-- not to be made futile by unthinking and stupid labels. [applause] i would remind you that vice.ism is no [applause] thank you.

thank you. thatet me remind you also -- in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [applause] senator goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 republican national convention, this weekend on "american reel america." sunday on c-span3. house gaveled the out on thursday, steny hoyer talked about the upcoming legislative agenda with the incoming majority leader, kevin mccarthy. role taken up usually by the current majority leader, who is set to stay -- step down from his current position at the end of the month. this is from the house floor and is about 15 minutes. i suppose the majority

leader-elect. a few weeks from now. but we'll be doing the colloquies and i appreciate his stance. we had the opportunity to have lunch. i'm hopeful we can have a very productive rich: as i'm sure this house and -- relationship as i'm sure the house and the country hopes. i'm pleased to yield to the majority lead hrn elect. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i look forward to a very strong working relationship with you. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 12:00er to morning hour and 2:00 prime minister for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:0 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will

consider a few suspensions next week, complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5016, the fiscal year 2015 financial service and general government appropriations act sponsored by chairman crenshaw. members are advised that the debate on the bill and amendments will begin monday night after the 6:30 p.m. vote series. members are further advised that it is possible that we will have an additional vote series monday night on amendments to the financial service appropriations bill. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider a package of five tax bills from ways and means that will help foster charitable giving. these five bills that will be included are h.r. 2807, the conservation easement intendtific act of 2013, authored by representative gerlach. h.r. 4619, making the rule

allowing certain tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes permanent, authored by representative schock. h.r. 4719, which will permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory authored by representative reid. h.r. 3134, the charitable giving extension act authored by representative kelly and h.r. 4691, modifying the tax rate for excise tax on investment income for private foundations authorized -- authored by representative paulsen. the house will also likely consider the highway extension bill to ensure that the vital transportation projects continue during the busy summer construction season. and, finally, members are advised that the house may also consider an extension of the terrorism risk insurance act. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information.

i would ask him, we have now completed six appropriation bills, the gentleman has announced we'll have a seventh appropriation bill, financial services, on the floor next week. does the gentleman anticipate doing the balance of the appropriation bills the remaining -- bills, the remaining five bills, before the september 30 end of the fiscal year? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman noted, as of last night the house has now acted on six appropriations bills, which is halfway through. and as i mentioned in the schedule announcement for the next week, the house will begin consideration of the seventh bill, the financial services appropriation act, starting on monday evening. and that's as much as i see for the next week. but as we move forward to the july calendar, i will keep you notified as we continue through. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. hopefully, i know he has the expectation, i hope that we would be asked to pass the

appropriation bills individually, in a manner that we've considered the previous bills on this floor. i note that the labor health bill has not been marked up in subcommittee and would simply ask him if, in light of the fact that that has not moved through subcommittee yet, would that be one of the bills that he would anticipate bringing to the floor before september 30? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do not anticipate that bill coming up next week, but as we look towards the remainder of the july schedule, we will certainly notify the members for the consideration of the house. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. of course from our perspective and i'm sure from his, very, very important piece of legislation. the highway bill that is coming to the floor, we know that that is critically important. it passed out of committee i think on a voice vote, although as the gentleman knows, there was substantial disdepreement on the length of term of that -- disagreement on the length

of term of that. we're disappointed that we haven't given a longer term or either done a short-term so we could do a long-term bill, giving confidence to contractors and jurisdictions around the country. but we find ourselves in a situation now where there are more than 100,000 transportation projects that could be delayed. so we look forward to working to not only move this process forward in the short-term, but we would like to and would urge , notwithstanding the fact it appears it's going to be a longer term, until may of next year, that we continue to focus on a long-term, confidence-building, we believe economy-growing effort at a longer term re-authorization of a highway program. the gentleman doesn't need to comment on that. i just wanted to make that comment to him. unless he wanted to say something on that. mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman

will yield. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do want to thank the gentleman and the other side of the aisle because as you did note, it did pass out of ways and means on a voice vote unanimously. we are committed, we want to bring the bill to the floor. fill the hole that we are committed to looking long-term, as many of the ideas that we have brought forth in the past. and we look forward to working with you on working on the highway bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we passed, as the gentleman repeated and that extended -- it was not an extension from that standpoint, but the tax credit for vestments and equipment, depreciation allowance, we palsed that today. that was -- passed that today. that was a $287 billion cost. i would call the gentleman's attention, as i have with mr. cantor, we are still concerned on this side of the aisle, i

know the gentleman knows this, that the unemployment insurance bill that lapsed in december of 13 is still -- has still not been funded. there's some three million people who have fallen off that. d part of your new responsibilities, you will be focused on scheduling legislation. i would urge the majority leader to consider very seriously bringing that unemployment bill to the floor for a vote. we believe that it does have the votes on this house floor and we believe that the three million, and it's growing by thousands per month, who have run out of unemployment insurance, it's slowing our economy, but also obviously from their perspective giving them no support to support themselves and to help support their families. so i would urge the gentleman to look again at the unemployment insurance status.

originally proposed to be retroactive, even if we look at it prospectively, we would hope that the majority leader would look at that and consider whether we may move forward on that on this house floor. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his input. as i said earlier, in next week's schedule, i do not anticipate that coming up next week. but as we look towards the rest of july, i will keep all members posted. mr. hoyer: i appreciate not only keeping us posted but the focusing on that to see whether we might do that. tria, the gentleman has announced that tria is going to be under consideration. we believe this is a very important piece of legislation. it however passed out of committee on a party-line vote, as the gentleman knows. and there are still concerns that need to be addressed and i would hope that we could work on those before it comes to the floor. does the gentleman know whether that will come under a rule and

whether or not that rule will amendment an open process? mr. mccarthy: i thank for yielding and bringing up this issue. as i mentioned, the schedule announcement for next week, members should be prepared for a possible consideration of the terrorism risk insurance act. but once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce the hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, we only have 12 days remaining until the august break, of legislative days that we'll be in session. and only 22 days before the end of the scheduled session, prior to the election. the scheduled date is october 2 for us to adjourn. we believe this legislation is critical, again, for the economy, for confidence in the marketplace, to be passed. and so we would hope that to facilitate that, we could pass

it through this body in a boip way, which would make it he's -- boip way which would make -- bipartisan way which would make it easier for the senate to facilitate pass and get that bill president. so i look -- bill to the president. so i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote, make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objectivive. and i appreciate his being willing to work on that. last -- next to last, the export-import next to last the export-import bank, i know there's work being done. i know the gentleman indicated it's not ready at least for passage. but we know -- this expires at the end of the year. we are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have. could the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks that consideration of that bill may be at this point in time?

mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. mccarthy: do i not anticipate that coming up -- i do not anticipate that coming up next week. we will certainly notify the members if that will be considered on the house. million hoyer: again, i -- mr. hoyer: i did understand it's not coming up next week. the reason i mention time, we have so few days, legislative days left, we are going to need to plan to address some of these issues that i think are going to be very important to our economic growth. i know the gentleman's very concerned about that. we are very concerned about it. on our side. his members are very concerned about that. we believe that that export-import bank is a -- an economic growth, economic confidence building measure. we would hope we could address that. there are also, as the gentleman knows, 41 house republicans who

signed the letter urging that be passed and indicating their support of it, which we believe every democrat on this side will vote for that. that's almost 200 people. with the 41. clearly makes a majority of this house. we think it could be passed on this floor, and we think it would have a very positive effect on the economy. we would urge the gentleman to consider very carefully with his colleagues whether or not we can move forward on that. lastly, i would say to the gentleman, we are all very concerned about children coming to the border. concerned about the process of making sure that this humanitarian crisis is dealt with in a constructive, positive way for the children. but also in way that gives clear notice that america cannot have borders which are simply opened but must be able to authorize people to come in to this

country. not have them come in in an unauthorized fashion. in that respect, one of the problems, i don't know whether the gentleman had the opportunity to see the "wall street journal" editorial today, but they made it very clear that one of the problems is that because the system is broken, because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and the gentleman, of course, based upon where he lives, obviously is very -- probably one of our more knowledgeable members on this issue, but the "wall street journal" observes that one of the problems is that people cannot come across the border and then return in a fashion which will provide for work here by them and also for them not only coming here but then leaving without an expectation they'll never be able to visit or work again. either family members or for the purposes of work. we continue to believe that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform would be a ameliorate the

present crisis we see at our borders. and we continue to hope that comprehensive immigration reform will also be an item on the agenda. although we have 22 days left between now and our october 2 projected adjournment, the expectation, i think, of all of is we will come back in a postelection session, so-called lame duck session. either before that, in the next 22 days, or in the session after the election, we believe it is critically important to address the immigration issue. the gentleman and i have had an opportunity to discuss this over the last couple of months. i know he's very knowledgeable about this issue and sensitive to this issue and i would hope we could work together to see whether or not we could put a bipartisan bill on the floor

sooner rather than later. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate you bringing up the crisis at the border. many of the members in this house on both sides have been down to the border personally to see the crisis. i think that's foreign for all elected officials to go see. -- that's important for all elected officials to go see. we have a task force working on this. i know the president put for the the supplemental -- put forth the supplement. do i not anticipate that coming up next week, but as we look toward the remainder of july i look forward to working with the gentleman on that and other issues. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response and hope that the supplemental, because it deals with a humanitarian crisis, would not be a partisan issue. we obviously need to deal with the immediate problem. i was talking about the longer term problem, but i appreciate the gentleman's observation with reference to the supplemental.

i'm a supporter of that supplemental. obviously appropriations committee needs to review it with respect to the proper levels of funding, but there is no doubt that we, right now, have inadequate resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis that confronts us immediately. those funds are necessary. i'm pleased that the gentleman brought it up and i look forward to working with him on it. unless the gentleman wants to make further comment, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 14, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and >> the house comes back for a full week next week, starting with reauthorizing the highway

bill, the ways and means republicans tweeting about the debate on that bill. they say we just approved hr 20 51 to fund our highways in a bipartisan way so we can make improvements to our broach and ridges -- to our roads and bridges. it? bipartisan is how similar or dissimilar is it to what the senate is proposing?" -- ou have republicans and it is a temporary extension of the highway bill. you are seeing some differences being worked out between the senate and the house version. will continue to see that next week, the two side hammering out their differences.

the house is scheduled to vote on that next week. >> the rules committee meeting next wednesday on the lawsuit -- here is the headline. "dems tap witnesses in possible boehner lawsuit." what would that look like? >> both sides will hash out their arguments about why they can or cannot sue the president for executive overreach -- alleged executive overreach. they will argue for the democrats that the suit has no standing, that the house republicans shouldn't be allowed to go forward with the lawsuit. you have two noted constitutional experts for the republicans, one a g.w. law school professor and another a professor in florida. they will make an argument of why the house does have standing to sue the president over his

executive actions on the employer mandate and obamacare. >> it seems like they keep turning their way through the 20 15th spending bills. what is ahead for the next week? >> the irs appropriations will come up. it will be a chance for republicans to punish the irs for the tea party targeting controversy as well as some of the other controversies the agency has gotten itself in. increased funding is ahead for the irs. >> and headline in politico shows senator john cornyn. this was part of the statement that senator cornyn made after president obama was down in texas, meeting with governor perry and others. requested 3.7has billion dollars from congress. when will they finally hold a hearing on that? bethat is still to determined. they are not thrilled with that amount. hal rogers thinks that number is way too high. a number of texas republicans

are not feeling any rush to fund that request as is. they will go through with the normal appropriations in regular order and look to see what has been allocated, what needs to be allocated immediately. even if the $3.7 billion figure tooight or whether it is high. that will continue to be a huge source of debate for democrats and republicans next week. democraticthe week, leaders unveiled their response to the supreme court's hobby lobby decision. this is the tweet from senator reid. >> house democrats would essentially overrule the supreme court decision in the hobby lobby case that says that for profit businesses with religious exemptions do not need to provide some forms of birth control under their insurance to women. that would override the case and make it so that these four -- nose for-profit businesses,

matter their religious affiliation, have to provide for all birth control options in their health care plans. >> lots to cover in the coming week. covering congress for politico. she is also on twitter. thanks for the update. >> the house rules committee meets monday to their skin -- to consider the rules for the highway and transportation funding bill. watch coverage at 5:00 on c-span3. and more live coverage from capitol hill on monday at 7:30 eastern. veterans affairs committees hold a hearing to examine the evaluation process for veterans benefits and claims. you can join the conversation during the hearing on facebook and twitter using #cspanchat. rexford over 35 years, c-span

brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete, gavel-to-gavel as aage of the house, all public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider here to watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> next, defining religious liberty in today's courts, including the recent supreme court decision on hobby lobby, allowing certain point -- certain businesses to deny birth employer -- birth control coverage to their employees based on religious beliefs. 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 >> president of rock the vote

-- we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live on c-span. >> keep in touch with current events from the nation's capitol. every weekday look for a recap of the day's events at 5:00 eastern on "washington today." radio, call 202, 626, 888

8. >> president obama discussed jobs and the economy, and ways to expand the american middle class. n address, republica joni ernst. > >> hi, everybody. this week, i spent some time in colorado and texas, talking with people about what's going on in their lives. one of them was elizabeth cooper, who'll be a college junior this fall. she wrote to tell me something i often -- how hard it is for middle-class families like hers to afford college. and she shared something i know many of you feel when you wonder what's going on in washington. she said she feels "not significant enough to be addressed, not poor enough for worry about and not rich enough to be cared about." i ran for president to fight for

americans just like elizabeth - - people who work hard, do everything right, and just want a chance to build a decent life for themselves and their families. and after the worst economic crisis in generations, our businesses have now created nearly 10 million new jobs over the past 52 months. the unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest point since 2008. by almost every measure, our economy is better off than it was five years ago. but while we've created more jobs at this point of the year than any year since 1999, too many families barely earn what they did in 1999. it's harder to pay for college, save, or retire, because people's wages and incomes have not gone up. nearly all the gains of the recovery are going to the very top -- and aren't making a difference in your lives. and i believe america does better when the middle class does better. and i've laid out an opportunity agenda to create jobs, train workers, educate our kids, and make sure hard work actually

pays off. these are the things we should be doing to grow the middle class and help folks work their way into the middle class. and it's pretty uncontroversial stuff. i hope we can work together on it. and i'm always willing to compromise if folks have other ideas or if it advances generally the interests of working americans. but so far this year, republicans in congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class. lifting the minimum wage, fair pay, student loan reform -- they've said no to all of it. and that's when i've acted this year to help working americans on my own- when congress won't act. i've taken actions to attract new jobs, lift workers' wages, help students pay off their loans, and more. and the republican plan right now is not to do some of this work with me -- instead, it's to sue me. that's actually what they're spending their time on. it's a political stunt that's going to waste months of

america's time. and by the way, they're going to pay for it using your hard-earned tax dollars. i have a better idea: do something, congress. do anything to help working americans. join the rest of the country. join me, i'm looking forward to working with you. you know, on tuesday, i met with carolyn reed and her husband david, who own six silver mine sub shops in colorado. two days later, they announced they're giving their hourly employees a raise to ten dollars and ten cents an hour. they're not waiting for congress. carolyn said, "we are happy to be a part of what i hope will be a growing voluntary trend in increased wages." carolyn and americans like her all across the country are happy to do their part. congress now needs to step up and do its part. and next week, i'll travel to a couple of job sites to talk about how democrats and republicans can work together to grow the economy and protect nearly 700,000 jobs by passing a highway bill by the end of the summer. i'm here because hardworking

americans like elizabeth and carolyn. that's something i'll never forget -- it's something i'll never stop fighting for. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> hello, this is joni ernst. i'm a mother and grandmother, a soldier, and proud to be iowa's republican nominee for u.s. senate. i get asked all the time what made me want to join the military. and the answer is simple. when i was attending college, i went on an agricultural exchange to the soviet union. and i saw with my own eyes what a nation without freedom looks like. i saw what happens to people when they lose their liberty. when i came home, i decided that it wasn't enough for me to simply enjoy freedom and liberty. i had to do my part to protect and preserve it. decades later, i am a lt. colonel and battalion commander in the iowa army national guard. in fact i am recording this message a few days early, and by the time you hear this, i will

be on active duty leading my troops for the next two weeks. growing up on a farm in a small town in iowa, i learned that america's greatness comes from people, not government. the problem in america today is that washington is full of liberals who think government is the solution to every problem. they think that nothing can be solved unless washington is involved. and so they grow our government, every year making it more intrusive and more involved in our lives. today government tells us what doctors to see, what kinds of light bulbs to use, and in some places, even how much soda we can drink. i wake up at night worried that the failed policies coming out of washington pose a grave threat to our ability to pass along the same great nation we once inherited to our children - like my teenage daughter - and future generations to come. but as republicans, it's not enough to simply say "no". we need to provide solutions and be able to explain what we would do differently.

first, we believe we need a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution to force washington to stop spending more than it takes in. that is how we run our households and we should expect nothing less from washington. it is simply irresponsible to saddle our kids with a debt averaging $55,000 for every one of america's youth. speaking of our children, we need an economy that is growing and providing better paying jobs. we need the government to get out of the way and foster an economic environment that encourages real, lasting growth. we believe by safely and responsibly tapping into america's domestic energy supply we can create hundreds of thousands of new, good-paying

jobs in our communities while also strengthening our national security. we believe obamacare is not improving healthcare in america, but making it worse. we need, and must demand, more individual control over our health care decisions, not less. parents and doctors know what's best when it comes to the health of their child -- not the government. we need to start over and create real, meaningful heath care reform that allows us- americans to choose the plans they want, the doctors they need, at a cost they can afford. we believe we must preserve and protect social security and medicare and keep our promise to today's seniors. but we also believe, as do some of our friends in the democratic party, that these programs must be reformed so america not only

keeps its promise to today's seniors but is also able to guarantee a safety net is available for our children and grandchildren. we believe strong schools are critical for the future success of our nation. i send my own daughter to the very same public school that i graduated from. to strengthen local schools, we believe we need to take power and money away from washington politicians and bureaucrats, and give it to local parents, teachers and administrators, so they can decide what's best for their children's education. we know, and we believe that americans know what's best for their communities more than washington bureaucrats. and part of that bureaucracy is failing our veterans, and the stories we've heard about the failures of the va are heartbreaking. as an active member of the iowa national guard and the wife of a retired u.s. army ranger, i

believe this isn't a partisan issue. it's an american problem that must be solved. growing up on that southwest iowa farm, my family didn't have much. my mother canned our food and made our clothes - teaching us the lessons of not spending what you don't have. in our small town, we relied on each other -- our neighbors lent us a helping hand when we needed it and we would do the same in their time of need. today, to get america back on track it is going to take each of us working together to advance real solutions to our problems -- not more tired rhetoric. again, this is joni ernst. thank you. god bless you and may god continue to bless the united states of america.

>> next, "the communicators," with tom vander ark. after that, ed royce talking about foreign policy. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to as a public service. >> the name of the book is "getting smart." the author, tom vander ark. how do you define digital learning? >> it is a blend of learning. a combination of the best of face-to-face and online learning. connotesarning usually