quite opaque. then it created a program. which works court, only in highly-classified ways and with no other parties present. the court makes a secret ruling. all of this draws of boundary around where should the limit be between intelligence gathering and privacy and civil liberties? that is a conversation we have not had an opportunity to debate among the general public. on foundational questions of mutualtalking about the transparency of citizens and the government that is supposed to serve them. and i think there were lots of things in the material that needed to be broached, and i

think the confirmation of that is that there has been a pretty serious debate about where the lines should be. did you have any securities -- concerns that national security would be damaged? >> yes, i did. there have been quite a few times when i saw a really hard balance to be struck and when i have had conversations with government about their concerns. i will tell you how i started the first conversation. and i said i will not and you this document i have, but here is the date, the title, and author and i know you can find it. and before we start talking i want you to know everything from 21-does some -- 27, we're not even thinking about. he presentede way

it to the post? i when i came to the post have a similar conversation. i said you are one to make your own decisions. i worked there for 21 years. i came back to them on contract with the story. i said you will make your own decisions about what you are willing to publish, and this is a part i would not myself be willing to purchase -- published. this different in any way from when you did your book, because you talk about and we learned about some of the cyber 4 ability the united states has. did you go to the same process? to go a very similar process. there were a couple of differences. ultimately a similar vein.

-- a similar thing. the way they handled this was extremely responsible. in the stories we published in and olympic games, codename for a cyber offensive against iran. journalistic impetus was very similar to what you just heard. that in both cases of where the u.s. government draws the line between personal privacy and doing the kind of surveillance leading to defense and with the government draws the line on the use of offensive weapon, it is all done in secret. in many cases you have to ask the question, how much of this needs to be secret because it is keeping operational detail secrets, which i thing we all

understand we need to do that, and how much of this are fundamental issues that need to u.s. publicby the and perhaps by are broadly -- broader public? i think the responsible way to do it is exactly as part handled it, which is to go to the government and say this is what , the key elements will get published, the questions are if there are security concerns that would endanger someone. so far we're willing to sit down and hear that and make the case. i took some things right off the table that i knew i could not even get into conversation with, and in other cases there were spawned -- responsible people in the u.s. government who made the case.

i found that usually once you get involved in the conversation, you can narrow the subject matter pretty quickly if you are dealing with relatively reasonable people. say are not simply going to we're not going to discuss it. that raises a more fundamental question, which is to elected as question? why is it the press gets to go do this? that comes to an understanding that i think many people in the united states have about what the role of media is, and it is disputed by others. i do not think there are any absolutes here. matter is almost everything in the realm you write about when you are writing about national security is classified in some form. i do not think you can write about iran's nuclear weapons

program or dealings with china without running into something that is classified somewhere. i have documents. a story that was assembled over the course of a year and a half. in parts casey has specific documents. hasbart's case he specific documents. these casese seen before inside and outside the government. the things i am wondering, i just went through my five-year review and i thought why did i bother because like it this way and it will be in the times? there is no doubt that people in the community are a little oppressed. but we will rebuild. in this case i agree, i think

more transparency would be a good thing. if they had given some more information of a program to begin with, it would have been easier to manage the public reaction. all forame time i am more transparency. i hope the debate does not lead us into a silly compromise where we set up a new advisory board or put in additional constraints. i think that would be a mistake. >> let me ask you. some of the claims that snowden has made, that he could listen in on any phone call, even the president if he had the number, i have had people on the record and off the record saying he vastly overstated his ability. the huge think he did? immediately it pops up.

come on, folks. technically it is possible to target someone and get their phone calls, but there are many legal constraints. you really have to work with the legal constraints to know how difficult it is. there is operational difficulties, legal issues. it is not like the movies. i think he was overselling. he had a product. he was in hong kong bank going. i think he was overselling. >> -- he was in hong kong dangling. >> i am not a lawyer or its advocates and printing only what is true and can verify, i would not be so sure he is wrong about this. what he is right about for sure is the legal constraints are either lines of code or policy.

rules and regulations and supervisory change, which given the whole thing is a secret, can be changed that any time. his principal point is that there has been filled up without our knowledge, are remarkably powerful surveillance apparatus that did go through every american household. and that the main constraint on it now is what the code says or what the policies are, which can be changed. and we know that when government accumulates power over time, they find one more reason why you might want to use this. over time you tend to have a 1- way valve in which there is more use made a powerful tools for reasons that are stated in good faith. and honestly believe that change

the boundaries. be that someone can go to work in a situation like this, work there are only three months and somehow get with-- we know he got away some stuff. that does not seem right to me. not ams to me that is good situation. how can that be? the really want to defend guys at the fort, but it sounds like there was a little glitch. [laughter] just to move a little bit aside, if you're looking at simple things you can do to make your network's more secure is restrict administrator privileges. and then it is better to do pretty much whatever they want. he was an administrator. isis this basically that he the mighty guy -- he is the i.t.

guy? is that basically what his job was? someone i know describe him as the help desk. is a lot of step trivializing him or his credentials. worked at the hawaii large at sudbury and bush of the threat operation center run by the nsa. he was the administrator of a very substantial portion of that system, and in charge of defending it. he was there to watch out for incoming cyber attacks on the system, and he also administered a lot of the rules, regulations and firewalls that prevented inside people and out

from getting places they were not supposed to. suggestion, and i know this is your source, but is there any suggestion that he took the job for the sole reason that thes mind made up thing needed to be exposed and got in there and got this job so he could do that? he spent a lot more years working in the intelligence community. he never told me he took the job in order to carry out his plan, but it is looking more and more like that based on the external evidence. >> what do we make of the fact that once he does this and he goes to russia and all of that -- this is not your standard of whistle-blower. takeover -- >> there are a lot of people but argue he is not a

whistle-blower at all. whether or not he is probably comes down to the first question you asked, what kind of person he is and so forth. i think this is coming with interesting context at a moment when there is a new president and china. president and china. the return of our previous president and russia. both who had just met president obama within the past week and a half. both of whom showed a particular willingness to stand up and say this is not my problem, and how much jinxed this was causing the united states. in the case of the chinese, i think they just wanted the problem of their plates. the prospect of a year or two year or however long the extradition process took, i

be a they believed would fairly lengthy process that would erode the relationship at a time when the president has other problems with the united states and wants to deal with. i think they decided they would take a day or two of heat for letting him come to hong kong, but then it was someone else's problem. that someone else turned out to be vladimir putin. >> do you think it might have been that they had already gotten everything they needed from him? we read all of these stories -- is it possible they could have trained at the computers he had without him even knowing it? know a little bit about it. he was not at the center of it. -- did he have access

to good data? yes. did this, as a surprise to the charities or russians? nope. this when he got there attracted a lot of public interest and started a big debate but was not a surprise to foreign intelligence services. he has said and given a good reason to believe that he is in possession of materials that could do extraordinary damage to collections by exposing things that foreign targets do not know and practice. he is not interested in talking all that out in public record. he is interesting and fostering the debate. there is speculation about whether the chinese drained his laptop or whether the russians are doing so now. make a fairly substantial bet against.

how i know more about the precautions he took a and anticipating that issue. -- i know more about the precautions he took and anticipating that issue. >> do you all think he has done harm to the national security? >> it is a very hard thing to judge from the outside. you will always get insiders saying any revelation of and the types of programs or techniques does harm. that jimhear the point did, which is most of this was probably not a surprise for the russians or chinese. in the case that i wrote about, he suspects the virus had gone out in 2010 and the iranians already have the code and new someone had been attacking the

systems and did not think it was the swiss. is, are theseion programs classified because you are keeping adversaries from knowing that for americans? that is a very important question to go answer. when i looked over the documents published in the guardian published, for some of them the first question that came to my mind was why was the document classified at all? let me give you an example. one of the most interesting was one we have written about but not seen, called presidential decision directive no. 20. it was basically the decision directive that lays out the conditions under which the united states would make use of deep sense of cyber or offensive cyber.

is each paragraph confidential, secret. the entire document was listed as classified. i read through this and i am almost certain that when the document was signed there were declassified briefings for us. i went back over my notes. there were some interesting, smaller things in the documents but most of the things we have been briefed on puritan i went back to the white house and senate can someone give me the justification for why this document was classified? the answer i got back was in short was because it was interested -- the interest of the united states to classify it. so many of these do raise a fundamental question, which is what the government find itself in less of a difficult position today if it had said to the

world yes, we have a central repository in which all phone call data is poured into and we hold on to it for five years, because in the terrace to went to the movies things we can go back and teresa called in 20 seconds. true -- traced a call in 20 seconds. no one really wants to engage in that debate inside the u.s. government or do not want to engage in a publicly with all of us. >> can i ask something? it should not open and close the conversation whether something would improve the debate and whether something might be damaging or actually could do some damage to the national security as one could reasonably plant.

ganef kennedy's great speech was not that we're willing to pay no price. greatn f. kennedy's speech was not that we are willing to pay no price. there are trade-offs. guiding principles about what we're here for. one of them is secure the common defense. there are other issues here and balances to be had. sometimes they're easy, sometimes they're hard. i did not dismiss the security risk that are involved in having this debate. even when a country or terrorist organization has good reason to think, you can compare it to the elevator cameras we all know are there every day but we do not all be paid as though we would like to have our photograph. you forget about it.

you stop worrying about it. by calling attention, there is a chance your dissuading people from going there. it is very clear in the description of the program, which gets information from nine of the largest silicon valley communications providers, it is explicit in the documents and in the markings, the most highly- classified portions of the market was the listing of the nine companies -- microsoft, google -- that is the number-one secret in there. what i have conversations about government officials about what we were going to print and what we were not i said if the harm you envision consists of private companies taking a reputation or market loss because the american people do not like what they're doing, that is why we're going to publish it.

that is a very high stake that would make you want to publish information. >> what can we do, jim? on this a better fix than probably any of us here. i remember when i was talking to you before the presidential debate, and you told me some of the things we can do. it is amazing. there are differences in the capability in using the capability, which is one of the questions that comes up here. about what kind of capabilities we have here. >> that is a tough one. afterfair to say september 11 there was a great effort to integrate intelligence sources and expand bone

collection ability. one thing that was most useful was you captured by cellphone and afghanistan. you look at the cellphone and there are numbers. interesting that one of them was in the west. it was that person in the u.s. talking to? at that point you're trying to stop. you need to know this. to do that you will have to get what is essentially like your phone bill. that is what they're collecting. is the ability to and combine things captured on the battlefield. that is where the edge comes from now. this is not new. there was the echelon debate in 1990's for the european suddenly became excited because they thought there was a global system to collect traffic. they did a big investigation on the european commission. they concluded it is really not so bad as we think. i think that is where we will

end up here. there are trade-offs that we need to debate. more transparency would be useful but we need the collection capability. were going towe fight all night. to go there is a legitimate problem you're identified. you had an intelligence legal framework in which you could spy on the back as overseas, and you could get warrants to spy on known bad guys, but when you got to the scene, which is what you care a lot about, you had barriers that order to get through. but what you've just described is not really what the programs we're learning about now are doing. if you pick up pocket witter in afghanistan and it has a 35 phone numbers and 17 e-mail

is where you can go out and get individual warrants by going to the court in saying this was in so and so's pocket. you can do that. thehave to show only that information you want is relevant to and of the raised national security. that is a very lobar every time. what they're using these programs for is what people convention recalled data mining. they are looking for unknown suspects. by finding hidden relationships among people. so you start with one contact, suppose it is a terrorist contact. you say who is in touch with

that person into is in touch with all those people? it is an exponential growth in the number of people you are surveiling that way. idea,grees of separation which is that once you hit six degrees of separation from you and anyone else in the room, it encompasses the whole planet. >> this is such an old technique. they used to teach you how to do this using mail, envelops. of course you want to find the guys you do not know about. you want to say what is the network he is involved in? you have to look at people that are not known, not suspect that you could not get a warrant on. i think the administration is a little miffed because they feel like they went out of their way to do this in a constitutionally-safe matter but this goes back to a least the 19th century.

they were teaching a two children when i was a boy. -- teaching it to children when i was a boy. [laughter] >> i am in agreement with him that it has been used a lot. the mistake i think the u.s. government may have made along the way was judgment that it will declassified when it had to do with male and classify what has to do with email. it does raise the question that the race back in the days when the story was written in 2005 so that the warrant -- with the question of wiretapping. you ask the question, why could the government not have described the outline of the program? they leave themselves open to the same kind of exposure and debate and argument about whether or not it really needs to be classified.

when you go back and look at some of these cases, i would ileaks, thewikiel amount of damage that was said asbe done was not as much the damage actually done. take of the more you know about this, the more it creeps you out. -- >> the more you know about this, the more it creeps you out. the programs are collecting all of the data involving telephone calls and internet communications -- chat, email, voice over ip. >> when you talk about the data -- that means they are getting the message? >> the they're not getting the content. -- they are not getting the

content. they're not reading the email. they are looking who you send it to and when. there is a lot more than this. digital networking information includes device identifiers, locations. if you gave me the choice right now based on current data management techniques, here is the choice, i will subject myself either to one month of having someone read all of my e- mails a lesson to all my phone calls or one month of all my meta data, i would take the content in the second. the infringement on our privacy would be much less. meta data, you know who someone is talking to and when and where they are.

they are getting all of your information. you are tell whether negotiating a secret business deal, whether you are having an extramarital affair, whether you're thinking of leaving your job, whether you're not come out with your sexual preference. they have not taken all the information they would need to do that, and they are holding it. >> that does not make any sense. and there is a limited number of analysts, and they can only look at so much. priority number one is not your sex life. terrorism, proliferation, a couple of countries we have bad relationships with. there are not that many analysts. no one is reading your stuff. target forood foreign intelligence agencies. china, russia looking at your e- mail? would not surprise me in the

least. nsa looking at your e-mail? know. that is the difference. it is not a perfect world. what it is is a place where we have these trade-offs. it creeps you out to have people looking at your data. it creeps me out to find unattended luggage -- luggage in o'hare airport. did you like boston? >> when you collect these phone numbers and connect them and decide we need them, is there a capability on what i used to call on tape or is that some were recorded that you can play back? be there butwould what a telephone conversation be there? data,n they analyzed the we were talking to and from

where and what device, they called of the surface analysis. they use it for leeds to go get the content underneath the surface. decide you our person of interest, then prospectively they can collect your communications in real time or go back and get terabytes of old communications stored on servers. would conversations be stored? once they start becoming interest, then they can slice and dice it your conversations going forward. believe there is present evidence that they are either capable of or that they are collecting communications content so they can play it back later. >> he did not reveal one dark

secret, and i guess we should be appreciative of that. there is too much information. all intelligence agencies severed from this now. it is easy to collect, hard to analyze. they just park it. .he part them in freight cars there are not enough people to read all of this stuff. the content has to be, and one thing that has improved -- approved -- improved is the ability of focus on this. it is not hard. adding a if it winds up code to a vast computing capability. you want to go you -- to

all for questions. i was very interested in one thing you wrote. you talk about some of the miss -- myths. you said we're not in the cyber war with china right now. why did you say that? the chinese probably could not warrant to root the sky at of hong kong. russians probably thinking of a way to ship him off somewhere. these are great power falls. espionage is great war. great powers engaged in espionage. it is not enforced. not even course of.

the chinese take advantage of weaknesses. in that is not warfare. it is not a cold war. there the second largest economy in the world. >> can i expand on that briefly? jim is right on the espionage died. president obama has gone too -- on to something to differentiate traditional espionage from intellectual property. that is because the cyber issue has now moved to the center of the relationship and has made far more complex by all of the issues that jim raises. china is the world's second-

largest economy, a very major trading partner and lender to the united states. that constrains us from doing things that we did to the old soviet union during the cold war but does not necessarily mean we're headed into a cold war, it just means a much more complicated version of it. questions. right here. tell us your name. all markets. congratulations, jim, you kept your clearance. >> it was a close-run thing. take up the question i would ask,-- >> the question i would ask, you and i are certainly old enough to remember richard nixon. there was a time under which kennedy and jackson, a lot of the practices engaged in what have been acceptable or least

they were kept quiet. one of buildings that strikes me about this is we a bit of this war for 12-13 years and there have certainly been a lot of statements along the lines. that would indicate this kind of thing was beginning to coalesce and come together. i realize this guy and has said -- this guy has set off a firestorm but is there a lot waiting around that someone finally coalesced in came together or something through a brand new discovery? this has to do with other things? >> i am not sure the press has done a great job of doing what you're doing right now. one of the jobs of the press is ae idea is they would be would be -- that there would be a watchdog.

people have read the petrie act and have heard the stuff around. not had the press. do you think the press has failed to some extent? >> the press always fails. i think by and large the press has done a pretty good job. a lot of people did not want to go through 9/11 again. i am not one who thinks edward hero.n is a great sometimes sources are good people, and sometimes there other kinds of people. i have real questions. i said on television of a couple

of sundays ago people like martin luther king jr. and rosa but theye my heros stayed around and did not run off to china. i think if edward snowden had a case to make, i do not think he made his case by his behavior. i think the post acted very responsibly. i also think that we need to know more about what is going on here. >> i really liked framing the question about whether there was intelligence failure by the press? it is a fair question because we're is happen -- really say if there is intelligence failure

it they are unable to predict every feature event. i do not think that is a fair standard to hold them to. did we fail to understand and present as these things were happening? sure, we did. in my case was not for lack of trying. last book that cheney devoted, 2.5 chapters to the surveillance programs. what i broke my sword on was exactly what was the nsa doing that the justice department thought was such a big problem they were very nearly near resignation in march 2004. i could not figure it out. whether it edwards noted is a edward snowden--

it is a hero or whistle-blower, what he has done is unable a public debate in which we all get to participate in deciding how much power one government has. i would say this, this is taking place at a time when we are undergoing a cultural change in the country. and with the coming of the people of the- younger generation now put on facebook things that people my age would not have discussed in mixed company. people have the idea of privacy.

they did not believe much of anything or that the government tells them any -- -- anymore. i think that has to do with more than just the government running this program it has been running in. i think that has to do with a lot of things. on any given day i figure i am lucky if i understand 2-3% of what is going on around me in the u.s. government. if you go back over the past four-five years, the article i you go back to our coverage of the renewal debate. back to suspects and

the olympic games and use of offensive weapons and other weapons, and there are many other reporters to have broken very big stories along the way, i think there has been of very steady drumbeat. the only way you get these stories is by beginning to pull on the strength and hope that a little more of it unravels. we all go back to the old ronald reagan trust. not give us the information that helps us to verify because that helps us -- because that is somehow classified. it is very difficult to know exactly what the government -- ever met has done.

people that are supposed to be on the oversight committees a note. maybe they are right, maybe that is wrong, but that makes it very difficult to cover. here comes the microphone. i cannot help but think of dr. strange gloves doomsday but what good is this program if no one knows a bit about it? important thing here is i am 31. i voted for obama in 2008. definitely did not vote for him in 2012. this is the context of this is havingt obama this. my generation has a very hard

time believing traditional news outlets, politicians themselves. a degradation of public trust. for me personally and pretty much everyone i know. be talkedat needs to about more in the media. ?ow are we going to repair this what are your thoughts on that? >> it is interesting to bring that up. sometimes defined it as legitimacy, if you except the congress, and you say they are the press and say i can trust them. i am still working through this. i will give you the initial hypophysis. that the internet has had -- we saw this with a printing press -- new information available. they could read the bible and say i do not see any divine goinghere in we are

through the political effects of the internet. it is degrading the legitimacy of existing institutions. this could take a long time to work through. to go the other part of it is with the coming of the internet, most people whether they agreed with the editorial policy of the newspaper, they generally accepted what was on the news pages as the basic facts, because they generally accepted that mainstream media did a certain bidding -- that basically we did not print or broadcast anything until we had gone through some trouble to find out it is true. now you are overwhelmed with information from every corner. some of which is true and a great deal of which bears no resemblance to the truth. i can think that is one reason

is so difficult now and people have such questions about whether something is true or not. i i think that is part of it. >> you mentioned dr. strange luck. we have that " in it. nuclearalk about weapons, why can't we talk about the cyber stuff? a two-part question. the i s p service providers were acknowledged in the article, and so much data is available, was there in the impacts when this was made known to the public? was there any perceived impact based on the public demise of trust?

the second part of question is does my bill go up or down because of the use of my data? >> your bill has gone up and up, but it does not get charged in you never see it. is thel you are paying revelation you are giving to an enormous 30 billion plus industry of people you have .ever heard of like flurry it is the advertisement that works, marketing people. although it is true that ideas of privacy are now and people postings on facebook, we're not losing privacy primarily because of things we revealed. we are losing it because of things that are being done without our ability to

understand. you cannot say something that is factually untrue. i have recently been taking a look at what is happening behind your back, purely on the commercial side when you tap on and rebirth. on angry birds. all setu think we are for now after 9/11? >> [inaudible] ." emergencyas an appropriation for hundreds of millions of dollars to get bigger pots to put the data in and bigger computers to sift through it. there is some tax dollars. we are safer now

than we were on 9/11? would toappy because i a hacker conference and it said the nsa, free backup service. value.e getting some of valu [laughter] a you compare how it was bitter lesson but compare how things were to the 1990's and people were well-intentioned and trying hard and how they where now, we're better off. there are problems. there is no other way to do national level surveillance. i was in a huge exercise where we did not use communication surveillance and try to track terrorists and we could not find them. you put all the pieces together. nsa has their stuff.

all three agencies are talking. are we say? i leave that to you guys. lloyd hand had a question. comments and the question. i agree that a free and robust press as a synonym for a free society like ours. may it always be that way. on the other hand, i agree with what you said earlier about martin luther king and others to engage in civil disobedience took their medicine. they did not run off. ,ast i heard on pierce morgan and they were talking about greenwald. they said when the law says you knowingly publish classified information, that is a felony. did you note you were publishing

classified information? well, an entirely different kind of conversation. >> of course i knew i was publishing classified information. i put the stamps in the paper. there have been available series of prosecution for many years know, ine 1917, as you the espionage act under which a person who publishes information relating to the national defense, even if it is not classified and does not have a stamp on it, there are x number of active divisions in the army down the line that is relative to the national defence. there have been available to areas under which you could prosecute the report or newspaper for publishing that. there has yet to be any administration that thought that that would be the right call to make in terms of how we organize

the society, and if they did, then we would have an opportunity to test the constitutionality of the interpretation of the law that would apply it to first amendment protected activities. i am not a lawyer, and i am not at all cavalier about this, but it is true what david said that if you're going to cover foreign affairs or national security or public defense, it is very difficult to write almost any story that could not be interpreted as breaching the lines of us did not act. madekewise, the point was that they could and have always been able to make that choice. and question is it is true that snowden precipitated this debate. my question was, was it a

necessary way to precipitate debate, and it is important to keep in mind that all of these programs were legal. there was not in the legal aspect about it. congress enacted these laws and it is unfortunate that the congress did not go to the briefings or they would have learned more about it. i think one of the things that there should be more attention to is this congressional oversight. the fact that is it not true when they have the most recent briefing for the congress they unfortunately had it on friday afternoon and they all left town because they had to get back home? i think that is one thing that deserves a lot more publicity. >> in terms of oversight, this is extraordinarily complex stuff.

the way congress works and the way in fact senior executives work is every branch of government, you need a staff to advise you on it. it is a very small minority of members of congress who have staff with clearances to get the briefings. if you are not on the intelligence community and certain appropriations subcommittees, you do not have that. probably one in 10. that is one thing. is this illegal? according to every interpretation of the law that has happened so far what is happening is legal. lots of things that could be legal depended on what the law was, that we as a society might like to debate. right now we know now and did not know until now, the court has radically reinterpreted some of the features of the patriot act.

section 215, business sections. linet only a few times a do we -- times a year to use this to get business records. it used to be the interpretation that the facility for which you collected business records was a phone number or e-mail address, and now it is all of them. now it is the entirety of the call date today at the big companies. no one knew that they did that. sure if they decide to read that opinion that there will be very significant disagreement in the legal community about whether it is constitutional, but that cannot be tested right now. >> a very quick point. you raised the question was, do you need these kinds of revelations in order to have the debate? history suggests you probably do. jim mentioned we manage to have

a good debate about nuclear weapons, even though everything about nuclear weapons is classified. how we use them and where you keep them and so on and so on. we had a 25-year long debate that ended up in the human -- cuban missile crisis 25 years ago for the conditions against when we would use the case of nuclear trop -- nuclear weapons. in the case of offensive cyber, it has been the same thing. you have needed revelations in order for there to be a debate. so far a very small debate about whether or not we need to use this new class of weapon. as the stories departs, you would not have the debate unless people can stop and say, there

was a law that was written when the only data you could look at was an address on the outside of an envelope still apply in an area -- era where you were walking around with a cell phone and someone could figure out exactly where you are. the nature of the data is so much richer today that applying the law that was written 30-40 years ago may not make sense anymore. >> we have to end it there. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the house is back in this morning. coverage here on c- span. c-span 2, the senate will continue work on immigration legislation. majority leader read hopes to finish the bill by the end of the week. they are in this morning. we will have live coverage from the u.s. supreme court. the rule today on a couple of same-sex marriage cases. live coverage starts at 10:00 eastern. work, we will at talk with john duffy about financial regulations and the economy. then that she led jackson lee on that data collection program and the supreme court decision to strike down part of the voting rights act. as part of our spotlight on magazine series, we will discuss

rolling stones' recent article on colorado's decision to legalize recreational use of marijuana. plus, your phone calls e-mails, the supremen court's voting rights decision. host: good morning, everyone, this june 26, the final day of the supreme court's term with two rulings expected from the justices. this morning, both dealing with the issue of gay marriage. c-span's cameras are up at the court this morning, ready for a decision, and we'll continue our coverage throughout this morning with announcements expected from the court around 10:00 a.m. yesterday in a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled against section four of the 1965 voting rights act. we'll begin there this morning with your take on the court's decision. republicans,