federal food stamp programs. tom taylor of bloomberg. "washingtron host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." tackles a late-term abortion law and a farm bill. hisident obama continues overseas meeting. it's just today the supreme arizona's lotn that would require arizona voters to approve their citizens. here are the numbers to call --

you can also find online, send us a tweet, or 20 conversation on facebook. you can also here is the front page of " the arizona republic," --

the another arizona paper looks at this, "the dispatch" -- let us look at "usa today" on this issue -- we will talk later on with an editor who covers the supreme court -- but for now we are

drawing on what they decided yesterday regarding this arizona law. the headline -- looking at more into this, three other states, alabama, georgia, and kansas require proof of citizenship before a citizen -- before residents can register to vote -- here is one comment from the

vice-president of litigation from the mexican-american legal defense and education fund here are the numbers to call to talk about the arizona voter law and the supreme court's decision to strike it down. the story made the front page of "the new york times" today. baghda the seven-two rolling -- ruling

-- this is the headline by david savage reporting 40 bureau. the bureau. for

"washington times" with a different headline -- here is some other news coming from "the washington times" --

we are asking you to react to the supreme court moved yesterday to strike down an arizona voter registration law. our first caller is a chain in

virginia. -- is jane in virginia. caller: i think it is a setback in the whole process, trying to identify everybody in getting their votes as far as making the vote illegal. there is a lot of a fraud going on. they have to bypass the standing was in the books. when you start allowing anybody and everybody to authenticate the vote, you are setting us up for an election that has not been improved and does not represent the true will of the people --t: on twitter

tom jefferson -- as assad some reports this morning, the more conservative members trying to address the supreme court's decision in the immigration reform amendment. let us hear from steve from baltimore maryland, a democratic caller. hello. i do not know what the current number of illegal aliens there are in the country. how can we possibly not ask for some proof of citizenship when we all know there are hundreds of ways to get illegal documents, such as drivers licenses and things like that.

there is no way of knowing if the outcome -- it is just ridiculous. there is no way it can be an that many people can vote illegally. it is ludicrous. i have no problem giving some form of identification approves i am a citizen of this country. i do not see what the problem is -- the only problem is if they do not want to give it means they do not have it. host: another caller from virginia. caller: they should try to make more people to vote, not decrease the voter ship. your tell us about

thoughts on this. you're the first person to express that opinion this morning. the paper thisn morning something to do with the voter rights bill and other states are involved, not only arizona but georgia, tennessee to a smaller. , and two other states. it has something to do with disenfranchised voters. seeing thell be supreme court rule on the boat id laws later on in the next week and half as they tackled final cases. from " usa today" --

david at from michigan, a democrat. when you go to vote in michigan to take my license and slide it through like a credit card. it's as who i am and i am registered. -- it says who i am and i am registered. to make sure we are all legal and american citizens and what not to be a mite -- and what not. has ahe supreme court decision like this, why do they take -- why did they waste taxpayers' money? money wedancy of the waste when a decision like this -- the supreme court is supposed to be across the board. for the state to continue this,

there is nothing wrong with people being able to prove who they are. when you are doing it to make sure that only white people vote, that is just wrong. this country really appears to be on levels of separation. this is just another thing that falls into that. says jan rights in and fried chicken in and says, -- an op-ed page says --

here is more from "the arizona republic" -- let hear gail from new jersey, a republican. good morning. as far as i know the u.s. constitution says you have to be a u.s. citizen to vote. my late husband and i moved to florida about nine years ago in the middle of august. we have to show proof of residency. copy of the bill -- we

needed that to register our a florida voter i.d.. we got to vote and at least one primary. what is the problem? it seems like liberals only want to be the ones to vote. if it will take 10 or 15 years to go through the process, i think he should become a u.s. citizen and go to the process. away the rights of the legal voters. if you are here legally and you are a citizen who was born here you should have the proper proof to register to vote. host: doug is up next on our independent line. caller: how're you doing this morning?

host: good. caller: i am in virginia, you have to register at least a month before you vote. i registered 40 years ago. now.t know what they want i had to show the my driver's license then. you you go to the polls need a voter i.d. and a driver's license with your picture on it. i think it should have -- you should have all of your debts in a row. host: stay on the line and take a listen to this, " "the new york times" says -- what you think about that? caller: think that is wrong.

down andld have gone registered to vote, though. they should have had that ironed out before they went to the polls. i have been a democrat most of my life. i am a pretty liberal kind of guy. i think they need to iron all of this stuff out. same standard that goes from one end of this country to the other for everybody. read it "the new york times" opinion piece let us go to john in new

hampshire, a democrat. hello. hello. a thing people are up in arms about this decision. i live in new hampshire and each

time we go to vote we have to have an affidavit or an idea that says we are a u.s. citizen. it can occur in other ways. to say that it is just illegals voting, i do not think we are looking at the big picture. i cannot support people saying we should have these -- each state should make their own rules. people were being turned away that could actually vote. i would have to ask how well -- how often people who can vote are being turned away. host: here's a comment from doug on twitter.

let us hear from indiana, joining me -- from indiana, cindy joins us on the independent line. a wanted to express opposition to your previous equating white voters and voters oppression. id is required for just about every transaction that is done in this country, whether it being cashing a check or making the return to walmart. i really strongly feel that there should be required forms. it was all on one political party's side. there is a great injustice. i think keeping the integrity of the voting process should require proof of citizenship.

opinion, thank you for taking my call. host: a republican caller from port angeles, washington state. caller: i register to vote here last year, i did not need a state i.d. or driver's license. al i needed to do is sign piece of paper saying i knew it was against the law falsifying the statement. it is ridiculous being able to register to vote like that. gwen from birmingham, alabama. that see you here today. -- glad to see you here today. i am an african-american woman in the state of alabama. problems trying

to vote. black people have to go through it to become the voters. it was terrible. denying andat were african americans the right to vote, that is why it became a federal law. the states cannot come in and not sure laws that are federalized. we stood in line, black people, black peopleours, that understand our right to

vote. statepublicans in our came up with this law about having certain id to vote. i had to show my driver's license, a card base into in the mail, i had to show that too. -- it is notying going to happen. stop using that. that is a blatant lie. i'm glad they struck arizona's lockdown. if you are african american you would understand why. have a good day. requirementstioned in her state. the previous caller in washington state share his experience when registering to vote. "the washington post" agrees in

part with gwen -- jim, new york, independent.

caller: the reason i was calling is because there are other haven't beene that pointed out, poor people. who cannoteople afford to buy a birth certificate, an i.d., a driver's license. in some cases you literally have to show up in person. if you were born in florida and live in chicago you would have to get on a plane and go down to florida to get your bit certificates -- your birth certificate. you should be able to register to vote quite easily.

these laws were designed as the woman so eloquently said previously, to keep poor people and marginal people and minority-americans from voting. there is a very little evidence that anyone has been using their right to vote at the polls in an inappropriate way. a think they said there was 25 cases, most of them were by republicans anyway. addressing the issues that america needs, that is jobs. host: here's a comment on our facebook page -- looking at the ability of transportation versus the ability to vote.

dan tweets in and asks -- let us hear from frank, aberdeen, maryland, a democrat. hello. caller: good morning. my thought is that it is good oversight by the supreme court. they noticed there were 30,000 people that they turned away, later they must come back and improved their citizenship. them wereat 90% of citizens. they came back improved their citizenship. now what they have done is turn them away on the day of voting. there were approximately 3000 people would have been allowed to vote if they did not have that oversight. there must be some proof of citizenship, otherwise it would generalize the election.

eventually the states will want everything the federal government has and we will again have to pretend that an average state is its own country. there is a technical issue with the arizona law. arizona needs to get their act together. it was obviously used improperly to keep certain people from voting. sidese seen on both republican and democrat -- it is not nice. thingeeded to the right and supreme court ruling is overside. caller onpublican south carolina. caller: the thing that gets me is all of these conspiracy stuff out here with these people. have to show an id the matter what we do in this country

anymore. return an item, cash a check, get on an airplane. the american people need to get together. they need to make a conscientious decision to get i.d.dea -- to get the to get a talk about the poor people, the poor people have the money and a drive the nice cars. they can afford $10 for the id card. i see nothing wrong with showing " friday when you're ready to vote. showing id when you are kidding ready to vote. host: let us take a look at some other in th let us talk about immigration

for a moment -- it was created in 2003 and has a annual budget of $5.7 billion. immigration reform in the senate, "new york times" reports --

for top democrats are urging faster action on the immigration debate as it enters its second week. open "the is also in new york times." the pentagon should be given to train women for combat by 2015. -- should be beginning to train women for combat a 2015. looking at afghanistan, forces are formally taken over security of the country. transitioning a key in the decade-long war. forces have taken over security

for the entire country from nato led troops. that is an announcement from the afghan president. on the international front president obama met with the russians, vladimir putin, yesterday. you can see this photo and headline on the u.s. it today and headline on the " usa today." thehoto and headline on "usa today." we will talk more about the summit and international questions with one of our guest later on this morning. that and talkith about a question of iraq. -- of iran.

from the more gentleman who has admitted to leaking top-secret nsa documents. he said -- we will be looking at the data collection programs. the house intelligence committee held a hearing today. c-span will bring you that live. you can find out more about that on our website. we are asking you about supreme down faltertrikes errors critic arizona's voter law. -- strike down errors and a possible drop. thatr: i just want to say i am a neighbor to arizona,

there thought pattern is finally changing. the supreme court is cutting it down. they are starting to eliminate the european american philosophy. me, this is just an attack to keep caucasians in the top priority. i am glad to cut it down. i'd feel that arizona is losing its way. that is all i have to say. man i asked, are you white or in other races? i am european and mexican indian. host: thank you for sharing your thoughts. let us go to roger from remington, virginia on our democrat's line. address and iged

went to the registrar's office. i was there today late according to the restaurant and was told i cannot vote. i said i would vote to doff my previous address and i was told i cannot do that. that would be a felony if i did. host: what they do? caller: i did not vote. host: was that this past fall? caller: yes. host: what are you doing going forward? caller: i got my voter card but i was held up from voting. host: that is roger from virginia. some tweets heading in for us --

this from dawn -- -- from don -- cheri is our next caller, an independent from frlorida, -- from florida, go ahead. caller: how did poor people get subsi food stamps or id?d housing without any -- by the way i' neither republican nor democrat. there is no difference between see.arties as far as i

it seems people are trying to play the race card significantly. host: karo calls and next. hello. is calling in next. hello. caller: this reinforces the fact the boat registration laws were to deny people the right to vote. that is the bottom line. people who still try to cling to have an id too get on the plane. they are refusing to except the very premise of this or they deny people who couldn't -- who could vote the right to vote. i.t. is a simple thing. --id is a simple thing.

-- need to guntexas you can use a da gun card.n't use a peopleot want a certain to vote and people who want to deny that, they need to open their eyes and realize that was the motivation for this in the first place. that is the bottom line. pennsylvanias from on the independent line. caller: think every u.s. citizen should not be turned away at the polls and every u.s. citizen should have the right to vote. . i wonder why the u.s. government can collect every bit of data, every time i swiped my can hear andthey collect all of our information

and yet they cannot come up with one simple card for citizenship. i think they do not want to come up with one simple cars because it would solve the immigration problem. employers could use the card to identify of u.s. citizens for jobs and work. it can completely control the system. it is interesting to me that the american public is not much more telex of oure nsa information and the tepid cannot come up with one simple card that could solve this voting issue and solve the immigration issue. they control what they want to control, when they want to control it, and they let things go when they do not want to. they keep wages down, fight illegal immigration, and they do with the want to do. nobody seems to be upset about it. facebooke are some comments --

michael from boston, massachusetts, a democrat, co- head. -- go ahead. what i wanted to say is i am really upset at the republicans. the republicans are coming up with all of these voter i.d. lost. they are trying to suppress the vote all over the place. not only with latinos, i import rican, they are also doing it with everyone else. everybody. away

port to rican, i was rican,re -- as a puerto i i was born here. blockinguld be nothing me from going to the polls. my country does not care if i vote or not. it is all about what the republicans want. they want to have a republican president. right now republicans are in a death spiral. everything they try to do with immigration, the arizona law is the only law we have in the country like this. they had trouble with this vote for id law across the country before showing up at the polls. it does not make any sense.

you are calling from boston, massachusetts. stay on the line. we are calling this the final debate in the massachusetts debate. that will be airing on c-span3 at 7:00. will you be turning into that? caller: as always. in north carolina on our independent line, which part of north carolina are you from? caller: western of north carolina. out in the mountains. host: welcome to the program. go ahead. caller: thank you. there must be something wrong with the because i never had a problem voting. i am 58 years old. i showed up of the boat this week at polls -- i showed up at

the polls. i've lived in north carolina, florida, i move to virginia. the places i have been to have by peoplen manned -- ifntegrity and people , the peoplew my id there are very professional. understand what the fuss is about. what we are looking at today is in arizona voter law that deals with registering to vote and having to prove your citizenship. the court to shut that down yesterday. we will talk more about supreme court later on at 9:00 p.m. -- at 9:00 a.m. eastern time with a

guest that will give us a broader look of the supreme court. coming up next we talk with two members of congress, first representative blackthorn barry, a republican from texas. -- mac thornberry, a republican from texas. delauro will talk about food stamps. ♪ um >> go to gettysburg and to think charge, thet's carnage there, lives lost, the

, you battles before it manassas. shilo and battles for people defending a way of life. to settles bloodshed this contradiction. and we won. we have our country. gettysburg too say to my clerks, do we deserve this? we deserve the sacrifice for the country we have and are we living up to that? all day coverage from gettysburg national memorial park, starting at 9 eastern on

c- american history tv on span3. >> "washington journal" c ontinues. host: we wanted to get you to comment on the g-8 talks. we see this headline -- as you watch president obama meet with vladimir putin of russia, what is your take on what they have been doing so far? >> they have different opinions and that is not a surprise. we have known that russia, the united states, and most of our european allies see this conflict differently. i think the hard question now is what did the west do that will make a difference? --ething we might have done

now with all of the carnage, with all of the growing strength of some of the more extremist elements in the rebel -- what do we do? sending them if you raffles is not going to make a difference in the conflict. conflict,e military no-fly zones etc., is a very complex military matter and red -- and runs the risk of drawing us in deeper. i think it is incredibly dangerous, especially the possibility that chemical weapons could get into the hands of terrorists. are all heartbroken at the human loss approaching 100,000. the question is if we are going to do something it will it make a difference or are we just doing something to make ourselves feel better? has ak the president responsibility to explain

exactly what he wants to do and how it will matter. we heard from my house staff. let us listen to him talking about how the aid to the syrian rebels can expand. [video clip] >> one of the reasons we're doing extensive effort we have done in understanding who the opposition is is making sure we can coordinate with our neighbors and allies. >> here is what we will not do, we will be very discerning about what is in our interest and what outcome is best for us and the price we are willing to pay to get that point. we rushed a war in this region in the past. seeingongressman, we're -- according to the headline in ."he washington times

what conversations does the president need to have and what will he come home with? a thing reset up too high expectations for the summit and meetings for our leaders. it is important for him to have conversations with and have our and have -- with putin our european allies along with us. i do not know for sure if he could get assad to leave syria if he wanted to. resolution peaceful that seems to be the only path forward. any progress in that direction would be a good thing. host: what do you want to know at this point? you sit on the intelligence committee. what you need to know before you can make a recommendation for what the u.s. should be doing? guest: exactly what the

president proposes to do and exactly what a difference it would make. it would just add to the carnage we have are racing there. i do not know the answer. at this point it is a very difficult situation. we should not give full some weapons and pretend it should make a difference or going to serve as a kid heavy weapons and -- are going in the with heavy weapons -- the president needs to articulate what he is doing and how that will make a difference in the war. host: torino how the u.s. can work with syrian where apple's meeting with syrian rebels without financing getting into the hands of harmful people? there are a whole

district of groups. a the idea that we can pick out the moderates, pick up the weapons come and make sure we cannot did in the hands of the extremists is -- it is a wide variety of folks. that is why a lot of people say if we could have taken an action 18 months ago we might not be in this situation that we are in now. we cannot turn back the hand of time. where we are now is that those connected groups are very strong. we have to know that before sending any weapons over there. host: is there danger in continuing inaction? you do not feel like you have a clear sense of the white house's objective, is there a danger of inaction and the conflict spreading out of the syrian region? guest: absolutely. there is a danger of consequences to jordan, especially. especially -- also lebanon and turkey.

i think the most likely scenario is syria and fracturing into pieces and some of those pieces could be controlled by the extremist groups. i hope the peace is the control to not have chemical weapons. they are going to be used against us and our european friends. there are no good answers. i think everybody ought to acknowledge that. the headline in "the wall street journal" -- what you think about the election and how the u.s. should move forward? prove is going to be in the actions. hope that his calculation

changes, that this new president signals a sign to reduce their oscillation in the world. they want to get rid of the sanctions, release some of the economic distress. we have not seen that before. until it happens i would not expect to see it again. the topic twitter on of syria -- guest: he may be right. it is very late. there are a lot of players, including russia and iran. all americans agree that it would be a mistake to send some massive ground invasion in their. the question is what can we do that matters.

host: we're seeing responses from a lot of people. here is the police commissioner telling new york city saying -- you have insight into some of the back story of this. what is your opinion of how this and the dealt with actions taken by the nsa? guest: my first reaction is it is frustrating. those of us on the intelligence committee have been deeply involved in these programs for years. what happens when some guy tries -- tod a portion of it leak a portion of it, you cannot discuss the greater context of

all of the things around the program because that is still classified. did ministration has been declassifying some in the region some information. it is very frustrating that some of the things you would like to say about the safeguards from the program cannot be talked about. that tells our enemy is what we do not do. it is a challenging situation. i think later today you are going to see general alexander testifying in front of the house intelligence committee. he is going to talk about some of those safeguards. i think he is going to give some further examples about how this has prevented terrorist plots. those of us who have watched this program closely have no doubt whatsoever that it has prevented terrorist plots in the dozens in the past few years. we have been very involved, not only in watching the safeguards around the program, but helping to construct the safeguards of

the court andby congress, as well as the internal safeguards to make sure that this information is not abused. tostands in great contrast the irs as scandal. you have congress overseeing the program to a great degree, internal controls, you have an arrogant attitude so the difference in oversight and safeguards is like night and day. i think to many people conflate. we will be broadcast in that hearing. here is from the head of the and as a general -- of the nsa general. here of the numbers --

let us get paul in the conversation from connecticut, an independent. hello. caller: good morning. the representative covered a lot of ground. believe anybody is considering forming the libyan freedom fighters. does afghanistan read a bell? you are repeating history. you know you are repeating history. host: what would you call for? no action in syria? caller: it is none of our business. this got us into the afghanistan war. this is wrong and after 40 or 50 years we need to realize there

is a point at which we need to say no. advocatings not arming the rebels. it is absolutely true that there are consequences to providing arms to groups. sometimes you may not foresee what the consequences are years down the road. as we were talking, there were consequences to doing nothing. the idea of what happens in iran having no effect on us is misguided, especially the danger of chemical weapons getting into the wrong hands, the dangers of jordan, lebanon being affected, getting into a wider middle east war. there are all sorts of nightmare scenarios surrounded with syria. there is no host: interviewer writes in and says -- i think we have no right to interfere with the area --

with syria. we are also seeing other comment on our facebook page, including one from joseph who asks if you can identify the american national security interest at stake in syria? guest: i think i just outlined. chemical weapons, if they get into the hands of al qaeda affiliates absolutely they will be used against europe and against us. secondly, it is the instability that grows that causes jordan to collapse and affects israel's security am a turkey's security. you have that whole region in turmoil potentially. thirdly, a number of people are concerned that really what is happening insyria is somewhat of a proxy war at -- between shiite and sunni. if that grows, you could see the kind of conflict that none of us would want to see, that would involve us all.

so, there are a variety of ways we have interest at stake. but i go back to my basic deal -- what are we going to do to make the decisive difference? it is not clear to me. host: hanover, maryland. jerry is a republican. caller: i was disappointed to find out when provided the opportunity for the whole of the house to be briefed on the status of these programs and what was going on, only half of those invited actually took the time to show up. i was curious to know what your thoughts war. is there a way to get a roster of attendance? and i have a follow-up. guest: i don't know of any roster of attendance that is taken at such briefings. i guess i share your disappointment. members are involved in lots of issues. they may have a conflict with a particular briefing at a particular time. i really would pick a bone about is that members don't go to the briefings but then send out a press release or speak

out in some way opposed to a program that they don't know anything about. as a matter of fact, senator coates had an editorial in one of the papers today talking about people in congress who justohio law and -- we pile on the issue of the moment to gain themselves publicity, basically taking advantage of the publicity but not really the substance of the issue. i am very sympathetic with that view. and i do think our first job is to defend the country, and understanding how these programs are working and the threats that we face is a part of that job. host: here is that opinion piece by senator dan coats, republican from indiana, also member of the senate intelligence committee. he writes in "the wall street journal." had amplembers opportunity to learn about this valuable program. what is your follow-up?

caller: understanding the reason for our potential involvement -- i understand there is no appetite for a no-fly zone or have a -- why can't we standoff support, long-range attacks like the preceding no- fly zone in libya? take out the heart of the military and try to level the playing field for the rebels. peoplethat is what some are talking about. i think when you talk to our military folks, it is not quite as easy as it seems to take out missile yields. you need to first disable the radar. whether that could just be done from a standoff distance or whether it would involve pilots overflying syria, it gets into military tactical considerations. been expressed that there is no stand back, send in some drones and don't get

further involved. anything you do to make a difference is going to take us significantly closer to military involvement. i think that is why a number of people are cautious. host: representative mac thornberry in his 10th term in the house, representing the 13th district in texas. in addition to serving on the intelligence committee, he is also vice chairman on the armed services committee. let's hear from, illinois. an independent. caller: thank you for having me on the show. i would like this to be known eight i am a marine of years and spent a little time in afghanistan. i question to this man i am seeing on my screen right now is what business do we have in syria? it is very funny when i hear you destructionof mass and chemical weapons getting into the hands of our enemies. i heard that story before. we all heard that story before.

and on top of that, i'll tied a -- al qaeda armed the rebels. if they are fighting against the syrian government? and haven't you learned from benghazi and afghanistan? why would you possibly maintain ism policy.entional we don't need that. especially if we are broke in the nation. they are closing schools in chicago. more money overseas to those known to be al qaeda. host: why don't you stay on the line and we can get the congressman's reaction question what you address some of this already but i would like to hear what you have to say after you hear him share his thoughts. guest: first, i appreciate very much your service. secondly, on the weapons of mass destruction, i think there's really nobody that dispute that assad used chemical weapons against his own people in recent days. the french, now the americans, a

variety of international countries have come to the same conclusion. but none of that dispute the basic problem you raised with intervention. that is what i have been saying, i think, all morning. if you are going to do something, then you need to be very clear about how it is going to make a decisive difference, and the costs that are involved, and the consequences of that involvement. i am not advocating greater involvement without having a clear idea of those things. and to me, there is no clear answer to that that i have heard from the president or anybody else. so all of the concerns that you raise about u.s. intervention is absolutely right. they are out there on the table. but also as we talked before this morning, there are also consequences to doing nothing. so, trying to balance what is in our national security interest and what are the cost and what are the consequences, that is why this is such a hard problem.

host: what do you think about that? caller: i have heard before. i really don't want to be disrespectful to the representative. however, what what grave threat to the american security, to our national security, would we succumb to by doing nothing? guest: as i described a few moments ago, i think the most likely scenario is that syria fractures into a bunch of little states controlled by different groups, some of those groups, as you said, are al qaeda affiliates. so they get training grounds, safe haven, and potentially chemical weapons in territory that they control. i think that is the greatest danger to us. thisother dangers include fractional location leading to a sunni versus shia conflict throughout the whole middle east as well as destabilizing jordan amah affects on israel, etc., all of which will have

consequences to us. my the thing on the top of list as far as how it affects us are these chemical weapons. host: we mentioned the nsa earlier. the leaker, edward snowden, held a web chat yesterday and said i am not a spy or a -- not a spy for china. he went on to stop at that notion. "the guardian" newspaper set up the online q&a. did you tune into that? did you look at the transcript? what did you -- what is your thought about edward snowden? guest: he has violated the law, he has betrayed his country. the idea that he is some knight in shining armor to expose some program is wrong on a couple of accounts. one is, he has not exposed anything that members of congress have not known about. also exposedhas things that have nothing to do with these programs. about americans or gathering information and so forth.

he has exposed some things, if they are true, about trying to gather information about foreign leaders. that is what you expect intelligence organizations to do. own credibility is diminishing by the day. i worry about the damage that i also worry, and about how someone like this in his position can get access to the documents that -- if he is the only one responsible for this. host: president obama sat down with an interview with charlie rose for the president left for the summit and he talked about issues of transparency and the surveillance program. let's take a listen. [video clip] >> that is why we set up the fisa court. of my concerns before i was president -- some people say, well, obama was this raving liberal before and now he is dick cheney. dick cheney sometimes says, yes, he took it all locked unless thou, and darrell.

my concern has always been not that we should not do intelligence gathering, but rather are we setting up systems of checks and balances the muscle on this telephone program, you have a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program and you've got congress overseeing the program. not just the intelligence committee, not just the judiciary committee, but but all of congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how the program works. host: your response? think thegely i president is right. although i chuckle when he has to tell the american people he is not dick cheney. i think that it is kind of funny. theseving been around programs for some years, i can see how they have evolved and how the checks and balances have grown i both the courts and by congress -- by both the courts

and by congress. and i have to say, some of the checks we have today are because immigrant members of the intelligence committee raised questions in the past because -- democratic members of the intelligence committee raised questions in the past about the use of information. i credit them for that. what we have now is the judicial system -- the system with the judicial branch, legislative branch, executive branch, all with a system of checks to make sure the information is not abused and it is used in a constitutional fashion. and it is. as i say, contract that with the irs and some of the other scandals where you don't have any of those things. this is an example of oversight that has worked pretty well. host: hungers men, as we about earlier, you said on house intelligent -- congressman, as we spoke earlier, you sit on the house intelligent. what can you ask them that can be talked about publicly as opposed to what has gone on

behind closed doors? guest: that is the enormous challenge. i think the questions he will get will be trying to elicit some more information from the has beenat declassified that he can say that we already hear behind closed doors. and so, as i mentioned, i think he will give some further examples of how important these programs are, but also talk about some of the safeguards at least to prevent their abuse. i think it is important for the public to hear as much of that thatssible, understanding you still have to keep some of these details classified to avoid just giving your playbook to the enemy. 'sst: congressman thornberry intelligence committee holds a hearing at 10:00, and it is on c-span three. our guests also sits on the house armed services committee, vice chairman, and chairs the subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities. st. paul, minnesota.

chris, democrat. caller: my question for the representative is this. every time people want to blame the president for not doing something. two years ago we never knew who the rebels were. and today, we don't even know who they are. help the expect to rebels when we don't know who they are, whether they are al qaeda or other groups? thesecond thing, you have rebels, and you are going to spend millions of dollars. then they are going to blame the president for increasing the deficit. i would think the consequences of helping the rebels and, two, who are we helping? i think we know who the rebels are. the point is, they are a whole bunch of different people and a whole bunch of different groups coming from a variety of ideological positions. some of them are clearly associated or in sympathy with al qaeda and that sort of extremist approach to things.

are more moderate. and there are all sorts of groups in between. it is not like the rebels are one group that we can say they are this or they are that. they are a whole coalition of different kinds of groups united only in their opposition to the syrian regime. but i think you are right, as far as thinking about the consequences of assisting these rebels, if you think you are going to give the weapons to the more moderate groups, there is no assurance at all they are not going to get into the hands of the more extremist groups. and of course, these things have a financial and other costs. host: michigan, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. congressman, during this past obama four years and going into a second term, it doesn't at all surprise me that we are in the

situation we are in in the middle east. but this morning, having you on the line, i would like to have your opinion -- i know we can't roll back the hands of time, but what do you think -- there are two things. first of all, when we were attacked on 9/11, we were talking about wmd. and it seems to me like when we went in there, the whole focus was where the wmd go. and now we are talking about chemical weapons in syria. i am just wondering if there is a connection there. whenlso the fact that you've got a situation like this , the thought comes to mind as to what would have

happened if we were able to fulfill the bush doctrine. i will listen to your answer off the phone. thank you very much. guest: on your first point, i think there is a connection in this sense. one of the ultimate nightmare scenario was that any of us can imagine is weapons of mass destruction, whether chemical, biological, radiological, or certainly nuclear, getting into the hands of these al qaeda-type terrorist. we know they don't have any regard of their own lives. they are out to kill as many of us as possible. sarin which has been used in syria and the other weapons could result in thousands, if not more people dying. big fear, i think, you national security, that those sorts of weapons with so much

potential to kill could be used here against us. that is why when i list the things i am worried about in syria, that is at the top of my list. and just because we did not find what we expected to find in iraq does not mean that that threat does not exist in the world. i don't know -- interesting point about the bush doctrine. obviously the idea that the people in the middle east and elsewhere could have more say about their future, a greater democracy, more hope is an ideal that i think many, if not most of us, want to believe in. part of the challenge is, however, that when you give democracy all of a sudden to a people who have been so long without hope, will have been under these authoritarian regimes, then it manifests itself in some very difficult ways.

it takes time to overcome the consequences of decades of repression. and i think that is one of the great lessons of iraq. he can't say -- ok, now you can go vote, and assume all the countries problems will be solved. mac: congressman thornberry, republican from texas, representing the 13th district returning back to the nsa. leak source edward snowden says truth is coming and he vows to still more. how do you about -- how do you try to prevent leaks like this i thinkuture? guest: the key thing is to have access to what documents. and how do they have access to it? is there a way for them to get it out? we have seen, for example, in case, a relative junior guy in the army downloads a bunch of stuff onto a thumb drive and e-mailed it out and broadcast it to the world.

putting in greater safeguards to prevent that sort of thing from happening is part of it. people whobe that wanted to be traded united states would steal documents and then give them to the soviet union. now what happens is people steal documents or download documents and then just broadcast them out through the assured that way that they get into the hands of all sorts of enemies or potential enemies. given the prevalence of , and it is hard to prevent, and yet there are some -- and you could make the case that these programs were over classified. that not so much stuff should have been secret. but in any event, there are some things that must remain secret. we have to figure out how to do a better job protecting it. from washington, d.c., the democrats line. are you, ma'am, and how you, sir? my background is syrian.

i first american generation. when i heard you on the radio i thought i would put my thoughts in this, too question mark and i talk? can i talk question when is it ok? seems to me there is a lack of knowledge of the syrian population in general and what it is all about. are scared ofwe things has the lot and iran are trying to promote and we are not looking at it in a realistic way. if i were to make the case how important it is to do something, at stake ast of -- americans. forget the fact my background is syrian. i will talk to you as an american. if you want a stable iraq and people not to kill each other, you need to topple the regime in syria. if you want better security to israel, you need to topple the regime in syria because it will automatically take care of has hezbollah.

if you want to stop the king of jordan from falling, you need to topple the regime in syria. if you want security in the region, you need to topple the regime in syria. no matter how you look at it. having said that, the good thing is that the people there were the free syrian army -- and by it is a whoever said civil war, it is wrong. a civil war is when a population of the nation kill each other. in the case of syria, it is not the population killing each other. hezbollah, the militias from iraq and iran and the regime is killing the people. responsewill get a from congressman. first, tell us, the family in syria? yes, and so far i lost my mom and dad's side, 14 -- 14 people got slaughtered with knives. knives, people.

guest: i think there is no doubt -- we hear these numbers about 100,000 people dead and they tend to watch over us. and obviously he has filled the personal effects of us. no doubt so many of the deaths have been innocent people who have just been slaughtered in various ways. and the humanitarian aspects of this are significant. ofhink he makes a number interesting and good point about the centrality of fear get in the middle east. i was the president -- centrality of syria in the middle east. i wish the president will make this point. nobody in congress -- even if you are john mccain, you can't that isthe leadership needed in this situation, now or in the past. so, the president is going to propose we do x, y, and z. he needs to explain why it is important and how it would make a difference. he seems reluctant to do that.

it seems like he is divided in some way. part of him wants to do something on parts don't. we kind of wallow around in the middle. so we have largely nothing happening. so, that is where we get into these conversations of a fragmentation of syria and the consequences. his: what should he base decisions on? should you look at the threats he outlined, the public opinion polls in the united states about involvement? should he talked more to members of congress like yourself? guest: he certainly needs to engage not only member of congress but the national security experience would have in this country. but he should only make a decision based on the national security interest of the united states and not worry about about the polls. his job is to lead and to help drive the polls i explaining what he wants to do, why he wants to do it and why it is in our national security interest. he really hasn't done that. host: represented a, vice chairman of the armed services

committee and member on select committee of intelligence. our next caller is from columbus, ohio, on the independent mind. caller: good morning to you, congressman and libby. my question -- you kind of touched on it a little bit earlier, but why can't we send --drones, take out a side his militaryh of and just let whatever happens on the ground happened? we don't have to put feet on the ground. used drones toe take out set out hussein and his isminum tubing? that basically my question. guest: it is a great question. i think a lot of people -- a lot of people have it. we did not have those available to us at the beginning of the iraqi war. they have only been developed since then. but remember, the only places we

have these drones are places where we have complete control of the air. they are big, they fly slowly, they are easy to shoot down. ,nd so in iraq, afghanistan have beense things effective but there have never been any air defenses to hinder them. syria is a very, very different situation. ,t is nothing close to libya referencing back to the previous caller. they have very sophisticated air defenses, and so they can shoot down these things. so, the only way to gain air superiority is to bring in lots of airplanes, lots of pilots, shoot out a radar, do bombings of airfield, etc. it is a much more complex than justequirement kind of standing back off of some ships or something and

sending a few missile that nobody cares whether they land or not. that is not going to work in syria and host: a question on twitter -- have we lost the hearts and minds of most people in the middle east and how can we reverse that? guest: hard question. i hope not. forrsonally have argued some time we need to put more effort into what was called a strategic communications. an engaging the battle of ideas. because it is not that we want people to love us. but we want to encourage people not to blow each other up and not to solve their disputes with violence. weon't know -- i am not sure have made the proper effort in those sorts of areas that we could or should have, and the rest of the story is, and you think about the fight against terrorist, we can never kill may not like the

united states. what we have to do is persuade way that there is a better to resolve differences and to have hope for their lives. that should be through a democratic process. building their own communities. is again, this war of ideas very fundamental, and i don't think we have done it very well over the past decade. host: chris is our next caller. , florida, republican. caller: how are you? it is pretty hard to do, congressman, when you are drones bombing people in afghanistan and elsewhere -- pakistan. you are taking out -- for every terrorist you take out 10 innocent people. that is really winning the hearts and minds of the people who live in those countries. ok, the other thing -- and i wanted to point out one other thing. you seem to be ignoring the fact that they u.n. came up with a report not so long ago that that it was actually the rebels who were using ferrellgas --

sarin gas on innocent population. as for the nsa -- and by the way, we have no business being in syria. it will be another quagmire and cost us another trillions of dollars. the rack already cost as well over a trillion -- dollars. representative nadler during the fbi oversight hearing had a question for fbi director informationt the that he was told in a private briefing with other people that heically he heard stuff that had absolutely no knowledge of and that basically he was told that analysts make the decisions whether to go after individuals as far as their e- mails are concerned, listening to the private phone calls. this information he pretty much laid out there. it is on c-span.

that is where i saw it. i give, c-span, very much, by the way. down from that damon a day or so later when it it seems like the pressure comes up against him -- backs down from that statement a day or so later will. that he trusts what is going on -- ensco that is a lot, chris. let's get a response. guest: i forgot all of the issues -- end, who the and -- knows what, make the decision? guest: let me go back -- i know of no credible evidence that said rebels used chemical weapons in celia. no credible evidence. but the french, overriding of countries have confirmed assad as you scrum -- has used chemical weapons against the people. small scale, limited engagement.

secondly, this notion for every one terrorist you take out, 10 innocent people are killed, i think is terribly misguided and just wrong. right that you have to look at the broader consequences of guest: they may well have consequences but the idea that a bunch of innocents have been killed is absolutely incorrect. i have not talked to mr. nadler andt why he said something why he backed away from that. he might have been reminded of some of the briefings. what i can tell you is that there is a full, auditable trail for every touch of the database. and it has to be a reasonably articulable suspicion and you have to write it down in order to look at anybody's -- even

metadata. that is not even getting into the content of conversation. most closely following this program for years have a very high confidence that it is being used appropriately and i would invite colleagues who do not know about how a program works to get a briefing. host: before we go, we will see a vote today in the house, how do you plan to vote on it? guest: i will vote yes. it is incredible what medical science has done to help keep babies alive even in the second trimester. i think that reflects those tremendous advances that we do not want to have an innocent taking of a human life. host: public and the texas represents the 13th district. thank you for your time. coming

up next we will talk to rosa delauro of connecticut. later on, the supreme court. andt is 831 eastern time the leaders of economic powers are declaring themselves dedicated to a political solution in serious civil war. he even has obama and vladimir putin are working on an agreement on which side deserves military support. there is a statement going that is going to be issued today in the states remains committed to obama's decision to arm the rebels while russia is committed to its russian sale. the us-led international coalition in afghanistan announced earlier that afghan troops are now taking the lead on security and every province of the country. it -- at an formal ceremony and a military training camp on the

theyirds of couple, -- were told hundreds of military leaders that the hand of set the stage for the bulk of coalition forces to lead afghanistan by the end of next year. meanwhile, a few miles from where he were speaking, a bomb targeted a prominent lawmaker. it missed him, but killed three civilians. and more on the nsa security links from head of security mike rogers. his march earlier said the that there are dozens of terrorist plots that have been disrupted by the government surveillance program. he added that more leaks could further harm national security. cumbersome and rogers made those remarks ahead of the meeting today where keith alexander will be testifying. you can hear live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio or watch the hearing on the c-span3. as of the latest headlines on c-

span radio. >> it was essential to remove france from category for the unit states to have the opportunity to -- for the united states to have the opportunity to chase independents. thepeople recognized possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put this in different words from what i said a moment ago. 2.5american achievement, million free people for them to get the british to evict the french from their borders and for the french to help them even the british and to manipulate the two biggest powers in the world is an extortion achievement. -- is an astonishing achievement. >> part of book tv this weekend on c-span2.

revisited of rosa delauro is our guest. she sits on the prorations committee. thank you for being here this morning. the houses taking up the farm bill this week,, we have seen the headlines and politico. there is a new five-year farm bill. lay out the basics and what the concerns are. guest: well first of all, let me tell you my principal concern and ihe farm bill, worked on the bill in 2008. deals a district which is with specialty crops. my concern with this farm bill is that it is particularly around the food stamp cuts .hich are almost $21 billion to set the stage for a moment, we are just -- we are in the

midst of a great recession. and during the great recession the food stamp program which is a significant program -- a nutrition program -- has literally kept people out of poverty, helped people not to fall into poverty, and it is also worked to feed hungry children. we have 1 out of 7 people that are on food stamps. 47 million people. most half of them are children, they are seniors, they are disabled. so it is a very serious issue. people are struggling in this economy. wages are down, incomes have not increased. why do we want to take this moment and throw more people into poverty? and increased hunger? it does not make sense. in the past, there's been a

, bob dole coalition and george mcgovern came together all -- around the issue of hunger. $21 farm bill would cut billion in the nutrition program and the food stamp program. 2 million people off of the program, one million of whom are children. and because there is a link between the program, that means over 200,000 youngsters will be kicked off of the program. it is not right. host: here are some details. commerce mental or old mentioned over 47 lead people are on food stamps. that is 22 million households across over six $.3 billion. that is certifiably dollars in total for last year. $133 on average per

month per person. $234 average monthly per 274 per month rea. guest: that has been a driver and a genus of the food stamps program is the number of people who participate go up when times are bad and when times are good the numbers go down. and the numbers are coming down. i was interested in some of your statistics because the fact of the matter is that you have hundred 33% in poverty. so many people are on food stamps and the minimum wage workers, many of whom are women. four dollars and $.10 a day -- .4.10 per day

why do we want to cut $21 billion in this program and at the same time not make cuts and other areas. farm subsidies, we need to create -- it is wrong, it is just wrong. host: a republican from wisconsin said i want poor people have food, i want people to eat well, but we went to close down loopholes and there are other ways to come about savings. guest: where do you want to close the loopholes? do you want to close the polls in the food stamp program? the program is a 3.8% error rate. i defy you to go to any other agency and see those numbers. let me give you a significant example which is in the "farmville".

,et me lay this out for you u.s. taxpayers pick up over 60% of the cost of the premium for the crop insurance. u.s. taxpayers -- that does not include a ministry of cost which would pick up as well -- administered of costs which would pick up as well. you have a lot of individuals who received at least one intelligent premium subsidies, and you cannot get their names. interestingly enough, there is the amount of money you can receive, there is no income threshold. all of those other pieces apply to food stamp recipients. it is income-based, there is a cap, and there is an asset test.

if you want to close a loophole down, let's go to this program. there was an article this morning that talked about the massive fraud in this program. let us close that loophole before we see two kids, sorry you cannot have a school lunch or breakfast. the: when the house begins farm bill this month, critics say conservatives are overlooking problems and other farm programs. , let'srall farm bill look at the house version. funding of over $900 billion over five years and as our guest mentioned, $20.5 billion in cuts in the food stamp rogan and they are also looking at savings of over 32 going dollars over 10 years.

could you vote for that version? host: i don't believe that we ought to be cutting benefits for people. the farm bill which i have supported in the past, is a safety net. that is for both farmers and for people who are foodstamp beneficiaries. while direct payments have been cut, they have expanded crop insurance to protect people who may have lost a direct payment in addition to which they have put into place something called a price lost program with a deal if commodity prices go down. both house and senate have this policy and it. which means we are going to try to make farmers whole.

you can be for that, but why then -- because there are other ways to address the issues of for farmer. the foodstamp beneficiaries have .o where else to go no place when they are off the program, they are off the program. at the end of this fiscal year all foodstamp beneficiaries will see a cut in their benefits. that is at the end of the economic recovery program which included additional information for the foodstamp program. going to addhen this. you are going to hire lawn to the people who are the most vulnerable in our society. host: looking at a side by side comparison of the senate version cuts tohouse version,

nutrition in the red and the cut to commodities. let's go to the phones and hear from melissa in ohio, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my comment, i am actually a former food stamp receiver myself. i put myself through college and i'm now working professionally and not on any type of assistance. this program really helped me. there needs to be in a minute restructuring the program trade itnow i was on the rogan, was significant higher than what i would actually spend given to me for groceries. was wondering if they could have minor cuts while assisting people who really need support. i speak from extremes and it was

helpful to me. guest: first of all, i am glad you can speak personally about the program. often times as your situation bears out, it is a bridge to help people go on and live their life and deal with the economics for the future. , the benefits were frozen in 1996 and the welfare bill and have not been addressed until 2008 farm bill. you take a look at what food prices are and costs are. i think one can always take a look at whether or not a program should be restructured in some way, but i would not look at rolling the benefit -- lowering .he benefit level for people i think we are in a tough economy at the moment. peopleyment is at 7.5%,

have watched their wages go down and their incomes are not increasing. people today using food stamps thought that they would never have to. -- they thought they would never have to use a program to allow them to help to feed their families. we can take a look at restructuring but i do not believe the benefit level should be dropped. caller: thank you for taking my .all, let me get the straight you want to raise our health care, you want to make more money for healthcare and you want to give a program -- that we should trust you, that we should believe that you will restructure it. you know people are taking advantage of this program. host: are you talking about the sense? -- are you talking about food stamps?

caller: yes. when you think this money is coming from? guest: thank you for calling, i appreciate the call. i disagree with your premise. withy, you are saying that the affordable care act we are moving into the invitation of the program, but already you are looking at places like california, vermont, or gone -- or a gun and other states that are talking about lower treatment costs for people. already, there are people that are taking advantage of the fact that they can get insurance for a child that in the past has been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

people that are taking advantage of screenings and they do not have to co-pay. i challenge your premise at the outset that health care is rising areas. the affordable care act was to make sure people could afford coverage. with regard to the foodstamp program, it is not broken. .gain, your premise is wrong error rate in8% that program. take a look at the crop loaded withogram, fraud with people that are making millions of dollars and no one seems to care. they have more than probably three squares a day and when we have people who are on food stamps, you have to see where your priorities and values live. host: here is a reply,

government audits share hundreds of millions of dollars are due to fraud in a variety of farm for brands including crop insurance. the rate of food stamps on the other hand has declined sharply in recent years. this is a problem holding up the farm bill passing. we have seen extensions given repeatedly, but this is a make it or write it moment. they want to give me five your outlook going forward and not just do it piecemeal. guest: what you need is enough. the fact of the matter is that it is a $20 billion cut. to a nutrition program. that in and of itself should preclude moving forward on this bill. there are a lot of good things in this bill.

there are also a lot of problems with the bill. there is a dairy issue which has caused a great divide within the republican ranks, let alone republicans and democrats. secondly, there are issues around sugar, and crop insurance. you have the heritage foundation that came out in opposition to it because they do not believe that the cuts are deep enough. there are several problems with this piece of legislation, food stamps being one. our guest is sponsoring an amendment that would restore cuts it to the foodstamp program as well as other initiatives in the farm bill. just the question, what needs to be done about that? guest: we have to address that in this farm bill and take a look at what the percentage of the taxpayer dollars that we are paying for this company. many of which have parent

companies offshore for tax purposes. they go offshore and they get a tax break for doing that. what are we talking about here? let's address those issues, we can do it in the farm bill. host: let's from robert, an independent. caller: i appreciate your efforts in working on the waste of money of our government. in massachusetts we recently had an audit and there is quite a bit of fraud in this program that you support. i think it should all be cleaned up and maybe it's not just for stamps, but all of the waste that is happening in our government. one question i have is that you say it is a $20 billion cut in the foodstamp program, what is the cost of the overall program?

?s $20 three percent, 2% or is it a decrease in the overall increase that we will have by sequestration? guest: let me address the first part of your question. as well, the error rate in the food stamp program -- because there's been very serious attention paid to decreasing the fraud and abuse in this program. the error rate has been brought down to 3.8% which is one of the lowest error rates which exists in any federal agencies. i concur that if we are going to look at the program integrity let us look at it government wide. in the farm program i mentioned the crop insurance program. let us cut back in other

programs where there is waste. you can take a look at the department of defense, you can take a look at several other agencies and look at where we lessto spend -- not spent money, let's cut out what is waste in the system now. i concur with you on that. this is a cut in the program that takes 2 million people off of the program. again, to qualify for this program, you have to be under under 130 cents a property. that is $22,000 a year to feed people. a million of the 2 million are children. you are looking at some of the most vulnerable people in our

economy today. a cut, it is just not a cut of an increase. it would cut the program back -- back. which in my view at this time is a very difficult economy and food stamps -- you'll take my word and take a look at literature about how food stamps has helped people get out of poverty. why would we want people to fall back into it? we've had the highest rate of poverty that we have had in the united states today. host: democrat representing the third district on her 12 term. she served as ranking member on health and labor services and also served on the committee of agriculture, rural develop and

and the fda. our next caller is bob in virginia democrat. caller: hi, i just said i strongly agree, she talks about spending priorities. if president obama would immediately cancel this 100 might tell her trip to africa, we could take all of that money and feed all of the hungry children in america. guest: guest: guest: well sir that is your point of view, we believe in the global economy today and we have international responsible it is and i take great pride, whether it was either george bush, barack obama to travel to other countries so that they can put our nation and what our values

and priorities are. that reinforces the united states as the leading country in the world. host: we saw senator bob menendez state of the union on monday and he talked about syria. since our last caller it brought up international issues. he said the president is headed in the right direction. [video clip] >> i am certainly forgiving the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. the wherewithal to have a fighting chance to lead us to a better political solution than we are today. and to do that expeditiously. you have to consider other options with your allies as to whether or not you might consider ripping up air fields so that assad's air force cannot take off. that is an example of a limited action i could ultimately

produce a big benefits. you can't just simply send them a peashooter at the end of the day or else our national security interests -- time is not on our side and vital national security interest will not be pursued. host: do you agree with the senator that more should be done in syria? guest: i think we should take a look at what we should do, there are so many pieces. there are the rebels, there is al qaeda, and we need to clearly understand the when we take action what the consequences are. host: what will you be watching for in terms of next steps? guest: i think it looks like the talks with russia is going well. that there is agreement to atagree, and i hope that the g8 one can establish some

collective determination in moving forward so there are not unilateral decisions. i agree with the president's move forward. i think that one has to think , of escalatingl that effort and increased support as to who we are arming and the again, what are those consequences. turning to the inside, it's as both are struggling to decipher, obama's conflicting signals. what is your opinion on how the president is handling the privacy issues? guest: on the privacy issues, i think we have to come to a balance. , in my view, since 9/11

-- whether it is the indefinite detainees, or the electronic surveillance -- i think we have moved in the direction of not protecting civil liberties. to that end, i voted against legislation. i think we need more transparency. we need to know what they are doing and i think we need to be upfront about what this is all about. i think the of meditation -- we are beginning to get answers, but get those answers on the table and expand to the merrick and people why we are doing what we are doing. host: barber on the public mind i'm a good morning. who hasi am a senior been on food stamps since january. you take them to it -- that is the office and

there are are no things soap, sugar, milk. you just get can the goods or whatever. i was coming out of a situation where i had lost 97 pounds and they give you the runaround in a new system and you are still not getting anything. ok, barbara. here is congressman delauro. one of the things we didn't mention is that so many the people who are foodstamp recipients are seniors or disabled. i don't know the circumstance in south carolina and what is happening with the office, but i think that, again, sometimes people will say we can't afford

atdo a foodstamp program the federal level, and we should rely on churches, faith-based groups, etc. they help out but they cannot do it all. can,help in anyway they but they can't do it,, and i think your commentary is a good one. people are trying to access a program in order that they might eat, and my gosh, we have such an abundance of food in the united states. why is it that we are looking to look at our deficit and cutting it back with a 21 -- almost $21 billion cut in what is life-giving to people, and that is food? i think we need your rethink what we are doing. we are trying to take a look for you and asked my colleagues in south carolina what might be happening there were -- there

with the agency and why it isn't being responsive. , florida,acola independent caller. you are up here at -- you are up. caller: good morning. the lady called earlier and she said her assumptions were wrong. i would like to turn the tables on you and say that it is your assumptions that are wrong in so many things. or are essentially asking -- legitimizing illegal plundering, appointing other people to pay for someone else, corporate welfare, personal welfare. no one wants to see someone start on the street, but over 120 trillion behind in unfunded liabilities for all the other social security, medicare part d, $1 trillion in the hole from last year. and i want to hear your answers, but you just can't keep spending money and keep calling it

onestment and when -- play our heartstrings -- certainly no one wants to see a kid starve, i don't see any of these people on welfare -- i've lived in areas where it is not a good place and i know they are on entitlements. hardly anybody grows their own food. the lady who calls -- called a little bit, she was whining about not getting her cut. -- you have heruld do, the elderly: microsoft from whomonia -- ugly caller suffer from pneumonia -- elderly caller who suffered from pneumonia? caller: it is not some its ability, necessarily -- someone else -- host: let's get a response from the commerce woman. guest: let me ask about the cup insurance program -- do you think it is equitable that we pay for over 60% of the cost of the premiums for those beneficiaries?

we pick up the administrative cost of that program. do you think it is right that 26 individuals that at least a million dollars in premium subsidy and they don't have to ?alk about their income they don't have to talk about what assets they have? they don't even have to farm the land or deal with conservation programs on that land. do you think that is fair echo host: that's going to have to be a lingering question. he is no longer on the line. ,epresentative rosa delauro democrat of connecticut, cochairs the steering and policy committee. thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you very, very much. it is a pleasure. host: coming up next, we turn our attention to the end of the supreme court term. tom taylor joins us from bloomberg dna. first, let's go to this news

update from c-span radio. >> economic numbers this our show consumer prices rose slightly in may. the labor department says that the consumer price index ticked up a seasonally adjusted .1% last month, the second increase in seven months. this as higher energy costs were partly offset by cheaper food. the small increase underscoring that inflation is mild. as for the housing market, u.s. builders began construction on more single-family homes and apartments and may, encouraged by more buyers and a scarcity of houses for sale. the commerce department said that builders increased housing starts nearly seven percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 914,000. that is just below march's pace of more than one million, the highest in five years. overseas -- swiss lawmakers have rejected a government-backed banking bill that would've allowed swiss banks to turn confidential data

over to u.s. prosecutors without violating switzerland's strict client secrecy laws. this was finance minister says that the u.s. is planning to againstiminal charges some swiss banks and without the legislation there is, in his of an "real danger escalation" in the standoff between the two countries. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> go to gettysburg and to think , the livesarnage beforehe great battles at fredericksburg, the you talk about .ntietam, shiloh, manassas all these people for people -- all these battles for people depending -- defending a way of life, slavery, what have you --

all that bloodshed to settle , and we woniction here it -- we won. we have our country. i would like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks, -- do weerve this wack deserve this? do we deserve the sacrifice for the country we have, and are we living up to that? >> live all-day coverage fro starting on june 30 at 9:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. continues.n journal" host: tom taylor is assistant managing editor at bloomberg bna. thanks so much for being here. guest: absolutely.

my pleasure. supremet's look at the court term. how many more days of them and dancing decisions remain and what are we watching? guest: we are looking for opinions on thursday as the next possible date the court could issue opinions, and the last scheduled days the 24th, monday. but depending on how many they have left, 14 outstanding cases at this point so we will see what they hand down the rest of this week and then they could extend into the 24th. for us that the cases we are watching. what are they? 4est: three big topics, total cases. the same-sex marriage cases, one dealing with the prop 8 constitutional amendment and telefonica, the other with the federal defense of marriage act. then we have cases on affirmative action, fisher versus university of texas, section five of the voting rights act. the arizonaine in "

republic" this morning. this is from the new cm. -- from the newseum. thatus about the decision came down yesterday striking down the arizona law. guest: there was a voter registration act that mandates the use of a federal form to register voters for federal elections. it is meant to streamline the process and make it easy to produce tons of forms at once and you don't have to worry if you are handing it is a money .nd california or arizona - you had to swear that you are a citizen, eligible to vote, an arizona passed a law saying, ok, that is nice, but we want you to use a driver's license number, passport, some type of identification information. basically, the court said that no, but goes against what the federal government did when it passed the voter registration act, so the federal law preempt

arizona from actually passing the law. while they struck down the law as currently stands, the court did lay out a path -- justice scalia wrote the opinion -- for arizona to challenge, basically, the decision not to include some kind of a notification requirement -- some kind of identification requirement in the federal reform. they go to the administrative agency and the court did say that they had a decent constitutional case when they finally jump to the right hoops. host: how is voter registration different from the voter id law cases that the supreme court is also looking at? guest: much the same, but this is a specific area where federal law says that states are required to "accept and use" the special registration form. the court said that the language in particular as it applies to registration really narrows what the state can do and what they can accept and require from voters. host: our guest is tom taylor,

assistant managing editor at the publication of bloomberg bna. if you would like to join the conversation -- the court still has decisions outstanding on issues from gay marriage to voter id laws. in a 5-4 ruling, this limits silences protection. break down the choices and decisions they made. the position you mention is an interesting one. i read an article earlier this morning that said that this is like a thanksgiving feast for legal merits. -- legal nerds.

it deals with the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. the court said that a suspect who is not in custody, in a pre-custody interview who had just voluntarily gone with the police and had not been read his miranda rights -- disagree, they said that he answered a bunch of questions and if we checked the shell casings against your murder weapon, are we going to find it is the same weapon that is used? the suspect fell silent. he looks down, he was nervous, looking at his feet. the prosecutor at the trial basically said that he presented that to the jury as evidence of guilt -- an innocent person would've said no, wait, i didn't do anything. the supreme court actually said that the prosecutor was ok to do that, that was fine but if he wants to invoke his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himself, he has to affirmatively say it. silence doesn't count.

the court was slightly divided on that. justices thomas and alito took a much harder line, saying that even if he had invoked it, the prosecutor could have presented it to the jury because he was not forced to testify against himself. it was seen as a pretty tough criminal justice and criminal procedure for the court. host: we saw that the court overruled a decade-old position that required to register you apply mandatory minimum sentences even if they were not jury findings. and there was a decision about fair housing. tell us about what the court will be looking at in the future. guest: the court is definitely still trying to fill out its docket for next term. there's not a lot of what people would classify as block store opinions -- blockbuster opinions on the docket yet. they are going to have a lot of summer -- cases in the and everybody has 90 days to file after the last appeal with

the supreme court. they trickle in over the summer while the justices are gone. the cases you mentioned are quite interesting. it has to do with whether you can file a fair housing act claim based on whether or not the effect of a protected group -- like a racial minority -- doesn't have to of the intended -- it does not have to be affectd to disproportionately a racial minority, but if it does, you file the fair housing act claim and it has implications for lenders come in developers, the real estate industries. other than that, there are election issues coming up. kind of regret that so far. grab bag so far. nothing too major yet. saw: another decision we was about dna and taking dna from people who are interested. what are the locations of this case? -- what are the implications of

this case? guest: it is a really intriguing case. it involves a maryland man who was arrested after threatening folks with a shotgun. maryland law says that anybody arrested for a violent crime -- it defines that as burglary, arson, murder, robbery -- basically, what the court calls serious crimes -- that once you are arrested, police can take a dna sample from you no matter what, and that is not tested until you have been arraigned, but if you are found innocent, it is destroyed and not used any further. the court basically okayed the practice, but they did so i'm kind of a strange theory. what they said was, like fingerprinting or taking a much whodna is a way to identify police have in custody. justice scalia wrote a scathing

dissent taking issue with that identity theory. he basically said, look, they are rain that the guy without arraigned the guy without taking the dna sample. unless they didn't know who they were actually a raining, this wasn't used to identify the person. this was used to solve a crime. it turned up a match on an unsolved rape case from 10 years ago, and he was subsequently tried and convicted of that of that rate.-- what justice scalia in the dissent said that you are not allowed to do these searches and seizures if it is for investigatory purpose. you can search for somebody to make sure they don't have weapons, officer safety, and things of that nature, but all maryland wanted to do was solve an unsolved crime, and they had no evidence that this guy was connected to that crime until they ran the dna to the database. host: do you know the applications -- "the new york times" ran a piece saying that

police agencies are as something records of a dna and at the local level, some jurisdictions have databases and some are taking dna from victims. guest: one of the interesting things about the supreme court opinion is that if you very closely to the maryland law. hewed very closely to the maryland law. it has a lot of protections built in. if you are not convicted of a dna sample is-- the destroyed. if there is not probable cause and they throughout the rest ,efore that, it is thrown out and there is a lot of protections built in to the maryland law. but these instances that the new york times talks about are far less regulated, far more off- the-cuff. this shows, i think, what scalia was worried about in his dissent, the overreaching and local law-enforcement agencies doing what they want, and seeing the decision as a green light

to collect dna samples and compiled databases willy-nilly and having an unregulated system start to develop in the country. i think that you can temper that a little bit i overlain the decision that the majority handed down looking at three things -- what is the government's interest in taking the dna samples? how intrusive is it? in this case, it is a cheek swab. the court said that it is not very intrusive, it does not draw blood or puncture the skin. and it asked what is the expectation of privacy? if somebody has been arrested for a serious crime, you don't have an expectation of privacy. the court said that if you are taken into custody and taken in a jail, they can do all sorts searches to make sure you're not carrying contraband or weapons.

one of the examples that "the new york times was quote mentions -- that "the new york times" mentions is people who are victims of crimes on collecting a dna sample to eliminate them as a suspect. if that sample goes into a database, you have to over lay the framework that the supreme court mentioned in that case. how invasive is it? they took the cheek swab so that is is not big a deal -- not it is not that big a deal. if you are someone who gave the sample specifically because the police wanted to rule you out of the crime, your expectation of privacy is fairly limited to what the police told you what they would use it for. using them in a database for unsolved crimes might be overstepping, and that is where the supreme court might come out on this in the future. but it is hard to tell. there is a real concern that

this case would be seen as a greenlight for these types of unregulated programs and systems. host: we are talking about the supreme court term with tom taylor of bloomberg bna. john is a republican. hi, john. caller: how are you? host: good. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question, but i almost forgot the original question i was going to ask, but the one i noticed is when he was talking about dna, and how they making this -- what did you call it -- they were fixing up this database. it is like blood sampling and fingerprints. it is the same thing. whenever a person is brought into the justice court -- you have to remember, you are not guaranteed justice. you are only given a chance at justice. therefore, when we look at this, we're looking at the idea -- if

someone can give dna and it can be taken away and prove innocence, that is a good thing. but what we are looking at with the supreme court, in my own mind, is we are starting to court disaster itself, because the supreme court tends to flip- flop on a lot of issues. the supreme court is supposed to interpret law, not create it. john.ok, i let's go to tom taylor for a response. guest: one thing you mentioned that i would like to touch on is the similarity between fingerprinting and other issues, normal practices that police use when they arrest somebody. -- the dissent speaks to this at great length, that while finger printing is used to identify people -- they take your fingerprint and run it through a database of known individuals and as identifying information associated with each

of those fingerprints. it is you names and social security number, whatever, whatever identifying information there is. on the other hand, on the dna database as it stands, they did not run it through a type of database that contains identifying information. and have that database they collected from all convicts and you can identify somebody through the database. through ais dna database that has no identifying information, a database of unsolved crimes, specifically unsolved, meaning they don't know who it belongs to. a hard-ent really took line, saying that this this is not like finger printing. this is an investigatory tool and a way to solve unsolved crimes. and while that might be a good thing in the long run, it runs contrary to the fourth amendment and surgeons use your protection. -- and search and seizure production. host: patty some next from

houston, texas. caller: ok. host: you are on the show, go ahead. patty, you are on. i think you're talking to somebody else. we will go to jordan, who is also an used, independent caller. caller: how are you doing? i appreciate what you do. it is pretty awesome. tom, i couldn't agree more. when are we going to draw the line? when are people going to say enough is enough? host: in what sense, jordan? caller: we are getting to the point -- we are in the supreme court talking about people who are not criminals having the dna taken. it is just over the line, just ridiculous. 10 years from now, what is it going to be? just continuous expansion -- it continues and continues. like i said, i appreciate what you guys do because you bring it

to light. more people should watch c-span everyday, honestly. guest: i can't agree with you more on the last point. [laughter] but i think some of the concerns that you get at about this kind of continuing on a growing are some of the things we talked about with "the new york times" article, and it is stunning to expand. on the other hand, the majority did lay out -- a number of really good reasons to do this, and i have to clarify what i said before. there is a fundamental difference between the majority and the dissent in this case they talked about identifying somebody. justice scalia took a normal dictionary view of the term " identify," and what he said was that you're not identifying somebody, you are trying to solve a crime. justice kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, took a more existential view of identifying somebody, and he said that it

know who they have in custody and who they have in custody really incorporates have these people committed past crimes, on a violent, what have they done in the past? the point that the majority made is not only does this solve past crimes, but it helps them wait in -- weigh in on decisions on bail, sure that person be released on bail, and it even helps if somebody has been wrongly convicted for the crime, the possibility that you might free a wrongly convicted person, really compelling interest to the government. like i said before, there is a competing tug and pull -- the justices in this case were looking at a law that was pretty well drafted. it has a lot of protections built in, it covers its bases. to some degree, the majority said let's roll the dice, let's

see if it works, we can blowback if we need to. and it was a group of justices, including justice breyer, and scalia joined soto mayor -- --andor and breye kagan and ginsburg. there is a tough on crime group on the supreme court. you can enter but that however you want, but people of mentioned that chief justice roberts is the only one with young children. you wonder how that affects their thinking. quote me on saying that that is certainly behind it, but that tends to pop up, including justice alito as being part of the tough on crime crowd. host: we saw a decision last week about human genes and patenting. this was unanimous decision.

we sought the decision written up by justice clarence thomas, who does not often deliver decisions. tell us about what this means and get into some of the justice questions behind clouds thomas -- the cap -- behind clarence thomas writing that position. ,uest: it is really fascinating actually. brica 1 and brica2 genes determine whether you have breast or ovarian cancer. people know about this from the news with angelina jolie on the tests to determine if she had these genes. it is the sole licensing of the patent on those genes. at first blush that sounds incredible a sinister, like the company owns some part of my , they have to troll over, and it is like "1984 -- they

have control over it and it is like "1984" and it sounds bad. but it is about the gene isolated away from the rest of your dna. if you think of it like a bunch of legos thrown together, one gene is one lego. once that gene is isolated, the company owns a patent on the isolated gene. what is important about isolating the gene is that that is what enables you to do complete research, to run tests like the breast cancer and myriad, the, run by patent holder in this case. it is very strange to think about patenting dna, but the fact of the matter is that the seven around for over 30 years. -- that these have been around for 30 years. said, one,es have we rely on 30 years of these

patents, and we have put in a lot of money into research and development trying to isolate gene, so we basically deserve to have this protection. on the other hand, on the court eventually decided, is that they didn't actually invent anything, and the court was specific in saying that we understand you put a lot of money and effort into this and this took a lot of time, but ingenuity and effort isn't enough. you have to invent something. what they said is that this is a building block of nature. it would be like if you tried to patent oxygen. if you have a patent on this, you stymie all types of innovation and research using these genes. the second half said that there is an issue of composite dna, which is created in a laboratory through natural processes, but does not occur in the human body. the gene only part of

that codes for proteins, and scientists use these to produce insulin and things like that. the court said that it is patentable because it is synthetic, and you have created something i that doesn't exist n nature. it is an important decision because a lot of research and effort has gone into this. there are companies currently conducting research to isolate genes and get a patent when they are done, and those prospects are gone. host: the key language from justice thomas is that the company myriad did not create anything. guest: that is exactly right. justice thomas wrote the opinion, and i'm sure your listeners have their own views about justice thomas. he can be pretty controversial. he has pretty hardline views about what the constitution means what certain federal laws mean, and that tends to eliminate -- that tends to limit

him in the kinds of cases he writes pretty tends to make his points and concurrences and dissents, not necessarily writing the majority opinion. we're not used to justice thomas writing for what we consider blockbuster cases. this was an eagerly awaited case. the fact that it came down unanimously opened the door for justice thomas writing what will be seen going forward as a very important opinion and he puts his mark on it, even if -- i don't think this was too unexpected of an outcome i. host: tom taylor is managing editor of the publication of bloomberg bna. let's hear from lawrence, a republican. caller: how are you doing? i would like to make about 4 dna. os on thad every day we have gamma rays running on as an mutation of

genes. 2 cases i've documented -- and they try tonews -- tell this woman that she was not the mother of the children because they took 2 hair samples off one woman and both of them came back different with the dna. on the woman of the kid who took the sample of her hair and area,ir in the vaginal and it came up 2 different dnas. host: dna testing and dna technology -- did that, but all in the decision regarding -- did that come up at all regarding dna used with suspects arrested? guest: very little. the court noted how accurate dna and sampling.

the science behind this -- i can't speak to gamma rays or anything like that -- but the science bears it out, it is pretty accurate. the court did not want to draw a against this type of testing because it offers it offers so much to law enforcement. it is not something the justices wanted to put aside and to theabout or limit in point of uselessness. it does raise another point, though, that in the myriad cases, not the dna or the maryland case, but case, justiceting scalia wrote a very short opinion saying that you can't join the majority's explanation of the science behind the ruling. justice thomas did a pretty thorough job of explaining what the gene patents are, how genes and dna works, what the companies who do the sets of tests and hold these patents

actually do. justice scalia wrote a short opinion saying, look, i've got enough information to join the majority, but i don't really understand the science, and nobody was able to explain it to me all that well. that case in particular does raise an issue that when things get really technical at the supreme court, we have to remember that these nine people are not scientists, they are not experts or specialists in these highly technical fields. as things continue to progress, it focuses more on dna and software patent cases and computer patent cases coming down the pike, we will see more of that where the court is going to have to address an issue where they somehow get themselves better technical advice. in arizona, we saw case decided in the supreme court on a case arizona. hi, kelly.

i think we just lost kelly. that position was striking down state's voter law. that is from "the arizona republic." we get that courtesy of the newseum. hi, ron. caller: yes, i want to comment on this dna thing. i think they should take dna when you are born, because all these people that are in prison, accused of rape and this and is fundingow dna them innocent after they spent 3, 5, 10, 20 years in prison for something they didn't do, and it would be a good thing if you are bored -- when you were born to have the dna sample, if you are accused of something, they can and say thatna this person didn't do that. people in lot of

prison that i think are innocent -- they claim to be innocent, and that would be a way to roof it without spending all the time in prison. guest: to your point, that was slightly discussed as to what dna could lead to. justice scalia said that the opinion, although they tried to limit it to four corners of the maryland law, do not do such a good job of doing that, and he was concerned that the government might be able to take your dna when you get on an airplane. there is an interest in the government in identifying everybody he was flying, or when you are a child starting public school, finding who is enrolling .n public school there are issues where you can voluntarily give a dna sample if you are accused of the crime rate a lot of the cases that you mention are fairly older, before the technology was really robust.

the court puts emphasis on the fact that these -- by taking these dna samples and finding the matches to unsolved crimes or incorrectly solved crimes, somebody who has been put in -- you increase the chances of helping wrongfully accused people get out of prison. it is an extremely important interest for the government. host: on twitter -- , i mean, that is one of the big concerns in the case. the maryland law, like i mentioned before -- if you are not arranged or eventually found not guilty of the crime you are arrested for, the dna sample is destroyed. i wanted to and that the maryland law also limited the use of the dna. you are only allowed to use it

to find matches for identifying people associated with other crimes. all of the information about the predisposition, health issues, whether you might be a diabetic, exposed to cancer -- although magical things that dna can clue atin on, the government, least under this law, is not buting at those things, there was a certain word that governments might overreach, and there is a good example -- about 28 states, including maryland, have laws that are like maryland's but they are all a little different. you don't get the sample back or a destroyed if you are found not guilty. to go to court and sue -- you have to go to court and sue or do some action to get that destroyed. there is definitely creep away as theat the court saw

ideal maryland law, or at least a very good maryland law. there is already one on the books that strays from that and goes further and maybe brings problems for a lot of people. ,ost: eric in glendale maryland, democrats line trade. caller: hi. i appreciate this forum. you woul are doing a great job. number one, i am extremely along with the entire process, in that you have -- i'm not an expert on this, but i know there has been hundreds, if not thousands of cases that have been overturned of men and women who have been in prison for decades. and dna samples have been used to free them. we put -- before we continue to prosecute people and feel the people or at least attempt to come every case --

free the people, or at least inempt to do it to his charge supposedly of destroying the dna when you are proven to not be a person of some previous crime or what have you, and what checks and balances are in that system? are we just trusting the government or some person at the department to throw weight your dna -- to throw away your dna? guest: you raise a good point, and a lot of the supreme court's opinion derives from the fact that they let the law play out to see how it works and see if any problems clone -- problems,. up.f problems come do theke the sample and testing that tended to national databases only 13 specific

parts -- but send to national databases only 13 specific parts of dna. theydon't code anything, are not scientifically valuable. they are just markers. if you look at markers for the numbers of people, you can tell if it is from the same person. the national level they are not holding onto dna as this blueprint of the human body. those reside at the state laboratories. if they get hit at the national level, they go back to the state and say, who did this sample come from, get information, that type of thing. the states that are tasked with the destroying the dna and really, you have to take it on faith that this is what the law says and it will be complied with. if you're not inclined to go that far early in that direction, it becomes problematic. host: tom taylor is assistant managing editor of the

publication of bloomberg bna. let's look at cases we are watching. thes is the headline that " "thee news bureau gives baltimore sun" story. guest: you are dealing with affirmative action, the voting rights act, and same-sex marriage. equal protection factors, the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment, it factors in basically on all of them. there is a theme underlying those cases about equality and how we treat people and how the .aw treats people but even deeper than that, there was another underlying theme that talks about something like section five of the voting which has been an

invaluable civil rights tool. it did great things for dancing voting rights for minorities of different types of oppressed groups, and the question is, when hasn't run its course. the conservatives on the court were really getting ended in the oral argument. -- really getting added in the oral argument. in one of the government to tell them why isn't this over, whenever we come far enough where we can stop classifying people by race. the same issue comes up in the affirmative action case. time was nine years ago, and in that time justice o'connor said we expect that within 25 years, the need for affirmative action will no longer be there, and one of the things that that decision laid out as the need to determine

has beentical mass" reached in terms of diversity purposes. if you have a critical mass of racial or ethnic diversity on a college campus -- that is when affirmative action is no longer necessary. you can do to find critical mass with, number, you can't -- you can't define for thomas with a quota, with a number, you can't define it with the demographics of the state of the country. that is barred by the decision. the court was interested in them to tell them what critical mass means. they were not happy with "we are not there yet" as an answer. wrote a pieceor about the affirmative action case when it was first argued months ago.

dog writes about prop eight, the gay marriage question. guest: excellent question. the prop 8 case is messy, to say the least. a federal district court overturn proposition eight, which is a voter-improved referendum that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. the district court said no, you can't do that. there is a distinction between equal protection and violating due process, which is a stronger tenor for the court to take. it went up to the ninth circuit court of appeals. the problem is that the government to california, state of california, wouldn't defend the law. the government and the -- the governor and attorney general said we want nothing to do with this, top eight is unconstitutional, we want nothing to do with it. it fell on the proponents of prop eight who shepherded it

through the voter system to defend the law. one of the issues before the supreme court is whether the proponents of prop eight have what is called legal standing to be there. they are not the state so they don't have an interest in making sure that the laws of the state are upheld or enforced. they are this weird, amorphous third parties that, because of the circumstances ending up in -- don'td really have really have a dog in the fight other than that they like prop eight. the court did say they don't have standing and that basically leaves the ninth circuit opinion, the ninth circuit overturned prop 8 -- it would leave that opinion in effect, and the ninth circuit opinion is really narrow and would only apply to california. we would start at -- start to see more court battles and light of the supreme court decision to steer away in this case. in l.a., independent

line. welcome. keith. caller: oh, sorry. a positive thing has happened in the streaks -- the three strikes law, no longer -- can one person be put in prison for three years to life for petty offenses. that is a plus. the other thing about mumia abu jamal, has been in prison for 33 years. the situations surrounding the court case violating his civil they have not recognize the injustice. he said quite a few things on their plates to recognize, and in the meantime, he sits there all these years, and no one has seemed to bring -- even

commentators on different newscasts recognize the injustice that is happening on that. i don't know if you are familiar with that particular case. if so, i would like to hear comments. host: that is not at the supreme court level, keith. it is an old story at the state level, a philadelphia case from a of years ago that the supreme court cleared the way for the jamalted killer mumia abu to see if he would be be sentenced. that is a story from a couple of years ago. guest: kind of off my radar screen, not the case i am familiar with, but if it has a chance of working its way to the supreme court, i will be on it. is assistantlor managing editor of "united states law week." hi, ed. caller: i would like to, not the

supreme court that the dreamer and a -- i would like to comment on the supreme court that the can be usedsilence against you in court. are you aware of that? guest: absolutely. this was a case that was just decided, and yes, the court said 's right fifth amendment against self-incrimination only applies if you affirmatively invoked that right. if you are just being questioned miranda, you are free to leave at any time, and if you, o as it happened in the case with the supreme court come just fell silent, the prosecutor can go to the jury and say that an innocent person would not have done this, they just would've proclaimed the innocence. basically, what the court said that they ask you the tough i am inns and you say "

booking my right to not self incriminate," and the prosecutor cannot use that trial before the jury. 2 justices one further and said that even if you do that, it makes no difference. they can still use it because you're not being forced or compelled to testify against .ourself in the view of justice thomas or scalia, that is what it is about. it is when there is a penalty answering the question. you can claim the fifth. we have seen it on c-span and a number of occasions. you can go up and say, i invoke my fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate myself, and that would get you out of the otherwise needed to answer that question. before the arrest has been made or you are taken into custody, the court is giving you a whole lot of leeway to work with. host: independent caller, ruby

an in wichita. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. first, on affirmative action, i believe we should have an equal opportunity for advancement in employment, but i also feel that in some cases it has gone overboard. for instance, in our school district, they have the hispanic person of the year but they don't have an african- american person of the year or caucasian person of the year. that would be considered racist, i imagine. ,nd yet we single out one race which to be creates a tension in the workplace for all workers because is it an indication that hispanics needed their own set because they can't compete with others, or is it because they want to show favoritism for them? asind that very frustrating

an employee. they should just be employee person of the year to me, but again, they have taken it a little too far in the situation. guest: thanks, ruby. i want to make 2 points about your comment. one, the argument you just described is close to what justice clarence thomas has espoused in speeches on the bench and what he appears to -- adheres to. he says that although he benefited from affirmative action in his schooling, he always felt that it attached a statement to him, that people do not look at him as an equal, that there would always be a shadow of the he had help, he doesn't deserve this. he takes her pretty hard line against affirmative action and that is part of the reason he described. the second thing is, in terms of the actual case before the supreme court, it is

interesting to note that this involves the university of texas, and they have two programs in action to help increase diversity on campus. one of those is called a 10% program. the 10% program means that if you graduate in the top 10% of your high school class, you get in to the university of texas. you are automatically guaranteed admission. the idea is you have ,eighborhoods, school systems individual schools that are, for one reason or another, segregated. different income levels, different cultural areas. but if you just take the top 10% of every school, no matter how they compare to each other, you are bound to get racial diversity at the university level trade it has actually been quite successful, so successful, in fact, that the program that is currently being debated at the court, which is where the university basically has two factors they way for admission, and one of those as been broken down into several

little parts, and one of those factors is broken down into more factors and one of those is your race. it is a very small part of the scale. actually, it is the people who are criticizing the program, the challengingpeople the program, had used at the magnitude scale as being so small and so -- that race really helps you so little -- to say, why are we classified by race? why are we doing this thing that a lot of people think is difficult or repugnant or we shouldn't be looking at rice -- race, when it doesn't take is that much further? the 10% rule is race neutral. his other rule looks at race, but because the 10% rule is working, why is this necessary anymore? we found a race neutral way to do it. that is one of the arguments facing the justices in that case. host: barbara, independent line.

caller: appreciate you taking my call. i think on the dna, the cause of all the scandals -- people are having a hard time trusting the government anymore. i would like to see the three branches of government lead by example, meaning that i will like to hear their phone calls and read their e-mails. they should have dna and blood samples before they get the job. with the government be willing to do that to show people that they really are with this program and that is open and honest? that would go a long way in helping people because it feels like a violation of the fourth it is getting worrisome to everybody. to the people need to insist -- it is not the lords and serfs

anymore. trust theara, do you supreme court any more or less than the other branches of government, commerce and the white house -- congress and the white house? guestcaller: it is getting to te point where no. lieuldn't go to court and and evade. i would go to jail for that. host: on twitter -- taking issue with the very nature of the supreme court. we see a poll looking at americans thoughts on the supreme court could just this march, 40% described the supreme court's ideology as "middle-of- the-road," 24% say it is liberal, 22% say it is conservative. the supreme court is

known for doing things slowly, which typically gets them the appearance of being middle-of- the-road. they don't like to move quickly. i think it is one of the reasons that the citizens united decision from a couple terms of go such a court -- couple terms of go struck such a chord. there is the story that people tell about justice o'connor -- the lamppost outside the court has little turtles engrave, and her explanation is that the court is like the turtle, and move slow and does not jump -- itof public opinion moves slow and does not jump ahead on public opinion. that, interestingly, is going to come out in the same-sex marriage cases. they talked about the different votes and referendums and balance measures -- ballot measures that have been coming out across many states addressing same-sex marriage, that the nation seems to be moving forward fairly quickly on the issue, and if that is

case, should the court sit back and let it play out as opposed ?o wading into a thorny area host: austin, texas, democrat. caller: we have a real life "to kill a mockingbird" situation in texas. they prove that ronnie reed had sex with this white woman, but they did not prove that he killed her, and they had dna from his sperm, but later they found out -- found dna from her 's police officer buddy, where an abandoned beer can showed her dna on a beer that they shared that night. -- the the color bring caller earlier talked about how it leads towards prosecution. if there was a way we could use the dna evidence to swing both ways, in my free ronnie reed

and others -- it might free rodney reed and others like him. it is amazing the way this court has ignored this later dna evidence and just gone with the fact that he had sex with her. but he had no motive to kill her. i went to that court trial. i first i went in there and i sat with all the white people and thought, oh, this is another oj, and the more i listened to it, this poor man got railroaded and he is sitting on death row -- i guess it has been about 10 years. if there is any way that somebody can use this dna evidence to swing both ways -- host: ok, let's go to tom taylor. guest: i think we have discussed this and i think you make an excellent point. one of the reasons the court made the decision he did was in an effort to make dna testing ,ind of come in from the cold if you will. they want it to be open, they want it to be regulated, they want laws that protect people,

and also give the opportunity for people to be exonerated from crimes they are accused of as opposed to, like you mentioned, either being misapplied or not used appropriately or just kind of being ignored. host: tom taylor is assistant managing editor of "united states law week," a publication of bloomberg bna. here is here is one of the stories he has written. thank you so much for being with us. we now go to the house of representatives. they will take up the lead term abortion bill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]