million? is that right? >> i mentioned to you, i will not give a number that is not completely accurate and as i mentioned in my testimony -- >> i am asking you for a range. we know it's a >> i'm not going to give you a number that i am not sure of. when congress is in session c-span3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings news conferences and key pub luck affairs events. and every weekend it's american history tv traveling to historic sites, discussions with authors and historians and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span tv, and american history tv. i'm not one of those who

believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe they should be on the couch themselves rather than the people they are never met. on the other hand when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or whether they have eye contact. but what i try to do when they meet people is listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you're talking. you learn a great deal when they're talking. >> many of the tragedies of richard nixon is he was not self aware. nixon did have a psychiatrist an internist, he wasn't technically a psychiatrist and the doctor later said he was careful not to have nixon think he was analyzing him. but nixon went to him because he had psychosemantic illnesses. and he gave him some mild therapy. but nixon, even though he went to one, he hated psychiatrists and was all denouncing them. and he was afraid in a way of

looking at himself in a realistic way. one of the reasoning he used to say, i don't carry grudges. i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the greatest grudge carries of all time. he could be very unself reflective and this hurt him. his lashing out of enemies of course is what destroyed him. evan thomas talk about the victories and defeats and inner turmoil of richard nix, sunday night at 8:00 eastern. president obama yesterday announced his administration's new approach to hostage negotiations. the government will try to better coordinate with the families of hostageance will not prosecute americans who negotiate with terrorists for the return of their loved ones.

good afternoon. since 9/11, more than 80 americans have been taken hostage by murderous groups engaged in terrorism or privacy. for these innocent men and women, tourists, journalists, humanitarians, it's a horror and cruelty beyond description. for their families and for their friends, it's an unrelenting nightmare that the rest of us cannot begin to imagine. as a government, we should always do everything in our power to bring these americans home safe and to support their families. dedicated public servants across our government work tirelessly to do so.

our military personnel risk their lives in dangerous missions, such as the operation i authorized last year that attempted to rescue americans held in syria and yemen. there have been successes, such as the rescue of captain richard philips held by somali pirates and jessica buchanan, rescued from somalia. of these more than 80 americans taken hostage since 9/11, more than half have ultimately come home. some after many years. tragically, too many others have not. at this very moment, americans continue to be held by terrorist groups or detained unjustly by foreign governments. for them, the nightmare goes on and so does our work day and night to reunite them with their loved ones. as i've said before, the terrorist threat is evolving. the world has been appalled by

isil's barbaric murder of hostages, including americans. moreover, the families of hostages have told us and told me directly about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government. how different departments and agencies aren't always coordinated, how there's been confusion and conflicting information about what the government is prepared to do to help, how they've felt lost in the bureaucracy and some families feel they've been threatened for exploring certain options to bring their loved ones home. that's totally unacceptable. as i have gotten to know some of these families and heard some of these stories, it has been my solemn commitment to make sure that they feel fully supported in their efforts to get their families home. and that there is a syncing up

of what i know to be sincere relentless efforts within government and the families who, obviously, have one priority and one priority only, and that's getting their loved ones back. these families have already suffered enough and they should never feel ignored or victimized by their own government. and diane folly whose son was killed by isil last year said as americans we can do better and i totally agree. we must do better and that is why i ordered a comprehensive review of our host am policy. i want to thank everybody who contributed to this review inside and outside of this government. some of whom are here today. i especially want to thank the former hostages and families who contributed. i've come to know some of the families, often under the most heartbreaking of circumstances.

when her son peter, known as abdul rack man was being held in syria, she wrote wrote me a letter and wonder if her son could see them too. a reminder of the bond they might still share. i've called these families to offer our condolences after they've received gut-wrenching news after they've received news no family wants to hear. i've visited with them. i've hugged them. i've grieved with them. i just spent time with some families as well as former hostages here at the white house. and needless to say it was a very emotional meeting. some are still grieving. i thank them for sharing their experiences and their ideas with the review team. in fact, many of the changes we're announcing today are a direct result of their recommendations.

i acknowledged to them in private what i want to share publicly. that it is true that there have been times where our government, regardless of good intentions, has let them down. i promised them that we can do better. here is how. today i'm formally issuing a new policy directive to improve how we work to bring home american hostages and how we support their families. i've signed a new executive order to ensure our government can do so and i've described the two dozen specific steps we're taking. broadly speaking they fall into three areas. first i'm updating the hostage policy and making it clear that our top priority is the safe and rapid recovery of our american hostages and to do so we'll use all elements of our national power.

i am reaffirming that the united states government will not make concessions, such as paying ransom to terrorist groups holding american hostages. and i know this can be a subject of significant public debate. it is a difficult and emotional issue, especially for the families. and i've said to the families gathered here today and to families in the past. i look at this not just as a president but as a husband and a father. and if my family were at risk, obviously i would move heaven and earth to get those loved ones back. as president, i also have to consider our larger national security. i firmly believe that the united states government paying ransom to terrorists risks endangering more americans and funding the very terrorism that we're trying to stop. and so i firmly believe that our policy ultimate puts fewer americans at risk. at the same time we are clarifying that our policy does

not prevent communication with hostage takers by our government, the families of hostages or third parties who help these families. and, when appropriate, our government may assist these families and private efforts in those communications. in part, to ensure the safety of the family members and to make sure they are not defrauded. so my message to these families were simple. we're not going to abandon you. we will stand by you. second, we're making changes to ensure that our government is better organized around this mission. every department that is involved in our national security apparatus cares deeply about these hostages, prioritizes them and works really hard but they are not always as well coordinated as they need to be. under the national security council here at the white house

we are setting up a new hostage response group comprised of those across our government to make sure our policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively and they will be accountable at the highest levels. they'll be accountable to me. soon i'll be designating as well a senior diplomat as my special presidental envoy for hostage affairs who will focus on leading our diplomatic efforts to bring those people home. we're creating for the first time one central hub where experts across government will work together side by side as one coordinated team to find american hostages and bring them home safely. this fusion cell located at the fbi is up and running and we're designating a new officials in

the intelligence community for coordinating the rapid dissemination for intelligence related to american hostages so we can act on that intelligence quickly. third, and running through all of these efforts, we are fundamentally changing how our government works for families of hostages. many of the families told us that they at times felt like an after thought or a distraction. that too often the law enforcement or military and intelligence officials they were interacting with were begrudging in giving them information. and that ends today. i'm making it clear that these families are to be treated like what they are, our trusted partners and active partners in the recovery of their loved ones. we are all on the same team and nobody cares more about bringing home these americans than their own families and we have to treat them as partners.

so specifically our new fusion cell will include a person dedicated to coordinating the support the family from the government. and the coordinator will ensure we coordinate with families better with one clear voice and families get information timely and accurate. working with the intelligence community we'll share more intelligence with families and this coordinate will be the family's voice with government and making sure when decisions are made about loved ones concerns are front and center. everyone who deals with the families on a regular basis will be given additional training to make sure families are treated with dignity and compassion that they deserve. in particular, i want to point out that no family of an american hostage has ever been prosecuted for paying a ransom for the return of their loved ones. and the last thing that we should ever do is to add to a family's pain with threats like that. so the bottom line is this, when

it comes to how our government works to recover americans held hostage and how we work with their families, we are changing how we do business. after everything they've endured, the families have a right to be skeptical and that is why it is important, as i told them today, that we will be setting up mechanisms to ensure accountability and implementation. i've directed my national security team to report back to me, including getting feedback from the families, to make sure that these reforms are being put in place and that they are working. now in the course of our review, several families told us they wanted to spare other families the frustrations they endured. some have even created new organizations to support families like theirs or to honor their loved ones, such as the

foundation for steven sotloff who wrote that everyone has two loves and the second one realizes begins when you realize you only have one. as a government and a nation we can learn from the strength of their lives and the kind of strength we've seen in all of these held hostages, including kayla mueller. kayla devoted her life to serving those in need around the world, to refugees in syria who lost everything, she was a source of comfort and home. before her tragic death she was held in syria by isil for a year and a half and she managed to smuggle a letter to her family. she said none of us could known it would be this long but i know i'm fighting for my side and the ways that i'm able and i have say lot of fight left in me. i'm not breaking down and i will not give in, no matter how long it takes. today my message to anyone who harms americans is that we do not forget. our reach is long, justice will

be done. my message to every american being held unjustly around the world who is fighting from the inside to survive another day, my message to their families who long to hold them once more is that the united states of america will never stop working to reunite you with your family. we will not give up. no matter how long it takes. thank you very much, everybody. here's some of ou features programming this weekend. on c-span saturday night at 8:00 eastern, e eel look at the government and culture of iran its relationship with the u.s. and nuclear ambitions. and sunday night at 6:35 profile interviews with two presidential can dads, fist, kentucky senator rand paul and then vermont independent senator bernie sanders. on book tv c-span 2 saturday

night at 10:00 eastern an afterward, the history of puerto rico op on sunday night, h.w. brans recounts the luf and political career of ronald reagan. and on c-span3 saturday night, a little after 9:00 commemorating the 800th anniversary of the mag that carty. brenda heal on how to document influenced both countries from the rights of ribt and property to limits on executive power. and sunday night at 6:00 on american art facts, the french sailing ship brought its general to america in 1780 and we're in yorktown, virginia to hear from the crew and french and american officials. get the complete schedule at c-span.org.

today is decision day at the supreme court. the justices have yet to rule on a number of cases. we're planning live coverage when a couple of the highly anticipated rulings come down which could occur today tomorrow or monday. one of the cases would decide whether to uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. another deals with the ability of low and middle income american to receive subsidies to help them afford insurance under the health care law. the high court released some decisions earlier this week. next we hear the justices ask questions in the case of the government taking raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices. they cited 8-1 in favor of the california farmers marvin an-laura horne. case 14275 horne versus

department of agricultural. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. this case does involve some important principles in the lives of marvin and lauren horne and hundreds of small california raisin growers will be profoundly affected. this is an administrative enforcement proceeding brought by the department of agricultural against my clients commanding the relinquishment of funds. my clients appear in their capacity as handlers. but in the particular facts of this case, the economic circumstances are somewhat different than are ordinarily true in this industry because as handlers, the hornes actually assumed the full financial responsibility for the raisins that were not turned over to the department of agriculture.

the producers in this case were fully paid for their raisins. this is a factual finding to be found in the judicial officer's opinion at 66a of the appendix to the petition. the hornes paid the producers for their raisins. according to the judicial officer, those raisins became part of the inventory of the hornes. when the raisin administrative committee, which i'll refer to as the r.a.c. came after the raisins it was the hornes and the hornes only who bore the economic burden of this taking. >> i thought the growers were paid only for the volume that they were permitted, that was permitted, the permitted volume, and that they were not paid for what goes in the reserve pool. >> justice ginsburg that is true

in the ordinary course. that was not true in this particular case because of the unusual business model of my clients. these producers are paid for all of their raisins. >> are you objecting to the volume limitation or is it just that the -- the reserve pool that you find -- >> we believe that a volume limitation would be a use restriction that might possibly be challengeable under the penn central test but not a per se taking. in this case, because the government, the r.a.c. which is an agent of the department of agricultural, actually takes possession, ownership of the raisins. is it that aspect of the case that we are challenging. >> it is puzzling. if you are not challenging the volume limit itself you can't sell more than 60% of your crop. >> that's correct. >> and what happens to the rest of it?

you're not going to be able to feed your family the rest -- the 40%. >> in the ordinary case, the reserve percentage which in one case is 37%, and was 30% in the other case 47% is handed over to the raisin administrative committee. >> but if it wasn't -- if we just had a volume, you cannot sell more than "x" amount. then i take it that the grower would get nothing. nothing at all. at least with this reserve pool, there is the possibility of getting some money. >> well, it all depends. the way volume controls generally work is that the owner of the produce is permitted -- they have to hold back a certain amount in a reserve and then they're permitted to sell that reserve as the market conditions continue. in this case, of course, the r.a.c. sold the raisins and in

some cases above the field price. there was a market for the raisins, so i would assume that volume controls under these economic conditions might have left these particular people better off than under the current system. >> so what you're complaining about is the administrative expenses? i still don't understand why this makes this a penn central case as opposed to a per se taking. you have given up on this being a penn central case. >> we have never claimed a penn central case. >> so basically you see a nexus between the regulation and its purpose? >> we do. but more fundamentally, this is an actual transfer of the raisins themselves to the government. this is -- >> how is this different than leonard? >> well, leonard involved oyster

shells which are owned by the state. they're wild animals. they're the property of the state. and the oystermen had no property interest in them other than what the state chose to license them to harvest. >> gosh, is that really true, mr. mcconnell, when the fishermen took the oysters including the shells from the bay and other waters. they could sell the oysters why weren't the oyster shells theirs at their point? >> they have whatever property interest the state of maryland provided for them. and the state of maryland withheld the 10% of the oyster shells for the purpose of essentially fertilizing the -- >> i would have thought as soon as they bring the oysters out of the bay and haul their catch to

shore, that what they've hauled to shores is theirs? >> except for the 10% that the state reserved, yes. >> why wouldn't the same be true as to raisins? >> because raisins are not wild animals, even if they're dancing, and they did not originally belong to the federal government. >> so you think that leonard is an animals case as opposed to a -- you know, the state can tax your property case? >> yes, i do. >> they called it a tax? >> they did also call it a tax and i'm perfectly happy to address whether this is a tax. because under this court's standards for criteria for determining a tax, this certainly is not one referring to the criteria in the nfib case this is not in the internal revenue code or collected by the internal revenue service there is no tax authorized by congress.

the proceeds of the tax do not go into the general treasury. this is not a tax. >> but it didn't happen that way in leonard either. what the court was basically saying was the government could do this because this is a good in commerce. as long as it didn't meet the penn central test, that there is some nexus between the government's goal and the regulation, then it's okay. now there they used it to fertilize oyster ponds or to refertilize the oysters. here they're doing it to maintain prices and giving you whatever is left over on the reserve. >> the fact of the matter is that the oysters belonged to the state of maryland. and when the state of maryland decides to allow fishermen to harvest the -- >> can you tell me where in leonard it is discussed?

>> i'd be very happy to file a supplemental brief with the maryland citations indicating the oysters belonged to the state of maryland. >> i thought that -- what the constitution required for a taking was a just compensation not a reasonable nexus to a good policy. am i wrong about that? >> you're not wrong about that. >> i didn't think so. >> i suppose that question -- underlying the government's briefs in this -- we can ask what their position is or you can characterize their position if your choose. since we could do this either way, what difference does it make? do you understand that to be their -- an underlying premise in their argument or is that unfair on my part? >> well, they certainly say that from time to time. and this court two years ago in koontz rejected arguments of that sort. but in fact there is a

fundamental difference between a volume control, which is present for a number of agricultural products, versus the taking. because in this case, the government literally takes possession of the raisins. it can use the raisins as collateral to get a loan. it can give the raisins away or sell the raisins. >> you are attacking this reserve arrangement and the possession, the government's possession of the raisins themselves. and as far as i have heard so far, you are not attacking volume limiting. you cannot market more than "x" amount. why did you not ask for an exemption from the reserve pool? what you're trying to do now is to get rid of the volume limit as well. >> in this particular program

there is no separate volume control in the sense that there is no regulation that tells producers or handlers how to use or sell raisins. instead, they are told to set aside raisins and give them to the government. here there is a taking and -- >> but the part that isn't given to the government. suppose we just -- couldn't you have asked to excise that part of it and still leave the limit on the amount to be marketed? we have a division between what goes in the reserve and what can be marketed. >> the way this case arose is the department of agricultural came after my clients. we did not -- this is not our lawsuit. the department came after our clients. >> is it counter-claim? >> it's a defense. the department says give, us either raisins or monetary equivalent and we say that's not constitutional.

>> if there was a taking, would there be any obligation on your part to propose an alternative to the taking? the government comes and takes your property. can't you just resist the taking? >> we do not and i'm not sure that any alternative ways would be -- >> since my question is -- it goes on from this. maybe the answers is well just don't decide that. look, i assume for the moment for arguments sake, i have raisins in my basement in this program. and the government comes with a shovel and burlap sacks and takes the raisins. i would say, well, sounds like a taking to me. >> me too. >> and the constitution doesn't forbid takings. it says what you have to do is pay just compensation. it's at that point i want to know what happens. because i guess the government

could argue, look at this program. it's a big program. this program, what it does it gives raisin farmers at the public's expense more money. so if in fact you don't want us to take your raisins, all right, fine. but there would be no program if everybody said that. so we have a rule against free riders. now we'll give you what it cost you to take your raisins. what it cost you is in fact the difference between what you receive given the program and what you would receive without the program. that difference works in your favor. it gives you money. it doesn't take money. so there is no compensation due. in fact, if we were to have compensation, you should say us, the government. so how are you going to get by that part? and if you can't get by that part, how are you going to avoid paying the fine? see, i don't sea the relation

between the taking part and how you get money or don't have to pay the fine. if you have a minute i would appreciate an explanation. >> i would love to. there is both a conceptual and practical response. let me give the practical response first. by the secretary's own calculation the price of raisins was $63 per ton higher with the volume controls than it would have been in an unregulated market. the field price was $810 per ton. taking away 30% of their raisins does not end up with the -- with my clients better off as a result of the program. quite the contrary. they lose money. we have the calculation in our -- >> i don't want to interrupt you but isn't the response that --

the price that you just quoted is because of this program. and it's circular or am i wrong? >> by the secretary's own calculations, $63 of that $810 is attributable to the volume controls in the program. only $63. >> except weren't we told that the demand for raisins is inelastic. if you glut the market, you're going to have what happened before the r.c.a. you're going to have prices dropping. that's the purpose of free competition, isn't it? >> under today's conditions the elasticity is not as enormous as it would need to be for this to be a profitable -- >> well that's today. but you haven't paid a reserve in years now. >> when i say today, what i mean is the -- >> one of your arguments is --

now the conceptual point is that this is a per se taking. and if there were benefits, such as i don't believe there were -- if there were, it would go to whether there is implicit in kind compensation for the taking which would go to the question of taking. implicit in kind compensation is a complicated matter. it has to do with whether there were special benefits. there is a split all over the country on that. i don't think we want to get into whether this would be a special benefit. >> so what we should say, do you have any objection to my writing, it's a taking, but the constitution forbids taking without compensation. programs can work badly. sometimes they are

counterproductive. but if this is working well, that's what happens. so we send it back to the court to see, did the program work well or make your client better off what rules do we follow. >> i think not. but i'm close to there. if this were an imminent domain proceeding then the lower court would determine if there were implicit in kind compensation. if it was inverse compensation proceeding, possibly the same. but this is an enforcement action. it is specifically guided by the regulations in the seven cfr. and under those regulations we know exactly what takes place. and implicit in kind contribution is not provided for in those regulations. what is provided in those regulations is that if reserve

pool raisins are not handed over to the r.a.c., the handler must multiply the number of raisins by the field price and that is it. now that is also the measure of the value of the raisins. so if they take that, the compensation is exactly that. and the two things simply are a wash. the regulation -- and the broader principle here is this is not a program which is designed to provide compensation. the government almost concedes this. this is not -- this is not like getting land for a post office where the government intends to pay. this is more like a program like a kaiser aetna or some of the others where if it is a taking, the government has no intention of paying compensation. that is not the kind of program it is. and in cases -- may i just -- in cases where there's a taking, and the program does not contemplate compensation, the

standard judicial remedy for that is to forbid the taking. it is not -- >> can we get back, mr. mcconnell, to whether is it a taking point. and i've just been trying to think about whether your argument would apply to other kinds of programs and how it might apply to other kinds of programs. how about just programs where the government says give us -- produce records for us. i'm sure there are a lot of programs like that in the world. there is something intuitive about your saying, well, the government is asking us to turn over stuff. and i'm wondering -- it seems that the government asks people to turn over stuff all the time in the form of records. how would that fair under your argument? >> if the records -- if what the government is asking for is information, this is not going to be a taking. if the records are themselves of historical value as they were in

nixon vs. -- >> i don't know of their historic value. >> -- and they want to put them many the museum -- >> i don't know of their historic value. they are physical objects in the same way the raisins are physical objects and the government wants records. >> the government does not take permanent position of records. if i'm in an irs audit and they ask for records. i show them the records, they see the information, it is not a taking. >> you're saying that the government couldn't ask you to deliver records to them? >> i did not say that. they can ask me to do that. and it is not a taking unless they've taken a permanent possessory interest. if they sell the records the way they sell the raisins then -- >> they're keeping the records. >> if they're keeping the records forever, i'm not sure

but i doubt very much that that would be a take. >> i don't understand -- >> again if the value of the records is the information, which is what i assume it is in a regulatory program, we're not talking about actual physical -- >> there are cases on custodial -- in criminal cases, i think it's a taking if it's too long. i think we have said that or other courts have said that. the government can keep it only so long as -- you have a valuable diamond ring which is evidence and the government keeps it but only for so long as -- >> i think there are complicated sets of rules dealing with contraband and so forth, but this is extremely far afield from raisins which are a --

which are a valuable piece of property which -- >> i'm trying to understand why it's far afield and what it's far afield from. you said information is no problem, but people have property interests in information all the time. and if the government says you have to give us that information, which counts as property, why is that not subject to your rule? >> information can be property when it's intellectual property. for example trade secrets can be property. i don't think ordinary records such as the irs demands from taxpayers is a taking. >> where we said the turning over of trade secrets, which is a property, you've just admitted that, for the privilege of selling other commodities, the pesticides, was okay. wasn't a taking. how do you deal with that case? >> there's broad language in

that case which this court cut back upon in nolan versus california coastal commission. in nolan, the court held that monsanto could not stand for the proposition that is an affirmative benefit to someone simply to allow them to use their property in an ordinary sense. there has to be an actual affirmative government grant of a benefit for the condition. >> getting $63 more a pound for what you sell seems like a significant benefit. >> they are not -- the $63 results from volume controls. that does not require a taking. the taking itself is of absolutely no value to the producers or anyone else other than those who receive the export subsidies from the sale of the raisins. they are the only ones who benefit from the actual taking. >> but you couldn't do it. you would have a product that

would be valueless except for that which you could eat at home. but you didn't intend to eat it at home because you gave it up for sale. if they gave you the raisins, would you be able to export them and get the government subsidy? >> if they -- my clients are not actually in the export business. if the -- if my clients were selling raisins for export, they would be entitled to receive the export subsidy. but that's not the business that they're in. >> my point is just you couldn't otherwise sell this commodity. if all they did was put in the house and say to the producers, sell 60% this year, what would you do with the raisins? they just sit there, wouldn't they? >> the way other programs with volume controls work is there is an initial reserve and as market

conditions develop and more information is available, the owners of the product are permitted to release more and more into the market. and in these particular -- >> suppose the logic goes the other way. >> that would be a different -- that would certainly be a different case. if it went completely the other way, it could well be that the owners of the raisins receive no money at all. but it's still -- it's still a restriction on their use. the raisins haven't been taken from them. in this case, the raisins are actually taken from them and the government sells them. in fact, in one of these years the government was able to sell the raisins for more than the field price. >> the curly cue on this, there is what we do about this fine. and the reason that -- it's a curly cue on the case. but think of an imaginary plan -- i think i'll figure it

out myself. i'd like you to reserve it. >> if there are no further questions i will reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. >> thank you, counsel. mr. kneedler? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. regulating the commercial marketing of a functionable agricultural product, a regulatory program that was established with producer approval and is established for their benefit. it is cooperative program among the secretary producers and handlers. the raisins are not put into the program for the benefit of the government. they are put into the program for the benefit of producers and they enter the stream of commerce. a producer is affected by these -- >> these plaintiffs are ingrates, right? you're really helping them. it's their benefit.

and they wanted this, didn't they? >> these petitioners do not want the program but the program was established on the premise it is -- >> it's one little feature of an overall program. that little feature happens to be the taking of raisins. you can have a lot of features. there's no objection to having many features. but where one is a taking, you have to justify it by just compensation. >> the question is whether it is a taking and we believe it's not. >> you used to say it's not a taking if it involves personal property only real estate. are you still -- the government has abandoned that position. >> that has not been our position. we have not argued that personal property is not subject to the just compensation clause such that if the government came in and took someone's car -- >> someone's raisins. >> the government has not taken the raisins. if i could set this up and explain how it operators.

this program operates only when the producer has committed the raisins to the stream of commerce. they have been put -- they have been put into the stream of commerce, they are turned over to the handlers. the market regulates only the conduct of handlers. >> the government can prevent you from putting something into the stream of commerce, can charge you for putting something into the stream? >> i think the government can attach reasonable conditions on entering the stream of commerce. >> including taking? >> that is the lesson of monsanto, which i think -- >> it's an unconstitutional condition. taking without compensation is an unconstitutional condition for putting something into the stream of commerce. >> that analysis would apply if there was a taking on the nolan-dolan analogy, for example -- >> there are examples in the briefs that are startling. could the government say to a manufacturer of cell phones you

can sell cell phones but every fifth one you can give to us, or a manufacturer of cars, you can sell cars in the united states but every third car you have to give to the united states. >> i think that would present a very different question. >> why would it be different? >> this is part of a program. it isn't just acquiring -- >> you say if the government took all gm's cars it would be okay but just not a third? >> no, we are not saying that at all. if i could just -- >> before you do, the rationale. the government can come up with a rationale easily. you say cell phone providers benefit greatly if there is a broader cell phone market. if more people are using them. so we're going to take every fifth one and give it to people who cannot afford a cell phone and that will help cell phone manufacturers because more and more people will have them and want them. there it's okay. that's the same rationale you are applying here. this is for the good of the

people whose property we're taking. >> well, these programs go back to the 1930s when the agricultural industry in this country was in serious trouble, and particularly in california. prices were below costs of production. >> and you can do what you've done in most other marketing orders which is not take the raisins and say, look, you can only plant 63% of your acreage this year or only produce 28 tons. that's how much of them work and most of them thereby are, i presume, analyzed under penn central. this is different because you come up with the truck and get the shovels and take the raisins probably in the dark of night. >> that is not what the government does. the way the order operates is that the producer submits the raisins to the handler. the handler then divides them into two categories. the handler is required by the order to maintain and separate

the reserve raisins, but they are separated for later sale. they don't go to the government. they are separated for later sale. the proceeds are -- >> what do you mean they don't -- does not the government own them? do you deny that the government owns them? >> for purposes of this case we concede that the government gets legal title, but that doesn't mean that the government has the entire interest in the raisins. the government has legal title so that it may -- we will assume for purposes of this case -- so that the government can -- or the committee. it's not the secretary of agriculture -- the committee can then sell the raisins. the proceeds of those sales are pooled and distributed back to the producers. >> how much from those sales did these petitioners acquire in the two years at issue here? how much money was given back to them? >> in one year, $272 per ton and in the other year there were no

other proceeds back. because the cost of administering the reserve program exceed -- there was no net proceeds. >> over the history of the program that starts in 1949 right? history of the program -- it starts in 1949 right? >> yes. >> so, how many years while the program is in effect was there a distribution to the growers? >> i do not know that, how many years, but a great number of years. and in fact the three years leading up to this particular time, one of the years here was $47 million was returned. in the prior years, it was $50-some million and another $30-some million. so, the experience has been that there typically has been a return -- >> i too am troubled like justice alito, about his every fifth telephone or whatever, every fifth car or every fifth

telephone you have to give to the government. i don't know that you've answered that question. is that a taking or isn't it? and what's the basis? distinguish it from -- >> because this is a comprehensive governmental program, and it governs quality it governs timing of sales, and it's important to recognize that's all that is going on here. the reserve raisins are set aside by the handler after the producer has voluntarily turned them over. they're set aside by the handler for later sale. petition years concede in their brief on page 23 that the government can regulate the when, the manner and the channel of sales. that's exactly what the reserves program does. they're turned over to the handler. the handler sets them aside in reserve. >> mr. kneedler -- >> they decide then when and where to sell them. >> this is a historical quirk that you have to defend. you could achieve the government's objectives just as

you do in most other cases through volume limitations that don't require a physical taking. for whatever reason in the history of the new deal this one was set up differently. and so we're here dealing with a classical physical taking. we are not going to jeopardize the marketing -- the agricultural department's marketing of regime. and by the way it better be the agricultural department taking these. you said earlier it's the raisin committee, or you'll have trouble in your speech committees, where you're saying -- >> we're not saying that the committee is not the government. what i was saying is that the operation of the program is not for the government's benefit. it's for the producer's benefit -- >> correct -- >> so -- >> look, i'm having trouble with the same thing. i agree so far with what the chief justice said. go back to the new deal. you can, in fact, burn raisins, the point of which was to have fewer raisins, the result of which was to raise the price of raisins from $100 a pound, or a

bushel, to $400. that was thought to make the farmer better off, which it did. and it made the customers worse off. then someone had a good idea, said it's sort of wasteful to burn raisins. let's take the raisins we'd otherwise burn and give them to school children, and maybe we could even sell a few. and if we do, we'll give that extra money to the farmer, too. now we have school children with raisins, we have the farmer having more money. sounds like a pretty good program. of course, you have taken some raisins. but what i don't see is how either the farmer or the school children are any the worse off. and if they're no worse off, what compensation are these farmers entitled to? of course, free riders could become yet better off. they could charge at the higher price that the program creates

$800. but after all, that isn't the issue, because you have to have as a rule no free riders. and once you admit that as a rule, everyone including perhaps these plaintiffs are better off than none at all. now, that's a very simple argument. it's what i understand to be the economics of the brannon plan, the fdr, the 1949 et cetera. and yet, we've had endless cases, complexities opinions and fines and therefore, i'm probably wrong with my simple argument. of course, i doubt that i'm wrong, but nonetheless, i want you to explain what's wrong with it. >> we agree with much of what you said except that it is not -- i just reiterated -- it is not a taking of the raisins. >> if you want to say it's not a taking -- >> no, it is a regulatory program classically analyzed under penn central because there is a reciprocity of advantage, one of the phrases this court has frequently used, among producers. this does not distinctly affect

the petitioners. it applies to all producers. the petitioners are correct. since 1949 every year there has been a reserve requirement. every producer has had a per se taking. >> mr. kneedler i largely agree with what the chief justice said. i mean just the way i think about this program is that this does seem a weird historical anomaly. am i right that all of the rest of these agricultural programs are done differently, such that saying that this was a taking would not affect other agricultural programs? and also are there any other programs out there, forget agricultural programs, but are there any other programs out there that we should be concerned about if we were to think about this as a taking? >> well, with respect to agricultural programs, i think there are eight or ten other

programs that have reserve provisions in them. i think most of those are not active in the sense that there is currently reserve just like this one is not. and if this one has outlived its usefulness and the committee has not proposed a reserve requirement, the program is working exactly like it should. the committee which is responsible has decided not to impose a reserve requirement. >> i'm sorry, but you said that there were eight or ten other programs that, you said they have -- >> they have like this one, provisions permitting the use of a reserve system. but like this one, they are not actively utilizing it. >> how long have they not been actively utilized? >> i think most of this has been in the last decade. i don't know precisely. and one of the things that's happened in this industry in the last ten years is it has changed greatly. you will see from the amicus brief filed by sunmaid and the raisin bargaining association which i commend your attention, they now believe that the reserve requirement should no longer be -- or at least sunmaid

does -- should no longer be instituted. but they also firmly believe that petitioners should not be permitted to be free riders on this program. they were able to sell the raisins -- >> and mr. kneedler, what of nonagricultural programs? are there other nonregulatory programs where the government says produce something that is characterizable as property? >> well i think the most immediately relevant one, which this court sustained, was in the monsanto case, where you were asking about reports and information. that was a case in which as a condition for marketing pesticides, the manufacturer had to submit information to epa -- >> we know about that one. anything else out there? i mean tell me about the realm of regulatory programs is that we ought to be concerned about if we were to say something like the production of something the production of stuff that somebody claims a property interest in is a taking. >> i'm not specifically aware of other programs but monsanto and

the requirement to submit information to the government for example, is widespread in our society. and what the court basically said there was that if it was known when someone before they entered commerce and applied their application if they knew that the material would be disclosed to the public or used by the government for approving other applications there was no taking. >> i guess the government can prohibit the introduction of harmful pesticides into interstate commerce. i'm not sure it can prohibit the introduction of raisins. i mean that's, you know, dangerous raisins. i can understand imposing that condition on monsanto, and that would not be an unconstitutional condition. >> well, that -- >> perhaps it is when you impose it on raisins. >> the court's rationale in monsanto was not based on the fact that the product was dangerous, although that was obviously the setting. it was the fact that the manufacturer knew when

submitting the information to epa that it would be subject to disclosure, and therefore, its property value either eliminated or appropriated by the government, as it were, for use in evaluating other applications. >> in the case from monsanto and looking at your brief on page 32 when you cite monsanto, you say producers that are dissatisfied with the reserve regulations may plant different crops. that's a pretty audacious statement. if you don't like our regulations, do something else. >> well, that's not the only option that they have. they have the option of selling the grapes for other purposes. >> meaning wine? >> wine or grape juice. these grapes, the overwhelming majority of them the thompson seedless grapes have a variety of uses, and that's one of the things that a grower would take into account is would they be better off with raisins -- >> but to say if you don't like regulations, you can challenge them in court to see if they

comply with the constitution. if the answer was always you can do something else, it would seem we'll never have these kinds of cases. >> no, but this is a substantive point i'm making, not a preclusionry review point. the point is that there is a growing regulation. people growing crops in this industry know what the regulation is, and if they decide -- and they have operated under this marketing word for 30 years before they challenged -- >> all that's -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> i'm sorry justice kennedy. >> seems to me what your argument is saying, even if it's a taking, it's okay. it will be okay, everything will work out. that's what i get from your argument. >> no, our fundamental argument is that it is not a taking to begin with because the grower voluntarily submits the total amount of its raisins to the handler. the handler then separates them into two quarters, one to be sold now and one to be sold later, but they both have to do with the timing and regulation of sale, which petitioners acknowledge the government can

regulate the timing and manner of sales. that's exactly what happens here. there are basically two markets. one is the free market, the other is the tightly regulated market for exports, for other outlets that do not compete with the domestic market. >> so if you don't -- like we're going to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools and we're going to make everybody stand. if you don't like it, go to a different school. i don't understand why that's not the same analysis here. this may be a taking of your raisins or not, and if you don't like it grow something else. >> monsanto is not the only case where that was -- by the way i do not believe that nolan cut back on the rationale of monsanto. what the footnote in nolan said is we do not regard the ability to build on your property, your real property, to build a house as a governmental benefit. it did not say -- in fact i think it reaffirmed the idea that there was an exchange in monsanto where the government was giving a benefit of clearing the product for use. >> whereas you say that introducing raisins into

interstate commerce is a government benefit right? >> we think the regulatory program is a government benefit. >> no, not the regulatory -- you're saying the activity which is subjected to this taking is the introduction of raisins in interstate commerce, and you say that is something that the benign government can give or withhold. >> it is permission to do it which is exactly -- >> really? >> -- what the court said in monsanto, but monsanto is not the only case. yee said the same thing with respect to real property. that was the case involving the mobile home park. and it was claimed there was a taking there because the mobile park owner was subject to rent control, and it was argued that that was just like loreto because it was a forced physical occupation, and the court said no. the critical distinction was that the yees had voluntarily chosen to enter the rental market, to enter into a

commercial transaction, and the government could then, because they had voluntarily done it regulate the price that was being charged. >> mr. mcconnell was asked a number of questions about the leonard case, but i take it that you don't think that the leonard case has very important bearing on this case because you cited one time in your brief -- it's a passing reference on the issue of findubal goods. am i correct there? >> it's a good point -- >> you didn't propose, you didn't suggest to us that this case is just another version of leonard, and therefore, we should affirm based on leonard? >> to the extent leonard was about tax. this was not -- this program was not identified as a tax partly because the raisins don't come to the government. the raisins go into a pool that belongs to all of the producers and then is divided up among the producers. this is not -- these are not things that are appropriated for the government's own use, but we

think leonard is critically instructive for the point that with respect to property like this, like the oyster shells or like raisins, what the court said is that they are fungible. their only value is for commercial sale. this is not like the ownership of real property in loreto, which is unique and personally identified. these raisins are valuable only for sale, and in fact as i said, this order kicks in only when the producer has committed the raisins to sale by handing them to a handler. >> so put all the regulatory aspects of the program aside for a moment and just say this were a much simpler program and it said the government says to the raisin industry, you know, we could tax you and say you have to deliver 2% of your net profits. we're not going to do that. we're just going to take 2% of your raisins. would that be constitutional? would that be a taking? >> that would be i think like

leonard. it would be an in kind tax. i don't think there's anything that would prohibit that being done, but that's not -- i mean and we think the fact that that would be okay is instructive here as the court's discussion of leonard suggests, but the court makes -- >> but you said you don't think of this case in that way, and why don't you? >> well, it's analogous in the sense that congress may well be able to do this in a different way. the reason i said it was different is that the oysters -- the raisins, excuse me, are not being used for the government's program. they do not go to school lunch programs. if the government wants raisins, it buys them. it doesn't -- >> we don't usually allow committees of producers who are called the government to impose taxes, do we? i mean that's usually done by congress. and this, essentially, is done by some committee. >> right but it's a committee elected by producers. it's important to recognize -- >> so, they can impose taxes, you're saying. this is just like a tax.

>> no. what i was saying is there are other -- the government may well be able to impose something, some exaction as a tax, but this is a regulatory program adopted by users. it's important to recognize -- and this goes back to the new deal. the court has had numerous cases regarding these marketing deals. >> whatever the majority of producers agree to i am bound by? these people disagree. >> but the disagreement doesn't convert into a taking. and if they believe the program is not operating correctly, then there are other -- >> i'm not saying the disagreement converts it into taking. i'm just saying that it doesn't carry much water to say that this is a program adopted by producers. if 51% of the producers want to do it there's 49% that don't want to do it. >> well, i think it's a pretty good indication that the premises on which congress enacted this statute in 1937 operated then and operate now for the benefit of producers and it shouldn't be necessary in

any one particular year in which the regulatory program is in place to calibrate whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. i think -- >> central planning was thought to work very well in 1937. and russia tried it for a long time. >> well, again, if this program is not working, it can be modified. and in fact, the committee comprised of producers has decided not to impose a reserve but -- >> you've made the point several times that the government sells these raisins for the benefit of the producers, right? >> right. >> well, what if the producers, some of them, think they can do a better job of selling them, they can get a better price, because they're better producers, they're better marketers, they have export contacts that others don't? >> this is just standard regulation. what congress has said is if you're going to sell, you have to sell in the manner set up under this program. >> that's not usually what -- when you're takinglking about that

regulation, i understand the raisins have to be so big or you can't call them raisins and you have to have safety inspections. but you're saying this is a good program because we sell the raisins and give what's left to the producers. i don't think that's a good approach to market regulation. >> there are two pools of raisins. and how you treat or how you implement the notion that there are two different pools of raisins may vary but where you have that, the similarities are much more fundamental. you have the free tonnage raisins, which the grower is immediately paid for and the handler can immediately put on the market but there was a judgment made when this marketing order was established and sunmaid and the raisin association believe it was still true during these years that if you have a big surplus, as there was around the turn of the century, it would make the prices plummet if those extra

raisins were put on the open market because the demand for raisins is inelastic. so, what this marketing order does is it estimates, what word operates, estimates what the free tonnage requirement will be, and that is completely open to the market. the reserve raisins, they're essentially valueless because you don't need them to satisfy the existing market. you take them off the market to prop up the prices of the free tonnage raisins, and then the committee will sell them when they will not undermine, or in a manner that will not undermine the free -- >> suppose the same sort of program were carried out with respect to real property, would you provide the same answer? suppose that property owners, owners of real property in a particular area, think that the value of their property would be increased if they all surrendered a certain amount of that property to the government for the purpose of producing, creating a park or for some other reason. and so they get the

municipality to set up this program, and one of them objects to surrendering this part of that, of his or her land. would that not be a taking? >> i think real property would be fundamentally different. >> why would it be fundamentally -- i thought you said you were not arguing there is a difference between real property and personal property. >> we're not saying there is a categorical difference but the lucas decision is very instructive there. when the court was talking about the ability to regulate real property it said there is a difference between real property and personal property. at least personal property being used for commercial purposes, which might even be rendered valueless by virtue of governmental regulations. so -- >> mr. kneedler what's the statute of limitations on a taegz claim takings claim? >> six years, i think it would be. >> has there been any reserves created in the last six years? >> i think the last one was 2009-2010. i wanted to correct one fact --

>> explain to me why the market for raisins is inelastic. you mean people won't buy more raisins if they're cheaper? >> that's basically correct. it's just a quality of raisins, and there's a limited set of outlets. raisins now are primarily used as food ingredients in raisin bran and things like that. and the price doesn't affect demand, and therefore, if you put a great surplus on the domestic market, the prices will crater. and so, this has a very sensible approach. >> mr. kneedler, you don't have to convince us that this is a sensible program for you to prevail, do you? >> no, we do not. >> we could think that this is a ridiculous program. isn't that right? >> pardon? i'm sorry. >> we could think that -- >> you could think this is a ridiculous program but it is one that has been around since 1949, and petitioners' argument again, means that every grower since 1949 has had a per se taking -- >> mr. kneedler --

>> it would help your case if it's ridiculous, though. you acknowledge that. [ laughter ] >> i think -- >> it is not. it is not -- let me be clear -- a ridiculous program. >> but this is a serious point actually, because the ridiculousness or sensibleness of a program is really not for us to decide. >> yes, i agree with that completely. i mean that is -- this is a regulatory program and should be thought of under this court's regulatory jurisprudence -- >> mr. kneedler you were asked this before, but your answer wasn't clear. marketing orders of this sort that have a reserve pool you said there were eight or ten of them. have any others been operative as this one has been? it started in '49 and -- >> have been operative in the past. most of them are not operative in the sense that the reserve -- this is my understanding -- that the reserve provision has been triggered. >> those are just the government

selling the reserve? >> i think it's true of maybe several others. i'm not sure. some of them had to do with the handler, difference between the handler and producer. i wanted to correct -- >> hold on. go ahead. >> i wanted to correct a factual error on the computation. there was suggestion in the one year $810 was the field price and because of the mathematical calculations, the claim was the petitioners would have been better off without the reserve. that's not correct. the mistake there is the assumption that all the raisins would have been sold at the field price if they were all put on the market and that's just inconsistent with the premise of the order. that the only reason that there is a highfield price for the free tonnage raisins is that the other ones are taken off the market, so they would not have been recovered in that way. >> how many of these programs are there? >> of? >> marketing orders. >> i think there are scores of them. >> i mean, i'm trying to put the eight to ten in relation to how many -- >> i don't know the total

number, but we can follow that up with a supplemental letter. i think there are scores of them. but this is not fundamentally different from the others. and again, the government is not acquiring these raisins for itself. the government doesn't actually keep them in its possession. it just tells the handler to keep them and sell them later, rather than selling them now. and that is not an appropriation of private property. >> thank you, counsel. mr. mcconnell, you have five minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. so several things have been cleared up. the government now does concede that the government takes legal title to the raisins. the government does an daughter -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> -- all the time. to the extent that we've ashoed taking formal titles as meaningful with respect to actual control or actual benefit benefit. trustees take title but it's not for their benefit.

it's for the benefit of their beneficiary. >> that's true justice sotomayor, but the taking of the -- the government is not a trustee here. >> but in a form, yes. to sell the reserve raisins at the best price it can get given the limitations on the free market. >> it sells for the best price and then it uses the proceeds for its own regulatory purposes. >> you have only four minutes in rebuttal. you had some other points? >> just as to the factual point, it is not -- our calculations are not based upon selling all of the raisins at the field price. our calculations are based upon being able to sell all the raisins at the price that the secretary has said would be the price in an unregulated market, which is $747 per ton.

and that is -- it is certainly not true that these reserve raisins are valueless. they are an extremely valuable commodity. and in most of the years, the producers of the raisins receive absolutely nothing for them. the important point here though, is that it is not any less of a taking even if there is a benefit. i have no doubt, for example that in loreto that the value of the apartment went up because there was a cable because it became cable-ready for its tenants. that did not make it any less of a taking as this is a per se taking. and any benefits only go to whether there might be some kind of implicit, in kind compensation as a result of the benefit. and if this were an eminent domain proceeding, i think that that might well be relevant. this is, in fact, only an administration enforcement action in which the question is

whether the department of agriculture was entitled under the constitution to demand either the raisins or their monetary equivalent without any payment of compensation. >> that last why isn't it for them to make that argument? you're better off, et cetera. >> if you would look at the -- >> i mean is it -- >> no, it's the regulation. i'm sorry. if you look at 7cfr-989.166c you will see that that is the provision for what happens when the handler does not turn over reserve raisins to the department of agriculture. it has very specific provisions for what happens and there is no provision in that for implicit in kind compensation. >> can they argue that -- the fact that all the raisin producers are better off because

of this program including you, but no free riders. that's what's the compensation. can they at least argue that? have they conceded that? >> under this regulation, i do not think it is open to the department of agriculture to argue that. i think that that would be a logical argument if this were an eminent domain proceeding and we were simply trying to figure out what the proper value of the raisins is. reserving, of course the point that we believe that this program does not benefit the producer. we believe that this program actually makes the producers demonstrably worse off. the only people who benefit from this program are the recipients of the subsidy of the export subsidies. >> the exporters. >> that's right. >> mr. mcconnell can i take you back to the very first thing that you said in this argument? because you said, typically, the handler doesn't take the product and the handler doesn't pay for the product. and you would think that the horns here would only have a

takings claim, assuming that they do have a takings claim, for the raisins that they produced and not for the raisins that other people produced. but you said that that's not correct in this case? >> it is not because they pay -- a check went out from the raisin marketing association to the producers for every raisin not just the free tonnage raisin raisins raisins, but for the reserve tonnage raisins as well. so the hornes are actually the only people with a financial interest in the raisins in this case. that is unusual. >> mr. mcconnell this is probably neither here nor there but what has the impact of the drought been on the raisin producers, do you know? >> it is not good. [ laughter ] >> very carefully guarded response. >> and i wonder if i'll be able to take a shower when i go home. >> thank you counsel. the case is submitted.

here on c-span3, we are live outside the supreme court as the court winds down its term. hundreds of observers protesters, reporters gathered to hear decisions in a major supreme court decision handed down today. just moments ago. the "associated press" reports that the court has upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under president obama's health care overhaul in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of americans. the "ap" saying "the justices said in a 6-3 ruling today that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live under the 2010 health care law." the ap writes that the outcome is the second major victory for president obama in a politically charged supreme court test of his most significant domestic achievement achievement. that from the "ap." the court ruled those ruling in favor include john roberts,

justices kennedy, ginsburg breyer, sotomayor and kagan. here on c-span3 we're going to wait to hear from those involved in the decision. if there are news conferences. obviously, you see our cameras there, hundreds of other reporters and observers, too. and we want to hear from you as well and your thoughts on the decision in the king v. burwell case, the affordable health care case, the subsidies for those who use the exchanges. here are the numbers -- 202-748-8921 for republicans. 202-748-8920 for democrats. and for all others, 202-748-8922. we'll look for your comments at facebook.com/cspan as well. and you can send us a tweet tweet @cspan. but again, we'll stay here live on c-span3 for any possible updates from those involved in the case and others as, again

the court winding down its term. they just today released one other decision, and that was a decision regarding housing. they upheld a key enforcement tool used by the obama administration and civil rights groups to fight housing bias. they ruled that the federal housing law can prohibit seemingly neutral practices that harm minorities, even without proof of intentional discrimination. but our focus this morning, hearing from you, is the supreme court decision, the 6-3 ruling in favor of health care subsidies today at the supreme court on this likely the second-to-last day of decisions for the supreme court. there are just a couple of decisions remaining, including the validity of same-sex marriage across the country. but here on c-span3, looking for your observations. we'll stay here live. and also we'll look for some of the comments from reporters and others. jerry side from the "wall street journal" tweets "big supreme

court upholds health care subsidies." also, from ed o'keefe like many others tweeting "the supreme court upholds obamacare 6-3. chief justice roberts wrote the opinion. in the dissent, ben jacobs of "the guardian" tweets that justice scalia accuses the supreme court of "favoring some laws over others," "going out of his way to uphold and assist its favorites." that's a tweet from the reading, observing the reading up in there, because the justices will oftentimes read their decisions in the courtroom. that decision has been handed down. and we hope to be able to provide later a link for you to be able to read it as well. we'll stay here live on c-span3 looking for your comments and calls and possible news conferences from those involved in the decisions up at the supreme court.

>> tell me a little bit about what you brought to -- >> are we being filmed? >> they're not with us. >> somebody's filming me.

>> here on c-span3 and c-span radio, we're live outside the supreme court. we've been watching observers and others in the wake of the just-announced decision, 6-3 upholding the subsidies under the 2010 health care law under obamacare and looking for your comments as well. 202-748-8921 for republicans. democrats 202-748-8920. and all others, 202-748-8922. on twitter, kenneth tweets "6-3 decision should be signal for

gop to stop being against and work to make it better." he's talking about the health care law. and nancy says, "winning again obamacare. thank you, president obama." looking for your tweets @cspan is our handle. let's hear from emma here in the nation's capitol independent line. what do you think of the decision today? >> caller: i'm just ecstatic! i am so happy for our country that we finally stood up for health care and moving towards a single-payer mode of providing health care. to me, that is just a right, you know? it's an indelible right that people who are citizens of the united states and those who are trying to become citizens should have health care. but what i would like to find out, what is going to happen with the states? they're still upholding -- many of those states who are against the affordable care act are still upholding the medicaid portion for the exchanges for individuals who still desperately need health care who are below the poverty line but cannot get the care that they need still, even under the aca.

and for the employers who are holding back what does this really mean for them today? >> and emma do you know folks who are impacted by these subsidies or using these subsidies to get their health insurance? >> caller: sure. i know a lot of individuals who are working at $10 to $13 an hour, and they're still paying you know quite a bit for health care. the employer still isn't coming through as he or she should. i have relatives who live in some of the states that are not being subsidized and many of them are being withheld of care that's needed. >> you can see the man on your screen there with his sign about the case involving gay marriage. that decision has not come out yet. let's listen in and see what he has to say. >> why would it change if these guys are making law based on what's right and wrong how can it change? >> because right and wrong is an objective. >> what do you mean it's objective? right and wrong is not

subjective. give me an example of subjective right and wrong. >> your wife is dying of a rare disease. you cannot afford the medicine. if somebody has the medicine but they refuse to get it to you. your wife is dying. some people would say yes, some people would say no. it's subjective. >> well, i wouldn't say that's subjective. i would say a person out of desperation, they're going to do something, but that doesn't make something right because people do things. >> but why -- they're killing somebody -- >> but you're saying -- see, so, we can use that argument all across the board. we can say somebody don't have their drugs and they need it. so, they do a house invasion to get your drugs. is it right or wrong? see, isn't -- yeah. >> but these drugs are being provided by -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> so if the jurors agree that crystal meth is legal --

>> pretty objective outside of the supreme court, talking about a case that's not been decided asking the court whether the 14th amendment to the constitution requires states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. what they did decide today was the health care subsidy law 6-3 decision upholding the obamacare subsidies. we're asking for your reaction. worcester, massachusetts. emanuel on our democrats line. >> caller: how are you, sir? >> good morning. go ahead. >> caller: okay. number one rks four people have to allow this case to be brought before the supreme court, which means that one of the four that allowed it voted to continue the law as it is. there have been hints from recent cases that this would not cause a problem, which i think is why a number of people are not exactly concerned any more than i was, because of the

damage this would have done was so severe. and the worst part of it is where are all those people who would lose the insurance? in all of the states that did not have medicaid as a possibility and put it into effect. >> kind of reflecting that, steve on twitter tweets "the biggest sigh of relief is from gop in congress who now don't have to worry about 2016." chad chad, who covers the hill for fox, says that the decision now means that the next health care fight will be in the budget reconciliation package later this year to actually repeal obamacare. let's hear from salvador in burbank, california. what do you think of the decision today by the court? >> caller: well, i don't know too much about this issue, but i have to mention or to bring this to the rest of the people, is

that we are losing our insurance. i have insurance in the kaiser permanente hospital, okay? so, any decision that the court made for us they don't feel like we feel here you know? i lose my dental coverage since mr. obama get in the white house. and i work there for several years. i told everyone over there you are losing your insurance. you already lost. and people, they don't believe it. they say, no mr. obama is going to give it to us. he promised. and i think he promised -- you know what he promised. so, you'd better understand this because it's very important. we are losing our insurance

under this issue. [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] they can tell you who is salvador. salvador is grassroots over here in burbank. okay, and people call me, wanting to -- sal, what are we going to do? and i say, i don't know. i don't know because they are protesting all of the people and they are out of the law and they don't protect us. >> okay. that's salvador in california. we go to pomona, new york, and amy, democrats line. supreme court deciding, upholding the subsidies today. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i'm an attorney, and it's the attorneys for the republican party had bothered to read the decisions, they would have known this was a dumb case to bring. the court is not going to deprive however many people of the health insurance they now enjoy.

>> amy thanks for that. we are live outside the supreme court here on c-span3 and c-span radio. the supreme court upholding the 4th circuit opinion, upholding the subsidies provided to those who use the insurance exchange. in the 6-3 decision that was led by chief justice john roberts. we're going to stay here live, taking your comments, hearing from you here on the phone facebook.com/cspan as well and on twitter. we are @cspan. let's hear from tommy in malden massachusetts. we also hope to show you momentarily what it looked like when the decision was announced there in front of the supreme court this morning. malden, massachusetts. tommy, go ahead. you're on the air. >> caller: hi. i am shocked by the ruling. the law specifically states that states without the health karcare

exchanges were not eligible for subsidies. so, the court is you know just ignoring the law, and i think it's retarded, and obama is not my --[ expletive ]. >> chief justice john roberts, in part of his decision upholding the subsidies under obamacare writes that "in a democracy, the power to make law rests with those chosen by the people. our role is more confined to what the law is. that is easier in some cases than others, but in every case, we must respect the role of the legislature and take care not to undo what it has done. a fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan." part of the decision today in the opinion of chief justice john roberts, who voted in favor in a 6-3 decision.

might have a news conference coming up here shortly. we'll hear now from weehawken, new jersey. democrats line. michael, go ahead. >> caller: yes. i am a registered democrat, but i disagree with this ruling. it just seems that obamacare really doesn't help the middle class whatsoever. and i just find this a little bit disappointing. >> going to hold up just a bit here and listen in as obviously, some folks involved in the case likely are coming out. we may hear something. we are live here on c-span3 and c-span radio. >> the group that brought the king v. -- >> ac sank here to stay! aca is here to stay! aca is here to stay! [ chanting ]

>> for each of the constitutional separation of powers. and for that reason, it is all the more important for congress to now do two things. one is to protect that separation of powers even more vigilantly. and secondly, to undertake real reform of obamacare and the problems it is causing for millions of americans. thank you. >> did clarence thomas say nothing? >> hi. my name is ron pollack, and i'm executive director of families usa, which is the national organization for health care consumers. and with me is gwen jackson from texas, who is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies that were upheld today by the supreme

court. make no mistake about this, today's decision has monumental significance significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land, it will remain the law of the land. >> yes! >> it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable people will continue to receive those subsidies, and they will continue to have health insurance. so this is a big sigh of relief for millions of people across the country who previously were uninsured, who previously couldn't afford health insurance, but who today can afford insurance because they are receiving subsidies. and today, the court by a 6-3 margin upheld the provision of those subsidies. so at this juncture hopefully

now that the affordable care act is clearly a stable part of america's health care system, hopefully, we can move on. hopefully, we can have bipartisan efforts to try to make even further improvements with respect to america's health care system making sure everyone has high-quality health care and at an affordable price. but most importantly, the affordable care act has produced enormous progress. more than one out of three people who were previously uninsured have now received health coverage. and now that progress will continue. we will not go backwards. and more and more people will be able to get the health coverage they need to protect their families. so i want to introduce gwen jackson. gwen is from sugarland texas. and gwen is one of the millions

of people who are receiving the subsidies and whose subsidies will be protected. >> yes. so, thank you, ron. >> speak up please? >> go ahead. >> so, i am excited today. i'm excited. my husband and i are self-employed, both self-employed, and my husband had a severe tumor that required surgery, and we were uninsured. but through the marketplace my husband was able to get an extensive surgery subsequently to get additional surgeries and may continue to have to have surgeries as a result of this. this was an aggressive bone disease of his jaw, and it impacted us greatly but we are thankful today that the courts upheld this and realize that affordable care is not just

for -- i don't know -- it's for everybody, and it should be. it would have impacted over 6 million people had they not agreed to this. but now, we don't have to worry about this anymore and i just thank everyone that supported the act. gwen jackson. >> gwen jackson from sugarland texas. >> can you spell it? >> g-w-e-n jackson. >> your name sir? >> ron, r-o-n pollack, plts like peter, o-l-l-a-c-k, with the national organization for health care consumers. i just want to say one additional thing. we have seen just extraordinary progress as a result of the affordable care act over the past two years. over 16 million people who were previously uninsured have gotten health coverage as a result of

the affordable care act. and most of the people who have signed up in these marketplaces have done so as a result of subsidies, and these subsidies involve thousands of dollars in terms of relief in terms of premium costs. today the supreme court clearly held by a 6-3 margin that those subsidyies will continue. the people having health insurance will be able to continue getting health insurance, and we will continue to make progress in the years ahead so that, hopefully, at some point in the not-too-distant future, everyone in america will have health insurance. so thank you very much. >> my final thing is to say, aca is here to stay, and i thank god for that. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is neil katyal, a partner and former acting

solicitor general of the united states. today's decision is a resounding victory for the president and for congress and for the american people. the supreme court by a 6-3 decision overwhelmingly upheld what the president has been saying all along which is that these health insurance exchanges, whether set up by the state or federal government, provide subsidies to individuals who can't otherwise afford them. i was sitting in the courtroom as the decision came down, written by the chief justice, who, after all was appointed by president george w. bush. and for the first ten minutes, you could see right away where the decision was headed. the chief justice started off by saying that the affordable care act was based on three premises, three kind of legs of a stool. one was, there was a lot of discrimination in health insurance. and so, you had to get rid of that discrimination with so-called guaranteed issue

requirements allowing everyone access to the insurance markets. the second piece of it was the chief said, congress said, well you also have to have an individual mandate. you have to have something to insure that people buy that insurance. and then the third piece of it was the subsidy to make sure people could afford the insurance that the affordable care act requires them to have. the supreme court, the chief justice said that's precisely what the affordable care act does and how it's written. it was a resounding victory for the government and a resounding victory for the current solicitor general, don virlie who gave the oral argument of a lifetime in explaining why the president's interpretation was the correct one. today we have for the second time in three years a republican-dominated supreme court upholding the democratically elected affordable care act. it's a resounding victory for

the president and for the congress and for the american people. thank you. >> hi. >> as many of us take the painful journey to charleston south carolina, to attend the funeral of reverend clementa pinckney i cannot imagine a better day for the supreme court to reaffirm the fair housing act and the constitutionality of the disparate impact standard under the fair housing act. this case came from the state of texas, and it threatened to upend what has been a 45-year unbroken interpretation of the fair housing act. the fair housing act was passed the week that martin luther king was assassinated, as cities all over the country burned because our leaders recognized the dangers of segregation. today the supreme court reaffirmed the vitality of the fair housing act by upholding the disparate impact principle. this principle is an essential tool under the fair housing act because it allows us to get at not just explicit discrimination

in which homeowners or others refuse to rent or sell homes to racial minorities, but it also allows us to get at the policies and practices that perpetuate the segregation that was created by the federal government and maintained for so many decades. this statute is essential in the hope that america can become one america. anyone who has been paying attention the last week knows that we can no longer afford to live the way we have as two separate bifurcated parts of this country. today the supreme court recognized the unbroken line of interpretation by nine courts of appeals, by congress in amending the fair housing act in 1988 and maintaining the disparate impact standard, and by the department of housing and urban development, the agency that enforces the fair housing act, which also has affirmed the disparate impact principle. today it's an important,

powerful and really very encouraging day in the supreme court. it means that those of us who engage in the work of civil rights and work to try and end housing segregation in this country will have one of the most important tools at our disposal. in light of the events the last week, we will be redoubling our efforts to do that. my name is cherilyn eiffel, and i'm the president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense fund. we litigate cases under the fair housing act. we are engaged deeply with all of the civil rights statutes that are essential tools to try and break down racial barriers and to promote racial justice. and today in a 5-4 decision written by justice kennedy, the supreme court has reaffirmed the vitality of one of those most important tools under the fair housing act. thank you.

>> you heard some kmejtscomments there on the first of the two decisions released today. the justices in that case ruling that federal housing laws can't prohibit seemingly neutral practices that harm minorities, even without proof of intentional discrimination. we're opening up our phones to hear from you about the other decision today on obamacare, on affirming the subsidies under the 2010 health care law a 6-3 decision. 202-748-8921 for republicans. 202-748-8920 for democrats. all others 202-748-8922. and you can also send us a tweet @cspan. speaking of tweets, "national journal" has sent out a tweet looking at the vote there, 6-3, those voting in favor include the chief justice sonia sotomayor, ruth bader ginsburg justice kagan, senioren stephen breyer

and justice kennedy. and then and. we will show you the oral argument later in our programming coverage. we also understand that president obama is going to speak this morning at 11:30 eastern. and in just a moment or two we hope to be able to tell you about our live coverage plans for that as well. let's hear from you. donna's been waiting in roswell, georgia, on our democrats line. thanks for your patience. >> caller: hi. i would like to dedicate my comment to courtney lynn huber. she passed away. she had type 1 diabetes and passed away shortly before this law was passed because she could not afford her insulin. my son also has type 1 diabetes. she was an athlete. she was a college student a star college student who had graduated, and she lost her

insurance after she graduated from college and she could not afford insurance because her job did not give her insurance. and so she couldn't afford her insulin. type 1 diabetes costs thousands of dollars per month just to live. a lot of children have it. a lot of very healthy people get it. it's a rare thing. if you don't have insurance it's almost impossible to afford to live. so, her mother contacted nancy pelosi and congress, and they were influenced to pass this law because of beautiful courtney lynn huber, who passed away because she couldn't afford her insulin. and so, i just want to remember her. and yeah that's my comment. she didn't pass away in vain and we'll always remember her. so, thank you. >> all right. appreciate that. appreciate that, donna. and as you can see on your screen, the president's speaking this morning at 11:30 eastern. we will have live coverage of his comments. we're also expecting to hear

momentarily from the democratic leader in the house nancy pelosi. typical before the end of the week and actually before the july 4th recess, that we'll hear from the democratic leader and also from speaker boehner. we'll take you to those comments we will take to you those comments live momentarily, and a comment from pelosi ahead of her comments this morning she says that today for the second time the supreme court has upheld the affordable care act and this is a victory for common sense and for all american families. let's hear from paul from ann arbor, michigan from the democrats line. >> i would like to congratulate the supreme court for upholding the health care law and maybe now all the republicans and conservatives will shut their mouths and do something else and maybe even improve the health care law. thank you very much. >> next no new york city and

lorraine on our independents line. >> hello? >> you are on the air. i am not an independent i am an other, as i said. thank you supreme court for doing this. now we need to go all the way and get single payer. it's not enough it's a step in the right direction, but we are taking too long. we are one of the fewest countries in the world, even african countries have single payer, and that's the next step. it's taken far too long. >> here is harrisburg pennsylvania, and linda on our democrats line? >> i am glad you took my call too, and you may not like what i am about to say. i am not happy about this, because when this thing whole thing passed -- i am a democrat,

but i lost my doctor when he signed it in march and that september i received a letter saying i lost my doctor i had many years, and my insurance changed and my mother-in-law went on the site just a little while ago to try and to renew and what she paid last year it did double now she is expected to pay an additional $300. so it really is not benefiting everybody. i am real disappointed they didn't take more time to make a real more accurate decision because it really is hurting a lot of people, and people need to know that. i just wanted to voice my opinion on i am not a happy person this happened and i wish it never would have started and we did need health care, no doubt about it but it happened in too much of a political way. >> here is what the governor of pennsylvania, tom wolfe, he just released a statement.

i am extremely pleased as a result of the decision roughly 382,000 pennsylvanians will keep insurance. we will be withdrawing our plan to set upstate-based health insurance marketplace in pennsylvania. next in dave in lawrence, kansas. >> caller: thank you, and congratulations to president obama and the affordable care act and it has been a long fought battle. i hope the rest of our leaders finally realize that we just -- dave we are hearing from democratic leader nancy pelosi. >> it's a victory for common sense and all american families. it's past time the republicans abandon their assault on the

new-found health security the affordable care act is providing millions and millions of americans across the country. congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. written by the chief. the court's decision insures all eligible americans regardless of their home status have access to premium health, no preexisting conditions will prevent them from having care and no lifetime limits or annual limits, and not only is a woman being a preexisting condition, all of this intact once again in the decision. american workers and middle class families will continue to enjoy the benefits of quality accessible health care and dependable affordable health coverage. it's appropriate as we go into the week leading up to the fourth of july that this decision, as well as this

affordable care act, upholds the hopes of our founders, the liberty to pursue your happiness because of being job locked or policy jobbed because of a preexisting condition. you can reach your aspirations. it's very exciting. all american decision today. this week, as you know, we continued the debate on fast track and they are concerned about the impact on american workers and their paychecks, and the trade promotion authority ends one phase but it is not final. the fight will continue. the phase is over, but the fight is not. we will continue for america's families and we will be shining

a bright light clear focus on what is going on in the trade promotion at the tpp. we hope it will end up with a legislation that many members can support and i have to be sure that that happens. we need transparency and congressional consultation, and that was rejected in the tpa, and that's why we opposed it. the american people expect and deserve to see what is in that bill for their representatives vote for it, and our negotiators have been equipped with carte blanche, they have no excuse and i trust their volumes and i hope the trading partners will hear the concerns for members of congress, because the vote for tpa is not a vote for tpp, and it's not a vote against the final package. in any case this has been very

invigorating time of mobilization and we made a decision that while we could win the vote today to take down taa because it's willfully short of meeting the needs of our workers in terms of those who lose their jobs and are reduced in their financial stability because of trade and globalization, which goes beyond trade. a decision was made to say we have the votes and we can work from strength to defeat it or to not have the african trade agreement, the victim of those that wanted to pass tpa. once the president said she was just going to sign one bill, that ended the debate, really. but it has not ended the debate about how we see a better prospect for trade as we go forward. everybody says, well, this will be better than what we have now.

as you well now, better is a comparative word. better than what? bad? better is less bad, but is it good? we want it to be great. with that i will move on to what is not happening here and that is no exim bank. this is the last legislative day for us to have reauthorized the exim bank. with great advantage to america's small businesses and large who want to engage in international commerce. it will expire on june 30th, and we had hoped with all of the hijacking of bills that was going on with the shameful placing of the taa on agoa that they could have put xm bank on

there, but they did not. all the talk has been about trade and all the jobs it will produce, and we know one thing that will produce jobs and that's a strong highway and transit bill. the deficits are clear trillions of dollars, the society of engineers have told us in our country, civil engineers have told us hopefully we can keep pushing for a strong highway bill. the president's bill is an excellent one. it's a significant increase in our investments, in our infrastructure and is paid for and i would hope the republicans would consider that. it has to be robust and sustainable. on the subject of budget, because that's what we are mostly dealing with once we get with trade injected here and there, but as you know this is

appropriation season and for one reason or another, the infear your tea of the bills the republicans voted in a way to sustain the president's veto, and the fact they are predicated on a sequestration figure that undermines our ability to meet the needs of the american people. you will see time in and again the democrats having a number of votes against the bills to sustain the president's veto and we will continue to do so. on the other side of the building the senate democrats have said they are not allowing any of the bills to come to the floor. the end result, we hope, will be soon, and that will be for us to go to the table to negotiate a budget that helps protect the american people invest in the future and creates jobs and reduces the deficit.