. all americans are indebted to him for the irreplaceable service to this country. as a member of this congress and a moral voice for human rights around the world. as a result of the many survivors, who have work to combat the forces of bloodshed and intolerance that marred the early years, raoul wallenberg works of saving lives continues to this day. we will pray that continues for generations to come. tom once said that the veneer of civilization is paperthin. we are the guardians. we can never rest. we must never rest. we must never forget. we must never forget the tragedy that befell the victims, the determination of the survivors, and, as we do today, the unbelievable courage who resisted and risked their lives to save others. today, we present a gold-medal, a gold-medal in remembrance of someone who was the gold standard for the proposition that we are our brothers keepers. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states house of representatives, the honorable eric cantor. [applause] >> mr. speaker, leader harry reid, to my colleagues, and other members of the raoul wallenberg family. it is an honor to join you today to recognize one of history's gentle heroes, a remarkable man, raoul wallenberg. history has taught us that war and an overzealous close for our -- quest for power can bring out the worst of mankind. throughout world war ii, we saw the advancement of tyranny and terror, along with the destruction of cities across the globe. we also witnessed the greatest tragedy of modern times, the holocaust. like so many of you, i have visited and walked among the ruins and ashes of the death camps of auschwitz. while there, i was dumbfounded by how evil can overtake human kind. the scale of war was undeniable, which is why history demands that we are here and proclaim, never again. the same history has taught us that through suffering and sorrow we can find the best of mankind. the one man that we honor here today, raoul wallenberg, provided strength and showed fearlessness while saving the lives of thousands of innocent people. he would eventually give his life to prevent men, women, and children from entering the death camps. those he saved were people he had met and people he never knew. in the jewish faith, we believe that god works through messengers. i truly believe that raoul wallenberg was one of history's greatest messengers for freedom and peace. in the spirit of redemption, it is written in isaiah, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light. to those were rescued by raoul wallenberg, he was their light that shines in their darkness. his gifts to mankind, and for these of the world, will continue to be immeasurable. the united states of america will remain forever grateful. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states senate, the honorable mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> as a young architecture student in michigan, raoul wallenberg once wrote the following to his grandfather back in sweden. "i feel so at home in my little ann arbor that i'm beginning to have a hard time imagining my leaving it." just over a decade later, raoul wallenberg would vanish, never to be heard from again. in a few short years in between, he found a different calling far from ann arbor. for as long as the story of world war ii is told, people will marvel at the good this man did. between raoul wallenberg's youthful dreams of a pleasant life in america and his eventual disappearance, he would fully and completely embrace the role that fate had handed him. through countless acts of courage and daring he would not only earn a place in our hearts, he would earn a permanent waste -- place in the pantheon of history's great men. he would become a hero for our times. and for all times. the context of raoul wallenberg's actions is well-known. in early 1944, troops and hungry hungary began to accelerate their wicked plan to eradicate hungary's jewish population. president roosevelt became aware of the situation and was determined to act. he quickly send a representative of the american war refugee board to neutral sweden to find someone who could lead a rescue mission for hungary's remaining jews. it was one of the great headhunting successes in history. raoul wallenberg was clearly the man for the job. his tools were few. with little more than a swedish diplomatic passport, american support, and an unswerving belief in his mission, and immense, immense personal courage, this remarkable man would go on to save 100,000 men, women, and children. in one 6-month period, he is said they worked around the clock, at times without eating or sleeping. one fellow member of the swedish litigation explain his success as a diplomat for a neutral country. this is the way he put it. "he began his mission with only one source of power, an unfaltering faith in himself buttressed by the justice of his cause. with no army behind him, his passion and his cunning would have to suffice." one worker on his staff later recalled an incident where 800 hungarian jews were being deported on foot to a concentration camp in austria. raoul wallenberg caught up with him at the frontier. and on the basis of no earthly authority whatsoever, he issued a stern demand, who of you has a swedish, protective passport? raise your hands. he ran between the columns and told people to raise their hands, whether they had a passport or not. as he remembered it, raoul wallenberg took command of all who had raised their hands with such confidence that none of the guards opposed him. given the virtual impossibility of his task, we remain amazed today at raoul wallenberg's achievements. when he arrived in hungary in early july of 1944, and he had few contacts of any influence. his knowledge of the language was limited. he had no official experience as a diplomat. but a fire that burned within him. he found a way. whether there was the creation of thousands of special swedish passports or the housing of tens of thousands of hungarian jews in the dozens of buildings he bought, he found a way. when the russians finally seized budapest, so many houses were flying the familiar blue and yellow flag of sweden, someone remarked that he must be in a swedish city instead of a hungarian one. one man, one man, did all of this. we honor him for his courage, his heroism, and his extraordinary example. may the memory of raoul wallenberg always inspire us to be our best selves or others. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate, the honorable harry reid. [applause] >> ben olander, i am familiar with your musical instrument. that was made popular in america. your music instrument, instrumental music, and wonderful voice was a perfect setting for this wonderful event. thank you very much. [applause] as we look around this wonderful rotunda, we are gathered in the hall of heroes. surrounding us, all around us, our statues and busts of great men and women whose courage we praise. artwork adorns these walls. they all remind us of their contributions. i am confident that even in the company of such iconic figures, the heroism of a young, swedish diplomat, raoul wallenberg, is remarkable. unlike some of the heroes enshrined in the rotunda, his heroism was not facilitated with physical power. raoul wallenberg's was born of his audacity and his courage, not his physical courage, but his moral courage. facing the hitler's war machine, raoul wallenberg fought for thousands upon thousands of hungry jews. he refused to accept their fate. it was his audacity, his courage, the swedish protective passport, raoul wallenberg dispersed to them throughout budapest. raoul wallenberg had the audacity and courage to purchase safe houses for jewish refugees. he labeled the buildings have swedish territory. raoul wallenberg had the audacity and the courage to dress them in german uniforms, stationing them outside protective shelters, marking those houses off limits to the germans and their sympathizers. raoul wallenberg was so audacious, so courageous, he even confronted adolf eichmann. there are many stories about this. his courage lives. some of those who owe their lives to this diplomat are with us today. i will make mention of one. a survivor who is no longer with us. i can see in my mind's eye his slender perfect posture, white hair, and that great speaking voice in a hungarian accent. tom lantos. i was fortunate to travel to budapest. there we joined our friend for a two-hour tour of the city. as we walked some of the streets, he relayed his vivid experiences. these were personal experiences. his experiences were as living as a young, jewish boy and occupied budapest. he was arrested twice. he managed to escape twice. but he was determined not to be caught a third time. fortunately, for tom, raoul wallenberg was there for him. tom had to tell the story that his life's companion, he and a nnette were little kids together, and he saved both of them and allowed them to live a happy life, having 17 grandchildren. for the rest of the war, tom lantos lived with his aunt in a safe house established by raoul wallenberg. tom refused to stay in hiding. he soon fall the footsteps of his young, swedish diplomat. tom lantos with his blond hair and blue eyes, navigated his way delivering critical information to budapest jews. so the young man was saved by wallenberg's audacity. he worked to save others. tom's daughter is here today. she has called wallenberg the moses of the jews. may we never forget his courage, his audacity to do good. as we have heard, one man and courage can make a difference. he made a difference. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. [applause] >> let me thank my congressional colleagues for their testimonials. in a few moments we will have the presentation of the gold medal. we are honored to have a great friend with us, please join me in welcoming the rabbi. [applause] >> mr. speaker, leaders, members. let me offer the following prayer. almighty god, our father in heaven, grace this capitol rotunda, the centerpiece of our nation, as we bestow the congressional gold medal upon the great hero, raoul wallenberg. as we resolved, never to forget 6 million of our sacred brothers and sisters, over one million children, killed in the senseless slaughter during the holocaust by the nazi butchers. as we pray for the survivors who need your support in the twilight of their days, let us resolve never to forget raoul wallenberg, a great light in the darkness. you, almighty god, command us to cherish and preserve all live. raoul wallenberg did this at the risk of his own, and 100,000 people, those he saved, and their descendents, live and breathe, and work to make your world better as result of his ultimate sacrifice. as one of those, those words engraved on the metal, he lived on through all those he saved. through this special and historic space, and the presence of our leaders, on the half of my fellow americans, we beseech you, until when? how much more senseless taking of life? how many more rivers of tears shed by your children with broken hearts and shattered lives, who will never see their loved ones until someone evil feels the need to prove a point. when will you finally send us the ultimate redemption and heal the wounds of your people, and all the world? when oh when will there finally cease to be conflict as your prophets have promised us through time in your holy name. the first to ever receive the congressional gold medal for spiritual leadership, he emphasized even in the heavy darkness, the light of just one candle can be seen far and wide. indeed, raoul wallenberg was a candle. a luminary for all humanity. in his time, and ours. a warm, glowing light in the bitter darkness. despite efforts by his team and others, perhaps you alone know his fate and where his body lies. his soul is in the loftiest of your chambers because he has reflected your spirit in his lifetime on earth. we are grateful our leaders have chosen to honor him in this way. dear god, please allow, we pray, that there'll be light in the darkness, a message of reconciliation, for a better tomorrow and the dedicated men and women defending you. it is with you that we bring healing where there is sorrow, peace where there is conflict. leadership where there is not. and hope where there is cold despair across our whole land, and around the world. your world, achy and desperate for your hand. those who concur, say amen. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the presentation of the congressional gold medal. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen. >> this is a magic moment for me, and with you all. and everybody who has shown so much love to the whole as one could can imagine, that he has played the role which is immense. and, he has saved hundreds thousands of men, women, and children. how many are there now? i have four children. four times -- you imagine how many there are and how much they could do now, today, and every day. we honor him for what he did, but we must honor him for what we can do for him, after all these years of detention and prison, imprisonment, there must be a way for all of us to come together and get the truth. that's what we want. you must all agree that it is possible and all join, everybody, to do something. we are also important, in this [indiscernible] and you have so much might behind you. please, we have lived with this so many years, and know what the world has suffered. but at least we could get the truth. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, stand as the chaplain of the united states house of representatives gives the benediction. >> let us pray. god of power, god of justice, from holy scriptures we know of your concern for the powerless in our world, the widow, the orphan, the forerunner. -- foreigner. we gather in this hallowed temple to representive government dedicated to the enjoyment of freedom and legal protections for all its citizens. to honor raoul wallenberg, one of only seven honorary american citizens, and a righteous man among the nations. during an era where systematic and brutal power was used for the eradication of those considered expendable, your chosen people, he used his place in history, his position of authority for those most in need, those who were powerless. even at the risk of his own death. we thank you, that we have the ability to gather to remember him. may each of us, and all of us be inspired by his courageous heroism, to answer the call of history, and from positions of authority belonging to us, to find you present in the least of these, in our own time. as we leave this place, may we hear, as you do, the cries of the poor. dear god, bless the poor among us. bless raoul wallenberg, and his memory. bless the united states of america. amen. [applause] >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, remain at your seats for the departure of the official party. and until your row is invited to leave. >> please remain in your seat. thank you. ♪ >> are we so dedicated not to be unthinking and stupid labels. [applause] i would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [applause] let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is a no virtue. it is a no virtue. [applause] >> senator barry goldwater's elceptance speech on re america on c-span3. >> you can keep in touch with current events from the capital using any phone any time on audio now. hear congressional coverage and forums. every weekday, listen to a recap of events at 5:00 p.m. and you can hear audio. c-span radio on audio now. long-distance may apply. >> a discussion about the legal religious liberty. this is about 40 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: hannah smith is a senior counsel at the beckett fund and joins us now. hannah smith, for those who aren't familiar with what the beckett fund is, what is the group and what was the group's involvement in the hobby lobby the supreme court? guest: the beckett fund is a non-profit law firm. we do exclusively litigation related to religious liberty. represented the green family and hobby lobby in the supreme court case that was decided last week. host: and the full name of the group is the beckett fund for religious liberty. definition forl religious liberty? guest: religious liberty includes a lot of things. the rights not just to believe and to worship but it also includes the right to act upon your believes -- beliefs. the words in the constitution sheally mean something when say free exercise. the exercise of religion than justuch more belief or worship. it includes the right to act or interact with others in the yourc square according to religious beliefs. host: we're talking with hannah smith of the beckett fund for thegious liberty for about next 45 minutes this morning on "washington journal." we'll be talking about the hobby lobby case. do, if you have questions or comments, you can call in. host: coming off of the supreme hobbydecision in the lobby case, a lot of reaction on both sides including the well.es as here's a headline from the national journal from justice ginsburg. radical hobby lobby ruling may create havoc is the headline of quoting some of her dissent. what would you say to critics. hobby lobby decision who are concerned this case will now allow companies to assert religious claims just to opt out of other laws? guest: i think you saw the majority opinion very severalally devote pages, actually, to that claim. theice alito who wrote for majority said this case only deals with the contraception mandate it does not deal with that a religious employer might bring to exempt that wouldfrom laws require them to pay for blood transfusions or vaccinations or would allow them to discriminate based on race. so the majority opinion was very specific that this decision does of apply to those kinds cases. of i think what we've seen following the decision is, quite mongeringlot of scare and just a lot of political theater in a lot of ways because evidencebsolutely no anywhere that any religious employer has actually sought to for healthcare insurance those types of claims. host: you can talk about the underlying law that was the thes for this case, religious freedom restoration act, and how that law changes as result of the hobby lobby case? guest: the underlying law, the religious freedom restoration act, was passed about 20 years bipartisan support. both sides of the aisle unanimously agreed that this was reallyng that they needed to address. so this law essentially establishes a balancing act where it says you have to interestse government versus the religious burden on religious exercise. this case the justices said, well, first of all, hobby for profit enterprise was able to bring this claim under rfra. the first question they raised. and they said, yes, that hobby lobby would be able to be heard the religious freedom restoration act. and then they went on to say there is a substantial burden here because this hhs mandate would impose crushing fines on this particular family, on their business, if they were to not four drugs and contraceptive device that they abortifations according to their religious belief. so the substantial burden was there. and then it goes to the to say, well, have you shown a compelling governmental interest? they assumed the interest in went straightjust to the last factor, which is the least restrictive means. opinion said there are so many other ways that the government could accomplish this of providing contraceptives to women other than forcing dose religious objectors to it. and ultimately that's what they decided the case on. know, that the government could pay for these contraceptives themselves or offer the entities the same accommodation they've offered enterprises.t that was the decision. it didn't change rfra. it was just a straight forward rfra.ation of that's the legal standard that congress passed 20 years ago. and the supreme court just forwardly applied it in this case. host: what do make of efforts lobby decision to exempt the affordable care act from the provisions of rfra? we saw a bill dropped in the by senates week democrats to that effect. guest: i think a lot of it is political theater, quite frankly. i think it's an over reaction to the decision that the supreme made. the supreme court specifically said we are not exempting claims, we are not exempting blood transfusion advocatingare not race discrimination by religious employers. that was specifically stated in opinion.ity and yet you see some following the decision using those exact examples as some scare mongering and saying the sky is going to thisand we need to pass legislation in order to correct it. so, quite frankly, i think this's no evidence that bill is needed. and quite frankly, i think it's over reaction to the hobby lobby decision. host: and here is a video of senator patty murray, democrat, in the senate talking with harry reid about the introduction of this bill that we're talking about. male justicesive gave their blessing to c.e.o.s americaorations across to go ahead and deny legally forated healthcare coverage their employees when that news broke, i was outraged. i was just one of millions of this country who was shocked and angry. always beenn has between a woman, her partner, faith.tor, and her now, by the way at a time when 99% of the women in the u.s. birth control, those five justices decided that a a say. boss also has so today these women are looking a us and they are demanding change. and it is not just women who want congress to act. the countrys understand that if bosses can can birth control, they deny vaccines or h.i.v. treatment or other basic healthcare services that their employees or their dependents rely on. think what men in america understand as well is that it's not just the female employees are impacted here. it's their wives and their daughters who are on their plan.care host: that was senator patty murray on thursday. robert's question from twitter. what does the guest think about the religious liberty of versus thef workers two owners of hobby lobby? guest: there's a balancing test here. the supreme court said we have sincerely held beliefs of the green family as the employer in hobby lobby. and their religious belief is that these drugs are abortifations. we can't question that belief. that's not our rule. that's a religious and moral question. that, whetherion or not providing insurance is objectionable to them because of belief. we just can't get into that. that's a religious and a moral question. it's notow, obviously an issue really of access to contraception. before 2012 when this rule came into place, people weren't complaining that they couldn't contraception. there's title x, the government spends millions and millions of providing contraception under title x. there's so many other way that get contraception if they need it without forcing a objector to do so. so it's about applying a federal protect theo exercise. here there was one that the green family had and the supreme did. said they host: we showed senator patty murray. that law is passed that that would be something the supreme court would take up immediately? guest: well, first of all, i really question whether the law is going to be passed, to begin with. is justa lot of this posturing and not very confident at all this will pass. think should it be passed, of course we'll look at our option and decide whether or not this is something that can be challenged. ultimately the supreme court has a lot of discretion what they take. court only takes 80 case a year. so they can decide whether or not they're going to take up challenge should it be presented to them. host: hannah smith a senior counsel with the beckett fund religious liberty here to answer your questions, take your comments. we'll start with jane calling in from river edge, new jersey on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. to point out one thing here. thesem of religion in united states also means freedom from religion. ok? pay, i'm wondering why you for viagra and the like for men and there are millions of them taking these little pills for etc., and their poor wives and girlfriends are now you know, any contraceptives. me. is ludicrous to i'd like your comment. thank you very much. host: ms. smith. guest: sure. out thatnt to point the green family and hobby lobby the 20jected to four of contraceptives that were covered under the contraception mandate. at hobby the employees lobby were able to receive your contraceptives before this case came to the supreme court and will continue gardenble to get your variety contraceptives after this case. what this case of the supreme was simply theh four kinds of contraceptives, emergency contraceptives that objected to -- plan b, the morning after pill, he willia, the week after pill, and iuds that they deem because theyations prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. with were really dealing only four types of contraceptive methods that killed a human life green'sg to the believe. so to the caller's question, the at hobby lobby have always been able to get access to contraceptives and will thisnue to do so after case just not the four that were at issue in this case. host: is there anything in the it fromhat keeps becoming a slippery slope to other contraceptives beyond just the four that were at issue in this case? guest: i think you saw the bereme court in this opinion very narrow in its decision in this case. they said this decision only closely held corporations. it only applies to corporations religious beliefs of the owners are expressed through their business practices. the business practices of the green's, they only objected to those four. it was a very narrow opinion. we'll see going forward as other courts apply lower this opinion how they apply it, whether or not they apply it to cases where people object to than just those four. but we don't know that yet. host: matt smith haze question has areligious -- question about religious beliefs what would we do hypothetically a religion belief that required hobby lobby to these? whose believe trumps who? guest: rfra is about balancing the interests. a lot of discussion in this case about third party employer'sersus the interests, and the government's interests in making this available. again, before 2012 there was no fundamental right to get free .ontraceptives there may be a right for people to use contraceptives, but there's no fundamental governmental right for individuals to get free stuff. and here that's what this was forcing the greens to pay for these drugs and in their employer insurance plans. that's ultimately what was at case.in this host: philip from stafford, virginia, on our line for independence. .ood morning caller: good morning. of a comment for the american people. the supreme court taking up this issue when they take up limited number of cases, bigger problems. theave monsanto flooding market with, i guess, genetically modified food, we poverty, wee have have economic problems. i just feel like this is just a distraction. like to know what billionaire's funding your organization. it just seems like these billionaire fund these organizations for these trivial reals when we have problems. american people, wake up. host: you can give us some background on the beckett fund and where the group came from and where your funding comes from? guest: sure. fund was formed about 20 years ago. hassan was the founder. he was working in private practice here in washington, d.c., working on some religious freedom cases, and realized that what his --were where his real passion lied. so he decided to leave private and formed the beckett fund as a non-profit litigation we would exclusively focus on religious freedom litigation. so that was 20 years ago. has grownt fund .remendously since then seamus started the shot with just himself. and now we've grown to a couple dozen staff and so we've grown in the last 20 years. funding goes, we receive funding from a wide variety of people, a wide different religious groups a wide variety of those freedom.d in religious libertarians, actually who are interested in making sure the government doesn't encroach too freedoms generally and religious freedom specifically. wide variety of donors. host: the caller seemed concerned about one large donor. it's a wide variety of folks. guest: it is a wide variety of people. host: if you want to read more the founder of the beckett fund, there is a profile piece in the "the washington post" from june 30, the founder of hobby lobby's law firm pioneered over religious freedom. you can find that online at the .the washington post" website we have about a half-hour left with miss smith of the beckett fund. go to sun sarah from georgia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. questions. of in the supreme court finding is language stating that onby lobby's objections to tray exception -- contraception is the only one that they found valid or is it kind of no one has brought up any other transfusions or vaccinations and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it? words are they holding contraception as the only valid objection? question is, in politifact they verified hobby lobby provided the four ofective forms contraceptions prior to this lawsuit and only dropped them in order to get a standing in the lawsuit. their religious objections were very, very recent. guest: well, on the first question, yes, the ruling by the supreme court was a limited one was just anat this exemption from the contraception mandate. thet only involved contraception at issue here. it didn't involve all of those other claims regarding blood transfusions and vaccinations and other things that were addressed in the dissent and that have been talked about on hill following the decision. so it was a narrow ruling just on contraception. second question, you know, there have been some articles obviously during the litigation that have tried to call into question the sincerity of the greens and their objection to this kind of contraception, this emergency it.raception, as they call but all of those articles have been false. throughout their business with hobby lobby have tried to notely drugs that they have found to be objectionable. so they have very consistently ernestly sought to make sure that those brands of contraceptive that they object a religious ground were not included in their insurance policy. from time to time, if they cropped up and were added in by someone else,or then they went back and took them out again. so they're obviously very sincere in their belief. even the government didn't question that in this case. the government did not question the sincerity of the greens belief. said thatpreme court we have no basis to question their sincerity either. riverton, wyoming, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. for your, c-span, getting involved in these issu issues. i just don't understand. i'm an old lady now, but i do not understand why people think that the government should have for healthcare or for .ontraception we never did that when we were kids. had a pretty good world. and now everybody wants the .overnment to pay for something thank you. host: bonnie in riverton, wyoming. guest: i agree. before 2012 there was no right to have anyone pay for your certainly notand religious objectors. so i completely agree. florida, ontampa, the line for independents. caller: good morning, ms. smith. you today? guest: good. thank you. caller: two things. first thing you need to that every single host on c-span voted for obama and they're in the tank for obama. and you can tell that by the e-mails that your host is .eading this morning the second thing is that the other side has to lie through teeth about what this decision is, and that's an them to appeal to the low information voters. only way they can win elections, by skewing the truth and not being honest with the people. you have a good day. e-mail.ny, send me an i'll read that, be too. hahannah smith, i'll let you respond. guest: you should probably respond to the first part. [laughter] i to the comment, you know, think we have to be careful that we do deal in the facts of this case. ofre have been a lot articles that have been written about hobby lobby over the course of the litigation that been untrue, that have called into question their beliefs that have called into their sincerity. toiously that's hurtful them. it's just untrue. host: a question from richard on twitter. ms. smith, how does any corporation have a religious belief? guest: well, the supreme court had to deal with this question in the hobby lobby decision. specifically held that corporations are merely the vehicle through which their owners express their beliefs. so a corporation is formed by humans to accomplish certain ends. so they said here this for-profit corporation, hobby lobby, was formed by the greens their ends.h and some of those ends are religious ones. very strict about how they treat their employees. they give them sunday off. they put newspaper ads on easter and christmas talking about savior,lief in the jesus christ. they do a lot of things to that this business is also a part of their religious beliefs. so, you know, i think the specifically held in this opinion that corporations, specifically the vehiclenes, are through which their owners express their beliefs. becan be religious it can otherwise. certainly you've seen some corporations express their adherence to moral principles. of for example, whole foods doesn't sell meat unless it's humanely raised. cvs recently decided it was stop selling cigarettes. it was praised widely by the administration for doing so. so there are a lot of corporations that decide that they're going to advance their in various ways. and why should it be any different for religious people. about hannahalking smith, a senior counsel at the beckett fund for religious liberty. hobbyrm that related lobby in that high-profile case at the supreme court. were through for the oral arguments? guest: i was. i actually clerked at the supreme court about 10 years ago. i was actually in the courtroom when the decision was being re read. the becketto at fund actually made the argument in front of the court? guest: well, the case was actually consolidated with another case, conestoga woods. and they were represented by the alliance defending freedom. so you had two different cases the were consolidated by supreme court to be heard together. because of that the parties to have a third party actually argue the case. so it was paul clement, a very well-known supreme court advocate who is the former solicitor general who now is in private practice. and he was actually the one who argued the case before the superb court and did a job. host: nick is next in bedford hills, new york, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. ms. smith, i just have two short questions. suppose you have another set uption that is identical to hobby lobby but the have religious objections to any contraception. your position or the position of your fund in a case like that? know, there are some corporations, non-profit thatrations, currently have lawsuits pending in the lower courts that do have an all forms of contraception. some catholic organization that the emergency contraception but also to any form of contraception. sisters of the poor is a group out in colorado that currently pending. they are a group of nuns who the elderly to poor. forms ofbject to all contraception. so that case is still making its way through the court system and obviously not reached the supreme court yet. other than in january the supreme court actually told the little sisters of the poor that they need not sign the form, that the government had required to sign as part of its accommodation to these groups, that it need not sign that form because the little sisters of the poor felt that that form was an actoff complicit on their part in inticipating in this -- providing this form of contraception they themed objectionable. the supreme court said all you tell theo is government that you are a religious objector to this form control and you don't need to do anything further. so the supreme court has already provided that temporary relief to the little sisters of the poor, but their case is still ongoing in the lower courts. of course, that's a non-profit case, not a for-profit case. are cases that involve organizations that object to the of contraceptives. we'll see how they play out now after this decision has been .iven by the supreme court host: and nick, did you say you had a second question? caller: yes. ms. smithte what said. before i get to my second question, i just want her to clarify what is your position in a case like that. i know there are cases. i'm just saying what is your position? guest: well, i think, you know, rfra is thatnt of there's a balancing test between the government's interest and objector'sus interests. so obviously in the hobby lobby objection tos only four of those forms of contraception. ae court didn't deal with case where it was all of them. so we don't know what the court thinks about the application of to all formsg test of contraception. but obviously if there's a religious objection and it's sincere and the court and hobby lobby specifically said that the not our business as court to get into religious and moral questions of where to draw the line, i think that's a pretty good indication that the court is saying it's not our toiness as a supreme court decide whether you've drawn the line in a place that's acceptable or not. companies or for non-profit organization that object to the full spectrum of that the supreme court has indicated in hobby lobby that it's not for the well,to step in and say, you're wrong, that your religious views here are incorrect or flawed because theve drawn the line in wrong place. host: to our republican line. david is waiting in plymouth, carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. whenever you are dealing with a political system court andhe supreme the house of representatives who have determined that they're destroy any effort that the president makes, what you have is when issues come before the supreme court, the issues based on balance. thatre based on the fact if it destroys the presidency and is good for the party. a republican, it bothers me that the people whether non-religious, decide that they want to dictate what -- my thing as a ministry, as a church, i don't my handsrnment tying in my religious practice nor i religious practice imposing itself upon the will of use ofple through the of a supremecy court and state representative to destroyt there government moving forward as opposed to imposing law that help the people of america. host: ms. smith? that: i would just say that's exactly what the green family has been saying all along, that they don't want the government putting them into of being in the middle of a woman and her doctor as far as these drugs are concerned. government that thrust them into this position of forcing them to provide these services. so all the green family has been saying from the very beginning is, please, take us out of this. please, government, don't thrust us into this position by us.sing this hhs mandate on if we don't comply, then charging us crushing fines to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. has adidi fredericks question about hobby lobby itself. does hobby lobby support their beliefs in other ways such as sundays aed on profitable day for retail? guest: yes. to givese on sundays their employees a day of rest. and they lose a substantial amount of profit every year that.e of but it's part of their religious conviction to do that. they also provide a lot of other benefits to their employees. will they actually pay almost double the minimum wage. employer. a wonderful and they do a lot of things according to their religious beliefs to provide an that's very -- that's a very good environment for working there. in colorado on our line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to mention that's never spoken most religious groups as far as i can tell, about the liberties of women as opposed to liberties of religion. and where men play a role in this whole abortion type of .hing that she's talking about that a sexualises encounter, especially when it results in pregnancy, is caused two people. and in our society, in our patriarchal, the men don't share near the women do forthat this irresponsible act that's performed by two people. there's no rhetoric or discussion from the religious what men's responsibility are in this. back to how comes we're discriminating against women in this whole issue. and, of course, the men's part is completely left out. so i thank you for listening to morning. host: that was anne in colorado if you have any comments on her statement. guest: again, i would just say this is not -- the case is not about whether women have the use contraception. or men, for that matter. thecase is about whether government can force religious objectors to pay for it. about getting free stuff. and i think that the point is able to access contraception through a variety of means. title x is a government program that's already established that provides contraception to women it are unable to get otherwise. so, you know, this case was not about using contraception. about whether or not the government can force religious objectors to pay for it. host: twitter question. about the rights of corporations. corporations have the rights of citizenship, are they then also subject to incarceration as other citizen is? guest: well, you know, we actually submitted in our brief the supreme court the fact that there are many other areas of the law where a corporation a person in ae lot of different ways. so this is not a novel concept. new to treat a corporation as a person. texts, inn other con the first amendment for purposes of free speech, media to freeions are subject speech issues as a person would be. so it's really important to remember that this is not an outlier. that corporations are already persons in a lot of different areas of the law. host: pat is in perryville, line for on our democrats. caller: good morning. is that if hobby lobby does not have to pay for emergency contraception for females, why would they have to pay for vasectomies for males, of contraception contraception? so i think this is aimed at women. and they're not looking at contraception for men. forthey paying for viagra men? i think you need to look at the whole program. i think this is stemmed at not men.t women and guest: well, again, i'll just point back to the fact that very, very long list ispreventative services that required under this hhs mandate. and those preventive services include a whole host of devicesptive drugs and that hobby lobby already covers and they will continue to cover case.this so all forms of garden variety contraception, preventative services like mammograms, all ofcy screeningings, those sorts of things that are required by the hhs mandate will covered. they were covered before. they will be covered after. so it's a very long list. qloib lobby only -- hobby lobby only objected to four of them. or 10 --e host: five or 10 minutes left with hannah smith. them out atk with oneund, beckett t. you today? are host: good, kerry. go ahead. caller: ms. smith, is it true -- a question and a comment. .y question is for the nuns judge sotomayor who said they should be exempt? outshe the one that came for them? early before this case even came court? guest: yes. caller: justice sotomayor who is a woman. isn't that correct? guest: yes. the supreme court works is that each of these circuit .country appeals around around.country -- around the country has a particular justice assigned to that court of appeals so that when emergency requests come to the supreme court that particular justice is in charge of reviewing those emergency requests. was overe sotomayor the circuit court of appeals from which the little sisters of case came. and then she referred it to the entire court. and then the entire court issued the order that provided little sisters of the poor the relief to sign being forced the form that they felt made providingicit in these aborti fations. justice sotomayor who referred it then to the entire court that then gave the order sisters of the poor granting them at least temporary relief while their pending. host: kerry, did you have a follow-up? hobby lobby,r as it's either/or. provide --either they could either win their case, which they did, or they not be able to provide any insurance for any of their employees because of the crushing fines by obama care. so which would you rather it be? forneed to go and fight your beliefs or you can't provide anything for your employees. hobby lobby is a fantastic company. i do not work for them. i have nothing -- i am very in.d they provide twice the wage, twice the minimum wage. believe that nothing is being taken away from anybody. anybody can go out and have an do whatever they want to do. but when it comes to providing not --rugs, four drugs, there are still 16 birth control that's available, you know, this be stopped. you american democratic women up, uninformed voters need to wake up and study the issues. this is exactly not what they're you.ng it is absolutely what she said. regardless. all fear and mongering. women against men. this needs to stop. america. host: kerry in florida. louis,next in st. mississippi, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: yeah. my issue is with this free system.se if you don't like what hobby doing, don't go to work for them. their beliefs are pretty well stated. if you don't like what hobby lobby is doing, don't buy their them.from so it's a free enterprise. withoutave this issue being invaded by the government. thank you. art in st. louis, mississippi. on twitter, to me it's the idea of infusioning companies with the rights of personhood. we'll go to grace waiting in dwight, illinois, on our line for democrats. morning. caller: good morning. lobby'sd where hobby investsirement plan millions in company that manufacturer emergency devices,tive pills, in drugs commonly used abortion. when that's added all up, it involves about 3/4 of hobby lobby's 401k assets. they also import oddles of its products from china, one of the worst human dignity, unborn infant life and economic justice anywhere in the world. that? you respond to guest: you know that article came out actually after oral argument during the pendency of the supreme court case. was a really good response up.t that was written the point of the matter is that hobby lobby itself does not invest in any of those companies. the fact that they set up a very 401k planmployee where the employee is the one choose where they invest their own money for their retirement, that's a very different issue rather than itselfthat hobby lobby is investing in those companies which it doesn't. are think those two things very different. as far as the china claim, you know, i think it's very hard to any company in america today that doesn't have some china.n with they are a global economy. they provide a lot of goods and services to many different companies. you'd be hard-pressed to find any company that didn't .ave any tie to china >> continued violence in iraq and syria. ashley spillane, president of rock the vote, talks about getting 1.5 nouveau to before the midterm elections. his perspective on the 50th anniversary of the 1964 republican national convention. youill take your calls and can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. at 7:00n journal, live a.m. eastern on c-span. a house hearing on changing the federal criminal code. discussion on helping veterans transition to civilian life. >> 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, here the supreme court oral argument, united states the richard nixon. -- united states versus richard nixon. >> he may also be wrong. , the court is there to tell him so. , then thes no one president is free to pursue his course and his interpretations. what then becomes of our constitutional form of government? onamerican history tv c-span3. >> now you can keep in touch with current events using any phone at any time. 202-626-88 88. every weekday, listen to a recap of the days events at 5:00 em eastern on washington today. c-span radio on audio now, called 202-626-8888. >> next, and as a surveillance, cyber security, internet freedom and the economy. a privacy attorney with google and other policy analysts will be on a panel. members of the house science, space and technology committee. this two-hour event was hosted by the new america foundation. >> all right, we will get started, folks. welcome to new america, a nonprofit civic enterprise dedicated to preserving american values in a time of rapid technological change. i am the policy director of the open technology institute. we are focused on building a stronger and more open internet for a stronger and more open society. i want to thank you for all coming here today and braving the heat, or for tuning in via the webcast or c-span for our panel event, national insecurity agency, how these programs undermine internet security. all the controversy has been focused on the programs to collect phone records under section 215 of the patriot act and their modifications under . the nsa is also engaged in a wide variety of conduct that in our view is fundamentally threatening the basic security of the internet. they're secretly undermining encryption tools and inserting backdoors into widely used computer and hardware soft where -- software programs. a vast networkg of spyware inserted into computers and routers around the world, including by impersonating popular sites like facebook and linkedin, and even hacking into google's private data links. finally, congress is starting to pay attention to how the nsa threatening not just our privacy, but cyber security itself. last month, the house overwhelmingly voted to approve two amendments to the defense appropriations bill that would defund the nsa's attempt to undermine decryption standards and insert backdoors for surveillance into the communication technologies we rely on. those were sponsored by alan grayson and backed by a broad coalition. today, after brief prerecorded introductions by both lawmakers, who were today flying back from their july 4 vacations, we will focus on these issues, which have been mostly ignored, even though they were a central focus of the recommendations from the