joseph crowley of new york and at 9:15, a look at diplomatic immunity and the role it plays in the case of the nsa leader edward snowden. >> today is a good day. today i finally get to look at the man that i love and finally say, will you please marry me? [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] 3] host: that was the scene on the steps of the supreme court yesterday. now what is your turn to react to the gay marriage decisions by a the nine justices. numbers --

a comment one social media as well. , andook bought,/c-span finally, sending e-mail. "the la times" -- the liberal leaning justices, along with kennedy, the majority. now the california proposition 8 case has a different lineup. 5-4 decision but a different lineup. roberts and scalia and the majority. here is the front page of "usa

today" --

previous decisions on decisive laws including abortion rights have prompted decades of fights over implementation, not to mention efforts to reverse them. finally, a little bit more from this article --

that is from "usa today" this morning. we want your reaction to the supreme court ruling on gay

marriage. two rulings. rests on the independent wind is up. i am a libertarian and did not think the government should tell us who we should marry or what. i have always thought it was wrong. i read about the history of utah and mormons and they wanted multiple wives. i think they should be able to do that, too. i think that should be the next thing. government should stay out of our lives and let us do what we want. i am happy. i am not today, but i am happy for freedom. thank you. "the newnt page of

york times" -- this is one of the articles. the vote in the california case was 5-4 but with a different and very unusual alignment of justices. john roberts wrote the majority opinion.

they did not say how they would have voted. on the federal what it was a far more important one from a legal perspective. walter and bridgeton, new area and have you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning. it is good that the supreme court when the right way. what they did to the woman in new york was a shame. host: jeffrey, a democrat in indiana. showed the supreme court

who their true master is, who they really serve, and it is not god. gary, indiana.n "the wall street journal" --

the sack, a republican.

washington. what is your opinion. ? -- zach a republican. caller: i want to say as a republican i believe true conservative ideas our ideas

where the government only takes action when it is really necessary to do so. i believe the defense of marriage act when it was enacted is not something the government should take a hand in. should be allowedo to marry who they want to, and that should be recognized not only by the individual states they levin, but by the federal government. not get everything we wanted, a broad ruling, but they did say pretty much the federal government has to recognize. i think essentially taking the government hand out of marriage out of personal life is a big step forward. even though there are places where the government does have a role to play and is necessary, as a conservative, i believe it

should stay out of issues it does that have to be in. it is very important to millions of people, including my best friend. i think it is very important day are allowed freedom in their lives and that the government does not interfere with that. i think even though it was not all that we wanted, it was a very good decision. host: we will leave it there. ron in madison, conn. do not agree with the supreme court's decision. i did not support gay marriage. i am a democrat. it seems like our party is going down a path of self destruction. they do not want to verify who immigrants are. the economy is bad. the casing is an abomination against god. is ane gay thing

abomination against god. a picture in "usa today" --

sk, spartanburg, south carolina. independent. good morning. good morning. regarding the controversy, the supreme court decision yesterday, people are missing the bigger point. onlyy the marriage is not between men and women, but until death do them part. clearly divorce is not an option. thank you for calling in.

here are twitter comments we have received. i year net patriot. this is a cultural matter. american here road show it says it is good to get a new right. it is not that useful right, but it is something. the a texan says we will not have any same-sex marriage in virginia or texas. put it out of your little twisted mind. fishing sam, if government was not involved in marriage to start with, this would not be a topic. tranquillity says it is too bad you need the supreme court to tell you are equal. here is reaction from the washington times that compiled the reaction to the rulings. beginning with president obama. the laws of the land are catching up to the fundamental

truth that millions of americans hold in their hearts when all americans are treated as equals we are all the more free. wilson cruz, a spokesman for the rights. tony perkins of the family research council. what we are disappointed in the supreme court's decision to strike down part of the defense of marriage act, the court did not impose the redefinition of natural message that was sought.

that is just some of the reaction from interest groups and politicians on the supreme court ruling. a republican in dallas. caller: think you for taking my call. you read an article where the ruling will extend many benefits to couples married in the such's and will allow unions and allow the obama administration to broaden benefits through executive action. the president of the united states does not wield supreme executive power determining what happens. that goes through congress. this is another example of liberal writers as saying the president is a dictator. througheople decide

congress, and they vote according to the majority, not the president. ed and dallas. next call from don in california. democrats. really, really something. i cannot see what these people are trying to say about this gay marriage. man and ays that if a manned flight to get there, they should both be put to death. i do not see how in the double these people are getting out of society here that marriage is meant for two of the same sex. that is sick. the people who are indulging in this type of mess, they are all going to be destroyed. america is pushing this gay

stuff. host: don in california. bill in california. independent line. and caller: good morning. i did not support proposition 8 in california that band came marriage. however, i was concerned about the fact that the supreme court did not see the defenders of the law had standing. the issue is we have the initiative process so that when our elected officials who will not pass laws that we want, we have a way of directly getting them on the ballot. however, if elected officials will not defend the laws and court, what mechanism do we have to defend them ourselves? so i am a little concerned what this might mean for california's

initiative process. >> that is bill. next call from rich on the republican line. i think we're doing a whole lot of wrong and rights. everyone has the right to marry a man or woman. to money. comes down i like to do what i want. andhe way, here is the bill every other classification in there. they want to change the words, like illegal to legal immigrants. we have a real problem with this, and we better just turn the paper out on the constitution.

ost: lead editorial in "the washington post" -- host: next call, rita in petersburg, virginia. good morning. caller: i think that was a good decision yesterday. i think they should have the right to legally have a union. i think it is a good thing.

that is it. the net in the oceanside, california. -- dana. noter: gay people did bother me too much. what bothers me is when millions of people both for one thing and then jerry brown, the attorney general sticks his nose in there and says your boats do not count. that should worry the whole united states. we're getting into a socialist type of country where lawyers are running everything and boats do not count. the next time someone has a big boat coming up in your state, you better think about it. piss on yourally vote. all of these republicans and christians, all they're doing is letting their own throats by yelling this and yelling that.

you have to be real careful with this issue. the main issue is everyone's that was pissed on and better steer the whole country. ost: the front page of "the washington times" we showed you a minute ago -- james, halifax, va.. republican line. caller: i have to agree with the last calller. the liberals are screwing

themselves with two things. first, they predict there was bill clinton that signed the dome and the first place. second, they need to quit comparing get rights to civil rights for blacks. basically they're saying being black is a sin. david n. carolina. good morning. say we i just wanted to do not get to vote on equal rights. that is in the constitution. you cannot vote someone's rights away. all this business about voting on this and that, it does not matter, because you do not have choice to vote someone's rights away. of new orleans. here is the front page -- front page is taken

up with that. here is the boston globe" -- from matthew in winchester, virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. calling from winchester as a former navy officer and gave with the same-sex partner i was proud to see this legislation enacted. not have us -- as i have a leg to stand on. you could teach an entire class on what is marriage. traditional views of marriage andbased on judeo-christian we are not founded as judeo- christian under the constitution. i was proud to see civil rights has moved forward. thank you very much.

have a great morning. from "politico" this morning -- here is a little bit from yesterday. >> the supreme court has offered two very contradictory rulings. on one hand they claim to make a decision so states can decide the definition of marriage. the second decision is that state voters do not have the right to decide. the dissent on the first decision was very clear. the score has taken upon itself the radical attempt to redefine and marriage. i think what gets lost in this additional attempt to short circuit this process is with this decision the courts have allowed adults to trump the needs of children. every child needs a mommy and daddy.

from "politico" this morning -- chris christie blasted the supreme court. a former federal prosecutor made the remarks hours after the supreme court struck a crucial section of the defense of marriage act. "usa today" the lead editorial --

this is how the conclude the editorial -- in a dissenting view point editorial by bryan brown, president of the national organization for marriage righwrites --

eric in texas. are you with us? we will move on to donna and newport news, virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. i remember when i was a little girl they inserted one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance. i do not see how the new things being put up by the abortion issue and gay marriage is under god. country that has been founded under god is getting away further and further from god. i just think if these people want to be legally married, let them have a legal union, but not call it a sacred marriage.

when i was in germany, and i am not german, i was married legally. then i got married in the church because i wanted to be married in the church. callthey want to everything cent -- sanctifying marriage. time youemember, every say the pledge of allegiance and you have one nation, under god, how are we under god it anymore? host: donna in newport news. next up martha in wisconsin. democrat. caller: i think the ruling is legally sound, but marriage is about property rights. i do think in the short-term it creates problems for families that were created in regular marriages, and you now have people who have left the marriages and have children and

may not have the right to remarry and could have a father very to a woman now marrying a man and now have property rights for the children being left out of the particular situation. i still think there are a lot of situations we will need to address to protect kids in this transition. i think it is good going forward because it people are gay, they will be with partners they love, and hopefully families will stay intact longer and will not be destroyed by situations where people leave their loved one or spouse because of their sexual preference. thank you. >> tom, independent and rose bowl, michigan. has to dois really with benefits. as we know gays means two men or lesbian means two women.

if two guys are allowed to do this, well, i am a single guy. i want the same rights as they are going to get. i think i should be able to marry myself. what the hell is the difference anymore? thank you very much. more twittere of comments. don says this will expand -- will explode the navy benefits. bothays why would people in california anymore? the supreme court is pretty rough running the countr a least sa it legally a cil matter. plenty o people gemarriedn city hall. our republican. please go ahead. caller: i have the same inion as the other calller.

congress could have avoidedhis whole situation with a ruling. the word marriage is in the bible for man and woman. not for maand man, woman and woman. have brought in that aboutype of legislature benets that they could have done something. ith supreme court comes out l othese rulings lately when obama is going through all of áese problems with the irs. f the controversial ruling just find that the that lk at wherthe talkin points have shifted for the past t daysrom the irs and snowden, all of this stu

going on. thank you very mh for a lis -- glistening. have a wonderful day "the a sidebar article in washington

keith inchicago. democrat. ller: that was an excellent potust made. iny did not go as far defining gay marrie across- the-boar i have to tell all of e listeners, and there is a lot of igrance, you did not get to

go on our rights. that ia constitutional matter. at m neighbors have no say. sorry, neighbors, you do not get to approve of my relationships. bible.annot u t there are people of other faiths. there are people that are atheist. those people get married as well and do not adhere to the bible. that is y we are a great nation. we're going through major change, and we have a lot of people that are upset. i am not going to calthem bigots. it's just change,nd change is scary. is realizing all men and women are created equal and givegod-given righ that no one can take away frothem get over it.

really ridiculous. thank you. tennessee.in good morning. and ller: hi, peter i have t take issue with the last calller. i do not think he really means whate is saying when he say everyone should be able to get married and says get over it. i do not tnk tt would apply to polygamous coups. i did not tnk hwould say that its siblings wanted to be married. i do not think tt most people would. the slippery slope argument, all people have to do is people over 50 can go back and think we never thought we would see this day. agree with justice scalia. just matteof time before the

shoe will dro the same-sex marries will be declareda be constitutional to rob the united states and there wille no more bands. --ans. think it is that we have to distinguish between marriage has beie distinguished a opposite sex or same-sex and relationships have to be gay or straight you think the is much more down the pike. for those who say it will never haen he, ad your papers th morni. host rich in tennese. "politico"articlen --

more from justice slia --

charity in washington, d.c.. republican. caller: i take issue with the fact that people are still talking about gay marriage. there are so many other things we need to focus on. another calller mentioned, not up to us to vote the way other people's rights. the whole controversy seems to take away the spotlight from a lot of other issues in this country. people want to get married, fine, pay taxes. i feel like we have weighed more important things to worry and talk about. thank you. host: article in "the washington times" --

here is the conclusion --

karen tweets in -- therriage proponents are intolerance and totalitarians. chris independent. caller: i agree with the sentiments from the gentleman you just read from. here is the thing. we're losing our basic ability to tell right from wrong. there is nothing more obvious

and basic than how we use our anatomy. these supreme court justices who are supposed to be the epitome of rational, logical thought, they just could not seem to put that together. no one really cared about what these people were doing behind closed doors. they are the ones trying to force this issue down our throats. outside theyu come are picketing and have a great parades -- get parades' and tried to force themselves into the boys' and girls' club. trying to lobby to have this lifestyle taught in schools. this is the reason for opposition. no one cares what they do really. marriage is a religious designation. if they want to have some type of title or official recognized

relationship they should have their own terminology and leave merit alone, which is religious designation. honor and obedience to god. someone to have a lawful relationship without fornication. host: what about the civil side of that when it comes to survivor benefits? mean, look, this is the basic decision. like the gentleman said before, are we going to allow relationships? someone would say there is evidence, proof of their birth defects in things like that, but someone can get their tubes tied and marry their brother. when is our society going to be concerned with making decisions.

no wonder we cannot decide on a decent health care policy for young children and poor families. no wonder we cannot make a decent decision with regards to warfare tactic issues in drones that kill innocent children, we cannot even make a basic decision about how to use our anatomy. we shy away from referencing morality with regard to any of the decisions we make, which is basically indicative of why this country is collapsing. it is why room collapsed. we are not learning through history. we shun the very idea of morality in the legal system. we will leave your common stand there. supremeeets -- the court read it -- treated prop. 8 ruling very nearly while

hading the vra which overruling support. a group of conservative house republicans blasted the decisions on same-sex marriage issue on wednesday by the supreme court as legally inconsistent and detrimental to the future of america's children. that is the republican of kansas who we saw earlier on the steps of the supreme court. we will continue this conversation about this issue and other issues with our next two guests. from the faily caller. if you would like to continue this discussion of the supreme court ruling, you can go to our facebook page. you could make a comment pierre

did you could also vote on the poll whether you agree or disagree with the supreme court. we will be right back with our next guest. >> this sunday, american history tv commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. as theecame best known tammany regiment.

of main figure, the statue the indian chief, represents chief enemy. tamany. the 42nd new york on the third day of july participated in the charge. in the process they lost at least 15 other men. american fromwas head to toe. in its proportions and themes and gallantry, it represented the base -- the best the nation had to offer. of the150th anniversary battle of gettysburg begins at 9:30 eastern. 5:30 calls and tweets. university president

carol reardon. withll end the day at 9:15 peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions and comments today. >> it is criminal, to me, that i have to authorize my budget people, my financial people to write a check for $454 million a little bit more than a month ago to extend a contract with the russians to continue to carry our crews to the international space station for 2016 and 2017 because we have not yet brought about the american capability. the president's budget called for $821 million for commercial crew. we're not halfway there. the congress -- my job is to try to persuade the congress that

the plan is good and that we will be efficient users of the taxpayer money, and i have not been successful in that yet, but i will get there. as i have told every member congress with whom i have talked, 821 million in the 2014 budget is vital if we're to make are2017 day so that we transported to space again on american spacecraft. >> more with charles colden sunday night at 8:00. -- charles bolden. continues.n journal" of the dailyl rahn calller website. you are one of the few not to lead with the gay marriage story. why did you leave with this? when we saw the store

yesterday, and people in office who might not normally always agree, i think everyone was kind of blown away. she earned a lot of respect from conservatives yesterday with her comments. she got into a debate over disability benefits with someone who apparently twisted their ankle back and prep school and make the point, i have had my arm blown off and, -- combat. it was the bold, a direct statement that you did not hear often in washington. i think we should always applaud it when it does happen. have daily caller did not an opinion piece on the get rulings, did you? opinione may have had contributors on the side. as an organization we do not take a stance on cases like that. it is a huge deal.

when you are an activist, your zero is waiting for the moment that is a tipping point. i think that is what we reached yesterday with this decision. battle for gay marriage nationwide seems to have not quite come to an end, then we're getting close to it. it is not a galvanizing issue for young conservatives. you do not fine young conservatives voicing opposition to get married. it was president clinton who signed the defense of marriage -- ando law and a chevy campaigned on it throughout the south. this is an issue that young people, even republican-leaning young people have fully embraced. now it is left up to the space that you could argue is the position for federalism. conservative,ng

what do you think? guest: i am not trying to label myself as a young conservative, but i am 26-years-old. i have grown up in a very different country than my parents and grandparents. this is a country where the single most important fact is we have grown up with gay people out of the closet. we know people who are gay starting families and this affects the day to day life, bottom line. this affects the benefits they receive from the federal government. you have that, he the people who are really arguing against this, it is a much more abstract thing they are arguing for about how this will degrade society in some way. notion much more femoral that the day today bottom-line

concerns that opponents would have. one clyde was one more invested in that side came out a winner. is this politically beneficial to the gop? harmful? will it cause a rift? i was struck yesterday by gov. christie coming out and blasting the court's decision, which seemed to be a head nod to iowa voters in the future. there is certainly an argument to be made. you will see a lot of it on the right, that the court overstepped its bounds. at the same time a lot of conservatives will say this is a victory for federalism. i think the congressman and his idea of a proposing a federal marriage amendment, i somehow

doubt that is a fight the republican party wants to get it to in 2013. i do not think that is going anywhere. such aly -- this is not charged issue like abortion, which does remain something of a litmus test. this is something where there is a lot of diversity of opinion tolerated on the right out of necessity. -- part ofboehner his statement -- a robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square. guest: sound like someone stepping it back and might argue this is a victory for federalism. 11 states have gay marriage.

30 percent of the american population. some states this will not change anything. states like florida where they have an amendment to the state constitution where it would be very hard to override at this point. nothing will change from florida any time soon. probablytes will see gay marriage increase steadily over the next few years. on a national level i do not think this will be decided anytime soon. i do not think there will be an amendment to the constitution either way either granting or prohibiting. this will be an issue for the foreseeable future. host: another major supreme court decision was on voting rights. how significant do you see that one? we havehe first thing

to ask ourselves is how has this country changed since 1965? it is certainly my hope that it has. we then have to ask ourselves, are certain states or jurisdictions in this country more racist than others? the answer is maybe, but i certainly hope not. not something -- you do not see republicans racing out there to raise this decision. ass is being blasted radical, but roberts opinion was of section 5ts argue that the deterrent effect has made the gains in registration possible. when you go back to 1965, mississippi was something like six percent. now african-american

registration, mississippi is larger than white voter registration. statistic was included in roberts brief -- robert opinion rather. but roberts argued that section five, to say this is due to the deterrent effect of section five, than section five would continue on indefinitely and they simply did not want this on the books. another thing to look at with the voting rights act is the unintended consequences and the creation of the majority districts. it has created a lot of opportunities for african- american politicians to go to congress. the bad part is that these are typically the most liberal districts in the country. the representatives in those districts have a very hard time getting a like it statewide, so much that in 2016 you can argue that there is a robust

republican minority bench waiting to come to the floor than you have with the democrats. emigration in the senate, potentially in the house, how does that play? guest: in the senate, i think we're looking at 68 votes. a formative, 67 votes peered more like 69 when you factor in the senate. you can expect, i think, that one or two do but those votes, particularly on the republican side, may break away. they vote for things that are really needed him and then they can go back home to their states and say, look, i voted against the immigration bill. 70 votes is the magic number here from senator schumer. i think that is a big hurdle to get to. even if it gets 70 votes, there

is a chance this is not even brought to the fore by john boehner -- by john boehner and the house. allo, it will, in likelihood, lose. you could have it tomorrow. you can have a commendation of democratic and republican votes votes that would probably be overwhelming. is notow, john boehner all that invested. , if he runs for president in the primary, will this issue have legs? will: yeah, senator rubio get kicked around a lot for this. able tohowed how he is marshal republican support for this in the senate peered at the same time, you have rand paul very much against it. a lot of the opponents in 2016 will be taking shots at him for a long time.

theo remains one of parties most effective messengers, a hispanic candidate. aswill be huge draw republicans think, well, can we actually pull this this off in 2016? marco rubio has a huge number of advances, but it remains to be seen with a long-term advantage for his presidential prospects are. is from theahn daily caller, which is run by tucker callers -- by tucker carlson. we begin with a call from eric in antioch, california on our independent line. hi, i just want to say that c-span is a great thing. my here in california, opinion is that the issue of prop 8 was not decided by the supreme court justices. ,t was decided by two people jerry brown and arnold

schwarzenegger, when they failed to do their duty as governor and as attorney general for the state in representing the people of california as far as prop 8 waned. when they refused to do it, there was no standing left. in california, we need to get an amendment process going to force those individuals, the governor or the attorney general of the state, to represent the people. that is basically what i think, what i am feeling. i will take your comment off a or. -- off air. guest: california remains one of the most progressives dates in the country. and their resistance to gay marriage is notable, or at least it was. a voter if there were today whether gay marriage would pass in california. i think that would be an excellent vindicator -- indicator of how quickly this would set across the country.

host: does it do anything for the movement of the proposition? , it probablything strengthens it, strengthens the rights of judges to throw out these laws. host: florida, republican. to the i am listening gentleman here and i was laws were-- all the taken out of the bible. so the gentleman the call before stating that he is not the laws from the united states of america have been pulled out from the bible. lincoln, george washington were christians. if we allow men and men to get married, we are going against the bible. number one. number two, can i marry my dog or a horse and let them die and collect social security?

men and men get married. they do not multiply. that means in the future, they have no children unless they adopt. most do not want to adopt because if not, they would not suggest being gay. they is not being born gay. gay is a spirit that comes in the person. you can refute that. homosexuals can turn her way from being homosexuals. it is not a disease. that said, it is ridiculous what is going on. ask youwould like to two questions. where do you attend church, and how old are you? .aller: i am 47 i attend church in kendall. thank you for calling me this morning. guest: one thing we are going to have to look at with the gay marriage decision is how this .ffects polygamy

there was an interesting piece yesterday on buzz feed. floralked applicants for meritor closely watching these decisions what they thought -- what theyal marriage thought, and it was celebrated by them. so we have to look at the construct of the one man-one- woman marriage. what right do we have to tell ribs of consenting adults who pleuralenter into a marriage that that is unjust and it should be illegal? ,ost: hillary in potomac maryland on our democrats line. caller: the independent caller from california is wrong when he says the state did not do its job in defending prop 8. it did. intervened.ts

they had a trial. they were sued by the opponents of proposition eight, and they had a trial. the state and proponents had every opportunity to defend the law. they had to do that by proving that gay marriage was bad for, itt it hurt children, that hurt heterosexual marriage. they had the burden of proving that and they did not. therefore, the law fell. the supreme court did not do anything except let that law stand. just a little fed up with hearing the coverage of this, the supreme court approved gay marriage by judicial fiat. there was a trial and the facts came out. the facts did not bear out what the proponents or what the state needed to prove in order to defend the law. this does go back to the point that people arguing

against this law have to deal with the fact that they are doing kind of a very abstract concept, that there is going to be some unintended consequences that comes from this that leads to some kind of societal and moral degradation on a massive scale. that is an extremely hard thing to prove versus the counter , which is i am married to this person and that should be acknowledged as a real marriage. host: an article in the daily caller this morning -- fbi, to racists to show pitchers of a terrorist after jim mcdermott wrote a letter to the fbi about the faces of global terrorism. that wehis is something have to deal with as we confront islamist terrorism.

--is about alien the alienating people in the muslim american community who are just americans practicing religious asiefs and we need allies we confront the problem of global jihad is him -- jihadism. it is a hard note to strike without alienating and offending people. one-story the daily caller had on the gay marriage issue was the clintons praise supreme court reversal of bill clinton's gay marriage ban. why did you financing of again? we had several store -- why did you find that significant? .uest: we had several stories but bill clinton's a statement about it, as i said earlier,

andrew sullivan had a post up on his site, the annals of post -- the annals of chutzpah. the man who campaigned on this throughout the south, who doubled the discharge of gay service members from the military, who signed the hiv travel ban into law, who would promise one thing to the gay community in this country and then go the opposite direction when it was politically convenient -- for him to come out and praised the striking down of this unconstitutional law which he insisted was constitutional at the time shows, i would say, a level of audiological dexterity which is noteworthy. host: tony, independent line. -- thank you. my education and my career -- schools in my neighborhood and community, healthcare and

services for those who oppose my rights, it is unfair for someone like me who has given a lot in my 30 years. i have been working since a child is old enough to work in this country. it is kind of hard to hear people use a book, religion, their faith, or what have you to oppose my z you. i do not know where jesus stood on this position but i do not callingver hearing him out individuals. when they use religion or the bible or what presidents were christian, it goes to show, are you really a christian or are you using that to oppose others'rights because you do not know how to feel about a situation? .e are on the right course i think the decision that the supreme court made was a fair decision.

but i know the day before that, part of the voters rights act was opposed and knocked down. so it goes to show the people in this country are having a lot of opinions on things that we necessarily have not had a conversation on in the past, and it is unfair for a group of people to amass what people should not be entitled to. meanwhile, you take our taxes to do whatever you want. if my taxes are good enough to take care of you and others, why should i not be allowed to marry a human being? not marry my dog, not marry my sister, not marry my brother. but someone who says i love you, too. people need to take their personal views out of it. i appreciate my parents. they were married, very deep wriston, very conservative black christians which can be very harsh at times -- very

deep christians. heterosexual marriage and children, but because i choose to live my life in authenticity, it should not be a problem for those who are living a lie. host: we got the point. will rahn? guest: i think that argument is attractive to a lot of people now, increasingly attractive argument. referencing back to the kaufman article i referred to earlier, we are at some point going to have to grapple to the notion of two consenting adults being able to get married and a lot of people are asking what appens when it becomes three? host: a tweet from joseph rimer is -- polygamy becomes a states ratights issue? guest: i will not go that far,

but it is something we will be having a conversation about in the future. seven wayite -- obama has completely undone the clinton esidency. calnese. president obama refused to defend the defense of rriage act which was signed into law by president clinton. doma was struck down by the preme court. to, obama put an end clinton's don't ask, don't tell poli. numb three, obama got it the clinton 1996 welre rorms b allong stes igne the laws. can you expand on that? gut: going bac to the welfare requirements, this is a controversial iue from about a year ago or so ihink that

president obama has made his preference known. clinton famously id that the a of big government is over. i dnot inthat that is a statement thatarack oba woulmakeod. host: four, president clinton failed to kill osama bin laden in 1998. president obama kill bin laden. number fe, cntonamouy deared the era of bi government is over. ama loves big government. six, is actual the country's first black resident even though toni morrison famously this dough that on clinton. numb sev, obama actually showed hilry clinton some respect. est: that is a cheap shot. sometimes we take them. ,o: charles, alandria virgia, republican line. caller: it is interesting to me

how people seem to overlook the supreme court casef williams versus north carolina 1940 where the court ruled that ates have recognize the marriageand divorces of other states. we talk about 12 states have gay marriage and 30% of the american peopllive in states permit gay marriage. ibo can cross state lines to get married. i mean, i lived in pennsylvania -- b t way, i am straight. i married a woman who lived in new jersey. i was maied new jersey, and then i took my spouse back penylvania and i was legally maied there. i kn a lesbian couple in maryland. they got married in massachusetts and then moved back to maryland, and they are legay married. sooner or later we are gng to see more cases of people who get , ga who marry in one

state will move to another state to take up residence. a year or five years down e ro ty will want to get a divorce. to get theivorcethattate of residents will have to do fact nrecoize their marria in orr grant them a divorce. we are going have alkind of new legal battles and skirmishes down the line as we sort this thing out. thank you. guest: the federal recognition of these mriag yesrdays huge. obviously, right now moving is -- the new york times has a story about this on the ont page this morning. if you are a gay couple in wa and you to florid during the winter to escape tt iowa winter, this is stl a legal if members of the

couple died there. am ais the beginning bunch of new legal questions as we confront this, but it wld seem that 're definitely getting close t states having to fully recognizell the nefi for marries tt ar recognizedn other states. guest: how -- st: how would you gra the esident's send term so far? est: i would say it has been rough on the president. you have a series of scandals whh have, if not debilatg to the presidency, have hugely proved to be a distction for him. he is trying to embark on huge new inittives. the most noteworthy -- notewohy this week would be the global iniative that went unnoticed the american population at large, which is kind ofreeted with this titanic shrug. i do not even think nbc

carried the speech, which is a bad sign when network ally to the white house is not ev going out there to stump for it. the president is a beret now, overshaded a bit. how much of these -- the prident is right now ershowed ait. he is inching dangerously close to lame-duck status. host: the wall street jrnal has an article -- fighting obama's climate bush. benny, indiana, and democrats ne. will rahn of the daily caller is our guest. caller: i wou like to move aw from the particular point that has been talk about and .et tobamacare i am a retired elevator mechanic and am on disability. i draw my psion. d my insurance includes

mecare. would like to know how obamacare is going to affect in thatike me and circpeople in similar situations. you cant geany information on obamacare. so canou help knee? -- can youelp me? guest: t fact that you are reaching out to men c-span this morning may speak volumes to howhe gernment explains this law to people. theext few months you will see a huge push, the president puttg his campan apparatu back into effect to get people to sn up forhis w and coince them to sign up f th law, particularly younger pele who do not have insurance. of tough sell, buthe futuref the law, to some eent, depends on people ke y enrolling in this

program and being convinced to enroll in this proam. it is problemac, i would say, eply problematic for the future of the law if people other cannot be convinced yet that this is something they shou be gning up for in october and november. gop -- uldouse ey perhaps the defunding it? guest: i think they have gotten their point across. the argument from leadership i, well, we have new membersho really need the opportunity to vote ainbama care. they want that on the records he cause they have not had chance to do it yet it does seem to be a kind of constany throwinghe se pie of red meat at e base, and i think a t ofonseatives are getting a little b tir of the constant sort of meaningless

votes to overturn obacare. it is sll auge issue. republicanveryuch nt tt law overrned. that is still a very galvanizing issue. if not totallyd, meaningless, then it i something thatould have no actual effect, votes goingut of the hse of representatives i am not sure how winning the strategy is. host: the aboionssue- i wanted to asyou about what happen in texas. front page of the houston chronicle this morning, a picture of wendy davis. ,erry summons wmakers back abortiont top of list in the special session. davistory wendy was certainly compelling, particularly to those on the left who believe strongly in the pro-choice movement. buthe ct is that tom a yes,

thisaw will almost certain these new abortion restrictions wilalmo certainly ss itexas, d we're going to see right now in texas -- this wille an intereing case, particularly if wendy dav runs for governor. she has this sort of rockstar status if she w runng tomorrow, i do not think s would have trouble fundraising. tas though, i a not sure how purple it is actually skewing it. we wl look at immigration regulations. the demoatic par have put a lot of resources in to trying to nudge thattate but i do not thinthe republican hold on e soh is going to disappear or start to break down. i do not think texas will be the fit ate to go. that is still a migh red state. host: is abortion still a

critical issue for the gop, an is there a consens among young conservatives on this issue? guest: is it a political issue for the gop? absolutely. i would say young consertives the young conservatives who i know, there is still a lot of opsition to abortion out there whh makes it diffent from the gay marage sue. there arcertainly young conservaves other who fe strongly about gay marrie and feeltrgly abt opposi it, but it does not have the same efct opeople as abortion does gamarrge, you look at it and it is very hard to argue. it is like, ll, how does gay marriage hurt ybod abortion is a difrent thing for people who bieve tt is a living, breathing babbein kill. solute, that is hurting somebodyxtraordinari.

that is something which is very important on theight and will rema a very importanissue on thright, even if there were -- even if it hurts republican caidat sometimes. california, independt line. go ahead. caller ias clingo say about e gay marriage, the the doma repeal. i personally disagree with gay but i do not think the government shouldeally intervene in people's personal lives ke for gayarriage or -- it is the same thing like drug issues, legalizing rijuana. that is all i really wanted to sa now that they have

, ieal prop eight and doma ink ey start working on lelizing marijuana. host: all right guest: it is an interesting argument. i thinkou a hearing it a lo more. i wod sait is symptomatic thatis libertarian trend ,s emergg in american vors peop who can maybe go back and forth between the two partie. they can be anti-drug war. theyan be pro-marijuana legalizaon. , pro-ro-gay marriage choice, while at the same ti wanting limited government that does not interfere with economic liberties. this is a growing trend of america. weill have to see how big it go. how muche will see

libertaria can organe wi rand paul. it is somethingo definite watc ho: a tweet -- guest: onehing iave heard from republicans in town -- of course he is already tesfied before cgress, and a lot of publicans will like to use benghazi against secreta clinton, assumi that she runs for the democratic nomination in 2016. issa gaett of hillary clinton? i would not say so. i think youave raithe public'appeteor ctinu angods hearings. you have to make the valued judgment of what exactly did happen a benghaziand is this

enough to holdhe administration' feet over t fire? anothe seet: ultimely,e will if the economy has not still approved, if unemploent is stl high at the end of esident obama's term. that will definite affect his legacy negatively. terms of his legislative was aies, obamar unning achieveme. was proposing this on the floor of the house in 55. obama and t congressional democrats actuly got this through. but his record of selling legislation, the biggest ampl was the background check

, and his wiingness to actually do the hands-on dirty work with individual politicians, ttin them on a force on getting on the phone with them at 2:0a.m.and talk .o them me politians are masterful at this. bill clintonlyndon johon is the most famous barack obama has ner shown that he is particularly to it at that or particularly interested in doing it. he more on his speecs and his rhetoric and t ovell meage. he is certainly a very effective, very shrewd politician. at this point with legislatinot much. host: another call.

onler: thank you for bei the "washington joual" providing this opportuty to speak. i ha seea dete -- theyre trying to use the argument now that gay marriage is bad for childn or the heterosexual community on their marriage rate over 50% on the vorce rate. lee's explain w thais good for kids. i was a school board member for six years. i have sn the eects of divorce, folks. youanet off your high horses on that one. thsupre court ruling did noing but support the constitution. because in this countryby god, we all have the righto life, liberty, and t pursuit of happiness. thank u, gentlemen. you have aood y, gdbye. t is sucaguess tiled or -- tired old joke at this pointhat iis a cliché butow we have gay marriage which gives gay people the abily to as miserable as

the rest of us. divorce, yoknow, rtainly not a great thg, bad for a lot of people obvisly. am noreally sure how much the heterosexual divorce rate really plays into theay a whate discussion lessons we can learn from at when approaching gay marrie. askfinally, i want to you about ur hometown may your oral raise. mayoral race. guest:nthony weiner is a skled polician and he i throng absoluty evything into this race. christine qun, the city council speaker, she has worke very hard to kind of blow everyone out of the water. at the same time, she has not

been rningarticularly inspiring campaign. itill intesti to see how this plays out. e conventional wisdom is the deed and the credit primary will - the runoff conventional wisdom at ts pot ishat the docratic primary will go to a runoff. in the race around august, it is sy to imagine that either ms. quinn, anthony weiner, or mr. thompson who is very underrated and nearly gave bloomberg a run for his money, it is very possible thawe have single mocratic nominee and aingle republicanominee. its possible that the republicans go bk in d ar able to take city hall or keep contl of it, depending on what bloomber cause political affiliion is. , deputy editor of the daily caller,

dailallecom. mingp, rreseativjose crowy, docrafr new yk, represting broon ques herend his ao pa othe democrat learshiin the hous we will ta aboome t suesf thday. and 're gng ttalkith tt leef thassoated ess,oong at e sue of diplomatic immuny as xylem and tie into the edward snowden case. asylum and tie it to thedward snowden case. first fullobama's day in africa. he met wi the president of senegal. prident obama's weighed on the supreme court's decision on same-sex marriage, saying it was a victory not just for gays and lesbians but f american democry. the presidentaid different

customs andeligus biefs muste respectein diffent countries am a but --, but states that law should treat everyone equally. senegal is not ready to decrimalizhomosexualy. also addressed at the news conference washe n leaker edward snowden. president obama sa he will not enge in wheeling, dealing, and trading to get edward snowden extradited tthe u.s., adng that he will not be scrambling military jetto go after a 20 nine-year-old hacker, recting suggestions the u.s. might send the air force to force down a plane carrying owdefrom russia to another country. president obama also comnting on former south african president nelson mandela, saying he is aero for the world and thatis legacy will lier tough the ages. , has beendela, 94 hospitaled sce june 8 for a recurring lung infection.

earlietoday one of his daughters said he is in very critical condition but he is still opening his eyes and reting to touch. still ging the family hope even though, in her words, anything is imminent. those are some of the last helines on c-span radio. criminato mis that i had to authorize my budget people, fancial peopleo write a check for $454 miion a ltle t more tn a month ago texpa our contracts wi theussians to crews to the international ace station fo .016 and 2017 the present's budget calls for $821 million for a commercial crew. we are not there. is to try to persuade congress tt thplans good in that we areoing to be effient users of the taxpayers' mon.

.e are up to $5 million as i have td every member of congress with whom i have talked, $821 mlion isital if we are to me the 2017 date so that amerans are tranorteto space again on americpacecraft. >> more thhe na adnisttor ndayightt 8:00 on c-span q&a. "washington jonal" continues. as isjoining representative joe cwley, democrat from new york. he represents the queens i the bronx areas of new york ty. vice chair othe democratic caucus in the house. issueart with a local the mayor's race in new york. have you endsed, and why is it so tight? guest: i have endorsedhris inn, speaker of the city

council. why is it stight? i think it is early and people are still measuring up the fos that are running. it is a crowded field. there are fiveandites the .emocratic primary iself th lends itself to a lot of information, a lot of people it is early. i think pele wl get back to vacations -- from vacations and will focus on the race. it is a claic new york race, similar to what happened in 1977. i remeer as a young man, a little boy, that race iwhic were inomo and ed koch the ra. what do you think about yo colleague anthony weiner jumping in? guest: he is a politicn, very

smart. i do tnk iwas emature in terms of his reenterininto the political arena, t public arena. , people aretive looking for a lile bit more remorse. having said that, that is done now. he is in the race, performing well. is th it is still a lile r for many new yorker, d at the debt will play out. not so much out anthony - i am supporting chris quinn because i thinshe the right candidate. will be historic, the first woman, the first oply gay mayor of new york city. she is tou. if it was a man that was tough, ey wld say he is right for the job. it is womanshe ts a little bit of a double standard. you have to be tough to be mor new yk. i think she h allhose sets. i ink she has done a lot of

great ings already for the city. the mayor at this point. but this campaign ctinu to rollout, i thinkhe wl ge the edithat is due to her. things goinghe on uon the hill -- thnsa issues, the leaks, the irs ise. have these been damaging the democratic brand? , everyi think, you know issunow that is raised -- i jokingly said a few weekago, whadithe president know and when did he know it? it has gotten to the point that everything now is a scandal, and it is very scripted. we hear the same keywords over and overgain. the scandal-ridden white house. blah, blah, blah. i think most peopleee through . weaw chairman issa and his

original statements about how he wass issue, you know convinced at it came from the top-down, that hwhite house knew everything. now it turnsut that it was a faty iestigation, thathere were progressive groups or aoupyroups that were targeted by this outfit in cincnati. it has thrown a wrench into their overall argument and there are investigations. i wonderow ty hale it now. that is the question going forwd. we will have the heang today in t ways and means committee. how our republican colleagues handle this in light of the new information -- i think somewhere waiting for e shoe to dp and wanted to see a dict lk twashinon. stead, it is the opposite. this is much broader persecution. i do not think anybodshou

be sought after the i becse of their political biefs. the irs needso carry out the law as it is interpreted by th courts. ,o individual, no organization because otheir political beliefhether it be left, righ mide, wter, should be targeted by the i. host: c-span will be covering thatays and means hearings on the s. it will be live on c-span.org. ith alexander recently met withhe house democrats. is that true? why just the use democrats, and what did you hear? gut: wasot athat particular meeting. to thatave the answer as to why was just mocrs. - i think they ve information they wanto dilge.

it happensith publicans as well. edward snowden a ho or skunk or something in between? guest: some people were asking questionsbo why proper channels were not used to sclo possibly some oversteps by the government, and i think many of us wereind of listening to whawas actually being released. as time has gone on in people reale that maybe the intention here, and snowden himself is madeeference tthe fact that got involved in the nsa to do t things he is doing today, and i think that creates some qutionabout his characr and what his motivationsere. his motivations were to be subvsive and tundeine the united states, i think that changes the ballgame. looking at the countries he associating himself wi of late, chin rusa, venezuela,

starts cree, in the minds of my americans, some questions about his motition. i think that what he did is wrong. i think he- if he is putting -- ihink he has put in opar the interest ofhe united statesnd t national security. thats wrong. some suggested suggested would be treasonous. necessarilywt to ta that step. but we need to ask questions. we need to ask about the materials and who has access to at. ho: what is you role as vice chaiof t caus? guest: i am elected as vice chairman of the caucus. it is one of the five elected positions within the house leadership. in the minority, it is the minorityeaderthe mirity whip thos spial assistant to

the leader. nancy pelosistenhoyer of the democratic caucus and myself theice chair. weave meetings, sometimes two or three meetings, from a caucus perspective. it gives all the colleagues in the democratic caucus an opportunity to ask questio to leadership, and we hear from iniomakers. having the abou opportunity to hear from each otheand people to express themselves to the leadership of the use. host: do you er meet with the republican leadership as a group? thati have not had exrience yet. i thk fothe most part that is done. i do think that leader pelosi does meet with speaker boehner. they talk white - quite often.

steny hoyer s talked with the majority lder and majority ip. i havead conversations with our counterparts in terms of the republican caucus leadership. ,uactually getting together it has not happened in my experience. i cannot sak to past leadership meetings, on the past --only the past six or seven mohs. host: youave been in congress about 15 years or so. at changes have you witnesd, if any? , we havau know tendency to talk about the immediate, what is happening right no i ink atost people who know me know me to beery optimistic. they often talk about how we're going through phase. we will will get through this phase. we will mo on, the country will be ok. i often ink about people who think thathey are indispensable, that somehow the

country cannot go on without em. colleues at april 16, 1865fter abraham lincoln was lled, thcountry did not go on. we went throh tuoil and go times we, but country has survived. we wl agn. iave not seen it as polarizing and my 15 years as i have had f the past few years come a particularly ts year. onop of that, within the majority pty -- there was last wk's vote on the farm bill which of the sizes ere this icomi from. i do not believe it is coming the mocratic caucus in the house. we are inhe morit we do not control what bill come to the floor. the agenda thats passed as the majority's agenda for the st part. many of thmajobillthat have passed have psed with the majority votes.

i tnk saker boehner finds himself in a diffilt a awkward potion. i respect him but dnot agree with him on everything, just about anything at this point. but i do respect him. i feel for h to some degree as well, because wh is happening anthataucus i do not pretento know buit i anything but unified that presents proems when trying to pass legislation. even t farm bill. in new york, it is not the fst thing we think about when we wakep inhe morning. it suld be. it should be called the food bill. that would have mo resents --esonance. the failure to act on meing at was so taken forranted that this happens, i think it ses a shocking wave throughout washiton and beyond th things really are not normal in any sense of the word. host: how did you voten the

original patriot act a wha about reauorization? guest: i voted in favoof t original patriot act ilighof 9/11, my home town hing been attacked. it was n jus an attack against my hometown of new york city, it was an attack ainst ourcountry. whater breakdown in inlligence had taken pla, whever new tools our enemies weresing, i thinwe nded re-examine ando whatevere could for 14 addition attks thwarting aaddional attacks. as time s gone on, concerns outivil liberties have been ised. i have questioned whether or not we ne to continue to have the same orders in effect and since then have been consistentlyat ts point,

nting to normalize our intelligence-gathering to some degree. i think we have the tools place now that have protected said little less, d -- have protected us a little less, and the ha been changes in the paiot act d the sa laws. we are movingowards more balance. you will never have everyone completely sisfied. that is always a challenge of congress. we will continue tdo that as long as it we are re, and think we will be here for a long ti. ho: representative joe crowley, democrat from new york. now it is ur te to call in. we have put some issues on the table. a lot we have not talked about yet. we will begin with a democrati all, kathleen in chicago. ller how are you doing? ok, you know, i am a diehd democrat. so it hurts me so bad that the democrats, you all would not

stand up to these republicans. you are there to help the american people. you just let tse republicans get away with murr. they come up with scandals and lies, and you all just stand down. i do not understand. my maihing for calling you, when are youll going to get busy with his voting rights act? beusif youo not get bus now andet these republicans ge away with thisour party will be dead on arril. this is why they are voting where we cannot even go to the polls. this is serious. all this other stuff, this mess about everything but what ' supposed to do. you all get by with his votingct becse we are in a world of trole. host: all right, you t tohe point. guest: she is respdingo th decion othcourt two days for all practical

purposes suspended the voting rits. although not in whole, but in some of the applications. we recommend congress go back and re-examine what it had done in 2006. i do not know it was the role of the court to suggest that congressid not do to diligence when there we 15,000ages of materials made avaible to the court as we, inermsf what wasappening around the coury, in ter of dividuals rights to vo. she says she doenot see ough backbone in democrats. quite frankly, we have seen a eat deal with iin tms of dealing with pushing back on these so-called scandals. i thinthe esident himself has been forthright with the american people and has done erything he can be doing to try to move this congress towards working in a more cooperative way. but the reality ise doot have a problem with the

republican caucus -- we continue to call the out and believe they are not bng host with the american people. when it comes to the issue of the voti rigs act, this is not about what congress should , its somhing coness must to do. must revisit this and do it in a bipartisan w, whh we did in 2006 here at the congress e overwhelmingly suortethe reenactment of the voting rights act in 2006. we need to make thneeded adjustmes. tore arstates that need come under t voting rights act. we have seen anomalies in pennsylvaniand ohio andther states. so may this is an opportunity to re-exame and exnd were the voting rights act should cover and where justice should be involved. gordon is in flushing, new york.

tricked?n your disk -- ithat in your district? guest: i have parts of flushing. host congressman j crowley is the poster bore wit everythi that is wrong with the united states congress. with the poster boy everything that is wro wit the ited states congress. local hometown new york city newspapers at all namejoe crowle the numberne recipient of lobbyist money. recently made an endorsement r cones over izabeth crowley. her father was just indicted and pled guilty to taking an $80,000 bribe aa member of the w york state legislatu. r nehbor in gaen cy says she has resigned from congre because it is a dysfunctional. joe crowley is talking about the great republican president abraham lincoln. heust admitted he es n talko the republicans

he is reallthe poster boy for everything -- host: a response? gordon.hank you, gordon mada number of comments. i do not think anyone has the guilt of their father, a .raceing is a wonderful woman i was proud to endorse her for congress here itltimately, it is sewhat meaningful,ut h constituents eleed h. of the the plurality white vote in that election of a which is monumental first asian- not onlyto be elected in queens but to the congress or new yo city new york state that the entire eastoast. i think her election s incredibly hisric. i am proud that i suppord grace ming.

i think she will me a wonderful congresswoman. host: was that caller crect you do not suprt your cousin? est: in thicase, i suorted -- d th is true in this case. i have supported elizabeth f other offices thisntent was to make district in asian-influence distct, although not covered by the ving rights act. thatieve wasmportant we flow the intention he of e judge. not only that, we had an incredibleandidate, one we knew who would stand to the attacks by republicans and make history at the same time. what i have beenbout in terms of my position in queens county to help queens county further into the 2t century and to help the electorate elect iividuals who are

representativef thmakeup o the county. very scessful. the first ecuadorian american elected to thetate assembly. kim elected to e state assembly. just a couple of examples of the advces we have made in queens cnty. i think iave played a maj part in making that happen. i proud of that. immigrationee legislatiocoming from the house floor the senate? guest: the question is whether it will take up the senateill and i belie the saker has indicated to his caucus that they will not simply pick up the senate bill. the way things are going around take i would prefer they up the senate bill. i am hearing that the house judiciary committee is taking pieces of the bill, piecemeal. do not think that is the way

we should pass comprehensive immigration. i think we should have a compreheive bill. another has been a great deal caucus,ut in by the the am of eht, d nothe team of seven. although we have not seen in , that proposais, at i have been hearing about being included in thatit ia very comprehensive bill. in light of what happened with e farm bill last week, that ll have an impact going foard as it ptains to just about anything that comes to the house flr. the speaker has indicated at he thewill have to havthe majority of the majority to have it othe floor. i do not think i am going to likeith at majoritmajoty bill will lookike. host: democrat, illinois. caller: good morning.

how are you doing, mr. reesentative? guest: good morning. caller: ok, let's talk abou things i never hear politicians talkboutlike inflation. you tell us there is no inflatn, things just cost mo money. you know, cry. by the way, i am a vietnam vet. guest: thank you for your rvic caller: there is a bget for each department of the government. i never hear of any deparent in the government going der budget. they are always going er budget. that has been in place forever. one more thing about outsourcing anything leaving the shores of america is bad. it is not good. to outsource jobs that we created throughout the years and signing contractwith these other nations --

host: i think we go your point, some econoc issues. guest: fst of all, thank y for your service to the country, particularly for a vietnam veteran i think we have come to realize the sacrifices that you and your fellow brothers and sisters made your in that te. i don't nto sound trite. i have tremendous reect for your generation. when it comes to inflati, w have been hearing consistently that inflation has been pt i check. that so cause of h introduction of quantitative easing, keing interest rates at low level. as it pertains to nationally, the interest rate has risen a

little over 1%. it reay has not had a great seationay. , ig in new york city understand of the cost of vars from place to ace. citye in a high-cost self, often having to explain toocial curity recipients y it is that we don't have a supplemental for people o live in high-cost areas such as new york and elsewhere. we are seeinreduion the nation debt. terms of tsouing jobs, we do live in a global economy. we can'live in an isolationist fashion that is the reality of life. the united states, as it peains to taxes, i

incentivizes ming ovseas. and that iwhat we ne to change about our tax code erie it i up seen what is happening right now. it incentivizes movi overseas. the ways and means committee still working o fundamental tax refor and do you think it should go forward? my understanding is that the airman continues to do that. think there is a sense fromoth democrats and republicans that the code that ists is broken. is where the fundamental fferences lie. i do think there is bipartisan suppt foa changen the de tt existsight now is overly complicated. and because of that, it is effient. it ialsonfair. e american people look at corporations that y ze corporate income tax in the united states.

generale,f they pay zero direct income x tohe government mt years, using layers -- lawyers to find ways not to do it. we have great jurisprudence system in this country that respectshe ieres of mpanies that eds to be maintained. hava patent office in , whher a lot of patents the ge owns. when they go to exine ose tents and the light bb is on, they are not paying for electricity. there is something inherently wrong with that. there is something wrong with the code. of most importa aspect the code is tt it incentivizes investment overss.

we nd tourthat aund. a taskman created forc. it was fact-finding, finding o who pays tax and who does not. . found it enligeng it gave me an opportuty to work with lynn jenkins and develop relationship. moving forward on tax reform, were going to have to have some faith each othe mitchl isn flida on the line f independents. caller:ood morning. a lot of people think are divided. we are divided. we are didedecau we have

two sets of opinions. we have peop on e democratic side who want to go to a progressive way of living, and then we ha the older group that wants to keep the old ways. if we keep going the way we are we're going to be a nation of laws that just don't stand. the laws we wrten from the bible. i stand by the bib i will always stand by the bible. .on't underestimate christians we d't hate nobody, but we know what's right and wrong. it seems that nowads things are not right and wrong anymore. they arealled good, bad, and bad, good. i want to warn this country that were going to be in a world of trouble if we keep going the way we are goi. anthat's for all ofs. i think mitchell is

making reference to a number of decisions made by the supreme court this week. i think that there is a balance. .here certainly is disagreement on one hand,ne of the thesions has setack cotry as it pertains to the civil rights aspect of the vong rights act. on the other hand, it is hped move the country forwardn the issue of marriagequality. areink the ameran people ahead of not only the courts, but the legislature. the country has turned e corner on this issue. i think the ise of a quaty equity is a -- good one for our nation.

christian tditions, but we look to expand opportunities for rights and r individuals to be protected , as ourunder the law founding fathers h e guest: it's a great question. there are elements within the that wouldcaucus see us go over the cliff. i think that was made very clear and the vote that we took in the house of representatives on bills that would prioritize the payment of our debt in the

event that we did go over the cliff and default on the national debt. that debate in the committee and on the floor and the passage of that bill was damaging. the worlduggest to that the united states might actually do this. i don't think we will do this. i think a lot of this is crazy talk. red meat to a certain portion of the republican party, but it is dangerous to even be talking about that. rating industries will be looking at that and questioning whether or not we would default. i don't think we will. it would be catastrophic not only to the united states but to the world economy. some of the more rational members of the republican party, the speaker has brought in experts to convince his colleagues that this is wrongheaded and not the way they should be going.

i still think there is an element within the party that would see that happen. host: a tweet -- guest: i think she is wrong. you talk about the liberty of america and the freedom to live in this country. this is the further pursuit of americans for happiness. for the first time, they will be able to afford affordable health insurance for their families. children now cannot be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions. young people up to 26 years of age can stay on their parents' insurance. wellness visits for medicare recipients. they can have preventative

wellness visits to catch disease earlier. they can do that at a lower rate so the outcome is better and the cost is less expensive and less of a burden on the american people. once these exchanges are up next have beenle who denied the opportunity to purchase or own insurance, that will change. millions and millions of americans will now have an opportunity. host: christine in fort smith on our line for republicans. caller: thank you. good morning. about the voting rights act, the road has been paved for my generation to reap the benefits

of not being raised in a racist society. having a black man elected for president. i've been seeing the older promoting racism. we are better people now. we don't have a reason to fight about who is black or white. the older generation, i it's time them, but to stop saying this column -- color, that color. thank you, christine. i think we are a better nation. 50 years since the passage of the voting rights for the country has changed

the better. i think the groundwork that was laid or paved as you made reference to has led in many respects to the election of the first african-american as president of the united states. that is because the law was in place. i think there are many examples of anomalies that have taken place in the voting rights of american citizens. we have steam state legislatures -- seen state that are trying to change the laws as it pertains to voter identification that told create another barrier people when they go to vote. we have seen examples of , a move by thes board of elections to change a voting site from a public school to a country club but did

not allow african-american people -- that did not allow african-american people to join was thwarted by the voting rights act. they were compelled to not move that voting site. that happened very recently. we have seen other anomalies in states that are not covered by the voting rights act. in pennsylvania, ohio, there have been attempts -- whether it is through long lines or other means to thwart the ability of an individual to think the voting rights act has made a difference. we are a better nation because they have been in place. now is not the time to take them away. are carriedt they out and executed is what will continue to ensure that the united states stays on that right paved road that you talk about. a democrat from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. .aller: thanks very much

, would like to ask mr. crowley how come the congress only works three days a week? [indiscernible]i got the impression, people told me that americans are very violent people. host: let's get

some answers. guest: you made some reference to why hasn't congress adopted to the modern age and use technology for the purposes of voting. gordon and flushing would have a hard time of that. we would see less time of each other than we do right now. it is important that the representatives who are elected by the people -- especially in house of representatives -- no member of the house is here other than being elected to the house -- that we get together, have the opportunity to converse and share our opinions and where we come from. , we should beme here more often, working more often in washington, doing the people's business. asuspect this may go down the least productive congress in the history of united states.

have quite a few months in this year and all of next year to make up for that, but i am concerned about that. in terms of a violent country, i think there is entirely too much violence in the world today. we certainly have our fair share. the warmth ofze america. we are a tough country. at the same time, we are compassionate. we have to find a solution to gun violence in this country. not only is it pertains to the horrific acts we saw in connecticut or wisconsin or colorado, we have gun violence it takes place every day in the streets of new york and chicago, but alsoe gun violence needs to be under control. it's a great effort we must all undertake. call for congressman

crowley comes from robert in california, line for independents. .aller: thank you very much last week mueller got on tv and said had the program for an essay been in place to monitor phone calls, could have stopped nsa beenks on 9/11 -- in place to monitor phone calls, they could have stopped the attacks on 9/11. that is a lie. the cia photographed everyone at that meeting. this up,you could wrap we're running short on time. do you have a specific question? mueller was misleading

the american public. why isn't congress getting involved in finding out why he was misleading the congress? those numbers have been monitored. host: i think we have some information there to work with. congressman? guest: i don't sit on the requisite to midi in the house -- committee in the house. i did listen to questions about the senate. is thatould suggest with modern technology there are additional tools that our intel community can use to help thwart attacks and protect america. you mentioned 9/11. i lived through 9/11. i was in new york city during the attack. i lost a first cousin and a

number of friends. i would not like to see anything like that happen again. at the same time, we have to strike that balance with those civil liberties and ensure that information cannot be used, as history has shown when they have used that to undermine the civil rights of americans. the more we learn about what the nsa and fbi did with that information, it's intriguing. we are still coming to conclusions here i. host: are you comfortable with because off funding sandy, and has your district fully recovered? guest: most severely in the bronx district, in edgewater,

where homes were treated in a similar way that they were in staten island and new jersey, but not at the same scale. .uch of my district is back up i want to give fema a shout out and thanks to fema for all the work they did. my mother is from the rockaways in queens. my aunt was with us for a couple of months. my cousins were with my sister for a few months. there are brack -- back in rockaway. rockaways coming back. i know there is still a lot of to a lot of the economic areas of the peninsula. restaurants and stores are coming back. they're not back yet, but they're on the way.

i spent my summer months in rockaway beach and where i grew up, a good portion of my life. been talking with representative joe crowley, democrat from new york. we appreciate your time this morning. one more segment coming up. for going to be looking at the issue of diplomatic immunity, asylum, extradition, and tie it into the edward snowden situation. matley with the "associated press" covers the state department. jobless numbers in this hour show the number of americans seeking the benefits fell 9000 to a seasonally adjusted 346,000. that is evidence the job market is still improving, though modestly. employers added 175,000 jobs in may, almost matching the average

monthly gain for the past year. commerce department says americans spend more in may as their income increased at the fastest pace in three months. gains that could help economic growth rebound. consumer spending is important because it drives 70% of economic activity. high calories for strength and candy bars will be removed from school vending machines and cafeteria lines as soon as next year. it will be replace with diet drinks, granola bars, and other healthier items. this to make sure for the first time that all foods sold in the nation's 100,000 schools are healthier by expanding fat, calorie, and sugar limits to almost everything sold during the school day. those are some of the latest headlines. this sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of

gettysburg. , the maind right here figure, the statue of the indian chief, represents a chieftain of the delaware tribe. he was known for being a warrior and a diplomat. the 42nd new york on the third day of july. they lost at least 15 of their men. the dedication of this monument said, this monument was american from head to toe. it represented the best the nation had to offer. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live coverage sunday begins at 9:30 eastern.

later at 5:30, we will take your calls and tweets. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony, followed by a candlelight procession to soldiers national cemetery. we will end the day at 9:15 with civil war institute director peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. submit questions and comments today, facebook.com/cspanhistory. now we want to entry see duke -- introduce you to matthew lee. the issue to discuss of diplomatic immunity. were going to tie that into the edward snowden case. what is diplomatic immunity? a privilege, something

that dates back many years, back to medieval and even before times. ed is a privilege that allows representatives of states to do their business in other states .ithout fear of prosecution it is reciprocal. if country x sends to y, both of those people are going to be protected and not allowed to be prosecuted, subpoenaed. it was an informal arrangement for thousands of years between ancient kingdoms. 's was codified in the 1800 and most recently by the vienna conventions. what if somebody is with

that ambassador, are they protected by diplomatic immunity? , unless it are not is an immediate family member. a random stranger or someone that you pick up and have in your car would not be covered by the immunity itself. host: would your car be protected? guest: if it is the property of the embassy or the consulate in general, the car would be protected. doesn'tic immunity mean the diplomats have a license to go around and break the law. i can't be an ambassador, come , and expectomeone that i'm going to necessarily get away with it. in a case like that, the jurisdiction where the

crime committed or was allegedly the united states federal government would most likely ask the country where you were from to waive your diplomatic immunity. this is happen in a number of cases in the united states. host: what is asylum? guest: when a citizen of country toresents himself or herself either the territory of country which ismbassy technically an assent -- embassy of country y but is overseas someplace -- that is overseas someplace, and asks for asylum. you have to be on the country's soil to ask for asylum. in the snowden case right now, if we're talking about ecuador, they have not process the claim is not onowden

ecuadorian territory proper. he is stuck in the airport transit lounge in moscow. host: here is the article from the "new york times." talking about the julian assange case. julian assange is in the ecuadorian embassy, where he is protected by -- guest: the diplomatic conventions. he presented himself to the ecuadorian embassy, and they allowed him in. once he's there, he is in viable territory.

the authorities cannot go in and pull them out. that is ecuadorian territory. assange actually made it to whereasan territory, snowden is in this kind of limbo. host: if mr. snowden is in the departure lounge in the moscow airport, what is his political status? guest: now with passport has been revoked by the state department. his passport has been revoked by the state department. he is a man without a country at the moment. he is still a u.s. citizen. nothing has changed. the canceling of his passport makes it an invalid travel document, but does not mean he .as lost his citizenship grea unless the ecuadorians have given him a travel document, he is a man in limbo. host: is he being protected by

the russian government? .uest: is a very good question we don't really know the answer to it. russians have not done anything to turn him over to the united states. yes, they are kind of protecting him. but they also have not made it clear what if anything they're going to do with him. it is quite a high-stakes diplomatic game going on. host: are the russians obligated to turn him over to the united states? guest: no. there is no extradition treaty between russia and the united states. but there has been years and years of cooperation on law enforcement matters between the two countries.

,n many cases, one country united states has turned over russian fugitives to russia and russia has in in the past turned over american fugitives to the united states. while there is not a formal or has beenhe past cooperation such. a wanted criminal in one country [indiscernible] host: we put the phone numbers up on the screen. if you have any questions, you can dial-in. we will get to those calls in just a few minutes. here is headlines from this morning.

do we have treaties with hong kong? how would you describe the situation between hong kong and the u.s.? guest: not particularly good. the administration is not happy with the hong kong authorities. there is an extradition treaty between the united states and hong kong. it was negotiated with hong kong shortly before the handover from .he uk to china it has been used in the past. it is not applicable in .olitical cases the problem for the united states here is that the hong kong authorities are relying on this technicality, that it was the middle name they say was incorrect on the extradition paper.

neither of the hong kong authorities nor the chinese really want to get involved in .his they don't want it on their grants. -- hands. i believe that is why they allowed him to go. want to getreally into this kind of a fight with united states? it is much easier to wash your hands of it. now, there will be some lasting damage to u.s.-hong kong relations because of this, especially because of the kinds of schemes they have given that the name is wrong. that said, governments operate -- they have to be accurate. a search warrant in united states, if it is filled out incorrectly it can result in evidence being crossed from a trial. host: what is the gossip at the state department regarding

edward snowden? is it being treated as a big deal? guest: yes and no. you heard president obama playing it down. a big deal. this guy is wanted. whatever the merits of that case, if he has been charged of crimes in the united states, the justice department wants to prosecute him. the numbers are on your screen. another twist in this game, venezuela said they would almost certainly shelter snowden.

is he free to fly from moscow to venezuela with a revoked u.s. passport? guest: the issue of the travel document is an important one. possible to travel internationally without papers provided that the airline you are flying on an immigration authorities of the country you are leaving and arriving don't care. that can be done. that would only happen if senior officials with the airline and two governments involved would allow it. is issue of the passport not necessarily a huge hindrance. the other option he has would be to get a temporary travel document from either venezuela

or ecuador or wherever he might be able to go, and he could travel on that without any kind of problem. issuing that kind of a temporary travel document is also going to require the intervention of senior officials in the countries involved. venezuela and echo for -- ecuador clearly want to needle the united states with this kind of thing. i think be administration is really hoping that president putin and the authorities will step up and fulfill what they think their obligation is to the u.s. .ost: our guest is matthew lee we're talking about edward snowden. i apologize. kimberly is on our line for republicans. question as far

as the situation with diplomatic immunity. and theyome over here have committed a crime, whether it is in this country or another country, are they safe from our laws? it seems they get away with crimes. if a diplomat commits a crime -- the understanding of diplomatic immunity is it is only going to be used in extreme cases. diplomats have an obligation to try to respect and obey the laws of the country where they are posted. , they areeak the law immune from proposition --

prosecution unless a country .ecides to waive diplomatic immunity is most a problem with unpaid parking tickets, traffic violations. there is millions and millions of dollars in parking fines that diplomats at the u.n. racked up, and then they claim diplomatic immunity and the city of new york can't collect. andnity is used in banal not very exciting or newsworthy cases. it is rare when there is something like a murder or robbery or something like that. host: does hp have somebody at the moscow airport -- ap have somebody at the moscow airport? guest: yes.

host: was there someone from ap on that flight? guest: yes. host: do we have a treaty with you but if you landed in cuba? cuba?a if he landed in guest: no. school of thought in washington right now that one reason snowden was not on the flight is that the cubans are not quite sure -- the u.s. and cuba are dealing with another american who has been .mprisoned this would add another complication to it. istever country takes him going to be in for a rough ride from the united states. that he there thought still has an essay confidential

files that he could apply to these countries? there is concern about things he still has. as long as he has these laptops, if it is correct that he had these four computers with them when he went to hong kong, there is serious potential for additional classified information to come out. host: extradition with ecuador? guest: i do not know if there is a formal treaty with ecuador. i tend to think no. if the ecuadorians are going to grant him asylum, they would not extradite him. host: venezuela? guest: i do not believe there is a treaty with united states, but

a country that comes out up front and says, you are welcome to come, please apply for asylum in our country, they would not honor the treaty even if it existed. iceland was mentioned in this. guest: iceland has been a big supporter of mr. assange and wikileaks. their government and parliament has been very protective of whistleblowers, if that's the right term can'. it is not clear to me that iceland is going to be a factor here. a caller on our line for democrats. our ecuadorian friend has said that there are some ecuadorians in florida.

i believe he said that they bankers and have been injurious to the ecuadorian economy. i don't know specifics more than that, but ecuador would like tose people extradited back ecuador. do you know anything about that, and perhaps that's the reason that ecuador has gotten involved in the current situation with snowden? isst: i do not know if that the specific reason why. there are numerous latin that haveountries complaints that criminals or have beeniminals hiding or hanging out in united states, have been welcome here. that very well may be the case, that's the reason that they want this to stick this in the eye of the americans.

the cubans in particular have come to light against the united states -- complaints against united states. complaintses has about cuba harboring american fugitives. host: matthew lee, if they reach the shore, they get asylum, correct? guest: correct. frank in maryland on the line for independents. caller: good morning. is there a process to revoke the immunity of a foreign diplomat? i will give you a practical case. i am from a country in central africa. the ambassador, before he was appointed here, he was named and

he is still named in an investigative report by the senate judiciary committee as a money launderer. , the administration reproved -- approved it. guest: the only way that immunity can be revoked if the country from which the diplomat is from agrees to waive the immunity. that would usually only happen following a request by the united states, or the host country. unless there was a diplomat from the country where the government and the new government did not like the diplomat who was accredited to the other country.

or whoever theor diplomat is is in good standing in his home country, it is unlikely that government is going to waive immunity. host: office of immigration statistics, refugees and asylum reason 2012. -- assylees in 2012. 58,000 persons were admitted to the u.s. as refugees in 2012. matthew lee do you know who makes up that number? guest: specifically, no.

people are fleeing wars in africa, in iraq. they come from all over the world. many of them are seeking political asylum. in the snowden case, the united states is arguing this is not a political case. whatever the merits of the charges that have been filed, it's basically a theft case. in many ways, this is a case of theft of government documents and secrets as well as someone admitting to having released classified information. the united states would make the case to any country that was considering taking him that this is not a political case, this is a clear case of theft. host: a tweet --

and another tweet -- guest: i do not believe the my phone lines were among those being tracked. in terms of damage, it has had an impact. it's very difficult to get people to talk on the phone. it's not just me and my colleagues at the ap having this problem. it is pretty much all reporters. it has had a chilling effect on people being willing to take the risk and come forward. we are not even talking about people coming forward and releasing classified information. i'm talking about just calling an official in the state department building.

it definitely has had an effect. host: matthew lee has been state correspondent since 2007. prior to that, he worked for afp. he served in cambodia for several years. mary is on our line for republicans. .aller: good morning i believe that mr. snowden should have immunity. i just heard you mention that there are a lot of people who have shut up because they are afraid. i'm 65 years old. i never thought i would see a country where we were so afraid to speak out for what we believe in.

to know the dirty little secrets that should not have been hidden. i thank you for saying that he had to run away. i believe in my heart that the administration is afraid of what is going to be told once he is caught. god forbid that the department of justice get a hold of him. he won't stand a chance. we have a whole different version of what is going on in washington. we did not elect these kinds of people. . say to the press to speak up i am going to speak up against the wrong things that i think are going on. guest: the caller makes a good

point. there is a bit of irony in what she said. at one point in snowden's career, he did have diplomatic when he was working for the cia under state department cover in geneva. thathat immunity -- immunity that a diplomat has a broad -- abroad does not apply to u.s. law and crimes that he might commit in jurisdiction. serving diplomat overseas and i do something back here that is illegal, i have no immunity for that. it only applies to when you are outside of your own country. host: when you travel with the

secretary, do you have immunity as a reporter? guest: no. host: do you know how many foreign officials in the u.s. have immunity right now? guest: thousands. it is not just people in washington. every country in the world, including our biggest rogue states such as iran and north korea have diplomats in new york at the u.n. are theon and new york biggest concentrations of people who have the poetic immunity. immunity.tic there are also consulates at big cities around the country. whoe are foreign diplomats enjoy something similar to diplomatic immunity. it is under a different name, consular immunity. that ares to actions done while working.

if you are driving a car and you get into a car accident but you're on your way to conduct business on behalf of your country, it would apply. but if you're at dinner at it is not an official function, it most likely would not apply. , on: lake worth, florida our democrats line. who believesbody like i do that snowden is a patriot and has given his life for the country should go online and look how to donate to his defense fund. our country is in desperate need of transparency and accountability and it is really lacking. regular people have to put their money where their mouth is. is there a site that is taking legal donations for edward snowden? caller: there was, and i

donated. commondreams.org on how to donate to the case. .is life is shot i don't believe you will get a fair trial -- he will get a fair trial. i am older. my kids are grown. i don't think the people who are can afford.in debt i think they're afraid to speak up. host: thank you. i think there is a big split. there is no consensus among the

american population at large. people feel very strongly. or he is aminal, a whistleblower and should be protected. in washington, the opinion is pretty strong on the idea that he is a criminal who should be prosecuted. as much as you might disagree with the programs that mr. snowden exposed, they were technically legal. there's an argument to be made about whether he is a whistleblower who needs protection or whether he was just a disgruntled employee. i'm not taking any position on that. it is something for the courts to decide. host: have you in your coverage of the state department seen

anything similar to this current case? guest: no. the closest we have seen to this would be the bradley manning case, the wikileaks ,ase, where an american citizen a member of the military, turned over or allegedly turned over hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to wikileaks. that's the closest we have seen to this. host: a tweet -- do you think russia is going to give snowden up to the u.s.? guest: i think the russians will look at this from their own do an acte and will with whatever they see is in their best interest. president putin is an old kgb and he certainly enjoys

tweaking the united states, making life difficult for american presidents. all the american presidents. in the end, i think the russians will look at if in fact mr. snowden has these laptop computers and documents. the russians clearly would like to get a look at what is on those computers. i don't know if that has happened. my suspicion is that if the russians do get access to the information on their, they don't theirny real reason -- interest in mr. snowden is been over. they got the information. he is a young man who probably doesn't have a lot of value to them other than what is in his possession on these computers. i don't know if the russians

will decide in the end if it is in their best interest to really make a big bone of contention between them and the united states. i think we are beginning to see a reduction in temperature here between -- president obama saying he's not going to talk to president putin about this because it should be dealt with at a lower level. if you get heads of state involved in things, it makes a big issue. the united states would like to see this as a simple criminal issue, not an issue of whistleblowing or political malfeasance. this to the administration is a one that should be dealt with like other crimes. this is a fugitive who has been charged in the united states. like other fugitives, should be returned. that is their argument. i'm not sure the russians will

decide in the end if it is worth keeping this guy, especially if they have got the information that he has. host: a tweet -- do you think they have already taken it? b,est: if i was in the fsp successor to the kgb, i certainly would have. host: we've been talking with matthew lee of the state department about diplomatic immunity and the edward snowden case. how would you describe the status of the state department today? guest: in terms of where it sits in the administration?

in this case? host: overall. is it still in a list bureau -- an a-list bureau? guest: yes. it is the oldest agency in the government. it is at the top of the list among cabinet members when you get into the presidential succession list. it is always going to have influence. it is always going to be respected. with some administrations, it depends on who the president is and what his priorities are. we heard of the state permit having an amazing lack of influence during george w .ush's presidency

,ou had the pentagon, the cia and others pushing forward. that changed in the second term of the bush presidency. outside waspartment punching above its weight. it is always going to be, by virtue of being the oldest and most senior cabinet agency -- host: even with the growth of bureaucracy in the white house itself? guest: i think so. there's usually a tension between the national security folks at at the white house and people at the state department. the state department is populated largely by career diplomats. they consider themselves