remarkable lives at home and on the world stage. as president, i pursued a new era of engagement with latin america where the country's work together as equal partners based on mutual interest and mutual respect. as president i pursued a new era of engagement with latin america where countries were together as equal partners based on interest and mutual respect. him the united states is more deeply engaged in the region than we have been in decades. i believe the relationship between the united states and latin america is as good as it's ever been. we are focused on the future where we can accomplish together. a cornerstone of our engagement with the region as a strong partnership with brazil. i believe our two nations are natural partners in the america and around the world. largest democracies easily understand aspirations of citizens to them that freedom. dilma, the sacrifices you've made in your own life right testament to the determination.

after multiracial, multiethnic they are stronger and uphold the rights, in truth we reflected on yesterday when we visited the memorial to dr. martin luther king, jr. as two of the world's largest economies we understand lasting prosperity and confronting the injustices of poverty and inequality could only come when we truly invest in our people, their education, and their skills come in their ability to live and work with dignity. these are our enduring interests and values that bind us together. and now, no relationship between countries is about disagreements. the united states and brazil are no different. it is often tempting to focus on whatever challenges may be in the moment. and steps that don't make the headlines, the work of our nation has gone on and over the years president of rousseff and

i have deep and firm promoted up the government to combating human trafficking to advancing development in africa. since i took office we boosted american exports by more than 50% and our bilateral trade has reached record levels surpassing $100 billion a year. we've expanded collaborations in science and technology and the ties between our people, especially young people as part of our 100,000 strong in the americas initiative to come to the united states and more american students go to brazil and that is real concrete progress we've made together. of course president rousseff and i believe given how close our national interest there is much , more the united states and brazil can do together. dilma, thank you for your commitment for taking the partnership to the next level. that is what we have done today

across a range of areas. first, we are announcing a series of new steps to boost trade and investment with results recent announcement on her structure in american companies and investment. with brazil's recent announcement on infrastructure in american companies, we will have more opportunities to compete for projects and highways, airports and railways. we will make it easier for companies to hire workers in each other's countries that will do more to help our small and medium-size businesses and large partners connecting collaborating export them as leaders in science and technology we've agreed to increase partnerships between colleges and universities as we develop the next scientists and researchers. second, as major economies, the united states and brazil believe in climate change. since 2005 our two nations produce carbon emissions more than any other countries in the world. in brazil this includes efforts over the past decade to combat before his nation including the amazon which is some type called the lungs of the planet. together, our countries are leaders in clean energy.

together, we take important steps as we work toward a strong global climate agreement in paris. i think our brazilian friends for their post-2020 target in reducing emissions including substantial post to eliminate illegal deforestation and restore forests. both nations are committed to clean energy beyond hydropower the united states and brazil aimed to increase the share of electricity from renewable energy to 20% by the year 2030. these are very ambitious goal, a near tripling for the united states and more than doubled brazil's current output. following progress during my trips to china and india, this shows the world's major economies can transcend some of the old divides and come together to confront the common challenge we face, something we have to work on for future

generations. and i am confident this will lead to a strong outcome in paris. third, we are working to deepen our defense cooperation under president rousseff's leadership two import agreements were approved last week and are now in effect. going forward it will be easier for our two militaries to train together, to share more information and technology and to cooperate disaster response and peacekeeping. i want to thank you for making this progress. finally, we worked together to uphold democracy and human rights across latin america. i very much appreciate president rousseff's support for the new opening towards cuba. i updated dilma including embassies in havana and washington and i believe brazil's leadership in the region as well as a journey in the market economy can make a partner as we create more opportunities and prosperity for the cuban people. in short, i believe this visit

marks one more step in a new ambitious chapter in the relationship between our countries. we are focused on the future. dilma, thank you for friendship, partnership and the progress we have achieved together. and in the year ahead, we americans will cheer proudly for team u.s.a. we will be rooting for games with brazil as our host. dilma did give me a very nice yellow and green sweatshirt, which says brazil on the back. i can't wear that in public. [laughter] because i have to root for the u.s.a. but at home at night, it is very comfortable. [laughter] i might slip it on. president rousseff, thank you. president rousseff: [speaking

foreign language] >> translator: dear president, barack obama, greetings to a cabinet members at the two delegations. greetings likewise to all members, photographers cameramen and women. i would like to thank president barack obama and the u.s. for the hospitality for which they have welcomed me since i got here. and ever since i came through new york this morning and last evening president barack obama and i have had productive meetings during which we have celebrated an upward trajectory in our relations. we have also established a robust bilateral agenda in areas of trade investment climate change, energy, education, defense, science, technology innovation. we have reinforced our dialogue

on topics such as the environment and sustainable development. factors that are indeed key and essential for the world we also focus on governing peace and security. the economic recovery in the united states is an extremely positive development for the world economy and certainly the brazilian economy. our bilateral trade is very substantial. and there is no higher value added. we want to further expand and diversify exchanges inherent and consistent to doubling our trade. the ultimate object that consists in building the conditions to ensure an ambitious trade relationship between brazil and the united states. in the short term we should

remove especially the non-tariff obstacles that are in place for investor good and agricultural goods. with splashdown bureaucracy red tape and do away with the very complicated permit restrictions and would also like of course the high-quality and brazil we do acknowledge. in the short-term our priority agenda will focus on two topics. number one, regulatory standards convergence, harmonization. number two, trade facilitation through a single window system to streamline and simplify the time frame involved in customs procedures. we would also like to cooperate with the u.s. patent office is. that the matter involves intellectual property is there a positive impact by these investments as we expand the degree of technology incorporated into brazil.

the u.s. is the main investor in 2013. the total aggregate from the u.s. came to 160 billion. usd. investments in the u.s. have grown in 2013. the total aggregate amount in the u.s. came to $15.7 billion u.s. dollars. these figures do not truly represent the order of magnitude of these investments, and it is important to indicate between 2002-2012 the growth of investment by brazil in the u.s. came to 221 between 2007 and 2012. we want to further expand the flow and we want them to be higher given the actual potentiality available to is -- available in our respective economies. that is one of the objectives of the efforts we have engaged in

to further strengthen our economic policy for both resilient investments in foreign investment in brazil. we have also developed a macroeconomic agenda can therefore be of less regulatory risk expanding the processes and also the relations between companies and the government. we are also expanding the investment opportunity in one area where coordination by the government is absolutely key in terms of setting the right expectations. i am talking about the infrastructure area. we have launched an ambitious infrastructure program and we hope and thank president obama for his commitment and assuring the presence of u.s. investors in the process and the logistics development program. i would also like to say we have

enjoyed a fruitful relationship between our two governments and the business communities. the bilateral ceo for them with -- the bilateral ceo form with the important suggestion such as the establishment are setting up of an infrastructure inflation by coordinating and promoting investment projects as well as the suggestion of development and developing financial tools and guarantees for investments in the long-term stimulating private sector involvement. we also have a wide array of several opportunities and achievements in areas such as the defense arena, for example. we welcome the two agreement passed by congress. the defense and cooperation agreement will allow a very fruitful cooperation between the brazilian ministry of defense as

well as the u.s. counterpart ministry of defense. the military information in agreement on military information will have the exchange of information in that area. in the fields of technology, biotechnology, and aerospace. i would like to highlight one point that president obama and i discussed and one in which we have come to a decision which i view as very important. i'm talking about climate change. climate change is one of the central challenges of the 21st century. and we have one important objective, which is number one to ensure that the image of our two countries will have a

substantial share of renewable energy. the decision has a great deal to do with the outlook and our involvement as part of the global initiatives agreement so that we are in a position to materialize the agreement during the upcoming conference to be held in paris. the second area is very much related to the first one, which is the joint decision by our two countries to establish a 20% goal in terms of expanding the renewable share sources for the hydro sources between now and 2020. i very much welcome the decision because it is extremely important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also it speaks to our clear-cut commitment in

ensuring the environment and also efforts to make sure the global temperature would not go up beyond two degrees as agreed. as countries we have the very important greenhouse gas emissions target. we attach a great deal of importance to reduce not only as we have done actually in brazil, but we at the commitment to come to a zero deforestation, illegal deforestation rate and we also wish to turn the page as engaged in a clear-cut reforestation policy. that is an extremely important point for brazil and also reflects the commitment we ourselves have undertaken as part of the forest code in effect in brazil.

so, the agenda in my view is absolutely essential for cooperation in energy efficiency for example. we are committed to putting in smart grids as well as minimum consumption levels and also committed to establishing efficient equipment and building. president obama and i discussed the importance of education for budget with two gains for social inclusion to make sure the gains become permanent gain them a qualitative leap forward to the knowledge economy. and that is why we are most like to see our agreement on cooperation between the brazilian industry of education and the department of education.

we are most pleased about that agreement. we also wish to establish partnerships between the government research in each of our two countries to achieve scientific technological improvements, as well as innovation. i would also like to stress the importance of using education technology as a means to move towards higher quality, more inclusive education. in that regard without a shadow of a doubt, the high-quality as well as the ability of the united states to develop scientific and technological research in that arena has proved very important. i may also state for the record that we attach a great deal of importance to the cooperation is part of the science program.

the science without borders program. an important highlight is the fact that the u.s. has received the biggest number of brazilian students. the u.s. has become the main destination of brazilian students who are beneficiaries and may i thank president obama for having welcomed such a substantial wave of brazilian grantees. i have often said time and again that it is our ambition to change immigration into one of the central topics on our agenda. we also want to make progress in our energy cooperation between the laboratory and the research center and material. tomorrow, i will be in california. and while in california i intend to hold a very instigating

meeting with the information technology, biotechnology and aerospace companies. i'd also like to thank president obama because we have come to a decision to facilitate entry of frequent travelers from brazil in the united states as part of the global entry program. we have also signed a very important agreement with the brazilian population living and working in the united states talking about a social security agreement that will allow the brazilians in the u.s. to be equally covered under the social security agreement. we also have a wide array of different initiatives. i would like to essentially highlight the following initiatives.

the decision by brazil to join the global health security initiative. i think it is also very important to underscore that we have a wide array of joint initiatives that can be developed in third-party countries, particularly for the purpose of fuel production. in conclusion, may i referred to the importance of latin america during the decision made by president obama and president raul castro given the partnership with pope francis with the effect of opening up relations with cuba, a very decisive milestone in u.s.

relations with latin america. it is about putting an end to the last lingering vestiges of the cold war and ultimately elevate the level of the relationship between the u.s. and the entire region. may i acknowledge the importance of that gesture to all of latin america and the world peace at large. it is an important example of relations to be followed. in conclusion, may i reiterate my imitation to president obama to come to brazil for the 2016 olympics. i count on you. of course the invitation is extended to the vice president that they are not able to be at the same time, at the same place abroad. but anyway, president obama has a standing invitation to come to the olympics in rio in brazil. he will be able to wear his

green and yellow jersey which has "brazil" and "obama" on the chest. and i'm sure you will be applauded if you do so. i also believe this trip to the united states stands as the relaunch of our bilateral relations. once again, i thank president obama and the u.s. people are the warm welcome -- for the warm reception and for the welcome. and we have indeed taken one step ahead in the bilateral relations. thank you very much. president obama: we are going to take a few questions. i will start with jim koonin who i understand the amount his -- understand announced his retirement. you are kind of young to retire. while you are ahead? we are going to miss you, but he

will be here for a couple weeks, right? congratulations. jim: you on the cusp of entering into a nuclear agreement with iran, but there are still a number of unresolved issues. in particular, the fate of [ inaudible]. your administration raised the imprisonment of these americans but still you will sign likely an agreement with tehran in those issues will remain unresolved. what do you say to the families about how you will deal with their loved ones? and i guess the bottom line, do you find the iranian leadership trustworthy? madam president, welcome to the u.s. you canceled the previous trip to the united states following the snowden revelation.

the nsa spying. obama: a little louder. kimjim: you canceled your previous trip to the united states following the revelations by edward snowden by the nsa spying on you. are you still troubled by these revelations and have you received assurances and are you satisfied that the answers you have received from the administration? thank you. president obama: first of all, with respect to u.s. citizens , u.s. persons who are held in iran, this is something that we continue to push hard on irrespective of the nuclear deal. it is a top priority for us to make sure that our people are treated fairly and on the face of it in the case of these

individuals who have been held they have not been and they are not being afforded a basic due process and legal rights that we afford visitors to our country. so we are deeply concerned about it. we spend a lot of time pushing on and we will continue to do so. there is no lessening of the sense of urgency. so when i talked to the families, we remind them of the fact that his admission that will continue and has been worked on it consistently throughout their captivity. with respect to the larger issue of whether i trust the iranian regime, as i said before, there are deep-seated disagreements and divisions between the united states and iran.

and those aren't going to go away overnight. the goal of the nuclear negotiations is not to rely on trust, but to set up a verifiable mechanism where we are cutting off pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. and john kerry right now is down there with the secretary of energy, who one of the top is nuclear physicist in the world. they are deeply engaged in negotiations. my hope is they can achieve an agreement. the instructions of them have been extremely clear. the framework agreement that was established is one that is and codified properly when in

fact achieve my -- would in fact achieve my goal, which is iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. there has been a lot of talk on the other side from the iranian negotiators about whether they , in fact can abide by some of the terms that came up. if they cannot, that is going to be a problem because i have said from the start i will walk away from the negotiations if in fact it is a bad deal. if we cannot provide assurances that the pathways for iran obtaining a nuclear weapon are closed, if we can't verify that , if the verification regime is inadequate, then we are not going to get a deal. and we have been very clear to the iranian government about that. the good news is that our p5+1 partners in these negotiations

feel exactly the same way. so, you know, there's still some hard negotiations that take place. but ultimately that will be up to the iranian to determine whether or not they make the requirement that the international community has set forth to be able to fairly and accurately and consistently assess whether or not they have foreclosed the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon. and given past behavior on the part of iran, that can't simply be a declaration by iran, a few inspectors wandering around every once in a wild. that has to be a serious breaker rigorous verification

mechanism. that is going to be the test as to whether we get a deal or not. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] >> translator: yes, that is true. i did cancel my previous trip to the u.s. at that point in time. some things have changed are the changes particularly to president obama and the u.s. government has stated on several occasions that they would no longer engage in intrusive acts on friendly countries. i believe president obama. furthermore he has told me that if he ever needed to, he would pick up the phone and call me. so yes i am certain that the conditions to date have become very different. at this point, i'd like to call

upon the global news network. president obama: if brazil plays someone else. but if they are playing the united states, i'm sorry. >> president obama, you were talking about a new relationship with iran. and then it was mentioned when brazil canceled this trip because of the matter of trust and now in the middle of a very political and economic. can you trust one another in this moment? president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] >> translator: it views itself

in the world and the usa's original play. how do you reconcile these two issues? president obama: i'm going to answer in part the question you just asked the president. we view brazil not at the regional power but as a global power. if you think about the free preeminent economic forum for coordinating between major economies, brazil is a major voice in that. -- the g 20, brazil is a major voice in that. the negotiations that are taking place in paris around climate change can only succeed with brazil as a key leader in the announcements that have been made today about their goals on renewable energy is indicative of brazil's leadership. brazil is a major global player and i told president dilma last night that the united states, as

powerful as we are and as interested as we are installed in a whole range of international issues recognizes we can't do it alone on issues like global health, we are not going to succeed unless we are working with brazil and other major countries so we can identify where there might be the outbreak of the disease, how we prevent it from turning into a pandemic. if we want to be successful on climate change, countering terrorism and making sure we reduce extreme poverty around the world, all the major countries have to be involved in that process. and brazil we consider to be an absolutely indispensable partner in these efforts. with respect to trust i will say president rousseff and i have had an excellent relationship since she took office.

i trust her completely. she's always been very candid and frank with me. about the interest of the brazilian people and how we can work together. she has delivered on what she has promised. when we met in panama we discussed, for example, the defense cooperation agreements that were just mentioned. she got those through congress. as somebody who knows something about congress, i know that it's never easy. for her to use political capital to get that done i think is indicative of the kind of reliable partner that she is. and so, we believe that this meeting that we've had this week builds on a series of steps that

continue to deepen cooperation between our two countries. there are still going to be differences occasionally, but that is true with every one of our close friends and allies. no country will have identical interests. there will always be some friction. but our common values, strong people and the relations we have, the fact we are the largest countries in the hemisphere with similar histories, all of that means we should be very strong partners for years to come. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] >> translator: i believe part of my answer was given by president obama. and i'd like to thank him for that. i would like to make the following remark. countries do go through crisis

and difficulty is natural. and the difficulty is and/or crisis should not entail a lesser role because they can -- lesser role for any country. especially because they can only be said to be a great country if they are successfully applied to overcome difficulties and have people with braveness to overcome difficulties and challenges and still sustain the people and country. it also applies to relations with countries such as the u.s. and the rest of the world. these are essential relations. i think brazil and the u.s. have a great deal in common. we are two countries that with our history and something we actually had to fight to overcome. talking about the blemish of slavery. we have large black populations.

we have a very significant ethnic and multicultural variety in our makeup and that is a major asset in our population. the wonderful heritage in our population. the same is true for the u.s. we have two strong democracies. brazil, as in the case of the united states, i have been congratulated president obama for having overcome the crisis that struck the country in 2008 and 2009. likewise brazil will overcome , the current trend and we will do so decisively. with a great commitment, more than that, we will ensure all of the achievement we have established in the past 12 years. and we will make sure these gains multiply into the future. we truly want to build a

predominantly middle-class country. i think the efforts to reduce inequality are a major gain. and we must fight. >> thank you, mr. president. i hope you don't mind if i ask a multipart question the first one being on greece. i would be remiss if i didn't ask about the financial crisis in europe. in layman's terms and language that americans can understand, i want to ask simply is a financial crisis in greece capable of bringing down the global economy? and separately i wanted to ask you what some people are calling your best week ever last week. you had two supreme court decisions supported by the affordable care act and gay rights and you also delivered a speech in charleston that was pretty warmly received. it seems you've built up some political capital for the remaining months of your presidency. i'm curious how you want to use it.

what hard things do want to to tackle at this point. and president rousseff, you extended invitation to join us at the olympics in rio next year. the terrorist group isis has shown a willingness and capacity to carry out terrorist attacks around the world. what preparations are you making to ensure the olympic games are safe and are you concerned about that happening in rio? thank you very much, madam president. president obama: on greece, this is a situation we have been monitoring throughout the year as i think most people are aware, there has been an ongoing crisis in greece dating back to 2009, 2010 and something i've been deeply involved with periodically working with european partners. it is an issue of substantial concern.

it is an issue primarily of concern to europe. essentially, what you have is a country that has gone through some difficult economic times, and needs to find a path towards growth and a path to stay in the eurozone. what we have been encouraging both the greek government and our european partners to do is to continue to negotiate and find a pathway towards a resolution. it is also important for us to make sure we planned for any contingency and that we work with the european central bank and other international

institutions to make sure that some of the bumps that may occur in the financial markets that have already occurred are smoothed out. in layman's terms for the american people, this is not something we believe will have a major shock to the system, but obviously it is very painful for the greek people and they can -- and it can have a significant effect on growth rates in europe. if europe is not growing the way it needs to grow, that has been -- has an impact on us and an impact on brazil. those are major export markets. and it can have a dampening effect on the entire world economy. so it is something we are

, monitoring and something we spend a lot of time on. jack lew has been on the phone fairly consistently over the last several months. i have spoken to my european counterparts and encouraging them to find a path towards resolution. so, it is something we take seriously, but it is not something i think should prompt overreactions. and so far, i think the markets have properly factored in the risks involved. in terms of my best week, my best week i will tell you was marrying michelle. that was a really good week. malia and sasha being born, excellent weeks. [laughter] there is a game where i scored

27 points. [laughter] that was a pretty good week. i have had some good weeks in my life i will tell you and i am blessed to have had those. i think last week was gratifying because number one we were able to get a package of trade legislation that i believe will serve the american people, american workers and businesses as well going into the future. it gives us the opportunity to negotiate high standard agreements that have enforceable labor and environmental provisions. it was a tough fight because there are lot of folks in my own party who viewed this as accelerating some of the

damaging or frightening trend around globalization that have taken place over the last several decades. my argument has consistently been we are not going to stop globalization. we have to shape it in a way that helps people and these are tools that will help us do that. but being able to get that done was very important. the affordable care act as i've said before, the results speak for themselves. we have the lowest uninsured rate since we started keeping records. it has worked better and it costs less than supporters anticipated. if we can get some governors that have been holding out and resisting expanding medicaid primarily for political reasons,

to think about what they can do for their citizens who don't have health insurance but can get it very easily to state governments acted, we could see even more improvement over time. my remarks in charleston were heartfelt. it was not a celebration. it was a reflection on the consistent challenge of race in this country and how we can find a path towards a better way. and i was gratified to see not only the incredible response of the families that had been affected by this tragedy, but by the response of people like governor haley and how they

viewed the issue of the confederate flag. as i said on friday, it doesn't solve all of our problems, but it does signify a sense of empathy and recognition that is always in the start of progress. so in many ways, last week was , the culmination of a lot of work we've been doing since i came into office. how am i going to spend whatever political capital i have built up? you know, the list is long and my instructions to my team and my instructions to myself have always been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make when i have the privilege of holding this office. we announced overtime rules that i'll be talking about more this

week that will give a race to 5 million people -- give a raise to 5 million people potentially in this country who really deserve it. i want to see if we can get bipartisan worked on with congress about rebuilding infrastructure. brazil just talked about the rebuilding of highways and roads and ports and bridges. you know what? we've got the same work to do and we need to put people back to work there. i'm really interested in the possibility, the prospect of bipartisan legislation around the criminal justice system something that i think really speaks to some of the teams i mentioned on friday. and we have seen some really interesting leadership from some unlikely republican legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress there. i want to keep on making progress on job training and making sure that the idea of two

years of free community college starts taking root. the list is long. what we are going to do, we will keep hammering away at all the issues that i think are going to have an impact on the american people. some of them will be left undone, but we are going to try to make progress on every single one of them. and i've always said one of the things i've learned in this presidency is that there are going to be ups and there are going to be downs. but as long as my focus and my team's focus is on what is going to make a difference in the lives of ordinary americans are we going to give them more opportunity so if they work hard they can get ahead. are we going to make this a more inclusive, a more fair and just society, and if that is our

north star and we keep tacking in that direction, we will make progress. i feel pretty excited about it. so i might see if we can make , next week even better. i love press conferences. it is my press team that is always holding me back. [laughter] i want to talk to you guys every day. [laughter] sorry, josh. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] >> translator: we take the issue, it is a very serious issue. we take the question of security in large-scale very seriously. which means that we involve all of those agencies that can't and

-- that can and will ensure proper security. this includes the armed forces the federal police service, and all of the state level police in the state of rio de janeiro. we already have experience. last year, we organized the world soccer cup. we had to provide security not only to just one city, whether we had to cover the whole -- but we had to cover the whole country there was not one single place not control. thereby establishing a very effective control system by means of command and control centers, as well as monitoring control centers covering the displacement of athletes as well as high ranking government officials and authorities.

so we followed up on proper security conditions to all those steps. and that is why i am certain that we will be in the position to ensure absolute security during the olympics, just as was the case during the last year world soccer cup. i actually believe that the upcoming 2016 olympics to be held next june-july will be a unique and special occasion because it will bring together the joy of the brazilians and the beauty of rio. of course each country thinks that they have the world's best city but i do believe it is the most beautiful, most beautiful city. of the letter to bring together excellent organizational capabilities. those will be wonderful ability

to welcome and receive visitors and athletes, and all of those who wish to come. to get a standing invitation to come. we will make sure you'll be able to enjoy beautiful and great celebration. i would like now to call upon our daily newspaper reporter. >> [indiscernible] being sued by many american investors lost millions of dollars, it being investigated by the department of justice regarding allegations of corruption. is it an issue of concern? [speaking foreign language] president obama: i make any it a policy not to comment on active

cases that are working their way through the justice system. partly because of the people here in the united states know that lawyers work for me and i want to make sure that we appear impartial. i'm not familiar with all the details in the case so i will decline to comment on the specifics. i will make a general statement, that i have had the opportunity to work with president rousseff on the open government initiative that we've been trying to mobilize internationally, and brazil has been a great partner in that process, that the more we can create accountability and transparency in our government systems, the better off we are going to be. and that takes work, it takes time, but brazil has been a strong partner with us in that process.

and i hope that both countries can continue to make progress on that front. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] >> translator: i would like to highlight the fact that petrobras is indeed one of the major oil-producing and oil exporting companies in the oil industry. currently, it has more than 60,000 employees. some employees working for and did engage in corruption therefore the investigation of course that is going on, it has been going on by the federal prosecutor's office and they're being sued by that office. but circumstantial evidence that is available from the prosecutors are pretty substantial.

what i'm trying to say this all legal measures that may possibly be taken against against petrobras will take into account that acts of corruption were practiced within petrobras, yes, but it does not involve hundreds in the country. at all staff members. so, therefore, it follows that those who did practice acts of corruption be held accountable and be punished. the people who actually engaged in these acts of corruption should know what will happen in terms of -- the good news about petrobras is it is a strong company, well managed today with proper governance, processes and compliance processes are well placed and properly adjusted. were that not the case, how could you possibly understand that it has a production level of 800,000 barrels a day could

? furthermore this year who supported the so-called oscar of the oil industry, oil and gas industry by the innovation granted to the petrobras president issue. petrobras is a corporation that is at full blast, fully operational company. as regard to your second question, i have never appointed nor have i dismissed ministers that may have been appointed or dismissed by the press or by the media. that's been the case, i will wait until all facts and events be properly looked into and disclosed before come to an assessment. but at least in principle i think it is important and necessary that all of us have access to the same information. the brazilian government does not have access to the court records. strangely enough there was selective leakage of information

supposedly or allegedly stemming from the court records. apparently people are free to , say whatever they want, and those who are accused have no way of defending themselves because they don't know exactly what they're being charged with. we are a country marked by a democratic process. we were able to put an end to all of the arbitrary arrangements and violation of rights of the past. we have a very strong military dictatorship, and given our track record we should really enshrine the right to defend the we should stick to the principle of sentencing once all the evidence that's available. not the other way around. people have the right to proving their innocence. only those who are accused are the ones who should provide evidence of guilt. it's the underlying basis that we all share.

we talk about when we talk about democracy, people's right to a fair defense. the burden of proof among the accusing party. they should be of course grounded type of evidence, not just allegation, speculation that does not ensure acts to all of the court records. that would be medieval, send us back to the middle ages. that's what we do in brazil today. president obama: last week, i had a chance to do the rose garden celebration of the court decision around same-sex marriage. i didn't have a chance to comment on how good the white house looked in rainbow colors. [laughter] that made it a really good week, to see people gathered in evening outside on a beautiful summer night and to feel whole and accepted and they feel that they have a right to love. that was pretty cool.

that was a good thing. >> no regrets? president obama: that, that was a good thing. the only bad part about it was i couldn't go out and take a peek at myself because then it would've had to clear out all the people, or the secret service would have. so i could only reflect on it from a television screen. that's a moment worth savoring. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president obama in secretary state kerry will address the media wednesday by the reestablishment of the dramatic relations with cuba. the president is expected to announce the opening of embassies in washington and havana. we will bring you that live here on c-span.

later, president obama traveled to tennessee for a speech on health care. he will be visiting an elementary school north of downtown nashville, home to more than 250 health care companies. that is life tomorrow at 2:30 eastern, also on c-span. >> coming up on c-span, a panel on the impact of the supreme panel on the impact of the supreme court's same-sex marriage ruling. that is followed by discussion on the future of civil rights and the lgbt community. later, former virginia senator and presidential candidate jim webb on law enforcement issues. wednesday, politico will look at the political and legal victories for the president including the signing of trade legislation and supreme court decisions on same-sex marriage and health care. that is live at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two.

>> lucy haze was the first first lady to earn a college degree did during the civil war soldiers serving under a husband called her the mother of the regiment. to switch -- she influenced her husband, rutherford b. hayes, to switch parties. lucy haze, the sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first lady's." sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern american history tv on c-span3. >> the supreme court friday ruled 5 to 4, legalizing same-sex marriage in the united states. from the heritage foundation, a

discussion of the court ruling and how opponents will go forward. this is about an hour. host: good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. we especially welcome those joining us on our heritage.org website and c-span tv. please check cell phones as a courtesy to our speakers. to those watching online, you are always welcome to send questions or comments by simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. we will post the program following today's presentation for your reference in the future.

posting is richard severino, who earned a jd from harvard law school. he is alumnus of the fun and served in the civil rights division of the department of justice. please join me in welcoming roger severino. [ applause ] mr. severino: thanks, john. so glad to be here. so glad to see such a large turnout for a discussion of what may be the defining issue of our generation, the future of marriage, religious liberty, and the law. as you know, the supreme court recently issued its decision, a monumental one with deep implications for the future of society. we had a significant setback. all americans who believe in the constitution, limited government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman

should pay close attention. the supreme court got it wrong. we have a distinguished panel to give us perspective and help inform our responses to this decision. please hold your applause until the end of the introduction. in the middle, we have gene schaerr, a washington-based attorney who specializes in appellate litigation. he served as associate council to the president and justice scalia. he argued and won dozens of cases in various form. he is a graduate of byu, holds a masters degree in economics from yale university. dr. ryan anderson at the end researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty and is a senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. he focuses on justice and moral principles and has expertise in

bio ethics and natural law theory. he filed an amicus brief in the obergefell case. the book which he co-authored is "what is marriage, man and woman" cited twice in the case. ryan is the author of a book , truth overruled, which is available for preorder on amazon and will ship in a few weeks. ryan received his bachelors from princeton university, political philosophy from notre dame, where he received his masters degree. carey is chief council and policy director of crisis network. she has written on a wide range of issues. she has filed briefs in numerous

cases, testified before congress and is a regular contributor on national review online. if you have interest in courts you have probably read her materials or seen her on tv. she was previously a law clerk to clarence thomas. she is a graduate of harvard law school, duke university, holds master's degree from michigan state university and married to the luckiest man in the world, me. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [ applause ] host: we read this giant decision, and i'm sure there are many takeaways. but i want to focus on three. what are the big takeaways you

saw in terms of the law religious liberty, and marriage? ms. severino: thanks for being here. it is nice to be on a panel where i do not have to tell the introducer how to spell my last name. i will talk about the legal basis of the decision. then we can talk about how it plays out in terms of religious freedom. justice kennedy's decision, writing for the majority, was based fundamentally on the idea of substantive due process and the fundamental right to marry. i would actually agree there is a fundamental right to marry. it is something recognized by a lot of cases. most famously in loving versus virginia, where the laws of the state of virginia were struck down. but justice kennedy gets it wrong. as he acknowledges, all the

court cases that talk about a fundamental right to marriage take as a presupposition that marriage means the union of a man and a woman. it is dangerous when we redefine the term that we are dealing with because you can easily shift the meaning. so, for example, if we were to have freedom of speech and define speech to mean something else then we have freedom to something else. all terms have to carry content. the challenge here is that he redefined the term marriage in the process of attempting to uphold the fundamental right to marry. the way he did so is by looking at some of the cases the court decided previously and intuiting four principles from the cases that he viewed as central to this institution of marriage. one is that it was an expression of individual autonomy through personal choice. one is a unique two person union that gave particular importance to individuals.

third was that it safe guards children and families and particularly draws on the rights of child rearing, procreation and education and the fourth is that it forms a keystone of our social order. there are undeniably themes of all of these in the previous supreme court literature however justice kennedy seems to have cherry picked which principles to look at in coming to his conclusion which is the features of the fundamental right to marry doesn't matter if it is a man and woman and therefore the fundamental right to marry isn't defined by that. unfortunately, by assuming the conclusion, he chose the principles to support. he did not choose those principles to overlap. he cites the right of childbearing and education. it is difficult to understand how a person with a particular

right to procreation has nothing to do with opposite sex unions when that is how procreation happened. there is a real problem with justice so there is a real problem with justice kennedy's bait and switch on this. he takes things that are really there as part of the definition of marriage, isolates only those and not even only those but mostly only those that don't have an obvious connection to the opposite sex couple union and says marriage is about two people having a unit of relationship. additionally after deciding the due process clause that the fundamental right is being denied he claims that the equal protection clause is implicated. it is true that the discussion of equal protection clause and due process liberties are very

intertwined and can be confusing at times. he didn't follow traditional analysis which is to say what is the level of scrutiny. we know when we look at traditional law there are different levels of scrutiny to give certain distinctions requiring strict scrutiny so it is hard on the basis of race. on the basis of sex there are certain things where there are differences that the government can take into account. he didn't talk about what level of scrutiny we should be given. that i think is a line of cases we see coming out of this going forward. to talk quickly there were four major deissents in the case. in large part all touched on few major themes. one is the decision as a legal matter is not correct, whatever your policy views on the issue -- i actually would wager there

may be different policy views on whether or not they would vote in a referendum who would say i want to create same-sex marriage. i think they come out differently on that but all agree as a legal matter the constitution is not where that happens. the constitution is completely agnostic as to how marriage is defined and if anything the windsor case that happened a couple years ago got it right on this point that the states have traditionally defined marriage law and for state purposes states should be able to do so. that is one feature. another is talking about concerns about the democratic process, concerns about the way that this decision was reached and how that under mines the

ability to have this debate in the public sphere. we were all talking about this issue. there were a lot of referenda and state laws in both directions and that has been cut off by this decision. justice kennedy basically said there are all sorts of briefs. we have had this discussion. we are done. time's up and now we make the call. i think they say the court doesn't get to be the one that makes that call of you have had enough talking. when it is an issue that the constitution leaves open even if you feel you are sick of hearing the debate you don't get to cut it off. finally, i think some of the panelists will talk about the concerns about religious freedom coming out of the decision. justice kennedy's decision did allude to the fact that as solicitor general said this is going to be an issue going forward. it's taking things out of the democratic process does mean our back stop is the courts. we have first amendment protections but the courts do it. to highlight justice thomas is my favorite having worked for him he pointed out two errors in the decision.

first it assumes that dignity is something conferred by the government. if we look at our declaration of independence and the constitution dignity is presumed to either come from our creator if one goes declaration or independence or to be innate in a person and not something the government can confer or deny. furthermore he pointed out the inversion of liberty that our nation and really the american legal tradition has history of liberty being freedom from coercion and not liberty being a government grant of benefits.

that is what happened in this case, the idea that the government conferring the benefit of marriage and the associated benefits is actually increasing people's liberty. i will hand it back to roger. >> so you mentioned the dissent, there were four that wrote and spoke on religious liberty. what do you think about the extent of the dissent being for them and how much weight is to be given to those arguments compared to what justice kennedy had to say about it. >> what is interesting to me is the extent of the recognition that there really is a conflict between same-sex marriage or institutionalized same-sex marriage and religious liberty. you might wonder why is that. what a lot of people don't seem to recognize or remember is that all three of the major abrahamic religions and all other major

world religions have for millennia have taught that a man/woman union is not just an incidental feature of marriage but is central to marriage. and that, of course, is fundamentally different from some religious teachings about interracial marriage which, of course, was the issue in the loving versus virginia case.

i spent high school years in the south and never heard of any religion that viewed racial as a central defining feature of marriage. there were some people who thought that was preferable for sometimes religious reasons. i'm not aware that any small or large religious body has ever taught that racial is the central defining feature of marriage. that is fundamentally different from the situation that we have with respect to same-sex marriage. there are a few religious groups that have broken from that tradition. if you look at the number of people that claim to adhere to those religions it's a pretty minuscule percentage of the population of all believeers. and so there is this enormous conflict or at least enormous potential for conflict between same-sex marriage in general and the decision in obergefell and religious freedom.

that may be one reason that justice kennedy sort of went out of his way in numerous places in his opinion to try to suggest respect for the religious view point on this issue. in fact, i think of all of the opinions that have been written in the course of this litigation over the last couple of years that have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, justice kennedy's opinion is probably the most respectful of religion. so those of us who care about religious liberty can be grateful for that. and just for example, justice

kennedy did not rule the traditional marriage laws were based on animus or hostility or bigotry towards gays and lesbians. a number of people were urging the court to rule that way. he did not rule that traditional marriage laws are irrational as judge posener ruled for the seventh circuit not long ago. either of thosinge rulings would have been taken as a holding in opposition that same-sex marriage was manifestation of religion and other bigotry against gays and lesbian rather than defensive position. justice kennedy also implicitly rejected the u.s. justice department's position that sexual orientation is suspect class and that kind of ruling would have created a whole host

of religious liberty problems outside of the marriage context. so those of us who care about religious liberty can be grateful that justice kennedy's opinion dodged some big bullets, but the opinion unintentionally i think launched a number of grenades that are still in the air. as i thought about it i have identified really 12 concrete threats to religious liberty what i call the dirty dozen. and in the very short time that we have i'm not going to try to explain them in detail but let me list them and maybe we can

talk about them later. one is the issue that was raised at the oral argument about tax exempt status. you probably remember that exchange between justice aledo asking if we rule in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't that create a risk that religious organizations that believe in the traditional view of marriage would have their tax exemptions revoked. and after initially appearing like he was going to try to dismiss the question decided that he needed to be frank and honest and he said i can't deny that's going to bowe an issue. it's going to be an issue. and so that's certainly -- it is going to be an issue, i suspect. the fact that the obama administration has not done anything to walk back from what he said at the oral argument suggests to me there may be people within the obama administration who are actually planning to issue a regulation or some kind of decision that would, in fact, deny tax exemptions to some religious institutions that choose to adhere to traditional understanding of marriage. and my first six examples are in the area of what i call institutional religious freedom that is the ability of religious

institutions to carry out their self defined religious missions. the second one is an issue that justice scalia raised which is a church's authority to have marriages performed by its pastors recognized by the state, by civil government. that is the standard practice. any minister who marries people in the united states, that marriage is recognized not only for religious purposes but for legal purposes, as well. justice scalia raised the question if we rule that same-sex marriage is required by the constitution, isn't that going to set up a situation where churches that don't believe that a same-sex marriage can be religiously legitimate

aren't they denied the ability to marry people and have those marriages recognized by the state? aren't they going to be denied ability to marry anybody and have the marriages recognized by the state? that i think is likely to be a serious issue over time. chief justice roberts raised the issue of religious school housing policies. as you probably know most religious colleges in the country have policies that they have special housing for married students, but in order to use that married student housing you have to be married in accordance with the beliefs of that particular religious college. the chief justice raised the question aren't those policies going to be cast into doubt if we rule in favor of same-sex marriage. that is a another serious issue. and even scarier prospect from my standpoint is the licensing area which is very important in higher education, religious colleges, like every other college they depend on their ability to get accredited by a wide variety of accrediters in order for their students to be able to get federal funding and in order for their students to get jobs in a lot of professions and so if same-sex marriage is really the law of the land and really constitutionally required isn't there a risk that accrediting bodies are going to start pressuring religious colleges to recognize same-sex marriages for all purposes on

their campuses as a condition of accreditation? and we have seen a similar issue with regard to other religious organizations like catholic charities that in some circumstances need licenses to carry on their works, for example, licenses to place children for adoption and those sorts of things and catholic charities has been forced to withdraw from providing adoption services in some states as a result of licensing policies that told them in order to be licensed in our state to provide adoption services you have to place children -- you have to be willing to place children with same-sex couples on equal terms with opposite sex couples. to do that would have violated the religious beliefs of catholic charities so they chose to withdraw. that is going to become now a nationwide problem, not just a state by state problem.

and then more generally religious institutions constantly face the question of can we apply religious criteria in making employment decisions and deciding whom to hire and whom to promote and all of that? and, of course, for churches and religious colleges and other religious institutions that adhere to the traditional definition of marriage they want to be able to hire people who agree with them about core issues like marriage and the purpose of sexuality and all of those sorts of things. but the obergefell decision

casts into doubt because there is exemption in federal law but a lot of laws don't have similar religious exemptions so religious organizations in those states face a serious issue of to what extent they can continue to apply religious criteria. >> you list a whole lot of institutions that is mediating between government and civil society. i want to take the conversation to the broader culture, see if you can speak on how the institutions are addressed by the decision because kennedy does speak about the wider culture. these institutions are caught in the middle. what are your thoughts on the cultural question? >> the cultural question is probably most important question in the long run. the central thesis of my new book is that the promarriage movement is in the same situation culturally that pro life movement found itself in.

the work that needs to be done in is three steps, the three steps that we divvied up. the first step is correctly identifying this marriage ruling as judicial activism. we have never accepted row v wade as final word on constitution. for 42 years we have been bearing witness to that truth, the same thing needs to happen with this supreme court ruling. the second point, one of the first things that the pro life movement did was protect the rights of conscience for all american citizens to never have to pay for aboergz or perform an abortion if it violated their beliefs. in the same way the promarriage movement will need to protect our rights, not to be coerced by the government into violating our belief that marriage is

between a man and a woman. step three is the harder more difficult long term program of bearing witness to the truth about marriage in a legal culture. every year on january 22 hundreds of thousands of citizens come for the march for life. feminists for life, silent no more. women speak for themselves. students for life. the list of groups that sprung up in the wake of the decision has been remarkable. there has been a concerted cultural effort. what do we do on the marriage front? because the reason that the government was in the marriage business in the first place is

that marriage places a limit on the state. marriage in civil society limit the government's proper domain. the state has to recognize the truth about marriage and not free to redefine what marriage is. the same way the state has to recognize the truth about our natural right the state is not free to redefine who has a natural right to life. we have to remind citizens of the basic fundamental truths especially of political fillacy off which justice kennedy seems to ignore. justice kennedy, the driving part of his opinion is his philosophy of marriage. as carey mentioned that has no basis in the constitution but it didn't come out of thin air. justice kennedy's philosophy of marriage is the natural result the logical result of the past 50 years of the break down of the american family. it's the natural logical conclusion of the sexual revolution. it is only a culture that has had the spike in nonmarital child bearing, the fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the family and human sexuality that 50 years later would even contemplate redefining what marriage is and having five unelected judges redefine marriage for the entire country.

let me quote a law professor who went through kennedy's opinion and collected all of the words that he used to describe what marriage is. she says the supreme court rules instead that marriage is about adults defining and expressing their identity, adults desire for fulfillment, aspirations autonomy, self definition. the avoiding of loneliness and desire for companionship and understanding. nowhere is there any discussion about a child's right to a relationship with a mother and a father. the central defining feature of what got government in the marriage business in the first place to make sure that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively as husband and wife so children have a mom and a dad, totally ignored.

never seriously engage any of the arguments that litigators like gene were making, the attorney representing the state of utah and state of idaho. didn't engage the briefs that people like me filed, didn't engage it at all, just to say in one throw away paragraph that it is counter intuitive argument. it is true. and the best way to see this is think what happened after we redefine marriage of no fault divorce. under certain circumstances you could file for a divorce and common law tradition abuse abandonment and adultry, serious reasons for saying relationship is being terminated. with no fault divorce you could file for divorce for any reason or no reason. we saw divorce rate more than doubled because ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. what happens now?

take washington, d.c. the children who live in georgetown are by and large born into married families and raised into adulthood. other children are born to single mothers that have absent fathers. how do we as a culture rebuild a strong marriage culture insisting fathers are essential when anthony kennedy redefined marriage to say fathers are optional? that is the cultural message we have to respond to. in the same way that row v wade told a lie about a child that is a clump of cells. we now have to respond to a bad idea about what marriage is, what the right to procreation with respect to marriage entails. is it a right for adults to have children or a right for children

to have moms and dads? what direction does this work in? that's what i think the long term consequence is. we have to call the decision what it is and protect our rights to live in accordance with the truth and we have to commit ourselves to a long term program of rebuilding a truthful strong marriage culture. that won't be resolved in the next vote of congress. this will be a generational campaign, not that the next vote in congress or next election doesn't matter. they do. this is going to be something that our children and grandchildren will be responding to. >> so you mentioned a couple possible responses to the cultural issues. speaking more broadly and more immediately what are concrete

responses that you think can be done near to medium term to respond to this decision to make sure that marriage culture is restored, law is restored. >> i will give one that i think is bothand that is a commitment to nominating and confirming judges who have a principled view of the constitution and of the law and have demonstrated willingness to stand up for that view when it's challenging and when they are under fire. because this is something that while obviously this is rebuilding culture, the next president will likely have maybe three supreme court nominations. we saw that last week's decision was a very close decision. this is not the only decision. we saw a series of decisions leading to this. it was lawrence versus texas decision in 2003. this won't be the last one in that series.

it is important to have judges in the court that are going to be interpreting the constitution and make sure there is a president in place and senators in place who recognize the overarching importance of this issue. whoever is next in the supreme court will be there for decades and have generational impact has a life term and we need to make sure our politicians realize the stakes worth plopping down political capital on because all other issues they are doing. you look at doma. you have a great congress and signed by a president and then later have it undone by a supreme court. so whatever you do in all these other fields the courts ultimately have the final word on it in many ways or the final legal word in our system. >> i guess on the religious freedom front i would add a couple of things that could be done concretely. i think it is important to continue to press for laws that

both the federal and the state level that will protect the religious liberty of believers both individuals and institutions from the various obvious problems that the decision creates. one is the first amendment defense act which was proposed by senator lee and also proposed in the house. i think that law deserves our support because at least at the federal level it would deal with a number of the issues that we talked about today including tax exemption issue and government contracts and licensing and those sorts of things. a lot of the problems are going to arise at the state level. we have seen the challenges of getting state level religious freedom restoration acts passed. and those would be very helpful if they could get passed. i think at this point it may be more productive depending on the state to get a more narrowly

targeted law that just deals with the religious liberty fallout of same-sex marriage. so i can envision a whole lot of miniature first amendment defense acts getting passed in the states. and, of course, short of that many governors and some attorneys general actually have enough authority that they can mitigate some of the religious freedom problems arising from the decision by an executive order or memorandum to the people that report to them or what not. we saw governor jindal of louisiana do this with executive order that, for example, protects clerks and other people in louisiana from having to perform marriages that would conflict with their religion-based conscience. we saw the attorney general in texas issue a similar directive

to the people who report to him that we are going to protect the religious liberty of the people of texas wherever we can. i have a whole book full of ideas of what we can do at the cultural level. >> available on amazon right now. >> i get a nickel if you purchase it. let me mention three. all will draw parallels. the first is we should conduct rigorous social science into family struckturestructure. what we know is that a child who grows up without a father whether with a single mother, a cohabiting couple, divorced family, all of those family structures produce poorer outcomes for children. we know this beyond a shadow of a doubt for 40 years of consensus. why would it be being raised by two mothers would be the exception? why is it father absence matters

to the child being raised by cohabiting couple why doesn't it matter to the child being raised by two mothers? that is counter intuitive. i suggest we give the space to conduct rigorous investigations into family structures and let the data speak for themselves in the same way ultrasound science was best friend in pro life movement.

the second is we need to find better spokes people in the same way silent no more, women speak for themselves were some of the best spokespersons on the abortion debate i think some children raised by same-sex couples and gay and lesbian people will be some of our best advocates. both groups filed amicus briefs and neither group was acknowledged by justice kennedy. there were passionate letters written. they love their two moms and wish they would have had a father. their argument was that redefining marriage institutionalizes missing parents and it is not just a

result of human frailty but institutionalizes it. there was a brief filed, doug divorced his wife and came out of the closet as a gay man and realized he committed a great injustice. the children needed a mom and a dad. he reconciled with his wife. he makes an argument titled i'm gay and i'm against gay marriage. these are some of the voices i think will be helpful. the third is that science and philosophy are important but they are not the only thing that is important. here beauty and holiness and goodness motivate people more so than philosophers. i speak as someone with a phd in political philosophy. i think unless we live out the truth about marriage and bear witness about the truth about marriage our lives will never rebuild a marriage culture. it is important to rebuild the fact that gays and lesbians did not cause the break down of the family. redefining marriage will not do anything to strengthen the family but will likely make it family weaker.

i would say the third thing is look what the pro life movement did. it was setting up centers and project rachel, having all of these sisters for life, all of these outreached to women in crisis pregnancies. we need better marriage prep programs and better programs to help people both understand and live out marriage in their own lives. >> so we have time for questions. there will be microphones on either side. the event is being broadcast. i ask that you identify yourselves and the organization you may represent and keep your questions brief. please make it end with a question mark. >> hi. what about the possibility of the term limits for the supreme court? is that something that could happen? there are people that suggest it

and it would certainly open up the idea that we wouldn't have people in the position of power for a whole lifetime? >> that is certainly something raised before. i think it is really interesting idea. it would be challenging to implement it because both sides would be worried about who is president when term limits kick in. but i think if you could get a bipartisan consensus it is definitely something to consider. what would worry me about that and other proposals is how we can exert more limitations is i would worry about anything that emboldened the president or senators to say we have this back stop here.

we have a check on this. we don't have to pay as much attention to vetting candidates as well because we know they are only there for a certain amount of time. if there were a term limit it would probably be a long one but i think that never can minimize the importance of getting it right the first time and doing everything we can to make sure we have principled judges in place. it is certainly a thought, just not something that would require in the short term. just a quick lamenting that kennedy replaced boric. if children have a fundamental right to mother and father can you think of legal standing to create basis for suit that a child has a right to a mother and father? just thinking out of the box. >> i could see this. justice kennedy several times in his opinion says that the court's opinion is based on new insights into marriage. i could see a situation in which the court has a different composition, chances are the next president will have up to four seats to fill. three of the justices will be in their 80s. and if there are new insights into marriage and new insights into the rights of children that could be a possibility for the court to reconsider. i would think the outcome of that would be that we don't know any better than the people so let people decide policy for

themselves. if he continues doing social science research if they keep speaking out and that gets the attention of litigators and the attention of justices, this isn't the last word in the same way we have seen in the abortion context having ultrasound and new insights has allowed us to have better abortion law. i wouldn't accept this as the final word. >> i preface my question with a brief quote. be not deceived, god is not mocked. and it seems like the government of this world is sort of strengthened by even sowing chaos by confusion over meaning of words that look to regulate more. it's all kind of a lie. i wonder if three of the great lies of activism starting with

marriage and back and looking at abortion and maybe the nature of money when the supreme court began to imply that we need isn't it even the decisions about credit, ious fueling the whole power in washington that much of the country will want to take back. and the states really arguably can under section 110 disempower washington. and, you know, let truth reign in faith. >> essentially who decides the nature of truth, is that a good way to recapitulate. >> in our legal system i think it's best to focus on now that some of the practical things that we can do in the short term.

those are theoretical possibilities, i doubt any come to fruition. what we do know is that in the immediate future, you know, even looking down to the hope of saying this isn't the final word legally, that's a very long-term project. in the short-term there are real and immediate concerns about religious freedom we need to focus our energy on. what are the ways, whether it's through executive orders whether it's through legal legislative efforts, to try to bring that back now to allow the room for everyone to have a free understanding of where truth initiates. >> and on that i would just have -- you mentioned redefinition. we're seeing that the obama

administration has redefined the free exercise to worship. that has to be something not allowed to continue, not allowed to proceed. the founders wanted to exercise free exercise, freedom to live out your faith monday through sunday. not just sunday morning in the four walls of your chapel. we've seen it be reduced. this is why they sued -- why the owners of hobby bobby had to sue the government because they were saying, no, once you go into business you lose your right. they're arguing once you open up a center to care for elderly you lose your rights. this is why the little sisters of the poor are still in federal court suing the obama administration. they're free to pray however they want to in the chapel but if they want to take care of elderly people they have to pay for abortion causing drugs. that's how ridiculous things are. we can't allow the redefinition of religion and religious liberty. >> we can't allow the -- you can ride a treadmill in your church but that's the extent of your ability to freely exercise your religion. >> over there. >> hi, my name is jennifer kirk. i work for the heritage foundation. i know this is extreme. i'm just curious what your thoughts are in the concept of completely removing all government, federal, state local involvement in marriage, all tax benefits, all anything

and allowing it to be purely a religious institution as it was a millenia ago. >> i don't think it was ever purely a religious institution. i would question the premise of the question. we've seen political communities have always been recognizing and to a certain extent regulating the marital relationship because it's not purely a private or religious institution. it's not like baptism and bar mitzvah. those really are purely religious personal institutions. the state's in the marriage business because while your church can marry you, your church can't marry you or enforce alimony payments or child support payments or settle custody battles. you either have the opportunity of the state setting up an institution to do that at the

front end or growing government beyond any imagination by doing each and every one of these cases one by one. so, if you get the state out of the marriage business on the front end, you will simply explode the reach of the state on the back end when doing a case-by-case basis of regulating these disputes. much better to have the state recognize an institution and civil society marriage than have the state either redefine it or fail to acknowledge it. >> and let me add one point to that, if i may. there are a lot of people in this country who are not religious, so if you say marriage is only going to be a religious sacrament, we'll get the government out of it entirely, there will they be be no -- for a majority of the population, there will then be no institution that is encouraging young heterosexual couples to get married either before or even after they have kids. and so i think that would -- that would exacerbate the social problems that we've had with fatherlessness especially. if we said, well, we're -- if we said, now the government's just going to throw up its hands and

get out of the marriage business all together. >> so, we got a question from carolyn online mailed in association of mature american citizens. is constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman politically feasible or worth while for advocacy groups to pursue. >> it would be wonderful if it could get passed but it's -- >> the politics of it, i guess we'll see. but at this point, at least with the current makeup of judges that's what it would take to change things. >> or even amendment -- an amendment like the proposed ted cruz amendment, which would leave the decision to the states. that would also be a big improvement over the status quo. >> again, it's a long process getting constitutional amendment passed so it's a longer term strategy. >> back there. way at the back. >> i'm peggy with faith and action. when the decision came down, our phones were flooded with pastors in a panic.

can you kind of really state exactly what happens with pastors? they use the term, they're going to have to be forced to marry things as couples or where are they with this with their licenses to marriage through the church or whether you're a pastor that works for nonprofit and you perform marriages? >> i think the -- can i answer that? i think the first amendment quite clearly forces someone to marry a couple he or she doesn't want to marry. so, i've never really viewed that as a substantial risk. i think the other risk we talked about earlier are serious risks but i think that is probably not a serious risk. >> i'm a student at georgetown university. i'm wondering if you guys can speak to this pattern that we've seen with the courts redefining terms.

is there a way we can stop this from happening in the future in another argument? >> good luck. i think the way we can do that is get judges who have a strong commitment to be faithful to the constitution of the laws. we notice it in a case like this one, wow, this is a term they totally redefined. this is not a unique case because it's a common problem within the law that either someone will say, this is the standard i'm applying. i'm applying, for example, rational basis. then they basically define -- define it and use it in a different way than it's been defined in every court case previously. so, this is really a fundamental problem of judicial philosophy and judicial integrity that we need to address. we saw it again, the discussion of -- most important thing we

can do for a lot of issues in our culture that because this decision took place in the courts rather than in the public sphere, it's the kind of thing we got a give and take at the compromise, we have to protect religious freedom. it is still subject to interpretation by the same judges who are engaging in some of these questionable interpretive linguistic practices. so, i think we need to -- we can never underestimate the importance of judges. >> final question? >> ron cruz. there's already been a call for one activist for all chaplains who hold a traditional view of marriage to resign their commission because they're no longer able to support the constitution as defined by this supreme court but that would apply only to chaplains but to

all military officers who would hold a traditional view. is that a concern? that military officers should resign from the military if they hold a view of natural marriage? >> on one level the constitution doesn't actually say that. if the constitution actually said that all four dissenters would have to promptly resign. they've taken the same oath. i think that's not something -- i hope we don't see a massive exodus of our military leaders. >> it's to the constitution not the supreme court's interpretation of it. >> and that should be the final word. thank you very much, panelists. this conclusion our program. please join us for lunch in the hall afterwards. thank you

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next "washington journal," adam gelb will join us to talk about federal and state sentencing guidelines and then stephen moore, a senior fellow at the heritage foundation. on the various tax plans being offered by presidential contenders. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can contribute by phone and on facebook and twitter.

>> today, the carnegie foundation hosts a discussion. the independent russian radio station about changes facing the russian political system in the state of freedom during the ukraine crisis. that is on c-span2. >> next a discussion on civil rights for the lgbt community with the first openly gay commissioner for the equal employment opportunity commission. she spoke about the supreme court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. this event is hosted by the universe --

>> good evening, everyone. welcome to the university of the district of columbia and the civil and human rights seminar. tonight we have a special are you program to deal with the and recent decision in united states supreme court considering marriage equality. i will turn it over to my co-professor to begin the and introductions. and you i am john britton and and and and together we teach and you and you and you a you

are -- i am john britton and together we teach the seminar on civil rights in the 21st century. prof. henderson: thank you. i am wade henderson. i am the junior professor of public interest law here at the david a clark school of law at the district of columbia. i am also the president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the nations leading civil and human rights coalition. over 200 local and national organizations working to build an america as good as its ideals. i would like to welcome you to our seminar on civil and human rights in the 21st century. without question, the supreme court's decision last friday, in the case of oberfeld versus hodges which finally recognized marriage equality for gay and lesbians is a fundamental constitutional right is one of the most important decisions of the century and one of the most important supreme court decisions in american civil and

human rights jurisprudence. they recognized the opportunity to love and build a family as equals and ushered in a new era of acceptance and security. but of course there is still so much we must do as a nation to ensure the citizenship of americans that they have the same protections established already for the majority of americans including people of color, women, religious minorities and persons with his -- disabilities. we asked a good friend of john and mine and the law school, our

colleague, to be the featured lecturer. as well as the ongoing work our nation must do to secure the work in the united states. is a well distinguished public servant who has spent her entire career working for civil and human rights. she is a graduate of harvard law school, and clerked for justice blackmun on the supreme court. she was confirmed in 2010 to serve as a u.s. commissioner of equal employment opportunity and is currently in her second term.