with what we think of the most important things, the best tasting things, but things, but the good news is you always can come back for more, we we will hang around during the break. you can talk to us. left out of the table outside. we will try to debunk a few of the myths about north korean sanctions. the 1st is that the us and other nations face a policy choice between sanctions and diplomacy. really, both of those along with the other instruments of national power should be used in an integrated comprehensive manner. you do not rely upon any one tool. clumsy and sanctions are two sides of the same point. as

frederick the great said diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments. the 2nd myth is that sanctions can't affect an isolated country like north korea. well, even the most isolated regime as to have money that crosses borders at some.in suitcases full of cash which is bushes were in a patient or digitally. because of its centrality the us dollar to the international financial system the vast majority are done denominated in dollars meaning they have to go through u.s. bank regulated by the us treasury department. if you transfer money to -- from australia to england and it is denominated in dollars it goes to new york. that allows the us to regulated oversee any account and you can find them.

the british bank was fined $2 million for money money laundering. a french bank was fined and the assets can be seized. also and perhaps most importantly any entity that is found to be a money laundering concern is precluded from engaging in the us financial system. that is like a financial scarlet letter. a 3rd method is the north korean is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. it is simply not true. stronger sanctions on iran the north korea. the the us itself unilaterally has more entities on it sanctions list from the balkans cuba iran and even and even zimbabwe the north korean. we have nearly three times as many zimbabwe entities on

the sanctioned list is north korean entities. fourth, there is nothing more the us can do on north korea. korea. you will see that often. again that is not true. there are number of laws and regulations that we have simply not applied is firmly to north korea as we have to other nations. president obama they have all said there are other measures we are contemplating, some of the arm bloodcurdling and yet we still waiting here or more. a 5th sanction or a 5th myth, sanctions don't work on north korea. well, they do. we had an extensive program in 2005 against a moscow

bank where in conjunction with the u.s. treasury department and announcing it as a money laundering concern their were a number of private meetings throughout asia with businesses and banks that led to over two dozen entities no longer willing to do business with north korea. you finally found a way to hurt us. the obama administration came in office saying it was a huge mistake for the bush administration to remove those sanctions which we did in trying to improve the atmosphere for nuclear negotiations. trying to re-create the pressure that they had in 2,005. what are some of those things that we can do the mac put them back on the state-sponsored terrorism must designate them as a primary money-laundering concern formally charge them as a currency counterfeit. we can impose human rights related sanctions on them as we already have on zimbabwe and congo.

the presidents of zimbabwe and cargo are on the sanctions list. yet 11 months after a un commission concluded that north korea had committed crimes against vanity the us has done nothing. and the list goes on. what i would say in conclusion is my we will leave you with a question why would the us hesitate to impose the same measures on north korea that we have already applied on other countries for far less egregious violations. so thank you very much and i turn it over to anna to talk about cuba. >> a great way of understanding policy toward cuba is really to look at the past and with what previous administrations have done, particularly the carter and clinton administration and how the cuban government responded aggressively.

look at the president and see how sections have been waking them.so much we can see the unilateral unilateral concessions that have been granted toward the castro regime and how it will end up effectively undermining national security and interest in seeing a free and democratic cuba. so carter reestablished to prophetic relations with the castro regime and 77, and he was pursuing going further and creating a section of interest in allowing them to create a reciprocal section of interest with the cuban government launched expeditionary forces in over a a dozen countries in africa, what they call liberation movements. and then clinton and 94 and 95 wanted to create better conditions for improving relations because every president thinks that they can be the one to improve relations with the castro regime. they obviously did.

so in doing so they created this perception of weakness and any weakness toward the regime is provocative. so the regime responded with the downing of the flight and 66. this was when congress responded with an overwhelmingly bipartisan support of the helms-burton act which is also known as the cuban liberty and democracy act which put the embargo and international sanctions completely under the purview of congress so now you need congressional authorization to lift the embargo any of the strengthening of international sanctions. moving forward to knew policy he has now created and this is without amending anything, he demanded nothing of the castro regime, the united states essentially bending over backwards despite the fact that cuba needs to pursue

free and fair elections release political prisoners allow for the establishment of labor unions to create a free and fair cuba which was not in their interest. the president has now after 18 months of secret negotiations in which they did not involve the state department they have decided to do really three things: normalize relations. cuba,, the castro regime can now have an ambassador in the united states. they they have essentially been absorbed over half a century of aggression for the united states and its own people and toward -- the aggression they fostered throughout africa and latin america. pres. obama has gone as far as calling roll castro president. this is someone who was never elected, some of the only reason he is in power is because he is the younger brother of fidel castro. so pres. obama is now expanding the ability for americans to travel.

before -- it is extremely difficult for an american to travel to cuba. it was difficult for me when before there was a restriction you can only go once every three years. now that's been completely obliterated. for americans it we will be extremely difficult to monitor controls the tourism industry from the rummy will be drinking to the cigars you'll be smoking is all caps ruled by the military and is all additional revenue in that area is remittances. cuban-americans would send to the island about $3 billion. this is when the was at $500 per quarter. the cuban government taxes at 20 percent. then another 20% is taxed once that is converted from

us currency to local currency. at $3 billion annually that's another $7 billion in profit. now we need to multiply 700 million by four, additional hard currency. what incentive do they have to change now? we're given a dying regime the lifeline to continue their aggressiveness toward us in the cuban people. this did in front the national assembly in full military garb despite his new relationship with the united states will remain. we need to look at this in terms of the broader implications. implications. the future of us cuban relations we have been absolutely no conditions on these negotiations. it doesn't be responsible for. and then congress needs to make sure the state

department programming, we continue supporting the peaceful opposition, the democratic opposition on the island commanded appears to me that the state department is reorienting the democracy promotion programs to suit these normalization measures. so we also need to look at the implications for future negotiations with rogue regimes like north korea and iran. if this was all conducted in secret if we granted these wide sweeping overtures and give them a gift basket of goodies for what we will we do? with that, i pass it on to jim. >> i would like to say a few words about iranian sanctions. the long-running negotiations are expected to come to a climax one way or the other. congress can play a hopeful role in crafting sanctions that were not only enhance us bargaining leverage but also to tour around from pulling and diplomatic

roosevelt by stretching out negotiations while it continues to advance its nuclear program. in his inaugural speech the president proclaimed that other dictatorships is often

opposition protests against regime which will brutally suppressed. the white house miss the opportunity to stand with and support the iranian people. it preferred to ignore the green movement in the main effort to strike a deal with the regime of the heads of its own repressed people. it failed to understand that the hostile ideological motivation of the regime which sees itself not as a typical a typical country but as the vanguard of a global islamist revolution the anti-americanism is part of the ideological dna command that is why it calls the us to great satan continuing to demonstrate in which their supporters chant death to america. the administration has treated iran like just another country and offers to report the regime by allowing it to rejoin the international community, but that is the last thing was invested heavily in the self-proclaimed of the global islamic revolution.

a genuine reconciliation with the us on the west was parking ideological crisis that could undermine its own legitimacy. the supreme leader has repeatedly warned against too much contact with the west and less toxic vacation and continues to warn against a velvet revolution. islamist totalitarians by nature rejects compromise and instead iran has sought sanctions relief in the negotiations without compromising its ability to eventually build a nuclear weapon. the supreme leader's red line has made it clear that he would not dismantle the nuclear infrastructure. it would further reduce the time it needs to stage a

nuclear breakdown. slow walking the negotiations and they have been negotiating in some form or another since 2002. 2,002. if you count all those failed negotiations there is reason to suspect that these negotiations are not going to ultimately go to well. they continue to stall on concessions, commenced a bucket of better deal. meanwhile the administration is bending over backwards to get a deal that it hopes will burn its legacy. has made major compromises in several sensitive areas including excepting the uranium enrichment which was banned by multiple un security council resolutions, retreated from the man's on closing its illicit nuclear facilities and it has backed away from

demanding full iranian cooperation with the ongoing iaea investigation into the possible military dimensions of its program. obtaining substantial sanctions really five minutes and make you come from the -- sanctions of the only reason that iran came to the table in the 1st place, and many of them were imposed over the objections of the administration. thanks to sanctions relief iran has increased its oil exports from 1 million barrels a day before the november 13 2013 interim agreement to about 1.4 million barrels a day and that has added about $10 million $10 billion to the

iranian annual oil revenue. the economy growing estimated 4.6% at the beginning of the 1st quarter of the calendar year, and is the 1st time it has grown after shrinking the last two years under sections. it has reduced the incentives to negotiate in good faith and increased its willingness to engage in open and the diplomacy will continuing while continuing to advance nuclear program through research and development. congress can help to remedy the situation by putting in place sanctions that would be imposed if iran violates the interim agreement or fails to negotiate an acceptable final agreement within a reasonable amount of time. there is there is strong bipartisan support for a tougher negotiating policy and the likely vehicle for expressing the support is that menendez bill which

would ratchet up sanctions on the iranian oil exports and strategic sectors of the economy if it violates the record or drags its feet further. sen. further. senator harry reid and senate majority leader in the last congress blocked consideration of this bill last year but the senate banking committee's expected to approve a version of it soon. congress should weigh in on the proposed nuclear deal only want but can one to five -- working with senator graham to draft legislation. congress would hold hearings and have additional 15 days to vote. congress also should exercise oversight powers to note here is to sure the administration continues to

prosecute sanction violators if the us starts going limp on the sanctions other countries is sure to follow. finally congress can also playable in educating the world about the nature of the regime. >> thank you. we have a few minutes for questions although i have been told we have a hard stop at the end. if anyone wants to raise their hands please wait for microsoft. >> i agree with the policy

goals in cuba or iran or north korea or zimbabwe or the balkans. i challenge the notion that sanctions are the effective remedy for wonder if you can.to an instance of. the the international bureaucracy devoted to imposing and enforcing the sanctions imposing billions of dollars of regulatory burden on us industry. i wonder whether sanctions on the proper remedy. >> i will take a crack. it is not an either/or.

should be used in conjunction. certainly the south african apartheid regime was heavily influenced by official and non- government and private sanctions and also there is targeted financial measures which goes after the criminals not the people themselves. i.out targeted financial targeted financial measures or sanctions more broadly really have a number of objectives i objectives i would say five, upholding us law. and if we do not they are meaningless. two would be imposing a penalty or cost on those that violate us law to megan, that is targeted

financial measures is supposed to sanctions. trying to strain the inflow, including financing, trying to prevent the proliferation of prohibited items. and the most difficult along with the other tools of national power you are trying to alter their behavior, modify the behavior in north korea's case, getting them to abide by their signatures on eight or more international agreements not to have nuclear weapons. we need to look at it more broadly in the context of a broader foreign policy. >> i reject the expression that i hear all the time. i i have heard it here today. obama is building his legacy and doing all these days is doing.

very wholeheartedly determinedly pursuing policies that are hurting this country. i would not call it building a legacy. i would say hurting america. more linguistically appropriately to say that. the words have consequences. and by saying that we build an excuse for him. we misrepresent his intentions to the people of america. and for this country to change it to get on the correct path we must be well aware of what we are facing from as well as from without >> i would agree with that. appmack i would agree with that command i think we are

using shorthand. i would agree the real danger is his legacy we will be a nuclear iran. >> unfortunately we have just gotten the signal that we must come to a close. perhaps it is sign of success that we ran out of time before questions. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i am i am going to introduce to you one of our great friends here at the heritage foundation. he is no longer a freshman of congress. he he came in in 2012. a seasoned veteran, but since coming to congress he has immediately taken to the conservative movement and has been always willing to be a leader for us and all the things that we are working on. today he we will talk to us

about the pro-life agenda in the house of representatives we are -- this is the 42nd anniversary coming up of roe versus wade. in that time frame 60 million abortions have taken place. and the thing that we see happening out there across the country is that more and more people are becoming more pro-life, recognizing that this is not just a simple decision that is about one person but a decision about two people a real child. so that tragedy has unfolded over the last 42 years, but i have great hope and i think a lot of our speakers have great hope. you will see the reason for that as they come up and talk. on january 22 we we will we we will have the pro-life march. i remember being a little kid and being busstop. my parents for that march. it has always most cold day

of the year by far but a great event. if you are around and can be a part of that i would highly recommend it. let's have congressman meadows, ben talk to us. please welcome congressman meadows. [applause] the 3rd stool from those that are conservative conservative, and as we start to look at the 42nd anniversary of roe v wade this is one of the few areas that as a social conservative there is progress being made and hearts are being changed, lives are being changed and in this particular issue lives are being saved.

i wanted to just share a little bit. a panel panel will, to talk about all of the technical detail but what i want to do is give you a story of hope, a story of encouragement and also about the importance of this particular bill that we will be coming up on the house floor here in just a few weeks as we look at hr 36, the pain capable bill that is really designed to limit abortions for those up to and exceeding 20 weeks. when i say that i have to take you to a story that really transformed my life and made me more pro-life. and so i want to take you back almost 23 years now two and when my wife was actually pregnant with my 1st born son. as we were their we were

older, first-time parents. started getting a little bit larger out front. so i started talking to my son. when i would do that he would move around in the world and i could i could feel him press back and i could feel him kick. then i got to the.where i would sing a song to him. when i would do that there was a response. there was no denying the fact that that was life and that there was a response to me. my my wife who had been pro-life for many years prior to that said do you realize that it is legal for us to abort this child right now that came as a number

livable shock to, and i said, well, how could that feature? there are many people that have the argument about being pro-choice. what they are talking about is it is all about choice. for me we thought that the choice was within the 1st trimester. only very limited. so all of a sudden my worldview started to be challenged. and it came to the fact that i was having to wrestle with what i knew was life what i knew was responding to me and it having to come to a decision on how i address that helping millions of americans start to have that same realization. the other sonogram, 3rd and 4th generation which gives you a vivid picture.

i i looked at it and said, which way is up. that is not the case now. technology is starting to tell the story. there are many that would suggest a baby in the world can feel pain at this particular.in the process. not only feel it in such a way, and you we will have technical experts that tell you, but maybe a heightened sensitivity to the pain. yet we are all part of a

very compassionate, caring country. we look at this and will have a synonymy that may happen somewhere else many of us reached deep into a her pocket to get money to help somebody so far away that we will never meet to do that and get all of a sudden we are faced with the reality of this particular issue that we need to identify and approach. i say that because what i want us to do is to make this argument more about the people in the policy. we are here today to talk about policy, and we we will be debating this on the house floor. i expected to pass the house house, as it has before. i expected to be taken up in the senate and hopefully we we will start to see the limitation on the server crime against the unborn against someone who does not

have a voice be rolled back. and yet for many of us perhaps you, like me silent for far too long. has been one of those things that you just don't talk about. you have your own personal conviction but do not talk about it. what happens is the science we are able to now start talking about it in real terms, inaccurate terms and we are starting to define that in a way that has never been defined before. i have a great son. it could have been if we had different views 23 years ago we may have made a different decision. now he is a student in law school and about to get married here in just a few months. yet we see decisions being made each and every day.

we also see horrific things that happen on our tv each and every day with terrorism and everything else. acts of violence that we cannot described our kids and yet this as well has been an act of violence and some 60,000 people have been killed since that decision 42 years ago, 60 million. and when we look at that it is time that the american people stand up and say enough is enough. we are here in the house and you have a very large pro-life caucus. yet yet it is not enough to just talk about being pro-life. it is time that we put action to words. you are starting to see that there are a few champions. you will get to here from

some of them later today. chairman chris smith has been an advocate for life. he is a good friend of mine and works solidly on this particular issue, issue but i share that because it is sometimes easy to give up hope and say it is not a fight worth fighting. there is no way to win. there is no way to accomplish it. it. i am here to tell you that that is not the case. we are seeing incremental changes that are making a big difference. i want to close with just a couple of other notes and one story. when we start to look at this particular issue it is important that we understand the potential

pain that so many of our neighbors and friends may have. my wife was coming here to give a speech on this and says did you no so-and-so at an abortion? did you know this person had an abortion and i have no idea. some of the emotional scars that are deep-seated and lasting are still their and i see that command is something we do not talk about enough. here is what is going to ask , don't give up hope. hope. and you have heard from a lot of great speakers over the last 24 hours or so. you have have presidential candidates or potential presidential candidates unbelievable people who are active in both the senate and the house but really we are only a reflection of how active the people that we represent really are.

i am fortunate enough to serve one of the greatest places in the country. some of the greatest people but my power rests in them as your representative and your senator. their power rests in you. and so i will close with this particular story about not giving up hope what were we no the ending, and i love to share the story because we are right now celebrating the anniversary of the star-spangled banner. that really talks about the stars & stripes and where it got the beginning. for most of you that no the story no that it was about four mckinley. going over and over again.

francis scott key looking at that seeing in the morning expected to see what? a white flag of surrender. yet yet when he looked up that morning what he saw with the stars & stripes still streaming. and when we see that we can take that division each and every day as we sing the star-spangled banner, but that does not tell the whole story because the whole story really is the bombardment that was taking place at fort mchenry was because the british ships could not get close enough to really make bombs effective. the reason is because 22 people sunk their boats in the harbor so that the ship could not get close enough to make it effective. twenty-two patriots suck their boats for a lost cause twenty-two.

twenty-two patriots probably were told by their friends what are you doing syncing your boat, that is your livelihood. many of them were fishermen, and yet 22 and yet 22 patriots decided that they needed to act. i share that because many of you may have friends were telling you that you are fighting for a lost cause. i am here to tell you today that just like we are able to send about the star-spangled banner because 22 patriots did something perhaps you working with 21 of your fellow comrades to work in a particular issue that is not winnable by p1. i'm here to tell you the voice of the american people has never been stronger on this particular issue really when it comes to just letting people no that they

love the country and they're willing to fight for. i see i see on my left you we will get to here from a great gentleman that i have a great deal of respect from congressman mike kelly he brings together people, and we have met on this particular issue in another member's office to say what we can do. so i am here today to ask you, are you willing to be one of the 22 four willing to stand up and work arm in arm with someone else to fight for, perhaps, for, perhaps, what some people call a lost cause to mac because if you are on this particular issue there are

60 million lives that could have been changed if we had just got to work a little bit sooner. it is an honor to serve you be here today, and i thank you for letting me come and share a little bit from my heart. god bless. [applause] >> thank you very much. okay. the pittsburgh tribune review refers to representative kelly as butler's straight talker. my hometown paper. according to cq roll call any encounter has the potential to erupt into a pep rally. that is great news. straight talk is what we need more of. so that is just very refreshing establishing himself as a capable communicator. he will talk to us about the child welfare inclusion act which we will protect child welfare providers from being

discriminated against. the chairman of the conference of catholic bishops of this our 1st and most cherished freedom is to be enjoyed by all americans including child welfare providers to serve the needs of our most foldable remedying this unjust discrimination by enabling all providers to serve the needs of parents and children in a manner consistent with the religious beliefs and moral convictions and are proud to be strong supporters of this legislation. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate that. i spent last summer at a memorial service. really had a chance to talk a little bit more. what heritage does is so important.

i don't no of another organization that protects the fundamental rights of who it is that we are as american people. that was important. the other thing come our staff worked here. robert smith worked here, so we have a strong heritage foundation inside our staff, and also a young lady who has been working on this piece for quite some time. sometimes it is hard for us to understand why it is that you have to enact legislation that basically just says who we are as a people and yet we have seen things more fun to something altogether different than we ever thought would happen and talk about the child welfare inclusion act to my find it hard to understand in a town of policy is so important that we sometimes let politics overrun the basic policy. it just does not make sense.

it is not who we are as a people, who we ever will be. as long as there are people like heritage we can make sure those things go on all the time. the opportunity for all and favoritism for none is written into the wheelhouse of what this piece of legislation talks about, and i did not no much about this. my family, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law have a son who is adopted. the brother-in-law and his wife both adopted, people who want to have children and for one reason or another went bust. but they went to a faith-based organization. in our own office, tim butler works with us every day his family at one time,

his mom had three foster care dollars, and i did not know this we were at a parade one day and said, i wanted to meet my brother. i said it is good to meet you. not his biological mother but his adopted brother. that brings us today, what is it about the child welfare inclusion act, why is that so important to track why would we even have to debate that? has sit back and scratch my head and raise my shoulders and say this cannot possibly be happening. so why is it so important? there is a move afoot right now, and it goes against everything that we believe that if you are faith-based a religious organization in some states you wanted to use that funding to read if you fundamentally believe

that a child should be raised in a home traditional home with a mom and dad but somehow you are not the type of people who should be allowed to do that work, and if using federal funds to do that you we will be able to because the states get the money from the federal government. but think about that. why all of a sudden i we discriminating against faith-based people? religious organizations. who is it that has always been there to take care of children? especially children that did not have a mom, did not have a family to grow up and? it has always been our religious conviction. that that is just too we are. we take care of the most foldable want to adopt those children. some people some people quite frankly just feel very

comfortable about saying part of our agency's work is we believe placing a child and what we consider to be a traditional home with a mother and father is the way we should go. i don't think that's a hard thing to understand. i have difficulty with some people saying no. you should not be allowed to do that kind of work. my goodness this goodness this is not the way it was designed. why would you be willing to exclude faith-based and religious organizations. the answer the answer is quite simple. you don't agree with what we agree with what you believe in something different and say we are going to penalize you for being that way not allow you to participate or have funding. it does not happen everywhere, no, but it is

happening in san francisco, illinois massachusetts, and right here in washington dc. really? because of our religious convictions we are being excluded told you cannot participate, you can't look out for these children can't give them a home can't be an adopted parent or a foster care parent. why? simply because you do not agree with what we state. i don't know why that would be. quite frankly what we're talking about is called the all inclusive. rss is everybody gets a seat at the table. if you choose that you want

and at the same token if we don't stop this now think of the implications as we go forward. i represent the district by:. every year they worry about punishment. the same things happen with our policies. it is not the 1st way that is the problem but the continual battering of the shores. what is this guy talking about? fundamentally what we believe. if we do not stop it now change the tide stand up and say who it is that we are not just time to time but everyday but but we're

going to lose. fundamentally who we are why would anyone be able to step in and say no you don't get the fund back quite frankly i have never understood it. i know what i believe how i was raised to no what i think works. other people have different ideas, and this is america to meet you can think that way. why all of a sudden all the tables be turned back why would he allow that to happen? i mentioned sue and earlier. three years ago we sat down and started listening to what was going on. a father of four bust with ten grandchildren and i cannot tell you how much i enjoyed being with them. this past christmas, their

all set to cause people and absolutely believe that santa claus comes and gets so excited about it. making the list of things that they want, talking about santa claus coming and they have to be good because if your not good, sensible take care of you, but you, but i watch the little faces and think how lucky my the opportunity to see that. i think about how many children that don't have that family don't have that table that tree to look at, that opportunity to come down christmas morning and be just overwhelmed by the joy of christmas command and the other part of it is to be able to go and celebrate our savior's birth. excited about santa claus but understand the other part of our christmases and really get the meaning of it. i i just want you to understand, sometimes i start talking about a product and i think you have

to be a we will to sell the features and the benefits and value in order to make the sale or to close the sale. i want you to think about this inclusive, child welfare inclusive. the features and the features and benefits and there are for children. not only for children that foster parents and adoptive parents. the joy that you have out of raising children, watching them grow the feeling that you get of having made a difference in sunday's life should never be excluded because you don't believe what i believe. you don't get to do that. federal taxes we collect from all over the 50 states and that are distributed among the states individually, i don't think the san francisco or illinois or massachusetts washington dc has the right to tell you that your no longer going to participate in this funding.

it is just not who we are. and are. and if we ever think that even the smallest but is not important we are seeking who it is that we are. it all starts with one grain of sand. we have got protected all all the time. our piece just says this if this, if you want to do that can't discriminate, be that here is the problem, uses 15 percent of your funding. i i firmly believe that until you hit people in the wallet this is what we fundamentally believe. we don't think that you should be discriminatory. everyone should be included every child should have an opportunity, opportunity, every family should have an opportunity to adopt or to be foster parents. it should not be based on religious beliefs. as we move forward i just look at it and think we are challenged almost every day as to who we are. i have to tell you, 66 years old and i look back on my

life and was truly so fortunate to grow up at the best down the best time for the best parents and preachers and teachers and coaches that a child could have had. come through world war ii made ii made it through the dark nights and basically the way most of us do. kneeling down. that's corny. no. it's not. we can never walk away from that, never think that the five we fight today is an important that somehow we allow ourselves to be marginalized or discredited or discriminated against. i will fight for everybody's rights as a human being. in this case we stand up and will be counted and make sure that they based on religious organizations are

not penalized for believing what they believe. i i want to thank heritage for giving me the opportunity to be here. have to tell you. they do marvelous work. it's part of the fabric that weaves our office together the need to protect. also what wall do is incredibly important. i just want you to no their are quite a few people that believe what we believe. we don't always get chance to stand up and talk about it. only do we have to make the most of it. you've heard from a number of people today the fact

that we talk about opportunity for all and favoritism towards none. is there anything more fundamentally american for that? i i guess are we going to take some questions? this is pretty fundamental stuff. nobody, i mean, nobody is going to be able to exclude us. nobody. by the same token we we're not saying we should exclude anyone else either. i have taken their babies to baptisms have been to school plays. he would not no that they were not the biological children of the people who adopt them. do not exclude us, don't leave us out in the cold. if there are questions we we will take all please -- [applause] one question. okay. one question.

[inaudible conversations] >> the can tell samadhi what you are doing is not right if you don't find them. it is just the way i found out my lifetime, what we say , federal things that are collected. the 15% 15 percent penalty if they do those things, and i would hope -- i meant what i said earlier. they start small and get big. let stand up for who we are all the time. [applause] >> very much appreciate it and thank you to your staff. used to work with me in the office.

he is great. thank you congressman. sorry we did not have time for more questions. we are recognizing that we have two more great speakers you have to vote very soon so we would like to get them on. our next speaker is going to pick up on this theme of religious freedom. the lead in the house house and the marriage and religious freedom act. prohibit the federal government from going after people based on there very simple believe that marriage is between a man and woman. woman. it is a tremendously important piece of legislation unfortunately and said that we needed, but we do need it. we are at a place and time right now and our country where we need leaders who will stand up and who we will protect people who basically just one religious freedom, want to be able to worship a live their lives

as they feel so called. a leader amongst the conservative movement a bright, young rising star in the conservative movement is a very good communicator and often talked about as a potential leader in the future. all of those whispers are warranted. [applause] >> good to see you. >> good afternoon. >> it's great to be here and talk about these issues. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and share ideas about what i i believe we will be one of the most important issues we must address and that issue is religious liberty and the growing threats to it. regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum we can all agree that freedom of religion is one of our foundational values. ..

in my district in idaho we had a christian couple who had performed over 35,000 traditional marriages at a wedding chapel in the resort city of puerto lane. recently they had to refile their tax status as a nonprofit religious corporation after some in the city argued that they could be compelled to officiate

same-sex marriages. there are cases involving christian adoptions of foster care and i think we heard about some of those a few minutes ago. foster care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. still other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed and breakfast, t-shirt company student counselor in a salvation army. in 2013 the california senate passed legislation that would have removed certain state-level tax exemptions and threatened similar groups who hold traditional views about marriage and sexual rowdy. pass on the california by a vote of 27-9 before being tabled at the state assembly. these attacks on religious liberty are creating a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. i realize the examples i cited

concerns state law. my intent is to ensure that the federal government could not use federal law to threaten those institutions and individuals who believe in traditional marriage. that's why last congress introduced h.r. 3133 the merits and religious freedom act which would protect freedom of conscience on the issue of marriage. the bill had bipartisan support and over 100 co-sponsors. i'm looking forward to reintroducing the legislation soon and i expect a robust support in the new congress and a robust debate. the new bill will be narrowly tempered to stop the government from inappropriately targeting individuals that believe marriage is a union between one man and woman. her 2333 prohibits the federal government for making tax-exempt status contingent on the group's beliefs about marriage. no group should be denied the tax exemption because they

believe marriage is the union of man and woman or should be reserved for marriage. by bill will ensure that the government cannot deny or exclude a person from receiving a grant contract loan certification and accreditation employment or other similar positions are status. tax exempt status isn't just for those groups to win the favor of a particular government administration. while americans are free to structure their personal relationships and estate law permits they should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently. protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscious does not infringe on anyone's freedom. all american should be free to believe and act in the public square based on their belief about marriage without fear of any government penalty. all people should be treated with dignity and with respect. that includes not using the lower tax go the lower taxco to coarsen penalize those who seek to follow their conscience. to be clear our bill will

protect the religious freedom of anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman and does not seek to take anything away from anyone. this is a great bill that conservatives independence libertarians can rally around. it can generate support in both parties and that can actually i think and pass both houses of congress to become law and with your support i think it can. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. appreciate it. all right thank you congressman labrador. we are actually going to do it. we are going to get all these guys to the boat on time so it's pretty impressive. we work on our feet pretty quickly at heritage. congressman meadows just said congressman chris smith has been a real lifelong advocate for

pro-life issues. elected in 1980 serving his 19th term, 18th term in the house he spent 32 years chairing the bipartisan pro-life caucus. he's the lead advocate not just on life issues but also on the issues of trafficking as well. we are very excited to have him here today. we are big supporters of this legislation and look forward to working with him on it. please welcome him to the podium. [applause] >> thank you tim and thank you to heritage for hosting this very important meeting. the elections that it made a huge difference. we are now more optimistic than i have ever been and i've been in congress for 35 years. the life issues the respect for the sanctity of human life and for marriage is something especially given the fact the administration and this president he is the abortion president we are in the process of turning this around and of

course for your help and the grassroots and never-ending work of the pro-life movement that has been the greatest human rights struggle ever. as i think you know on september 9, 2009 president, told lawmakers and especially called joint session of congress and the american public that health care reform that under our plan as he put it no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. in an 11th hour ploy on a remnant of pro-life democrats needed for passage of the affordable care at the president issued an executive order on march 24, 2010 and said and i quote the a.c.t. maintains high demand for restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly-created health insurance exchanges. it turns out those ironclad promises by the president

himself are absolutely untrue and ranks right up there with the president often stated perception that if you like your health care insurance then you can keep it. politifacts 2013 liar of the year. and the hyde amendment has two indisputable parts. it prohibits direct funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the cases of rape, or to save the life of the mother. obamacare violates the high funding -- funding insurance plans by paying for abortion on demand. despite and degree of non- transparency and obligation by the obama administration an extensive audit by the government accountability office found in september that 1036 obamacare exchanges covered elective abortion.

again he said that wouldn't happen. also separate billing of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced and the abortion funding premium and again this is in 2015 now is being illegally rolled into the total plan costs. health care consumers are there for buying health with little or no knowledge that they are purchasing abortion subsidizing plans. in my own state of new jersey every single plant on exchange pays for abortion and is replicated by many other states. when it comes to funding public funding for abortion and the 2015 open enrollment is at least as bad if not worse than last year. it's never been about a web site. again president obama solemn promise not to fund abortion on demand continues to be broken with impunity. it's not just a lie that was done once, gets replicated year in and year out because proposed

a flawlessly -- i encourage you to take a look at a useful tool for health care consumers created by the family health research council and the charlotte low shear institute. the obama administration's cover-up of abortion insurance plans on exchange is absolutely unnecessarily, it's unacceptable and unconscionable. consumers have a right to know abortion is not health care. it dismembers and chemically poisons defenseless unborn children and hurts their mothers and the culture of denial that refuses to look at that fact and the fact that these children are killed in their mothers mother's womb needs to be displaced in this congress has an opportunity to bring legislation to the floor which we will that will

not only seek to protect but also seek to educate. last year the house passed h.r. 7 the no taxpayer funding for abortion and full disclosure act which would then public funding for abortion while alerting consumers which plan in 2014 had abortion in them. as you all know harry reid refused to allow a vote on that legislation and the president issued a statement of administrative policy to say he would veto it. this congress should be different. we are hopeful that the senate will take up the legislation. we will take it up as well and hopefully this legislation will, even if the president vetoes it it will be another move in the direction of finally excising the killing of unborn children from abortion. one issue seems a bit esoteric but it's not good when the legislation goes to the senate there's a big discussion about

the amendment was which said two separate pages had to be made by the purchaser of that health plan one for the premium itself and another for abortion the abortion surcharge. this administration and the gao has confirmed this but anyone who has senate noted as well as a plan that includes abortion makes no effort to enforce the law and actually has admonished and advised the providers of health insurance on how they can conceal this world into the premium. if you want to disclose that you can but certainly in an effort to follow what the law clearly said. he made it clear you have to write two checks, one for the insurance company for the abortion coverage and one for the rest of the premium. that is not happening. that disclosure we believe would

have made at least some difference for people saying i'm not writing a check to picture the death of unborn children. another important piece of legislation will come up dealing with the whole issue of conscious rights. there's a massive massive movement in the united states and worldwide to compel all of us to the complicit in abortion no matter how much objection whether ob/gyn or health insurance providers, whether it be a purchaser of a premium all of us need some not to be involved and we can't extricate ourselves from that complicity. there was a reason large meeting at georgetown at the o'neill institute and others put out a massive book on this attack on conscious rights and we are seeing it happen here. we are seeing it happen everywhere. on august 22 california their department -- department of managed health care issued a new decree that says all of those

plans under their authority and that's just about every plan in california, must immediately effective on august 22 pay for abortion on demand. that move as i think most if not all of you know violates the weldon amendment passed by congress repeatedly since 2004. that legislation was ordered by congressman weldon of florida and it protects entities of all kinds including individuals from being compelled to being involved with abortion. the problem is that it has one flaw and we were unable to fix fix it for years in the appropriations process. the only remedy for an individual like a nurse in new york who is compelled to participate in a gruesome dismemberment abortions, took four years to get any relief at the risk of losing her job and many others who were compelled

but in california all the health insurers including catholics christians and evangelicals every faith denomination are being told that your plan has to pay for abortion on demand. this isn't the exchanges. this is an obamacare. this is the existing plan private-sector plans and public interest plans like religious organizations and the remedy is to go to the department of health and human services and adjudicate your matter. don't hold your breath on that one. the remedy also just for the hhs withholding funding to california. if you think that's going to happen it will not. we have legislation that would strengthen the weldon amendment the abortion nondiscrimination act and congressman fleming and diane black the prime sponsor of it an excellent bill that we have tried repeatedly to get passed in the senate. we will pass it i believe in the

house and that provides a right of private action so the individual to nurse the doctor whoever it might be can assert their very substantial rights in the weldon amendment so they don't have to be complicit in any way, shape or form with the killing of unborn children in the wanting of their mothers. that legislation will be coming up soon in the house and i do believe it will get a vote in the senate. this is unconscionable to think that people are being coerced. what is all this choice talk when you are coercing people to be involved in abortion at every stage, funding a providing a facility for it enabling it. going back several years ago to show you this is nothing new there was an effort if you wanted to be an ob/gyn before you are certified there was a clinton administration effort to

say that out want it to be doctor has to perform an abortion. otherwise you don't get certified. it was a terrible move by the clinton administration. tom delay offered the amendment any preparation process to a bill that stopped that. so this idea of coercion embedded in me pro-abortion movement and always have been, i've been in the pro-life movement for 42 years the abortion itself is coercive for the baby is certainly are some other but they want us all to be complicit in it. i don't want to repeat myself but it really is a serious serious attack by the proponents of abortion. the abortion nondiscrimination act are we out of time? one last thing is their leadership and i want to thank kevin mccarthy for one keeping us in session during the march

for life something we pleaded with previous leaderships and didn't always get so members could talk in march and march for life could talk to their individual senators and house members but also scheduled for next week important legislation offered by ted frank's that will do what some states have already done and that is insured that pain capable unborn children defined in the bill as a problem -- approximately 20 weeks i believe pain can be felt before in their scientific evidence but at least the 20 weeks those children would not be subjected to horrific procedures that are violent and now we know beyond any reasonable doubt those children feel that at least in the beginning. it was dr. sunny i'm not who is very involved in anesthesia for unborn children and many others now that have come forward that

say when they do prenatal surgery, microsurgery and do things that are life enhancing for the unborn child there needs to be anesthesia. we now know that child experiences pain and its pain that exceeds whether a newborn or five-year over people that are age might experience because pain receptors are so close to the skin. you think that child would be subjected to a process in the procedure that is anything but denying that dismembers the arms and legs it is barbaric as are other methods. at least under this legislation after 20 weeks they would not be permitted in extreme cases. so that is a huge step in the right direction. trent franks was a proud sponsor last congress and a guided a majority vote in the house and

this time habel, then i believe next week it will pass. people are waking up. the culture of denial is being replaced with the culture of enlightenment that abortion is violence against children and injurious to mothers. thank you so much. [applause] >> congressman thank you so much and thank you for your passion. it means a lot and we are happy to be working with you so thank you. hopefully you make your vote. okay well now we are going to take the two panels that we had combined for this afternoon and combine them into one. so i would like like to monitor panels up now. ryan anderson is the william simon fellow at the heritage foundation. kerri kupec is illegal to medications director at alliance for defending freedom. chuck donovan is the president of the charlotte lucier institute and the heritage alum and sarah torre is an analyst at

the heritage foundation. what we would like to do is we would like to have folks i'll give an introductory comment and we will go with sarah and then chalk and then kerri and ryan and ryan will moderator q&a afterwards. any questions you have for the members you can ask our panel afterwards. >> i will focus them on basically the details of represented christmas remarks. he has done an incredible amount of work on the 20 week bill so hopefully we will go into the telnet. i would like to specifically focus on the last piece of legislation that representative smith mentioned the abortion nondiscrimination act. this is not just an issue in california as you mentioned. over the past five pounds california and d.c. have passed mandate and pieces of law that would basically force pro-life

americans to enroll in a health plan plan and play plan and pay for health on the cover surgical abortions there were the past year we have had a lot of discussion about the hhs forced to provide coverage of the abortion and drugs in that case. here we are talking about surgical abortion that representative smith and meadows were just talking about dangerous and very violent procedures. this is a clear violation of conscience for people who believe and know the truth that these children are human beings who have an inherent right to life and inherent worth and dignity. we have done a couple of interviews here with a couple of churches in california who are being forced to provide coverage for surgical abortions even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs. just this past month in d.c. but counseled their pass a bill that

would force employers to cover electoral abortions in their plans. there are no religious exemptions to what is called the reproductive health nondiscrimination act a very ill named act which would prohibit employers from discriminating in any compensation terms conditions privileges of employment on the basis of an individual's reproductive health decision-making which includes specifically the termination of pregnancy. this is in clear violation of what representative smith mentioned as the weldon amendment that protects the conscience rights of americans and that all americans are being forced to participate whether just providing health care coverage or participating in abortion. protects government to do that. it's a non- abortion on discrimination act which he mentioned that would provide the ability for individuals to go into court to have that rectified. he wouldn't have to wait on the

department of health and human services. it takes one to three years to respond to complaints of having our conscience rights violated. this is one of the primary things we will be working on this here. and trying to get back to a truth and a debate over abortion over the past 40 years. regardless of what you think about it we should all agree that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. that is what this law law protects a canned and hopefully will protect against even more. i will talk more about the 20 week bill as well. >> thank you sarah and i want to thank the heritage foundation for reserving time today for discussion of one of the most important pieces of legislation i think congress has ever considered.

why is there legislation pending in the congress? probably the chief instigation was a trial of hermann goss notes or four years ago in philadelphia. the physician was bound to what the i can describe as atrocities atrocities. babies on the brink of being able to survive outside of the womb and convicted in connection with who are capable of living outside of the womb and the end of their lives. and the international perspective this is one of the studies for lucier institute has done and is paper i recommend to everyone. we stand in the international stages of a radical nation with respect to our abortion laws. i don't think most methods reflect on this but there are only four countries in the world where abortion on an elective basis is permitted up to birth. canada is the other democracy

that allows this. the other two countries or north korea the people's republic of china. there are three other countries that permit it after 20 weeks leave the nest and we certainly hope congress will pass this legislation will still be among the seven most progressive nations in the world with respect to these laws. it's a mark of shame upon us. i'd like to think about all the times that people a little less than center of political life appointed to international standard and said whether it's torture, whether it's capital punishment whether it's a whole set of rights among which we have contests over we should adopt the international norm. when it comes to this issue the united states is radically out of step with international norm. my final point about this and i think it's pretty straightforward we never got to the national policy we have on abortion on request until birth. by an act of the american people.

it was done by our courts the same way the candidate david and i think 230 pro-life laws passed in the state in last four years this policy would never have been adopted by congress for the american people. acting to the congress or state legislatures. so what the congress is doing by addressing this sound situation of pain capable children is beginning the process of redressing agreements on this issue taken out of the realm of recent debate and turned it into an issue for judges to decide and in this case they made the radical call and people are signaling time and again it went way too far and it's not where we are, it's not a character. we need something better. hopefully next week the congress will adopt this legislation and put the american people in the nation back on sounder footing when it comes to vulnerable children.

>> my name is kerri kupec and i work for alliance for freedom which is a nonprofit first amendment law firm. right now we are seeing a very concerning trend within the areas of religious freedom in speech. has represented labrador alluded do we are saying that government coming in and essentially strong-arming private citizens to promote or celebrate methods which their consciences do not allow them to do. i would like to share today one of our clients who is waiting right now in a minute for a judge in washington state and this is our 7-year-old dolores stutzman. she has been an industry for 40 years. she loves doing flower arrangements. her life and it's her passion. this is who she is and she had a long-time customer named rob who

identified as and he a partner partner -- and a partner came in and she arranged partners for pm this partner. she arranged flowers for them for about nine years. they developed a close relationship and they were good friends. rob decided to get married to his partner and they came in and asked her if she would do the flowers for the wedding. now this is not an easy decision for her. she has a close relationship with this man and she would tell you if she was here she really agonized over it. it's easy to talk about these things from the sun but when you're up close and personal with someone you care and often she said recently she loves rob is a hard decision. as she told rob when he came in because of her relationship with jesus she said she couldn't do it and she felt badly about it but she just couldn't do it. rob said he understood and was

disappointed. she referred him to other floors in the area. they hugged and that was that. the attorney general got wind of this and the media and sought to sue there now. rob and his partner decided to sue bera now as well. we have bakers and photographers, we have people who have an event venue that hosts a wedding. this is a little bit concerning because the attorney general sued baron now not just in her business capacity but her personal capacity as well. this means that there are now loses the case that she could stand to lose her business and her source of income. she's going to lose everything she owns. the 7-year-old woman who took over the floral business for someone who had alzheimer's

this is her passion, because she holds a christian view on marriage is now being sued. the judge ruled last week that this personal capacity can go forward. we are waiting for the trial court level and a minute but this is something very concerning and i think we all agree that the government can force anyone of us to celebrate and promote a message which our faith and consciousness we cannot do surely they can force us to do anything. now the discussion is same-sex marriage but 20 years from now at that point going to be late. the president will be set in the government can force anyone to -- their beliefs. >> i just want to say a couple of things about the two pieces of legislation that represented kelli and represented labrador spoke on. child welfare inclusion and

their religious and marriage freedom after common sense legislation that more or less protects the way in which america has operated for the past 200 plus years. they take away nothing from anyone and simply protect their religious liberty rights that those that believe marriage is between a man and woman and seek to lead their life in accordance with that believe. foster care and adoption agencies in accordance with appellee. free from government harassment free from government penalties free from government coercion. these are built to should garner support from all americans whether you are personally in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationship or prefer keeping the historic definition of marriage for all american should agree that the government should be discriminating against americans who believe that every american have believed about marriage until a decade ago. this is something the nation can

rally around to find a peaceful coexistence a principled way of pluralism as we work through this contentious issue. the story that kerri told us out of washington state need not happen. it should not happen. we should see policies like the marriage religious freedom act enacted at the state and local level. the piece of legislation of representative labrador wanted is again in this congress would prevent this from happening from the federal government. would prevent the irs from stripping someone's tax-exempt status and prevent the government from discriminating in grants or contracts or accreditation against institutions who believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman and this is good policy. likewise unrepresented kelly's bill the child welfare inclusion at this will hopefully prevent some of the discretion -- discrimination we have seen at that level. this bill uses the funding mechanism to say that the state

is going to discriminate against a catholic charity adoption agency or evangelical adoption agency or latter day saints they will lose 15% of their federal funding. you can take federal money and discriminate against religious adoption agencies that are simply seeking to find homes with married moms and dads for children. discriminating against these agencies does nothing to help children who need families. all it does is start an adult culture war. again these are good pieces of legislation that i want to close by saying one thing that unifies all the issues on the panel. it unifies it with his policies some of which is an opportunity for all -- vernon. one way which the government can protect opportunity for all is by protecting the opportunity to be born. the reason chris smith spoke

about the 20 week pain capable abortion ban is to protect every child's right to life. right now with the commonsense piece legislation is to protect the child's right to life that we 20 but ideally we want to see every child welcomed in life protected by the law. that's what opportunity for all looks like in preventing favoritism to anyone, favoritism to the abortion lobby. they shouldn't be able to use the government to force other people to be complicit in abortion. that is what representative meadows is planning appeared on marriage front how do we protect opportunity for all? by protecting the institution of marriage to maximize the likelihood that every child has the opportunity to be raised by his or her married mother and father. favoritism to some by preventing the government from coursing the

evangelicals that kerri spoke about violating her plea. no one has the right to let the government force their right to celebrate their relationships. with that we will open to the floor for any questions. members of congress had to go back to vote but the panelists will do our best to answer questions. >> thank you. the opportunity for all why should that exclude children conceived by rape? >> in theory in fact it shouldn't but i think we all could name and if you have read any large body of literature a large number of people their stories are as compelling as and when. i like to point out the fact that we all agree in terms of

plan pregnancies and so forth. it can affect 20% of anyone in the room. i'm not asking you to hold up your hands, you may not know but if you live in a length of time the ideal exception is a little bit different from the real world. we want to translate our results results -- our complete revulsion and several things that rape exists that's as it flirts later reported and certainly under prosecuted and in terms are prosecutors exceptionally grilling for a woman to have to go through trial in which everything about her will be questioned and that is reflected in all of the data. there is a tendency i think and it's proven and polls that the public wants to make an exception there. they don't want the woman to have to go through that. they also think the government

can't -- accepting my foochow. my question is. [inaudible] what about jesse jackson and? we are conservatives. no humor is permissible here but at the end of the day we protect life because of his life. the degree to which we have gotten away from treating children equally and accepting because they are wanted and accepting others because they are not our child who is handicapped whose life can be shortened or taken, i think our country is cheapened by that and we do need to find a way to speak about it and to demonstrate that we care about passionately care about the fact that there is so much blaming of women in our society and rape is

a problem no matter how often something like -- there is something that we have to do an awful lot better job because we are harming women in disrespecting them at all levels by saying these prank -- kinds can be prosecuted and we can prevent them and we can't protect the unborn child who is occasionally conceived in these situations and it certainly happens. >> the religious freedom law referring to -- [inaudible] >> i would like to respond that i'm sure brian has something to say about that as well. the problem with that statement is that we cherish and value

religious freedom in this country. it's really one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place. people came over because they didn't have that freedom anymore. so to say what is going on with that it undermines the very core of this nation but also it's a big concern because right now we are seeing a complete unbalance. it's tricky. everyone has first amendment rights and how does this all play out sometimes and this is working to challenging. but right now we are seeing the scales sort of go like this where people who have deeply held religious beliefs and convictions and these things that they have lived out their entire lives are suddenly being told by judson state governments, too bad it doesn't matter. your first amendment rights don't matter anymore and that's a big problem. that's why the freedom restoration act what they do is they restore balance in these

problems and they allow it to go to court if it should go there and back it's all diced out. right now there is a complete lack of balance in the complete discrimination effort against those people who do live according to their faith and conscience. >> i would add one comment to that. i will redo the last two sentences. it says i support the way people to believe what they do and say what they wish in their pews, homes and hearts. but outside of those places you must put up with me just as i put up with you. there are two bundle comes with this. the free exercise of religion what the founders intended to protect is not limited to our homes, our pews and our hearts. michelle obama has probably said this best when she's a religious faith is what we do monday through saturday. it's not just about showing up on sunday for a good meal and good music. it's what we do monday through saturday as well. what we are seeing is a redefinition of religious

liberty to the mere freedom of worship. what you do sunday morning in your church or your home or your heart that is protected but once you step out into the marketplace and the public square you have to leave your faith behind. thankfully the supreme court has rejected that argument repeatedly most recently in the hobby lobby decision. the first response by "the new york times" is we have simply gotten along. secondly you must put up with me just as i put up with you but that's not what is asking for. what are he is saying is i have a right to force you to violate your beliefs to take my wedding photos, this data and the other thing. the live and let live position is the position of kerri's highland -- client. she's not saying no baker in the state of washington cannot make their wedding cake.

in this case it's make a floral arrangements because these cases involve so many different professionals for professionals intersect with a wedding industry and the principle solution is a live and let live solution in which if you are in favor of same-sex weddings bake the same-sex wedding cake or make a power strip you are against them don't coerce a government. frank bruni has misunderstood to core melt and values and thankfully these bills that representative labrador and kelly have mentioned would help to find that situation. other questions? we are going to go right here. >> this is a complicated question so bear with me. religious conservatives keep expressing indignity about having to support latex barriers that hinder the movement of and

eggs that have no problem wanting taxpayers to spend millions of dollars on steel and concrete barriers for the movement of birth after it's born. why do religious conservatives want everyone to be open to the creation of new human life if after the life has been created they decide life is such a nuisance we have to know expensive barriers to control the movement of that life? >> i'll take a stab at that. i think it's one of the main things that governments do is to protect our national security and part of it is to protect our national. it is a legitimate function of government. we take no position here at the heritage foundation about the morality of contraception and it's completely legitimate for religious people to have various views about morality of contraception without the government coursing them one way or the other.

the problem with the hobby lobby or the problem with hh's mandate for the thing with the hobby lobby ruling is the government trying to force people in their beliefs about those actors in right now we see the little sisters of the poor still in federal court suing the obama administration because the obama administration is coursing them with their religious beliefs about contraception. it's not appropriate for the government to harass the little sister on contraception but it's appropriate for the government to care about a national security and our borders. right here. >> thank you so much. you -- could you briefly ryan and kerri in the recent expansion stays where it has now become legal to have so-called same-sex marriage due to the supreme court's inaction and where we are headed from here without? >> again it goes back to this idea of government coercion and the thing is the big picture

taking a step back from same-sex marriage is that the government can come in handy for someone to celebrate a message to paint a picture to design a t-shirt to create a floral arrangement to bake a cake that has to promote something that is completely at odds with their faith or their conscience we are headed for big trouble and right now that same-sex marriage is something that is the a hot-button issue. for instance in colorado or client jack a. baker the civil rights commission out there actually compared him to a nazi or a slave owner for declining to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. this guy has his shop closed on sundays. he doesn't create halloween

goodies i guess and now he is being compared to a nazi. this is a big problem and it's very concerning and again it's a speech issue. to religious freedom issue. if the government can enforce them to do that what's to say what the government can force us to do? >> there are two questions in this debate. one is what is marriage and the other question is who gets satisfied -- he gets to decide what marriage is? marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives. unelected judges should not be striking down marriage laws and redefining laws for that state. people went to the polls and debated and voted about marriage. they define what marriage is and unelected judges through those votes out. so the first right to vote be a participant in the political process has been discarded by the courts.

so what we would like to see if the courts respect the constitutional authority of citizens in their elected representatives to make marriage policy and citizens of and their representatives make marriage policies based upon the truth of what marriage is as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife, a mother and a father. other questions? >> with milenials being brought up on a steady build diet of political correctness between pop culture and education my concern is the issues you are talking about are dying off like the generations that care about this they are dying off. so we have these millennials now and how are you guys winning them over with this because i don't think the idea saying that marriage is between a man and a woman to a 20-year-old and i had my niece just recently freak out when i said that like i was a horrible person for saying that

i'm so old and draconian how are you reaching them and making them understand we are not bad people because we have certain religious convictions or traditional values? >> i will take a first stab at that. i noticed you directed the question on the marriage side of life and not the right to life side. i would put this way. i couldn't envision someone asking a question very much like yours 40 years ago after the roe v. wade decision same with the italian people turning against you on the right to life. the only people who are opposed to abortion are the elderly and a generation from now there will be a pro-life movement. that could've been a possibility but instead courageous pro-lifers got to work. they started organizing right after the roe v. wade decision the first march of life. 42 years later next week we will have another march for life and when you look at this you will see several hundred thousand

people marching in the vast majority of them will be millennials. that is how it's been more or less since the beginning. what's amazing right now is when you look at the public opinion polling on abortion my generation is more pro-life than my parents generation so there's no reason why the same thing can happen on marriage. my generation never has had to think through critically what marriage is. we have largely live in a culture that has made a mess of marriage so we came of age after the sexual revolution and after no-fault divorce where the majority of our contemporaries are born outside of marriage. it's not surprising that we are confused about what marriages but that's no reason to give up on it. serious work can be done making the case for what marriage is and why it matters and why we ought not to redefine it in mind those states where it has been redefined we have to reclaim the truth about marriage. may take a decade, it may take four decades but that's the work

that we have to do. the way we are doing that is through a host of -- to panel discussions like this in campus speaking. in the past two years i've been a probably 50 or 60 college campuses and law schools harvard yale princeton and stanford and why you another 50 or so so there are a variety of ways. kerri has a series of short video clips. there's a march for marriage which has started. hopefully there will be culture makers that will do the same in film radio and tv. everyone has a role to play here in bearing witness to the truth of marriage just like everyone had a role in the right to life movement so maybe sarah or chuck would want to say summit techniques that they did because that one has proven successful. >> absolutely. if you think of the hundreds of thousands of americans who vote here in d.c. next week how the

broad cross-section of the pro-life movement that is people who run the 2000 pregnancy centers across the country providing the day by day material and emotional support to women who are facing unplanned pregnancies and saving lives. on the front lines. people who have done films i think of jason jones and his movement with bella and crescendo in other movies. you have had this fusion into the culture of the truth about human life and infusion of the ultrasound videos that mr. meadows talked about. you have really had at every level of culture and law and physical support you have seen people in the pro-life movement step up and provide that kind of support, provide a witness to the truth about human life. you are going to need that in all of these cultural issues especially marriage. it took us 40 years to get here. we have many challenges facing us in the pro-life movement but

it will take all of those components to make that case. >> if i could do a little product placement for the heritage foundation. we have an incredibly good publication called the index of public indicators out in june. i think people don't necessarily realize that the abortion rate has dropped by over a third since peak 20 years ago. it is now with the latest beta in 2011 back to the 1972/73 level pre-roe v. wade. this is happen through legislation and centers like cultural change. there is an inverted pyramid of emerging with millennials who are more tolerant and accepting of same-sex marriage in the short-run but i have grown up with a generation that was less pro-life and lived through some the consequences of it.

it hasn't been stabilizing for the family and it hasn't produced perfect children any more than the previous generation did. something like 70% of the american people think the 20 week legislation is a good idea. that figure is higher for women than men. they great article in the "washington post" showing that women are more supportive of this. we need to continue to have debates move legislation that people can agree on a pond also show that it's effective and without deleterious consequences. the case of the life issue is an example of how we have continued to press on difficult issue to make progress because people relisten. they may not listen intently over the short-run but if there is an openness to listen as we see with certain decisions have brought so i think we need to advance it that way. >> and the other questions?

okay if not thank you all for joining us for this panel and i would hand it over for final remarks. >> thank you. a great discussion. >> i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful but it's my team that is at the table. we are steeped in this stuff day in and day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on this for five six, seven years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making these assessments and i'm

asking congress to hold off because our negotiators, our partners those who are most intimately involved in this process that will jeopardize the possibility over solving providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long lasting national security problems we have faced in a very long time. and congress needs to show patience. so with respect to the veto i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk and i will make this argument to the american people as to why i am doing so. i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see

if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. i think that is worth doing. we will see how persuasive i am but if i'm not persuading congress i promise i will be taking my case to the american people. >> the pictures very clear, the sanctions that america and the european union put in place has had an effect. that is led to pressure and that pressure has led to talks and there are talks on a prospect of success. i would argue with the president how much better is that may other potential outcomes and that's what we should be focusing on. but to answer directly guess i have contacted a couple of senators this morning and i may speak to one or more to -- one or two more this afternoon not only as british premise or to tell the american citizens what they should or shouldn't do but simply to make the point is a country that stands alongside

america in these vital negotiations that is the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and that could fracture the international unity that there has been which has been so valuable in presenting a united front to iraq. i say this as someone who played quite a strong role in getting europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions and getting all sanctions in the first place and i would simply make the point that those sanctions have had an effect and to those who say if you do an interim deal, even start discussing what the iranians the sanctions to pressure will dissipate and no one will be able to stay at it. that is demonstrable been shown not to be true. the pressure still there and as the president says if the iranians say no and there is no deal then by all means let's account and work out what extra sanctions to put in place.

we are absolutely united in this simple thought which is a deal that takes i ran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon or military action to prevent it. and it comes down to that simple choice. i will do what i can to help as one of the countries negotiating, i will. [inaudible] >> the way the president put it i wouldn't disagree with it. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british prime minister and 35 years i think to meet with some iranian president and it's very hard to know what they're thinking is that there is a very clear offer their which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and to conclude an agreement with them which would be mutually beneficial. that's what you have.

..