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, 202-585-3881.

democrats, 202-585-3880. and independents, all others, 202-585-3882. also, send us a tweeter or post your comments on facebook. and you can email us, journal @c-span.org. we'll get to your phone calls here in just a second. but first, we go to the phone, supreme court reporter with bloomberg. greg, let's just begin with what part of the 1965 act did the justices strike down yesterday? guest: they struck down section four, but it's really about section five, and let me tell you what that is. that is something called the preclearance requirement that says that in all parts of 15 states, including pretty much the whole deep south, whenever they make a change to election rules, they move a polling place, they change district lines, enact voter i.d. law, they have to get federal approval, either from the justice department or from the federal court. and then what section four does

is it determines which states are covered by section five. the supreme court yesterday said that the coverage formula, which was based on outdated information, was based on voting data from the 1960's and 1970's, and that congress, if it's going to have a preclearance environment, has to do it based on current conditions, so it struck down section four. host: and it was a 5-4 decision. explain the case before the court. guest: the case before the court was a lawsuit challenging both section five and section four filed by shelby connie alabama, which is one of the jurisdictions covered by the preclearance requirement. it was brought about, actually, organized by the same people who brought the challenge to the university of texas affirmative action program that the court ruled on the day before. so this is basically an ideological issue, and it was a conservative group that was challenging the law. host: was this a surprise? guest: it was certainly not a surprise either based on the argument, where there was a lot of skepticism from the

conservative court, conservative justices, rather, or based on a does a few years ago in 2009 where the court basically warned, they reached -- considered the same issue, and basically reached a compromise that involved warning congress that we had real kearns about this law. we don't have to strike it down now, but we are concerned that it is outdated, and as part of the decision, chief justice roberts said we told you there was a problem, and congress didn't fix it, so now we're striking it down. host: is that unprecedented for the high court to say we're going to warn you, congress, but even though they felt the way that they felt, or at least five of the justices did, and they dent move forward at that time in 2009? guest: i wouldn't say it's unprecedented. the court certainly realizes that when it's striking down an act of congress, it's a big deal, and they don't want to do it unless they have to or at least they don't want to do it recklessly. and so, in this case,, you

know, the court was able to sort of suggest that we're not jumping to overturn this law, we're giving congress a chance to fix the problem. oftentimes you hear justices talk about a dialogue between congress and the court when you have questions that involve statutory interpretation, and that's sort of what happened here. host: the four liberal justices dissented. why? guest: well, they said, among other things, of course, the law was not outdated. justice ginsberg wrote that the defense, and she had several points. first of all, she said that the court was just not deferential enough to congress, that the 15th amendment laid out a big role for congress in ensuring that we don't have discrimination in voting, and the court should have been more deferential to that role. and then also, it's a factual matter. she said congress had ample evidence that voting discrimination remains a significant problem, and in particular, asdicons. host: advocates of the court's decisions say the voting rights

act is still in place, that the justice department has other parts of that law that it can use to follow up on state laws. what is within their power still? guest: that is certainly the case. the court left intact section two of the voting rights act, which is something that not only the justice department, the private entities can use when they have -- when they see an election practice they believe is racially discriminatory. it's just easier to prove a section five case than it is a section two case, and, in fact, because the justice department gets to preclear things under section five, it really has a major tactical advantage if it believes that something might be discriminatory. it can essentially stop it before it goes into place. host: what was the reaction from attorney general eric holder yesterday? what has he been doing as the attorney general leading up to now under the voting rights act

of 1965? guest: well, the voting rights act has been a pretty big part of the justice department's enforcement efforts. they have, among other things, stopped the voter i.d. laws in texas and south carolina, which were both jurisdictions that were covered, rpped section five. yesterday, the attorney general said that their voter i.d. law will now go into effect. it had been blocked. and so the attorney general and the president and members of the democratic party were all saying they were very disappointed in the decision, and there was a promise to try to get congress to move to do something to fix the problem that the court identified. host: and what were you hearing from proponents of that yesterday? what's the likelihood that congress acts? >> guest: well, as you and your viewers are well aware, it is very hard to get anything through this congress. chuck schumer, the democrat from new york, came out and said, look, there's just no way

we're going to get this passed while we have a republican-led house and while we have a filibuster -- while we don't have 60 democratic votes in the senate. there were some other democrats who were a little more optimistic, including harry reid and pat leahy. but there's no question, when we're talking about coming up with a formula that will identify which states are, in effect, the most discriminatory, that's going to be very much an uphill climb for any congress, and in particular this one. host: justice roberts noted during oral arguments, i believe, that if you look at the data now, massachusetts could be a state that would fall under this preclearance requirement. guest: right, and it depends on, you know, there's a lot of data in this case, and, of course, it depends on which pieces of data you want to use. he was talking about massachusetts, i've foren whether it was the voter registration requirement or the voter registration numbers or

turnout or both, and those are the criteria that the law says it uses, but just based on data from the 1960's and 1970's. now, the counter argument is the justice department says -- the obama administration said, look, all congress was trying to do here was reverse engineer. we knew which states it wanted to cover, and if you actually look at the data -- if you look at the data about violations of the voting rights act, either section two or changes that were blocked by section five, it really is the covered jurisdictions that have the biggest problem. alabama has much more significant voting discrimination problems than massachusetts does, if you look at those numbers, according to the justice department. host: all right. well, as we said, today is the last day for decisions from the court for this term. what are we expecting today? how will they rule on these two gay marriage cases?

guest: you're asking me how to rule only a couple of hours before it happens. i'll not make that prediction. but there's a real range of things the court could do. in both cases, they have procedural issues that would basically be an off ramp where they wouldn't have to get to the issue. they could decide they don't have jurisdiction. and at least in the case about california's proposition 8, a voter initiative that banned gay marriage, the court expressed a real reluctance to get to the measure its of it, and several justices, including chief justice roberts, said they were -- they were concerned about this issue about whether the defenders of proposition 8 had the right to appeal. so you could end up getting a nondecision there, one that would allow gay marriage in california, but not affect the rest of the country. and then the second case involves the federal defense of marriage act which denies benefits to legally married, same-sex couples. there was skepticism about that law during arguments.

clearly it's going to be a divided court with justice kennedy holding a crucial vote, but there are, as in the prop 8 case, some options for the court if they don't want to get to the central question in that case. host: greg stohr, bloomberg news supreme court reporter. thank you for your time this morning. appreciate it. let's get to all of you, get your take on this. we'll go to our first call in laurel, maryland, democratic line. go ahead. you're on the air. caller: i feel like crying. i think this is a disgrace that in 2013 they had found a way to turn back the clock. one step above slavery. the supreme court has given the tea party and all those utherners down there an ok that it's ok to take back their country, as they put it.

that's truly the way i feel. at 71 years old, and 45 years of nursing, this is a disgrace. host: do you think congress will act? caller: congress won't do a thing, honestly, honey. let me tell you something. they know congress, the situation we have now. they won't vote on a cup of tea. this is a shame for the u.s. of a. this -- wait a minute. what the supreme court has done behind mr. snowden, this make this country look like -- i can't even say it on tv. this is sad. host: all right. jim, virginia, republican caller. what do you think, jim? caller: yvonne needs to reread her history. yesterday the supreme court declared that the jim crow laws enacted and enforced by democrats had finally been eradicated, and that is an

amazing accomplishment. the v.r.a. was certainly appropriate for its time, but was extraordinary, and that's what the court said. and in this situation, the court said that in 1965, the congress had to come up with a formula to fit their predetermined outcome. your expert reporter just commented on that. now croppings is going to have to come up with a formula that may apply to places where the left would like to think there is no racial discrimination, but their drty little secret might just be revealed when an objective formula is applied. host: jim, what do you think? yvonne said she doesn't think congress will act. do you think congress will? caller: it will be interesting. i think the problem is that there's going to be a cohort that wants to continue to use the south as a whipping boy, even though the effects of racial discrimination have

largely been eradicated. certainly there are pockets where there are problems, but, you know, turnout in my jurisdiction, principally in virginia, was equal, if not a larger minority turnout. but, you know, there's also a cohort that's going to want to apply objective criteria, which might, you know, just gore the oxes of those who continue to want to hustle race to their own political benefit. host: all right. n twitter, we have this -- host: democratic caller. go ahead, cheryl. you're on the air. caller: good morning, greta. love your show. i sat here and cried yesterday, and i was ashamed for my country. i think it's really ironic that president obama is going to try to visit mandela while he's in africa. i hope he gets a chance to see

him. and the only thing that saved me from complete despair yesterday was when these wonderful fill buster in texas and obama's speech, because otherwise i would have just felt like this country had gone right to hell. host: cheryl, may i ask how old you are. caller: i'm a 62-year-old white woman in boulder, colorado. i remember when john lewis walked across that bridge, because i wanted to go down there with some friends and pay woirnts wouldn't let me go because i was too young. and while he was getting beaten up and attacked with dogs, they sat there and told me that they were right not to let me go, and i just can't believe we can forget our history like this. host: cheryl, did they believe in what john lewis was doing at the time, your parents? caller: oh, they really did. they were both democrats. they just knew that i was very naive, and they dent think i could handle the kind of violence that was going to be happening down there. they wouldn't let us out of the house.

host: all right. georgia, democratic caller. hi, dave. go ahead. caller: oh, yeah, this is real serious. i'm from the south, and i expanded up close and personal, i'm from georgia, the same state that this woman called from. this is the general attitude of people down here. they love the confederate. they know they love it, and they still feel this way about blacks. you know, also, blacks need to start looking at these so-called local white people. if they going to speak up, we have no one in the senate. if i was in the senate, i would filibuster, i would block everything that come until they renew this voting rights act. you have people going overseas to protect rights from these so-called freedom fighters. but in the united states, people like john mccain voted against the martin luther king holiday birthday. it's racial, and a certain age

limit in the united states, i think around 65, these in the south, these people raised separate, they were taught they were better than people. they are taught that we are -- we were treated worse than animals. and this feeling still exists. they want to give all these people these so-called rights to vote, and think about it. host: dave, on that point, these attitudes still exist, ron on twitter says, odd to see a black president and black attorney general claim the nation hasn't made progress on racial issues in the past 50 years. let me show you what attorney general eric holder had to say yesterday after the court made its decision. he held a news conference, did not take any questions from reporters, but made this statement. >> i am deeply disappointed, deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter . this decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of

americans across the country. let me be very clear. we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the supreme court's ruling by behindering eligible citizens' full and free exercise of the franchise. as the president has made clear, congress needs to act to make sure that every american has equal access to the polls. the department will also work with congress and other elected and community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination. because, on their own, existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today's supreme court ruling, and i am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of congress. host: attorney general eric holder yesterday responding to

the court's 5-4 decision to streak down part of the voting rights act yesterday. our cameras are up at the court again today, as we are expecting the court to announce two decisions on gay marriage. our cameras will stay up there. our coverage continues here on c-span. we're getting your thoughts this morning on the supreme court's decision yesterday on that voting rights act. the "baltimore sun" reports this by david savage, part of voting rights tossed. he writes in here the problem is decide which jurisdictions must seek preclearance. that formula has not been updated since the 1970's, and that, roberts said, unacceptable.

host: that's from the "baltimore sun" and david savage, a long-time supreme court reporter. jay in columbia, missouri, republican caller. jay, what do you think? caller: well, i'm a black man who witnessed black men standing outside of a voting booth with billy clubs, and i also witnessed a black attorney general saying that there's nothing to see here, move along. i want to know if that's civil rights. host: all right. doris, chicago, illinois, democratic caller. hi, doris. caller: good morning. i think these five extreme right-wing justices on the roberts court, this court can now be called the tanny court part two, and if people don't know what tanny court is, they need to look it up. if people think that conservatives believe in democracy and the democratic process, they need to watch the

che. be video of paul wey he founded alex. he said conservatives don't want everyone to vote, because when everyone votes, conservatives lose. alex is behind all of these voter suppression laws that the republicans in these states are bringing up and passing. i mean, just look at the tea party and all the voters, and everything they're doing in these states, and these are mostly the southern states that we have also in the midwest. you know, i'm sorry. republicans do not believe in democracy. they are anti-democracy. host: surprise? no, the nation is waking up to the fact that the federal court is not the master of the

states, federalism is alive. we're going to keep taking your phone calls, your tweets, your emails on this this morning as we tackle the supreme court's decision yesterday to void part of the supreme court -- part of the voting rights act in a 5-4 decision. first i want to give some other news. president obama yesterday making a speech on climate change. here's "the washington times" front page -- obama says fight will start with carbon gases. war on coal comments backfire. t says here that --

host: open also announced it would take climate change into consideration in its everyday operation. this could affect a range of ears, including bridge heights, flood insurance rates, and how the military gets electricity overseas. and then "the wall street journal" on that speech yesterday says the centerpiece is the first ever federal effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, the source of about 1/3 of such emissions in the united states. mr. obama's plan includes other measures meant to reduce emissions, including federal loan guarantees for cleaner fossil fuel energy projects, new fuel economy standards for heavy trucks, and greater cooperation between the u.s. and major economies, including china, india, and brazil. "the washington times" and many of the papers this morning have graphics showing obama's climate to-do list f. you're interested in that, let me show you "the washington times," what they put together.

new federal regulations on carbon die ox ice emissions, expanded permits for wind and solar projects on public lands, $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to spur investments in clean air technologies. the story comes as the "baltimore sun" runs on their front page this headline, "sea levels rising faster." a panel urges the state to prepare for a two-foot increase by 2050. and then in politics this morning, "the boston globe," their front-page story, markey keeps party's hold on senate seat. the long-time congressman will now fill the seat left by john kerry when he took on the role of secretary of state. gabrielle gomez, the newcomer, that in the "boston globe" this morning. then also, the senate yesterday confirmed chicago billionaire penny patriots kerr, she was confirmed as president obama's commerce secretary on a vote of

97-1. and then as one of our viewers told you earlier, president obama leaves today on a trip for africa, visiting several of the countries there. stories in the newspaper about his trip and what critics and proponents are saying about his african policy. we'll go next to new york, a republican caller. thanks for hanging on the line. what are your thoughts on the supreme court's decision yesterday and the voting rights act? caller: i believe the supreme court made the right decision. i know it's not going to be popular with civil rights organizations, but i want to tell you i'm an african-american. i'm a republican. i have absolutely no problem telling anybody that. things have changed. things have changed for the better. they will continue to get better. and it's well beyond the point where blacks can continue to depend on the federal government to get them to get off their lazy behinds and do what they need to do to become prosperous in the united states.

host: democratic caller, hello. caller: hello. i don't know what to tell you. i'm sad, but not shocked. this country has been turning this away for quite a while, ever since the lady said about alec, the tea party. the supreme court just did a job for them, their buddies. host: you think it was judicial activism? caller: yes, it was. a lot of the people on the supreme court are tea party people. one is married to a top tea party person. i mean, what else can be expected? i feel that people should remember john kennedy. he said that the rights of all men are threatened when rights of one man is diminished. there's a special hell being prepared for our country, and i hate to say that, but there's nothing that can be -- nothing good can come out of this.

i don't see how any black person could want to go to another country to fight for other people's rights when they don't have any, until the man who said about the white liberals, i'm black. we're all americans. that's the problem. we shouldn't be divided. white people went across that bridge right along with the blacks. remember, they were beaten too. one was killed. or two were killed. let's just try to stop this racism, because it is destroying america, and like i said, there's nothing good that's going to come out of america. nothing. host: beverly, the chief justice roberts and justice scalia all said that they felt progress had been made when it comes to voting rights and racism in this country. >> i really don't care what

either of them said. they're both tea party members. i could care less, and he want you to know, really, this is just payback for people standing in line for so long trying to vote, which is a democratic process. the major democratic process of america, without voting, there is no democracy. and so as far as i'm concerned, america is not a democracy. but i don't know where we're all over the country, all over form rld, trying to people about how great people are and how they want everyone to be equal, because we're not equal here. host: all right. justice scalia during the oral arguments made a point about the role of congress in reauthorizing every year the voting rights act, and i want to play a little bit of what he had to say during those february oral arguments. we covered them here on c-span. if you missed it, want to

listen go to our website, c-span.org. but listen to what justice scalia had to say. >> i think it is attributable, very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it's been written about, whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them to the normal political processes. i don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. and i am fairly confident it ill be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution, you have to show when you're treating different states differently that there's a good reason for it. that's the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have.

it's a concern this is not the kind you can leave to congress. host: we're getting your take this morning about the supreme court's decision to strike down part of the voting rights act in a 5-4 decision yesterday. the five justices voting to do that, and the four liberal justices dissenting on that decision. the "usa today" writes this, this morning, "section affects which states are subject to law." he said this is viewed by a savior -- host: david, your thoughts, in michigan, democratic caller. go ahead, david. caller: hi.

thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i'm outraged as an american. i was born an american first, not under a party. o we're all americans first. the crooked supreme court, and by the way, scalia sounds exactly like rush limbaugh when he talks. it's a perfect match. but getting to the point of this outrageous decision, they tried citizens united, which there was no reason for it other than to stack the deck for the republican party. they couldn't win under citizens united. so we're going to take the next step, and that's to take away the voting rights of americans, not a certain party, but americans. host: all right, dade. tickets are being handed out

right now for those that have lined up, the public that have lined up to get into the court's decision at 10:00 a.m. when they announce what they would like to do on two cases dealing with gay marriage. our cameras up there before the court this morning, and our coverage continuing on c-span throughout the morning. for those details, go to c-span.org. maverick on twitter has this to ay -- host: we'll take more about your comments about what the court decided yesterday. but i want to give you an update on immigration reform as it makes its way through the senate. the washington "time" has this piece this morning, slow going n that bill --

host: and then there's this -- g.o.p. and house leaves immigration bill in doubt. it says speaker boehner has no intention of angering conservative voters and jeopardizing the house republican majority in 2014 in the interest of courting spanic voters on behalf of a 2016 republican presidential nominee who does not exist.

host: in the meantime, there's a series of bills that include a border security bill and agriculture plan, and this week, measures to create a fortified eligible verification system and to expand immigration for science, technology, and engineering, and mathematic experts --

host: we're talking about the decision to void part of the voting rights act. our cameras are up this morning, and the public is making its way into the courtroom to hear from the justices how they will rule on two cases dealing with gay marriage. we'll go to phoenix, arizona, independent caller. you're up next. go ahead. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. well, i believe the supreme court made a very good decision. this is a very emotional situation, but they're ruling with their heads, and, you know, the country has changed a lot in the last four decades, and to have part four still in place based on things that were measured in the 1970's is ludicrous. so i think they're not being unfair, and they're not blind to continued prejudice. they're simply stating that we should evaluate the situation on the ground and actually use the current numbers to decide what we're going to do, and i think that's reasonable.

host: and what do you think of the prospects of congress getting together, the current numbers and changing the law to use updated information. caller: well, i think it's very good, because one of the justices, i forget who it was, said this is -- whenever we have these privileges or these things we put in place to protect minorities, it's not very popular to go against it. there's no reason to do it if you're in congress, because it's not going to get you the vote, and that's a good thing on this end, because congress has the impetus to do something, because people are outraged. they want some kind of action taken. so congress has a reason to do something based on that, and i think they will. host: all right. kim, columbus, ohio, democratic caller. what do you think? caller: well, i'm not surprised with the supreme court decision at all. i'm with the other man. i think with what happened in 2012 didn't work, they went to another one. the one thing i think, i think

this is probably a good thing, and only for one reason. because already my church that i'm a part of, 12,000 people near columbus, has already put out a thing that emergency meeting or voting rights, so this is within 24 hours. i think they'll start organizing it, because any time you tell us you're going to take our vote, when you do stuff obvious until our face, one thing don't work, you will try another, i think they're going to keep trying. i know this is a part of alec. i've accepted it. i think black people need to know that every two years, you need to get up and vote. that's just how it goes. so this is going to motivate us. i don't even think they got it in 2012, and i guess i'm glad they did, because now they just put fire up under us. host: all right, kim.

"the washington post" this morning has a map showing the required nine states and individual jurisdictions around the country to get federal approval before changing voting or election laws, part of the preclearance section, section five, to ensure they do not have a harmful impact on minority voters. so that's the map. those are the nine states and the jurisdictions. from papers across the country today, courtesy of the newseum, with their headlines that make it a local issue, let me show you the tallahassee democrat. it says the ruling means five florida counties cleared from the review. that's the "tallahassee democrat." also, in the hartford cower rant, key voting law altered. they don't consider the racial progress being made, the hartford courant. and then the "houston chronicle," it says texas ready to see i.d. at polls in the

wake of the landmark u.s. supreme court ruling today. texas attorney general pledged to immediately implement a controversial law requiring voters to show voter identification at the ballot box. that in texas this morning. and then the "detroit free press" has this headline, u.s. supreme court tosses a part of the law, and it says federal policy shift will have a direct effect on two michigan communities. that's the "detroit free press," all those headlines courtesy of the newseum in washington. rick, independent caller. hi, rick. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my tall. i think when the froth of the hysteria passes and people can actually read the decision, they will find this was long overdue. there's still section two and ther sections that can provide relief should discrimination raise its head for any federal election. it's amazing to me that you

have a supreme court justice talking about why congress keeps enacting and keeps prolonging this archaic measure. i do agree with the caller that said now there's the impetus to come up with a viable change. but i think if people will dismiss the talking points, you cannot possibly, possibly compare literacy tests and poll taxes to a voter i.d., either voting, which wasn't even in effect years ago. early voting is a new phenomenon. it doesn't discriminate against anybody. but having an i.d., you have to have an i.d. to go to the store. i mean, if people aren't mobile, the states will bring a camera out and create the i.d. right on your premise. so i don't think you can really equate poll taxes to having a voter i.d., early voting,

change the voting machines, for us to get free permission to do this in the age that we live in now is ridiculous, especially when you look at the voter turnout in those states compared to states like massachusetts, which was noted by the court in its opinion. anyway, it i'll hang up now and listen, and thank you very much. host: all right, rick, on twitter, wf a similar comment, the law was being abused to stop basic photo i.d. and proof of citizenship laws. glad to see it go. several opinion pieces in the paper today, john lewis, several of you have mentioned, the congressman from georgia, he writes in today's "washington post," come and walk in my views is what he has to say --

host: john lewis writing in today's "washington post." and then the -- from other editorial pages, this is what the "baltimore sun" has to say, a step back on equality. their view is gutting of the voting rights act is judicial activism at its worst.

"the wall street journal," though, voting rights progress. they say this, the supreme court rolls the clock forward on election law. that in "the wall street journal." and the "new york times" on the voting rights act, they disagree with the court's decision, and "the washington post," they say this, the umpires' foul call, justice roberts and his colleagues cast aside judicial restraint in the voting rights act case. "the washington times," though, restoring rights is what their editorial page says. states are more than secondary taxing districts. the high court did not invalidate section five of the voting rights act, which authorizes the preclearance requirement, but without section four, the other section is effectively rendered meaningless. unless congress enacts a new law to determine which jurisdictions would be covered for federal tutelage. the self-proclaimed ar bitters of civil rights, including vice president joe biden, have hadn't they will ask congress to do so. this was a good day's work by the supreme court, and congress

should not allow itself to be intimidated into attempting to resuscitate a corpse from the past. that's what washington this morning is saying about the supreme court's decision yesterday, 5-4, to void part of the voting rights act. what's your take? detroit, michigan, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: yes, i'm an african-american woman who's 67 years old. and i do recognize bias and racism. the supreme court is basically an elite extension of the tea party. racism is not gone in this country. racism is totally rampant in this country. the only thing that has protected us with the ability to vote is those laws. so now that supreme court has knocked down the law, and white people want to testify to the fact that it's no big deal. of course, it's no big deal to

them because they happen to be white. but believe me, this will not stand, and if we have to march for the next 10 years, we'll do that. thank you very much. host: all right. the "usa today" this morning, president lyndon johnson greets martin luther king, far right, and an activist after signing the voting rights act of 1965. it was passed by congress and signed by president lyndon johnson with martin luther king jr. nearby in the wake of the violence and blood shed that marked the 1950's and 1960's in the south. that in "usa today" this morning on that. and then the politics of this, "the washington post" reporters his --

host: texas, independent caller. phillip, you're our last on this. go ahead. caller: well, i think what the supreme court was saying is that the thing needed to be checked and reworked, and maybe it does need to be expanded into ohio and massachusetts and pennsylvania, because the main thing is the process of democracy, and i found it interesting that along with this show, you ran the story

that president obama has just send the e.p.a. to close the coal industry, which is what's going to happen when congress, which was elected by all the people in the country, voted against that. now that's democracy. what's happening is not democracy when it's executive order. so to preserve freedom, we've got to look at it from both ends, how the people are elected and what they can do and are constitutionally allowed to do when they are elected. host: so phillip, you hold congress responsible for this, not necessarily the court. caller: actually, i think congress could have done something about it. they actually did. lyndon johnson got the help of the republicans, and they passed this thing, remember? now, what has happened is congress is losing its authority. the states are losing their authority, and where is the authority going to? now, when you have this voting rights act, what you're giving the authority to enforce it besides what's going to be ok for their past, it goes to the executive under the attorney

general, so he decides which ases are going to be pushed. host: we'll talk about that, climb change and other issues, coming up with wisconsin congressman sean duffy. he'll join us to discuss all of those issues and the big issues facing his house committee this week. he's on the joint check and financial services. and then later, we'll continue the conversation about the supreme court's ruling today, struck down the voting rights act, section four of that, with texas representative shiell i can't jackson lee, right after this break.

>> this sunday, american history tv, commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> this is one of the very few confederate regimental monuments in the field. the other exceptional thing about this monument is the unit that it represents. this regiment comes into the battle with just over 800 men. they have not been in many serious hard fighting engagements yet, so they have not taken many casualties yet. but they fight on the side of the hill, the afternoon of july 1. two days later, the afternoon

of july 3, they're in the middle of what we today call the biggest charge. these north carolina troops attacking with the virginians and with others to participate in that attack. the next day, july 4, when these assemble these units together, the regiment, having gone into the battle at the start, with just over 800 men, can only assemble about 100 men still surviving, still capable of fighting. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday begins at 9:30 eastern with historians hroughout the day, including 5:30 calls and tweets. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris kearns goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession.

"washington journal" continues. scommoip we're back with congressman sean duffy, republican wisconsin, serves on two economic committees, actually three, financial services, joint economic, and budget. i want to talk to you about the economic impact of what the president has posed on climate change, plus your committee hearing. but first, let me get your take on the voting decision yesterday. we're talking to our viewers this morning. people are saying congress should act on this. that's what the supreme court said. you're using data from the past. if you want to do something about this, you can. guest: and i think congress will act. i think the supreme court has acknowledged that we've had changes in the last 40 years in the way our voting system works, and it's time for an update. they passed the ball to congress, and i think you'll see both the house and senate act and make sure we have an updated law. host: how will congress act, though? i mean, people are writing this morning analysis pieces that politically, it's just -- and

the sensitivity of the issue, too, it's going to be difficult for congress. caller: and we're used to difficult issues, and we're used to some issues that don't get bipartisan support. but i think in this one, i think we're going to be able to come together and have hearings, have a debate, have a conversation about how we should update this law, and what is the best for america. i mean, the bottom line is we want to make sure every american has a right to vote, and i think we'll be able to, in a bipartisan fashion, move legislation through that accomplishes that goal. what it will look like, i can't tell you right now. we'll have to work that process. but i think there's a will on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers, to make sure we get legislation that will address the problem now that the supreme court has kicked back to us. host: ok. let me move on to climate change. front page of the papers this morning, here's "the washington times," obama says climate fight will start with carbon gases, and he's saying that the e.p.a. will rule on this. what impact do you think this has? >> first of all, i think we have to acknowledge, what is the president doing? this is cap and trade.

this is a war on energy. it's a war on coal. and in essence, i think what's going to happen here is you're going to see energy costs increase. the president has acknowledged that. and in the place that i live, i flive central and northern wisconsin, we have people that are going through tough times. we have people who have lost jobs in their families. they've had to take decreased wages, lower hours because of this tough economy. they're having a hard time making ends meet, and to see their energy costs go up, and the utility bills is going to be a huge problem for them. this is not just a war on cole, it's a war on lower income americans. i think what we have to do is get ourselves to a point where can get to more renewable energy rsourks but we're not there yet. we're going to have to rely on our current energy sources, whether it's coal, natural gas, oil, until we get there. and right now, if you look at what we have going on, we have the greatest resources right now.

we've seen an expansion with new technology. what does this mean for america? it means more jobs, more revenues going into our federal coffers, and it breeds energy independence from some parts of the country, some parts of the world that don't like us very much. and so i'm a little perplexed by the president's plan. the president talks about how he's in touch with the american people, how he understands our flight and our difficulties w. this move yesterday, i don't think anything speaks louder that the president doesn't understand the tough times that americans are in, because if he did, he wouldn't have done this. host: he has to talk about the keystone x.l. pipeline and said that he will not go forward with that, extending the pipeline, if it's going to cause an increase in emissions. what do you think that says about how he plans to rule? guest: well, we've known this for some time, he's opposed to the keystone pipeline. we have 25,000 jobs created just by building it. it's a secure north american energy source, and if we don't take that energy, the canadians

have talked about building a pipeline to the west coast and sending that energy to china. i disagree with the president's policy here. but i think just because you wish new renewable energy sources were available and prevalent, that's one thing. but if they can't meet the demand today, i just -- i'm frustrated, because i see the impact this has on the people that i represent in wisconsin and across the country, and it's going to have a negative impact. host: explain that a little bit more. guest: in wisconsin, over 50% of our electricity comes from coal-burning plants. the number is 62%, i believe. and if you have a war on coal, you're going to see the electricity costs go up for every middle class, lower class, or low-income wisconsin family. when that happens, at a time when they can least afford it, it becomes very challenging for them. this is also at a time, look at what's happened in the grocery store. prices have gone up in the grocery stores. prices have gone up in the gas pump. now the utility bills are going

up as well, which causes more hardship for american and wisconsin families that they can least afford right now. host: can republicans respond to the president and try to stop him when it comes to the e.p.a.'s decision? the court said, supreme court said e.p.a. has the authority to rule, to make these type of rulings under the clean air act. guest: we'll analyze that internally and see what kind of move we can move, but i think it's also telling that the president tried to push through cap and trade early in his administration, and it failed in the house and senate. if you actually ask the representatives of the people, they said no to this proposal. and instead of now going to congress, he's acting unilaterally. host: one tool senate republicans could have is to block his nominee to head the e.p.a. should they do that? caller: i'll leave that to the senate. to comment on this is futile for the house. they're a little bit frustrated with us, so i'll leave that to them. host: let's hear what the president had to say. >> i know there's been, for example ark lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to

build a pipeline, the keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from canadian tar sands down to refineries in the gulf. the state department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. that's how it's always been done. but i do want to be clear. allowing the keystone pipeline to be built requires the finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. and our national interest will be served, only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. the net effect of the pipeline's impact -- the net effect of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. host: congressman duff snie guest: i couldn't disagree more. we talk about the national interest. if you ask americans what's their biggest concern, the

biggest concern is the economy and jobs. and so if you look at the key stone pipeline and the energy that comes into america, we're going to see a decrease in the cost of energy with a greater supply, whether it's the drilling we're doing offshore or the energy we're getting from north dakota or the energy we'll get from canada. when we have low energy costs, it gives us a net benefit when we look at manufacturing, because low energy costs give us a competitive advantage to those who are in other parts of the world. not only does it create an issue with access to cheap energy, it also has an impact on our ability to be competitive on a manufacturing sector, which is a big job growing portion of our economy in the midwest. i think the president is missing the boat. i think he's out of touch. maybe there's too many presidential vacations. but people in tough times, they want jobs. they want cheap energy. and his policy is absolutely contrary to those principles. host: let me put one more issue on the table. immigration reform, do you

support a pathway to citizenship? guest: what i support is this, securing the border, number one. number two, if we secure the border, i want to makes sure we have a pathway where people can get out of the shadows, they can have a legal status, they can be here legally. we're not going to separate their families. they can move back and forth between their country of origin and america legally. and then i don't think, if you've broken our laws, that you should have access to our benefits system, whether it's social security, medicare, or now obamacare that comes down the pike. and then if you are out of the shadows and you have some form of legal status, you can get to the back of the line and apply for citizenship, just like any other person around the world. but i think those are the steps we're going to have to go through to make sure we have immigration reform. i think if you talk to those who come illegally and you told them we had a bipartisan proposal to actually secure the border and take them out of the shadows and not separate their families, they would applaud that all day long going this is fantastic. host: does the senate bill,

expected to be voted on today, that is this border surge amendment, this deal brokered by senators hovan and corker, which they agreed to move to on monday does, that satisfy you then all the requirements you just laid out? guest: here's what we'll do in the house. i think we'll look at the senate bill for what it is. we will have the housework its will. we'll move our own legislation through the house. if we do the things that i talked about, i think we'll get that kind of legislation through the house, go to conference and figure out a compromise. we're not going to pick up the senate bill. we're going to do our own work in the house. host: the "new york times" story this morning says that he also says in his piece that john boehner does not want to risk angering conservative republicans. does your view differ than some of your other conservative colleagues in the house? guest: i got to tim, i'm not sure where the it was will be, but i think if you're going to get a majority to come together to support some kind of

immigration reform, the first issue you have to address is the bothered. we looked at what happened in 1986, where you had some form of amnesty with the president, president reagan, and the issue wasn't resolved. we're dealing with it again 25 years later. if we're going to address immigration, we want to do it one time. we want to do it now. that means we have to secure the border and deal with those who came here illegally. i think if you have those basic steps, and this is 30,000, i think you can find agreement within the house. host: does it happen before the 2014 election? guest: i think you're going to see movement in the house relatively soon. host: final passage before 2014 election? guest: we'll see. host: why not? guest: well, listen, i hope so. but this is a debate where you see people fall on all different sides of the aisle, but i think it's very possible we can have a bill out of the house actual this will year and o to conference.

they need to be taken out of the shadows, and you have, i think, a bipartisan agreement to that. i think they would applaud that and say take that deal and run with it. and so i hope we have cool minds on both sides of the aisle that can come together and figure out how do we have sound immigration reform, and also deal with people who have come here and built their lives here, though maybe not through the correct channels, but they're still here, we want to deal with them fair, and i think we can do that. host: loretta has been waiting to talk to you in mississippi, independent caller. loretta, thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i was calling about the voter about, the supreme court that got passed. i've seen in dallas, texas, many people are full of judging

people by the color of their skin. i see that a lot. i judge a person by their character, not the color of their skin because i cannot see and if you should have a id to get cigarettes and beer, you voted guest:id to gue i think you make a good point. times have changed. we see concerns brought up on both sides of the aisle like she just mentioned. there were stories about black panthers harassing some voters at different polling places. we want to make sure that everyone has a right to vote and vote one time. we want to make sure that we set up a system that allows that to happen. sent theme court has

ball to the house and the senate. we will act and i think we can come together and strike the balance. host: from twitter -- we have heard a lot our conversation about cutting jobs and we have not seen them actually develop. if you want to see job growth, look to north dakota. the western part of north dakota is a boom region and it is coming from energy. we know that american energy sources, whether it is coming through natural gas or oil or the keystone pipeline, will breed job growth and bring in a lot of revenue growth to help us pay down our debt but there has been no data that would indicate the green job revolution has come to fruition. host: anthony, kingston, new york, republican column. caller: i wonder how the people and the government can take such time and care and with programs that have to spy out americans

but not take time to open a basic physics book and realize that 105 feet of free-fall of buildings on 9/11 would be impossible unless explosives were used to bring it down. there are people out there that have that viewpoint that there has been an organized effort by some and his group to call into our show and talk about that issue. what is your take? guest: don't buy into a conspiracy theory on 9/11. there is a lot of us who have concerns about the nsa program and its impact on americans and the balance between giving our federal government tools to protect americans from potential terrorists but also to protect our civil liberties and rights and there's a balancing act we have to do. for what i have seen, i think there has been an overreach. into a ♪ our civil liberties

and we have to figure out how to get this back into balance where american information still protected and we have tools in the federal government to protect us from terrorist. a web site is called architects and engineers fort 9/11 truth. caller: my name is cecil. i have several things that i have heard this morning that i would like to respond to. irst of all, on energy, think we are interested in the cost of energy but we have to be aware of the cost of global warming. and the increasing ferocity of whether that is coming from that. about jobs and money to have jobs -- we are blocked toutingt by the radical

of economic benefits to the very wealthy and it has cost two massive financial crises in the last eight years. we continue the very same thing. as a matter of fact, 1929 is -- was being repeated in 1977 and accelerated when president reagan the -- came into office. then president george w. bush really put the final kibosh on it. i'm talking about the core institute of the united states government, congress should get their act together and realize that science is right about climate change and, also, that ascannot have extreme wealth

the justice said and as have extreme wealth and have democracy also. not -- west, we will have waited we need a vibrant middle class for it when we have a separation between the haves and have-nots, that is a problem. cecil goes to the conversation on energy and if you want to see job growth in america, go look at the energy sector. these are good paying middle class jobs in wisconsin, we have folks who have lost employment. they are going to north dakota because there is just a north dakota from energy. if you want to see an expanding middle class and job growth, we will see it in the energy sector whether it is federal leases that are pushed through or the keystone pipeline. it is a benefit for those who seek jobs but also that brings in more money into the federal coffers to help pay down our

debt. it also breeds energy independence and we will stop shipping american dollars to parts of the world that don't like as much and we can produce that energy right here in america. i don't say i don't want to move to a cleaner energy source but i acknowledge we are not there yet. it will take us some time to bridge to cleaner and more portable energies and until that time, the president saying he wants to have a war on coal when that's where we get our electricity and he will drive up the costs? that is in st.. i absolutely disagree with them. caller: independent caller is next. am a 72-year-old conservative voter who is so disgusted with the republican party and have been ever since the bush administration. come onrepublicans to there consistently, not just your program, and constantly said the same thing -- he never

said or and energy. this is absurd. but say is not there yet the reason is not there yet is because we cannot have a common goal in our congress and senate to get their. i am absolutely, positively ticked about politics anymore and i hope that maybe young people like this congressmen would do something or say something different but they have the same thing to say over and over. guest: i appreciate your passion. we just disagree. i know that job growth is not coming from when bells and wisconsin. it is coming from coal right now and receive the job growth is not coming from that sector. it is coming from the jobs out of north dakota right now. if you look at the evidence right now, the evidence would

lead us to the energy sector for that job growth and for energy independence. we don't have the technology yet to do what she asked us to do. yet to ignore is that and work towards an end goal of being more efficient but recognize that we're not there yet and we need the coal other fossil fuels to get to that point. host: from twitter -- guest: that could be one component of any reform bill. we talked about e verify. i think that issue will go away if we are able to actually have a vibrant work of these a program. if we have a need of a certain sector in our economy, we have a need to get those people into these country and go back to their country of origin of there is no need for them to go back to -- to come across the border illegally host: from twitter --

guest: we don't think the president's jobs bill will create jobs. we believe economic growth and job growth comes from the private sector. in our conversation this morning, it could not be any more convincing when the president wants a new captain trade system which drives up the cost of energy which texas less competitive on the manufacturing front and makes the cost of heating ones, and using electricity expensive. i think the president has missed the boat when he said it wants to raise taxes on americans and american businesses, small businesses that employ our businesses. so my people on his side of the aisle say this is not the right way to go for economic growth and job creation. turns had five years to this economy around. this has been one of the longest and lamus recoveries since the great depression and a lot of it goes back to his

policies. look at obama care coming out this year. i get calls from employers talking about of their premiums will go up possibly 60%. i think you will only continue and that will not help create jobs. that will cost jobs in america. i don't buy into the president's jobs plan. i think a lot of the things he has done have cost as jobs in america. host: what is the republicans jobs plan? guest: it is to say let's have an effective tax rate, reforms tax code, where it is fair and flatter and simpler to use. we look at american energy sources and pursuing those which drive energy costs down which makes american manufacturing more competitive. with a couple of simple procedures -- looking to our private sector to grow the economy as opposed to government growing the economy, i think we will be far better off. host: a few economic headlines today in the papers.

and what is their current economic situation? the federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, last week said things were looking good and they will pull back a little bit on what we have been doing. guest: i think we're going in the right direction. we are moving into formal job growth but i don't think we're moving fast enough. it is at a slower pled repay spend additional -- historical recoveries. mr. bernanke's comments have caused a stir in the marketplace. i think we're still trying to figure out what he will do with

quantitative easing. many on my side of the aisle have had concerns about the quantitative easing and the size of the fed balance sheet and the difficulty it will cause the fed to unwind the balance sheet and the pain that will come from it. i think we will see some of that come to fruition today as the fed starts to talk about reducing its bond buying. host: this is the headline in "the financial times." this shows more in the positive and that could put less pressure on the fed to pull back on inflation rates and keep them the little bit lower guest: some would argue that to have a housing sector that is starting to move again. there is more cells taking place and we have our construction and home sector starting to increase as well which is a positive. those folks would say at the start of this recovery in housing, it does not make sense for the fed to pull back right now. to be clear, chairman bernanke

was not talking about pulling back today. he was talking about an improving economy and what he is looking to next year. host: the financial services committee, which use it on, will be hearing testimony about the dodd-frank, too big to fail legislation. you would hear testimony from a former fdic chairwoman shield bair, and thea federal reserve bank president, the former one. what will you ask what is the hearing about? titled to deals with orderly liquidation where if we have a large financial institution that has been designated too big to fail, how they are taken into receivership from the fdic and then wound down. a lot of us believe that is not going to work if we have a financial crisis like we had in

2008. we don't think liquidation authority will work. that is what our concerns. forjudicial review process being taken into receivership, we don't think there is an appropriate review process in the courts for those companies that object. the concern theto fail, you have federal taxpayers stepping in and bail in a massive financial institutions and we want to make sure that does not happen again. if we don't think dodd-frank necessarily address is that and i think we will have a committee discussion about how the orderly liquidation of three works and how title two works and a conversation -- if we want to stop institutions that are too big to fail. we don't want the american taxpayer to the backstop and what do we do to accomplish that? many of us are moving toward capital institutions for these

companies that they can meet any financial crisis. happen.l crises they will happen again but we have to make sure we are prepared for the next one. host: we will be covering the hearing here on c-span. go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. louisiana, democratic caller, hi there. caller: i want to congratulate the congressman. brothers that he has read memorize the republican line perfectly. i agree with the republican lady who called in who is disgusted with the way the republican party is operating nowadays. they are against everything, everything that might move this country forward. that's all i have to say, thank you. guest: i appreciate your call. ie things that i talk about, know the truth.

they are policies that will turn our economy around. you look at this new progressive liberal movement that looks at a growing and expanding influence -- influential government, that concerns a lot of us. we want a free people that are able to govern themselves, that don't have massive into winces from the government. we believe in smart rules and regulations. i think a perfect example of a growing, massive government is with the irsened were you have an agency that is targeting americans for their political views and beliefs. it is a sign of a government that is out of control. it is not in its traditional form and placed craig would you have that kind of scandal happening with the irs, you don't have the fbi investigating it and you don't have a government that is outraged to root out those bad actors. this is a sign of a government that is too big, too expensive,

and out of control. host: "the washington times"is reporting an update on the irs. from twitter -- guest: the reason they create more jobs it is it is american energy that is cheaper and gives is that competitive advantage in regard to manufacturing. we use a lot of energy and manufacturing so that is important. also in the production of these energy sources, that is also american jobs and american revenue toward our federal coffers. it is the synergistic and working well when we want to have rising wages, they can be offset by decreased energy costs and you have this synergy between those two competing forces with american energy which is a net positive for

american manufacturers that will put us back in the game global manufacturing. caller: congressmen, i think you're hearing people from both sides of the aisle that are clearly skeptical about the positions that you claim to have and you are bringing to the table. this congress has blocked, even just nominations, blocked -- that is in the senate -- the house rejected everything, taking a position that is opposite the president on everything he has tried to do and you open up by saying you want to see that everyone has an opportunity to grow. skeptical because right now the demographics are going against the republican party. i am a former republican. i was a supporter of ronald reagan. the demographics are going against the republican party or all minorities, women, are moving away from the republican

party and it is to your advantage, to your advantage, to try and make sure that those people cannot vote. that is so you can retain your position in congress. host: get a response. guest: i want to make travel and has a right to vote but they will need a boat -- a right to vote one time. you can find bipartisan support for that movement. you talk about big legislation -- the president was able to get dodd-frank through and we see that at the start of next year, we have qualified mortgage will come into effect where mortgage bankers are going to be held civilly liable for the loans they make and will do an analysis on a borrower's ability to repay. you will only see have the mortgages -- half the mortgages made today will be made after january of 2014 grid it is a problem created by dodd-frank.

obama carol come into effect later this year and into next year and you will see rates rise for those providing insurance to their employees. the government does not work for americans. wants to president have a cap and trade system of energy ofost four americans it we don't think that works for our constituents and i will push back on those policies to make sure i have a system and government that works for the people. host: from twitter -- guest: i believe that if we have a system in place that puts america on a trajectory of balance, we will need to raise our debt limit to the point where we can balance.

with the republican budget we , the budgetyear balances in 10 years. you have to raise the debt limit for 10 years to get to that point. one of our concerns is when you have a government that continues to borrow and spend, we owe $17 trillion, we are borrowing less than $1 jillian per year, if there is snow and insight and the president wants to consent -- borrowing less than 01 dollars trillion per year, and there is no end in sight, if we get to an agreement, i am in favor of raising the debt limit so we can get to balance. host: have you voted in favor in the past? guest: i have. amarillo, texas, republican column. caller: i would like to ask congressman duffy, i am concerned on the immigration bill. as 40% andd as few as many as 75% of the hispanic illegal aliens will not sign up

for citizenship. what will the penalty for those people who want to stay in our country illegally? guest: we want to take people out of the shadows and you are right, i have heard statistics where some of these folks who have not come here with proper documentation, they don't want to be citizens. they want to move back and forth from america to their homeland. we want to make sure we have a system where we treat people fairly and do that separate families. we will acknowledge the problem that is created a 11 million people not documented but we want to stop that problem in the future which means border security. host: this is from "the national journal" from yesterday

what are your constituents telling you? guest: there is a concern that these folks have come to america, broken our laws, and now they get rewarded with citizens is a ship for breaking the laws. that is the concern i hear. that is why i think you can find an agreement with people by saying secure the border, come out of the shadows, you'll not round people up and send them back, they are here, they have families here, let them stay but if they want to become citizens, they have to get to the back of the line like anyone else around the world wants to come to america. if you set out those parameters, we will find more republicans ready to get behind that kind of plan. people who have been here for 25 years or they have a child who is here that came here at two- years old, have no connection with their home country and we

want to be compassionate with folks. i think they will buy into that but they're concerned about the end game of rewarding people for breaking laws. there is that concern and there is a concern that people who come here illegally will buy into this entitlement system. a depletingp resource that americans have paid for. they are concerned about the entitlement system and those who have come here legally getting those benefits. host: republican line, charles. caller: i did not get an answer to the question of penalty of those who do not apply to citizenship. guest: we are not going to have a citizenship component. except for the one that currently exists and to go to the back of the line. they don't get a pathway to immediate citizenship because they have come here illegally your question is not one that we

are actually looking at addressing. let's get one last phone call, birmingham, alabama, democratic column. caller: i am concerned about the xl pipeline which is the most corrosive oil you can have. it comes from tar sands, high in sulfur, and it is the thing that you cannot deal with until it is not an oil products. to put it in the pipeline and of the oil in the pipeline, you have to inject it with steam and it comes under high pressure which is hard on the pipe and causes more leaks. the oil has a lot of sulfur in that that is very corrosive. look at all the leaks on the pipeline that have had so far anything that oil touches is dead. the trees, the soil, everything, you cannot grow anything on it.

it is just like the kalamazoo river. it has killed all the fish. theas created dead pools united states. we don't need that xl pipeline. we have oil a year but it is how we manage this. host: to get an answer. guest: if you want to support opening of more federal leases to explore additional american energy, i am in favor of that. we see a lot of folks who say i don't want any fossil fuels used in the form of energy. in america or from canada. then we will get energy from places that don't like is very much. we sent dollars to those countries and they are used for nefarious purposes against america. i am a believer that if we can build a keystone pipeline and explore american energy within the 48 states off our continental shelf, i think we will be better off and it will

create jobs and drive more revenue into the federal coffers and we want to keep those dollars from going to places that don't like this. i think this is a great jobs bill and a great american security bill. host: thank you for your time. coming up next, we'll turn to our conversation about the supreme court decision yesterday to strike down part of that voters are rights act with sheila jackson lee, dick -- democrat of texas and then our weekly spotlight and magazines continues and we will talk with "rolling stone"a system editor about his latest article on marijuana. here is a news update -- the cutbacks in military spending -- the army says it is trying to ease the effects of downsizing at a dozen combat brigades by spreading it around. in an announcement today, the army says the 10 installations include kentucky's fort knox which is losing the third

brigade combat team first infantry division. the downsizing of combat divisions comes in the face of steep spending cuts and the wind down of two wars. turning to international news, australian prime minister has been ousted as labour party leader by her predecessor, klevin rudd. they hope to avoid a huge defeat in the upcoming elections. this makes mr. rudd lead your of the party but not prime minister. party officials says the prime minister lost 57-45. an update on the nsa leaker from the ecuadoran foreign minister. he is telling the world not to hold its breath waiting for a decision on asylum for mr. ed word snowden. the foreign minister says the decision could take months the prime minister -- the minister said he did not know what they would decide because it could hurt trade with united states.

those are the latest headlines on cspan radio. ,> had there not been a sherman like maybe would have been dominated but he would not have won the election. he went on to defeat, 50 percent sought -- 56% of the popular vote and george mcclellan had a lot of momentum in september and was writing a letter to sherman and others as if he expected to become president of united states and suddenly, sherman to atlanta, and for one week he did not say where. -- he did not say word. william tecumseh sherman save the union effort i cannot think of anybody in the time who could have done that. >> military historian victor davis hansen talks about five generals he says singlehandedly reverse the direction of the war to their country's favre, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern.

"continues. journa: host: our cameras are in front of the supreme court awaiting the decision by the sub -- by the justice is dealing with the issue of gay marriage. you consider a public outside the court and have been allowed inside. our cameras will be up there to cover the announcement by the justices and the press conferences that take place usually right there before those microphones after the announcements are made. we want to come back inside are still were congresswoman sheila jackson lee is back at our table, a democrat from texas, to talk about what the court digester day. guest: good morning. host: 85-4 decision to strike down section four of the voting rights act. what was your thoughts? guest: my voice was joined by throngs of americans who were frustrated, enormous the disappointed.

having sat in the courtroom, i know that our proponents, our advocates, our lawyers, did an excellent job of indicating that there was a constitutional promise for continuing the reauthorization of the voting rights act of 1965. i sat on the judiciary committee a few years ago. this decade, it is not yet a decade, where we listened and secure a 15,000 pages of that addresses section 2, 3, and five and the court continued with section 5 and the promise there is discrimination in voting and there's a need for by-clearance am now live post-clearance era which means injury will occur and then we have to remedy the injury. it will be cleared after you have been injured. the difficulty i have with the decision of the court is it was hypocritical. it acknowledged discrimination

and get it literally talk the legs of the chair out from under us by finding section four unconstitutional. host: chief justice roberts said it was unconstitutional because of the data being relied on guest: i think " the new york times"and others should do their homework most. people don't realize their counties in michigan and counties in new york -- that is

new coverage. we looked at the basic structure of the voting rights act in terms of that history of discrimination then we took current testimony. those 15,000 pages are not 1970 testimony. we took current testimony, current research to determine that much of the framework of discrimination, the intimidation and fear, still existed. if the court wanted to put a fix in an equally acknowledge that section 5 was valid, which they did, they could have continued the enforcement and directed congress to hold additional hearings in order to further embellish section four or continued section four enforcement and allowed the opportunity for the jurisdiction to be able to prove that they should be able to opt out. that would have been a better

focus than what we have today. in my own state, within minutes of the court's decision, our attorney general indicated that the voting rights is back in place the very same one that had been judged to be discriminatory. and it is. it would block, if you will, thousands upon thousands of seniors and hispanics from the voting booths based on the inaccessibility to secure voting id or the inability to pay for it. it is discriminatory and it is burdensome. within minutes of the decision, the whole safety net of voters in texas and elsewhere crumbled. host: from "the houston chronicle."

guest: in our senses, where the state grew exponentially based upon african-americans-hispanic growth, true representation does not occur. they are trying to steal it based on the control of our state legislature which is controlled by republicans. it is not as partisan, is denying votes. you can interview any number of hispanic representatives in texas and they will acknowledge the misfortune of having lost a number of seats because of the present reconfiguration. i think the basic premise is that voting rights is for everyone. i don't see color and voting rights. and discrimination, as far as i'm concerned, is heinous in preventing americans from voting. you want to insure that you have the right to vote and you are legally able to vote. supreme courttes

took a partisan vote rather than maintain the constitutionality of section four and five and putting the on providing a contract or asking congress to add another section which provides the opportunity for jurisdictions to make their case to opt out. and make it more stringent or able for those to opt out in current form in terms of what they are doing now. the would have allowed enforcement to continue so that we have protections. we have no projections now. as my frustration with the decision. host:

guest: that's absolutely incorrect in terms of that interpretation. --n the justice department let me complement both president obama and attorney-general holder for strong forceful statements that indicated they will continue to protect rights of all americans in their right . it is after the fact enforcement which means you have the ability itsue once it is determined is impacting the rights of all voters. section four with section 5 is preventative and must be pre- cleared. it gets in the way of undermining a precious right to vote. i had a great deal of emotion yesterday because i know of all of the people lost their lives and there were people who loved america. they're all different colors and religious backgrounds.

the civil rights movement was not a black movement in totality. it brought people from all or the country, all of their work in vain. history matters. the voting rights act did, by its nature, basing itself on long years of history. when you makeong determinations on the law. the supreme court has many other remedies. could have suggested that congress look entirely at the entire nation. they could have pointed to a more structured way of opting out to have a more regular order of opting out but not take the teeth out of enforcement. the other sections did not equal what section four involved. host: harry reid yesterday put out this statement -- what do you think the reality

is? will congress act on this legislation? if so, how will congress act? guest: let me thank majority leader harry reid in the senate and they are making their way through a difficult immigration reform. let me thank them for their comments. i would ask my leadership to be forceful in the house by making a statement because we have built upon that in the house. we have real authorized this in a bipartisan manner. the member john conyers and others worked diligently with hearings. that's how we developed 15,000 pages that really supported the continuation of section 5. i intend to ask our leadership and a senior member of the dish jury leadership to raise the question of our leadership on

that committee. thee did before, i imagine deusen steering committee is the lead committee on this matter. -- the judiciary committee is the lead committee on this matter. i will proceed with hearings around the country to allow other jurisdictions to raise their voices as to why they should be covered and others who may have a difference of opinion. i would say that this is so important. the vote to so prescience to citizens of united states that we should not be, in any way, dilatory or obstruct or ceased to plan now hearings that may start as early as july to begin to fix a system that is going to impact voting in 2013 and 2014. host: max from birmingham alabama, republican column. caller: thank you for taking my call. i understand that the last push for elections was to make sure that some boasted not count and there was so much controversy

over the voter act and the picture id. world revolves and you having a picture id. there is three years until the next election. for theuch of a push black people to not have to show a picture i.d.? guest: i don't think there is a push for black people not to show a picture id if the picture ideas considered an obstruction to the open access to sisson voting, no matter what their background, that is the test for the test is whether or not it obstructs an individual from voting. if it is both difficult to secure borders the requirements for securing a voter i.d. is onerous and burdensome such as requiring birth certificates for many minorities, older citizens in particular, who do not have a birth certificate such as my late mother who did not have a

birth certificate as much as we tried to find one. i can assure you that she was born in the united states of america. and many others face that who otherdwife births are types of circumstances that did not cause them to be able to find their birth certificate, even asking the jurisdiction in which there were born in. the issue is not just having a picture id. there are many types of picture id's. it would be burdensome to secure that and that is what this clearance is all about. when it is determined that will diminish and decrease the number of voters and if it is done close to the voting time which, in many instances, states in 2012 voted on changes in election law close to the time of voting for the national election and it clearly would have diminished the number of voters. host: why is it difficult to

find her mother's birth certificate? guest: she was born in the 1920's and the south korean -- in the south. nothing was electronic at that time. it was all paper and she did not go to the hospital. she was born at home so admitted difficult to find out whether or not they had files. thought she had won when she was in her mid-80' it showed me how challenging it is for many other citizens around the mission to find their documentation which was written in state law and says this is what you has treated did not say you need to show a driver's license. you had to have some other identification. host: from twitter -- do you see a situation where, across the nation, you have to have a photo i.d.? guest: we have discussion of a universal id over the years.

many have been enormously adverse to being identified. have driver's licenses, voter i.d. cards -- i think america has been fairly free of election fraud in this country but there are incidences' that have caused a great deal of frustration because they have drawn a lot of media. in the elections in the united states, over all, because republic was in place like the voting rights act of 1965 and other election laws, they have been to allow early voting which has been very helpful, the idea of ensuring that we have free access to polls in most places in america. polling is writing a neighborhood. america has attempted but we can always do better. i have always supported election laws that give access to voting

but i believe we have been fairly free of fraud and therefore, there has been some opposition to handing everyone a national id card. host: rockaway, from far new york, democratic column. caller: i want to thank the congresswoman for sticking up for disenfranchised voters everywhere. opiniono express my about the supreme court decision and for texas implementing the voting rights law the next day. what ideas can we bring up to allow the entire nation to vote making election day national holiday or something like that. advancedt me say how

you are. some years ago, as we were frustrated after the 2000 election between president bush and then vice president gore, we introduced major legislation but, unfortunately, it was difficult to pass. one of the ideas was to make election day national holiday. differentne in many countries and you are absolutely right. the point i was making about the supreme court decision is that rather than having found section four unconstitutional which deals with coverage but also is based upon years of discriminatory practices, most thate don't understand history never goes away. the supreme court could have asked congress to draft another section that would have allowed other jurisdictions to opt out of other jurisdictions to be covered. you are absolutely right it should be that there should be americans, allow all

not to be interfered with. made, the point that you challenged voters. we are concerned about disabled voters, elderly voters, voters who are citizens who have unique language challenges. it is about allowing every american to go. the supreme court constrictive voting and it was enormously frustrating host: long beach, calif. independent voter. morning, i have a question for you. an african american and i'm a southern california in an area where i am probably -- i probably represent a% of the population. i have never had a problem voting.

your id and u-boat's. -- and you vote. why the attitude of everyone being able to vote without necessarily having this show i.d.? they think the end game is to take it as a of a legal hispanic i understand the political football and wanting to stay in office. i am just amazed -- you took on the committee of home as security so you are probably and open borders advocate as well. i'm a native texan, to be honest with you. what is the percentage of that boat without a valid id? much. thank you so very

let me first of all say that i would hope that none of us would be judged without understanding our record and allowing us to explain our record. i have been on homeland security cents a heinous terrorist act of 9/11 and have a special commitment to the security of this nation. it is difficult when you were able to go to ground zero and still see episodes of recovery going on. that's how early i went to ground zero. i don't take my role of security in this nation lightly. i believe in border security but i'm not sure where in texas you were from but i think it is important to walk a mile and the shoes of those who have been intended at the polls or turned away at the polls. who vote in various jurisdictions have processes in place. cards to there are

your lists electronically. you check in as you come into vogue based upon your car registration. i can assure you that in texas, many people are turned away under this present situation. i think the earlier caller said combatre few cards major documented instances of fraud even with the speculation that undocumented persons are involved. it has never been proven that undocumented persons votes. we cannot interfere with individual state laws except for the fact that they infringe upon the voting rights of individuals in this country. people in ohio were not covered by the voting rights act. they rejected the ohio border id law because they felt it would infringe on all of their rights to vote. the only thing the voting rights act -- it is not intrusive. projects a pre-clearance standard for a state that maz- mat had a long discriminatory history. the supreme court could have not

left us defenseless which we are today without enforcement under section four four states that have shown a proclivity to pass laws that would interfere with the voting rights of so many. the elderly, disabled, minority -- if you gooung, to the california, congratulations. california, to my knowledge, is not covered by the voting rights act and does not have a history of discrimination. we have to look at those who live in areas that are occurring. there are areas of michigan in the northern state to recover and the same with new york in the northern state. it is premised on a history that may have occurred in that area with discrimination. combat host: here is another to reach

-- guest: we don't make determinations on whether a state is still a racist state or was a racist state. what we look at and what the jurisdiction of each district wass at is whether there history of discrimination on the voting. that was a narrowness of our committee. without a particular state, we have shown that there was some history. a. current testimony of 2006 showed by testimony that we generated that incidences and circumstances still suggested that there were problems in that jurisdiction and we believe we answered all the questions about coverage. we after the questions dealing with discrimination and tell

what the questions dealing with impact. we answered the question as to whether or not you wanted to expand the voting rights act to the whole nation. to listentensive time and to build the record, the voting rights act should be read authorized and was constitutional. we did not make judgments. state judgeake a with or jurisdictional issue. we do not label state's racist. that is always a personal determination if someone feels something has occurred it impacts them but it is never one that is a legal term that is used in determining the expense of jurisdictional law that is that's in the united states congress. host: north carolina, republican column.

caller: i was glad for the decision that the supreme court made. and thewe need voter congresswoman is talking about protecting the vote. it is precious i think this is the way that we can secure that we keep the vote precious. the only way i can see that it would be -- it would decrease the vote or inhibit people would be from them voting 10 times. i think that will stop. i don't know how it could be discriminatory because it would be required for everybody, not or color orct minority. that's not discrimination. i think we have discrimination in washington. we have a black congressional caucus. that is discrimination if we don't have a white congressional caucus. guest: thank you so very much.

first of all, i thank you for your interest in the precious right of voting. you are right but we have no evidence that individuals of six, seven, or 21 times have cheated on voting. we welcome that kind of evidence being submitted. i think is appropriate that you would prefer that to your secretary of state or your state election officer. in the course of the review of re-authorizing the voting rights act, we saw none of that. the voter i.d. on its face has not been rejected by congress. the determination was based upon whether or not it would feature fear which large numbers of voters experience. as these laws were designed, there are other states that have voter i.d.. they have implemented them. in states rather has been a huge

discrimination, it has been determined that the wait was structured and would interfere with a person's right to vote. challenge to a sometimes look at this. blocking just on the face of it being called voter i.d.. it is really a standard that is reviewed. i think the justice department is being very effective in having a fair standard and i can assure you, they have pre- cleared a change in a voting procedure many ties. there are many caucuses in the united states congress revised the chair the pakistan congress of members from all backgrounds. i chair the afghan caucus. caucus that is concerned about afghanistan. there is the congressional children's caucus and that

allows members who have certain viewpoints to come together and discuss issues. the issues impact all of the congress. it impacts all of america. the congressional black caucus advocates for good health care and seniors and advocates for good education and those issues impact all americans. you are absolutely right and thank you for that very we are all americans and work together. the fact that there a number of caucuses in congress that most republican and they are not ost: barry on twitter follows up on our previous guest said. will act in gress light of the supreme court decision yesterday but he says hy would you believe congress has to react at all due to the supreme court decision? i certainly believe -- and i thank sean for that -- i'm

going to look forward to working the chairman and ranking member and certainly coming our caucuses and the conference, republican and democratic caucus because we have to fix a broken system. is no documented cases all -- there are well documented over that clearly indica indicate, if you will, that discriminatory practices in elections. i have seen it. you as i worktell in elections in houston i will in texas, we will hear during most election seasons voters llenges of how have been treated. so, it is certainly our ensure that there is no obstruction to voting. voting rights act is a very instrumental part of that and many other election are an instrumental part of that. host: our cameras, as we said,

the court this morning waiting on the court to decide on two cases dealing with gay marriage. it looks like there is movement out front. makinglity the plaintiff their way in. our cameras will stay up there get reaction to whatever the justices decide. back to what they decided voting rights e act on the 5-4 decision, you said you were at the oral february. in we covered that here on c-span. wonder if you remember where justice scalia was talking about the role congress has played in reauthorizing this legislation. i want to play that and have you react. [video clip] very likely is attributable to a phenomenon perpetuation of racial entitleme entitlement. t has been written about whenever a society adopts a racial entitlement, it is very

to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there's anything be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of act. and i am fairly confident it reenacted in perpetuity it does court can say not comport with the constituti constitution, you have to show you are treating different states differently that there is a good reason for it. that is the concern that those f us who have some questions about this statute have. it is a concern that this is not of a question you can leave to congress. congresswoman, he says you cannot leave it to congress politics.f the guest: obviously justice scalia on his own cision personal and political views and

person has a y right to do that. i had hoped that the court would arguments ed to the and, more importantly, i had hoped that the court would look factually e and look at where america is today. issuesthe most, i think, hat we could applaud was the reauthorization was done by a that vative chairman didn't necessarily come from the south, along with a ranking who had a long history of civil rights involvement and all members of the judiciary committee. i would consider they didn't all have the same political philosophy. many amendments were put forward rejected in whole by the entire committee, which republicans and democrats of varying political persuasions. they looked at the law. at the facts. and, frankly, i think when we

a that we really made ifference because it was an unbiased process. i would disagree with justice congress would not ultimately have the courage to say we had reached all of the voting rights act, which is that everyone had a to vote. that obviously tainted the given n and now has congress the instructions -- and i'm hoping that congress again not just enact without facts, will base it on facts. and that fact will expand. it may contract. but it will realize that there are issues that still continue jurisdictions that require a section 4 coverage in order to the preclearance under section 5. again, please understand that of discrimination cannot go away, particularly decades of

and intimidation. extent of loss of life during the civil rights movement persons who rsons were active and never were accounted for. there was more loss of life than one might expect of people fighting for the right to vote. even today in jurisdictions beyond the covered states you ill hear on a regular basis that kind of intimidation. it happened in pennsylvania. to happen in ohio. that is why away consider this a initiative.nt host: you served on the homeland security committee. put up by a fox producer on capitol. briefing?ttend that guest: we are in the middle of a

immigration bill but it was a request i made that briefings byinuous congress. we owe the american people our oversight.nd i assure you those of us in committee have tried to secure as much information as we could. to bipartisan initiatives and i hope the udience will look to those initiatives. one includes a complete study of of the utilization of private contractors which was noted was working on the determination of what kind of top-secret information do they access to and present a plan to congress to reduce the by december f them 2014. i think this is not a ondemnation of all of our private contractors, certainly by no means. find out a shock to

such as what ds r. snowden had and what is engaged with administrative clearance, top-secret clearance, a wide range of information that could in essence interfere with ongoing cause a loss of life. i have introduced a companion bill introduced by for requires the publishing of fisa court opinions. public should know unless it interferes with lassified or national security issues we should know the determinations by the fisa court which is approval to anyone who to wiretap anyone in the united states or elsewhere. i hope we will have a full healthy discussion. committed as i believe and know all members of congress are to national security. address it every day. embers will be looking closely

at the letters that come forward from our intelligence community leadership here and we welcome our constituency asking to tions that we are able answer as it relates to their ndividual privacy which i hold very dear. host: a follow-up for our iewers on the n.s.a. leaker story, edward snowden. this is the "washington post" putin says and snowden won't be extradited. hearing about n where he is inside the airport this is from the "washington post." he russian officials have suggested that the transit zone inside the airport is out of their control but passengers are under careful menstruate any and subject to -- scrutiny and that enables them to portray themselves as a bystander. courts say such transit zones do not lie outside of the nation's laws. putin said russia will no grounds to extradite him because

countries have no ex-extra diagrams treaty. -- extradition treaty. uest: there is preliminary as it relates to putin. it should be clear that the president of the united states authorities are doing everything that we can to secure safely and securely. but let's be very clear. the united states is not china. the united states is not russia. and our president should not be present status of mr. snowden because we are not a and we don't tion un and try to violently secure someone who has rights as a u.s. citizen. allies -- ng for our russia is one, china is one -- us.ooperate with we do understand that this gives sort of a chance to push back on the united states,

has probably e given comfort to some of those who fought asylum from the soviet union and maybe russia. we made our statements about s about his tement citizens and i'm sure as head of the government putin wants to as cooperative as he could. we need to be patient nd hopefully our laws will be able to secure mr. snowden and a determination will be made as to hat laws he might have violated. i would make a plea to mr. snowden for him to have at recognition that this country is a country of laws and we have a bill of rights and he process and due right to a trial by jury and right to express and explain we don't have the system that an individual like his could have a fear of li life. and what he did started out by to the american publ public, but what he likely may engaged in seems to me to jeopardize the security of this

nation. i hope that he will, with his family's encouragement, return to the united states. "new york times" says ecuador risks trade problems with the united states if it to snowden.m the ecuadorian president was in for ngton lobbying trade status there to allow jobs and cheaper roblems but that could be one of the first casualties of this situation. that is "new york times." here for the pic congresswoman which is the supreme court's decision on the act.g rights matt smith tweets this. i think i indicated, there was an opinion and a drove the cess that decision that was articulated by

ustice scalia in the courtroom on the day of the arguments. supporting the continuation of the voting eloquentt was factual, and based on law. and it was also current. i think that is the point the court has made. section 4 is not current. section 4 is breathing and living based on historical and ramifications that states covered continue to implement through edistricting and other laws discriminatory practices and ipulations in those areas, as have repeated over and over, other states outside of those southern states, other have been covered, evidence that they would impede voting. that is why the finding of unconstitutionality of section

a therefore, really putting spear, if you will, in the caused so ts act has much angst among so many people so hard to ked secure those voting rights for everyone. i again want to say the court its decision and i would have wished that i could have instructed them or to leave section 4 as it is and provide either another tunity for instruction or a section that it clearer or and a time frame for that time frame for adding other jurisdictions where there might pattern of ed a discrimination. that would have been a better approach. it would have been an impossibility for at ers to vote against it some point. the evidence would have been so clear, that stal conscientious members of the

united states congress would welcomed the opportunity to indicate that this legislation need reauthorization. in fact, we would have had quite coming together of the oices of americans who would say collectively that they feel that their voices and their votes are unfetterred. so, we do our job and hopefully we will have more opportunity to it in a bipartisan manner, because i certainly hope that we ill have no question in the house of representatives to move swiftly on this question. me throw in one last topic to the "houston chronicle" over abortion bill appalachialegislature. representative staged. facebook lit up over this.

what happened? proud first of all, i'm of texas and, of course, we, week, unfortunately passed the same kind of bill in the house and short of s having those kinds of filibuster tools in the house, hich i wish on some occasions that we did, we passed it although with great opposition the democrats out of committee and out of the house. this is the same bill that was the state of texas, and i'm delighted that her other is, with democratic cheeks, men and omen, stood on that floor of the state senate, along with the supporters and indicated that a woman's right to choose is precious and a on her decision healthcare and her life and the fetus that she is carrying has to be a decision of

herself, and her physician. and to criminalize or eliminate opportunity for that choice on her healthcare, on her life absolutely absurd in this time frame. host: the heads lane in the haltedle said the g.o.p. the filibuster three times and againsts point of order what she was doing, it passed to the restrictions amid shouting gallery and democrats say the vote took place too late and they had run out the clock. it was.hat is what it was after 12:00 because of session there was going to be some crafty work another either call session but more importantly the voices of the people of texas were heard and heard loudly. as i hope if i might say the voices of the people will be when the supreme court makes its decision on tkpaeu marriage. marriage. i'm wishing for equal protection

of law and all individuals to shake when they express their care and love for another individual. praying that and they will go forward and i'm and praying that we will have the courage in the united tates congress to turn back this very difficult decision hat was made when the voting rights act was voted on yesterday. host: thank you very much. as the congresswoman indicated deciding this be morning 10:00 a.m. eastern two cases dealing with gay marriage. there and are up will cover that announcement and what we hear from the justices as the news conferences that take place usually outside of the court. for more an.org details. coming up we will switch topics nd continue our weekly spotlight and magazine series talking to the rolling stone managing editor latestn ringen about his

article on marijuana in america. >> it is 9:17 eastern. commerce department has revised the growth rate for january it march quarter down last estimate of 2.4%. an revision shows it grew at annual rate of 1.8% the first three months of the year first cantly slower than thought. the revision is mostly because suggesting ent less higher taxes are having a deeper impact on economic growth. n.s.a. leaker the one who ays disclosed to programs is safe and well. wikileaks is not saying where snoweden s. vladimir putin mr. snowden is still at -- moscow's airport. this hour president obama and

the first family are getting africa for a l to week-long trip to seven tkpwl, tanzania to and omote democracy and economic opportunities. visited ghana in 2009. in south africa, former south leader nelson mandela is hospitalized in criminal condition. white house advisors say they will defer to his family on whether he is up for a visit president obama. those are the latest headlines on span radio. >> this sunday american history commemorates n 3 the 150th anniversary of battle of gettysburg. the very few e of confederate regimental monuments in the field. thing about this monument is the unit it represents. into the ent comes battle with just over 800 men.

hey have not been in many serious hard fighting engagements yet so they have not casualties. but they will fight on the site afternoon of he july 1. two days later, july 3, they are we today dle of what call the biggest charge with the north carolina troops attacking with virginians and others. 4, when they july assemble the units together, the regiment arolina having gone in with just over 800 men, can only assemble about 100 men still surviving, still capable. 150th anniversary of the gettysburg. overage begins at 9:00 eastern with experts throughout the day. at 5:30 we will take your calls tweets for the gettysburg

historians. at 8:00 the kphepl ra active active -- kphepl ra ceremony and then a candlelight procession to the soldiers cemetery then 9:15 with civil war institute director calls and tweets. "washington journal" continues. at a recent look article as part of the spotlight on magazine series. we want to share rolling stone's recent edits digs and this piece by johnen ringen. to denver where pot nerds are going the new american economy. joins us from new york city this morning. tell us, jonathan, what kinds of new economy are they throwing in denver? right now there are recreational re

marijuana is legalized. that is colorado and washington state. c colorado they have built on top of the medical marijuana place.s they had in it has been a big part of the colorado economy for the last or seven years. host: what do the new businesses like? guest: generally, the way it in s a marijuana business the state of colorado consists of two parts. they call a e that dispensary and the other is a -- a hich is a big indoor uge warehouse size industrial sized marijuana garden. the way the law is structured in colorado, the stores have to the marijuana they sell.

is this explain then profitable for these businesses? what type of overhead do they have? guest: i guess just to back out first, a lot of what i'm saying is going to the beginning of next year. i went to colorado to see what place like to be in a where marijuana is legal, which idea for most americans. -- and what i found was somebody ere already could give you pot there. just go buy it but you ill be able to buy it in the places i visited and grown by the people i met when i was there. they are are doing is basically the stores where you can buy medical marijuana where

with a medical marijuana card go to buy the medical marijuana will be open the public cannd go buy up to an ounce of weed in ways that s in haven't been -- the exact details of how this will work been totally hammered out yet. host: you were saying that the etails haven't been hammered out. hen you look at the regulate marijuana like alcohol act which is whether colorado voters of 2012,of in november by 55%, it allows personal use, limited home growing for 21 years and older. and government regulates taxes like alcohol allowed for lawful operation of related facilities. they must adopt all the necessary regulations by july 1, 2013, and begin accepting and applicationscensed

by october 1. as you say, there is more to it. on how they will do but one person on twitter wants know is it good sense. what have they put in miss so far. >> what exists now is this network of what they call integrated businesses where the grow and the store are same business. you grow most of what you sell. exist.ill continue to right now the amount of pot that these operations can grow is number of medical marijuana patients that are in colorado.of each store signs up patients. acts as their caregiver but it is a way of amount of marijuana they can grow. hat goes away with the transiti transition to recreational marijuana.

the part that pretty much this ody can get behind idea that this will bring a lot of tax revenue into the state. they are taxing recreational marijuana at a really high rate. like about 30%, with most of that going to infrastructure stuff. an example they give most often is school construction. ways that of the they were able to generate among pretty broad t bipartisan support. tweet how ve this much tax income, federal, state and local can be raised if pot legalized? you probably don't have that number. guest: it is a lot. for the potential national legal marijuana

arket range up to and beyond $100 billion a year. so you are talking about like of dollars in s tax revenue that we are leaving forcing everyone that smokes pot to buy it on the market, or almost everyone. host: we have this tweet from oscar. like they are keeping big monopolizing the business. are they mainly small businesses n colorado and washington state? guest: yes. i mean -- yes, right now they small it midsized businesses. ou hear a lot of talk about some potential future when like companiesl or tobacco might get involved but that doesn't seem like something worried about in the short term in part because of the way the regulations are set colorado they really give big advantages to the businesses

hat have already been in place serving the medical marijuana market. host: how so? those are pretty small businesses. how so? just making them the first allowed to sell edical and recreational marijuana. all of the first recreational mediclodies e current pensries. ost: is there a green rush to colorado? guest: that is something in my story people talked about. over the e from all place. i mean for reasons i don't exactly understand a lot of i talked to came from texas where they have been illegally and na are really good at it. there wasy they heard a place they could practice -- r trade without fear of or at least with a much reduced of of arrest, reduced fear violence, gangs and all of that

ind of stuff, that this was a tempting place to move. so you have people that have .ome from all over the country mecca for become this high end pot growers who want to grow, experiment with in the most plant free way they can possibly do it. the way in which they are under way they wouldhe be both from law enforcement and from criminals than almost any america.ce in host: we have our first call. so glad you are talking about there this morning. it is wonderful. watching aight i was medical ll about marijuana on cnn. they did a great report on it. i wanted to make a comment and then i have a question.

the older is for all people that are here in the negative tes that are about this medical marijuana because the people that they long haired re ippie dudes from vietnam and the illegality of it because it has been illegal for so long. my husband, was 78 years old came down with parkinson's disease. one gave him a pancake morning because not any of the medication stopped his shaking to do t is all he wanted is stop shaking. i put some in his pancakes and didn't tell him about it because if i would have he would have said absolutely no because he in with heroin and cocaine and other ridiculousness going on for 40 years. i watched him 45 minutes in his chair and within 45 minutes he stopped shaking.

shaking.tely stopped i went over to him and said how do you feel he looked at me and did you give me? i said marijuana. he started crying. said look, i'm not shaking. e didn't move for six hours before he started shaking again. i want to have older people to this medication is unbelievable, unbelievable. in 1997 uestion is california healized marijuana healized but they keep coming in and closing dispensaries. there have 600 closed in the last two weeks because the federal government is not by the state legalizing it. do you see there will be a d.e.a. to stop close being the dispensaries down. , cnn, again. guest: the first part, i'm happy that your husband got some

relief from his illness. -- you ral government have technically marijuana -- ot technically -- marijuana is just illegal in the eyes of the federal government the same way or any other ine hard drug is illegal. hey basically let com operate -- colorado operate freely in art because colorado's regulations are much more comprehensive than california's. in california you had like no statewide regulations that how the marijuana would e grown, how the dispensaries -- acquire it. some places in alifornia where there is not

really clear legal way for the dispensary to acquire the that it sells. been of area has concern to the federal government and has resulted in the crackdowns you see in california. ost: what -- guest: so, that -- what has he said, president obama? has said in relation it colorado and washington state the people there have poken and that he's not especially interested in that.nging tparp t -- and thus hasn't. but it remains to be seen what will happen. is the thing that people in this industry are most worried about. uncertainty. nd who knows what happens with

a different administration, or the momentum y, has moved very quickly in terms acceptance of the idea of heal marijuana. is now a majority of americans that think marijuana that is a egal and relatively recent development. americans er of believe that medical marijuana should be available. momentum is moving fast that way, so the strategy on the part o lawyou know, marijuana drug reform activists is to try to as pot friendly laws in many states as possible that the federal government has to accept this is the new reality and will of the american people. host: we have this tweet it how government can make a plant illegal is beyond me throwing people in jail is a money, too. matt tweets legalizing marijuana

s a great way to spur the economy creating small businesses, jobs and tax revenue. that is our topic this morning with jonathan ringen of rolling stone about his u.s., lookingcity at colorado and the new economy growing there, marijuana, legalized by the olorado voters recreational use. and the last caller brought up medical marijuana. ince 1996, 18 states and washington, d.c. have passed laws allowing marijuana to be a variety of medical conditions. these are the six states that are currently considering medical marijuana. illinois, minnesota, new hampshire, new york, ohio, pennsylvania. is the legalizing medical step to the first legalizing recreational use? i mean, it s tphis not necessarily strategically that. like it turns out that that has

in both states where recreational marijuana has been legalize were states where medical marijuana was regulated to work well. sort e people there have of a road map of what legal pot might look like. i think that activists on the issue have been of two minds. like, one is that medical marijuana is totally viable and it really is, you caller's previous husband has parkinson's and unique case. a and that you don't necessarily at medical marijuana regulations as just a stone toward legalizing there'sonal pot because a legitimate need for medical marijuana that is separate from

end the drug war or whatever. is that each y time you pass one of these laws, realize that like the end and it makes it easier to pass other pot laws.ly host: we are twitter says now and . will get involved raise prices. what about the price in colorado? you have seen the supply is there. what has happened -- the demand is there. what has happened to the price? guest: i don't know that the e.p.a. would be involved except as growing pot has its problems.onmental cost of pot ishe artificially hugely inflated by prohibition prohibition.

in places where you end the of pot ion the price falls fast and quality goes up a lot. that doesn't seem like something that you need to worry about. go one area in which prices up is -- or the wuone thing tha in like an prices upward way is taxation. still i think it would even certainly not costing more than it does now being much less and better. rapids, ler from grand michigan. the fact that it is currently a schedule one drug has zero medicinal properties. the face of g in what that earlier caller said. in a medical practice that does certify patients to

cannabis in michigan, and we see thousands of those same stories. you said, it is not uncommon. amazing plant.g, that a r problem is schedule one drug is that it is illegal to publish medical studies on it. so you can't go to the new ngland journal of medicine and find anything on cannabis. is, in my opinion, basically snuffed out education for the masses. the are still riding on propaganda of e what cannabis is as opposed to be an endless sea of medical findings.

it is difficult to do research on pot in any way like of, you know, its fficacy as a medicine or just something as simple as trying to determine whether or not it is ful.ally harm ful a lot of that research is done in other countries and increasingly it is done here. researchers are forced to, you know, acquire the arijuana for their research either illegally or get it from one farm that the federal overnment maintains that is very difficult. absurd.s pretty virtually no one agrees with the remise this marijuana has zero medical value as a plant. host: we are talking with ringen of rolling stone.

e wrote a piece weed city u.s. looking at the new economy that is growing in colorado. denver specifically. piece he says colorado pot regulations are helping including states illinois and connecticut and new legislation is pending. among activists there is a major sense of urgency. idea is to use the current momentum to pass pot friendly aws in so many states the federal government which still classifies marijuana in the same toegory as heroin would have accept the new reality. the potential financial up side f ending prohibition is enormous. estimates of the value of the $110 market are as high as billion. debra, houston, democratic caller. should be the first bipartisan agreement. i'm a democrat. i heard republicans call on this. i'm a cancer patient. .'m in houston

cancer is a cottage industry here. opioids for pain. there is a lot of side effects. out inrn myself i can go the yard and put a plant on my go somewhere and get spray. ut what the gentlemen said before that it is classified as all n is preposterous when of these black box drugs that pharmaceutical industry pushes on us kill people. and tobacco are big a cause of deaths in america. i think it is time for the it is time-- i think for the people to push back and demand that the government marijuana and get the studies done and put it to the paoeeopl people. because it has healing

properties. not for everybody. smoke a joint.to you can cook it like the lady pancake.he there is vapor mechanisms. to see hospitals using it and prisons cleared out only for who are there marijuana. that is another big industry ike i heard the gentleman's ideas about texas. because we could use the revenue but we have a lot of cancer here. host: all right. jonathan ringen. as far as i know, there's , or no major push or any kind of marijuana legalization. texas is pretty hostile to the idea. and lots of places are. because even though vast rising very

the idea ceptance for and particularly medical arijuana it is sort of a classic wedge issue like gay arriage like a lot of things americans broadly support but small groups of strongly opposed able to use the away. in a divisive right now there is no federal marijuana.alize there is not a single member of who is, who you could describe as pro marijuana or proposed any kind of, like, even medical marijuana legislation. host: we go to ryan huntington station, new york, independent caller. caller: good morning. so far mr. ringen has been alking about the economic up side of legalization. possible raid of the economic downside of widespread

egalization as it becomes more legal it is going to deprive good e and labor from american corporations like the corrections corporation of and i just don't know affect their g to ividend and how the vailability of next to slave labor force to use in our for-profit prisons. sarcasm through but this tweet. true that is probably although it is has had to know for sure. mean, that is definitely the conventional wisdom is that is true. but one common sense argument

against that is that you can a very small amount of tronger pot and you don't have to smoke an enormous amount of it like nobody is making you do that. so, the relative strength sort of doesn't matter. , i think, more interesting point is in places where marijuana is legal or is legal you ana have way more choice. like basically you are not pot oneto just whatever guy you know has. store and choose between stronger pot or weaker pot. you can choose between pot that is good for insomnia and pot arthritis.d for ou can choose -- you have choice, which you don't have in market. tweet.e have this shouldn't this remain a statewide issue.

hose who think it is positive for health, jobs and economy and those who don't? georgia.danny next, republican caller. turn the television down. caller: i'm sorry. host: go ahead. caller: i'm just calling in. i'm legally blind. glaucoma and it has destroyed the sight in one eyes. i don't know why they don't legalize it. it would not only free up a lot people that is in jail for pitche prisons t the more space and bring in a lot of revenue for the states, too. guest: i agree. ringen, what is colorado estimating dollar that for revenue from tax collection? i don't know. but it is substantial.

substantial. i think that there's -- it is hundreds of millions of dollars a year at least. san diego, n democratic caller. and r: thank you, c-span jonathan for taking my call. i have a comment and a question. highlight the o previous callers in terms of the are of tandards that hypocrisy when you look at the and aceutical industry whatnot and pain and suffering that goes on there. again a double standard. in california we have a proposition or a bill for hemp seed and we are hearing and it was tied to the farm bill and that was shot feeling hat is his toward the hemp seed industry

lots of hat can create jobs? and the hemp has very little what is the deal with that? answer off the air. it is preposterous, that that is useful in a lot of ways including just its fiber and making paper and cloth and other d all of these things is not a plant that we of prohibition. that would be one of the effects ending marijuana prohibition. can you have this tweet prohibit beer sales. our topic that we are talking about. recreationalion of use of marijuana in colorado and

states on state, two last year during the 2012 lection legalized the recreational use. amendment 64 in colorado was marijuana like lcohol act of 2012, 55% of colorado voters approved it. it allowed personal use, home sion and limited growing for those 21 years old government d state is taxing it like alcohol and lawful operation of related facilities. as jonathan ringen said earlier, revenue from the his up to 30% tax on this for school construction. michael imperial beach, california, independent caller. caller: good morning. mr. ringen, i would like your a question. any state as i think florida would charge you with a third felony if you have an unused pipe.

collects sales taxes on the sale of the pipe it, are arrest you for they not taking part in the crime? if they -- they have decriticalized marijuana in those kisses. are you -- are you saying in a state where it is not should a store that sells marijuana store rnalia should that owner be prosecuted? i would say no, that seems like a bad idea. but occasionally the stores are shut down and people are occasionally arrested for marijuana paraphernalia. the first is not time rolling stone has written about this issue. what is the position of the magazine? part of the effort to get there legalized? , since the yes magazi magazine's founding, the ending marijuana prohibition and

ending the war on drugs has been strongly that we have advocated for. exciting to us to see sort of the rest of america around to this position that the magazine has held and a long d verse held for time -- readers have held for a long time. t is a substance that is largely harmless, very popular, of otherwise totally law abiding americans into the basic arguments like that. majority of now a americans agree with the argument is exciting. six months in en com. have we seen a drop in other crimes? they say legalizing pot will end black market drug dealing. that is from twitter. guest: i don't know the answer

to that. ut obviously it doesn't do anything about the black market for other drugs. idea. i have no but i would just assume on a you n sense level, but if are not having people, lots of people who are busted for mirror -- for marijuana that crime would fall. host: let me throw you there. curious what the trend is for employers in colorado and whether they are to use their employees marijuana. some companies have drug testing for employees. guest: this is just like -- legal and sort of state regulatory part this is deciding society is ow to integrate marijuana into our lives. and that is one question.

now the only people that have legally been able to in these rijuana states were medical patients. that makes things legally trickier. i would think that most would apply the same thinking that they currently know, alcohol as and probably drug useallow their employees to a lot of it during the day. host: on the line for republicans jane in illinois. caller: i'm against the use of looking at a i'm report from a marijuana alert, a reprint about brain and sex damage. 1979.was in how will colorado deal with this? the scientists have said

smokers are unwittingly damaging their brains and decreasing their chance of conceiving and healthy completely offspring. host: do you know anything about that? guest: yes. not true.ly story is an the issue that has an entire section devoted to marijuana. reason is this idea of like shifting and marijuana no longer seem being like for young ecially people and be like super movies and tv sho shows. elements of this is just a page that debunks myths. as the previous caller said, research.ficult to do so people don't know enough about this plant. and the g we do know it beingearn points to

very benign. the irtually all of alarmist things about marijuana, you know, destroying brain cells creating fertility problems, has, in bigger studies, turned out to be true. drug that a definitely kills brain cells, alcohol does that. -- i rijuana is probably mean it is definitely as safe than alcohol.afer host: thomas in minnesota, democratic caller. caller: good morning. pleasure to talk to you. in federal law enforcement arresting hundreds for marijuana and other offenses. to say that experience led me to understand that this surrounded with ignorance and fear. all of these wonderful, lovely people are

and itg criminal records is impacting their lives in a tierous way -- deleterious way. should be legalized. as it progresses, i think that expungedords should be and finals returned. this is something that we need do. host: thomas, can i ask you, when you -- were you a police officer? you were in law enforcement. >> federal law enforcement. worked for an agency directly drug enforcement. host: say that again. you worked what? for an agency directly involved in the drug wars. you came across cases like this how prevalent were versus other drugs? and what was the attitude? aller: they were far more prevalent. reasonable, very calm ordinary citizens of every

stripe. there is absolutely no reason for us to continue punishing these people for doing something that they understand to be benign. ask you, the resident said the justice department has other priorities and colorado voters have spoken. are longtime people that have worked like yourself n law enforcement against working to combat drug use in the country and have been a different administration. what do you think they do? illegal by s still federal law. with us? caller: yes, i am. cultural progress to a change. he education and understanding have to be gained before politics will follow. in other words, the politics going to honor the will

until the will of the people is completely clear. o basically what is needed is more education. host: jonathan, i want your final thought. say about this? and talk about the demographics, age difference. the polls say -- i was in a g at notes -- 52% ecent poll of all americans believe that recreational -- legal.ana should be but 65% of millennials believe that. that is a number that has gone up fast like five years ago or something. it was half that number. this broad acceptance has there issuper fast and no reason to see it stopping. host: jonathan ringen with magazine, thank you for your time. appreciate it.

guest: thank you. is about to come into session but i want to remind you cameras are outside today getting rt reaction to what the court will two e any minute about marriage.n same-sex you can go to c-span 3 and your tweets.d now to the house. 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable reed j. ribble to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate.