sits.g or i think he i think that is the trained behavior. the he did not find any drugs there. aldo was wrong. he found a bunch of ingredients that are used to make meth. he was charged for use the sudafed for methamphetamines. then he has a second encounter with aldo. another stop. this time he is pulled over because of a broken tail lights. aldo again alerts. this time he is wrong. there's nothing of interest in the car. in court he asked to suppress the information found in the chapter. -- the truck. because aldo was wrong twice, his sniffs are unreliable. on the hearing, they talked

about this extensive training they had undergone. aldo had been certified. the trial court ruled for the state. the florida supreme court reversed. when a. alerts, the fact that he -- a dog alerts, the fact that he has been trained and certified is not enough to establish probable cause. the state has to produce evidence, training, certification record, and performance record. how often has the job been incorrect? justice kagan delivered a unanimous opinion. she explained that the florida checklist is too inflexible of a way to prove reliability and push too much emphasis on field performance where they can overstate a dog's false

positive. perhaps out of alerted because harris had drug residue on his hands when he opened the door. there's a thing in the truck but perhaps it is not a good indicator that out aldo's sniffer was not up to snuff. [laughter] there should be no inflexible sharing to test a drug's reliability. a defendant could challenge the adequacy the certification and training. the field evidence could be relevant but not responsive. he is off the hook. the second case features frankie, a different dog. he is not so lucky. this is different. it picks up on some of the things you were speaking on. this concerns a home and not a traffic stop. police were given a tip that he was growing marijuana in his home.

an officer and frankie were sent to the residence. frankie and the officer approached the front porch. the dog since one of the smells and begin bracketing, tracking back and forth trying to find the source of the odor. he then sits at the base of the front door to signal he has discovered the source of the odor. on the basis, the police get a warrant. they searched the house. frankie was right. the question was whether the drug sniff itself count as a search in the understanding of a fourth amendment. justice scalia writes and says it was. it was unconstitutional. it is very similar to the opinion he offered last term and jones, the gps tracking.

he again embraces the property right and this is on the fourth amendment which he says supplements the reasonable expectation of privacy. he says a person's home and the immediate surroundings of the home enjoy special protection under the fourth amendment. it is the very core of the protection. that makes this case easy. the officers gathered information by physically entering and occupying his home. that place is constitutionally protected. the officers intruded upon it. the only real remaining question is whether the officers had an implied license to stand on the porch with frankie. it permits all types of visitors like a girl scout or trick-or- treaters to approach a home and knock and wait briefly and then leave. scalia says introducing a

trained police dog is something else. we do not even need to get into expert opinions. they learned what they did by intruding on the property. justice alito wrote the dissent. he could've lawfully approached the door and waited for the same amount of time if they have not been accompanied by frankie. he says it makes no sense that it is illegal because they were accompanied by a dog. dogs have been used in connection with law enforcement for centuries. it is not of the ordinary for the public to expect their use. it is different than the new technology.

it is different. dogs have been around for years. he would not have labeled this search. unfortunately for frankie, six justices disagreed. >> the result is the dog can be right and still lose that right and still win. >> i wonder if it will cause them to start thinking about what kind of dog they bring. maybe they should name it hun rather than atilla. we had a situation where people were phoning in bomb threats every afternoon of people would have to evacuate the building. one day the dog alerted on a gym bag. we had to stand out there for

another couple of hours while the big truck came. it turns out this drug sniffing job was a golden retriever. it contained a bunch of tennis balls. [laughter] it is not perfect. >> is anyone else have any dogs living stories to tell? this is spca time. >> he said he is more comfortable. >> he said it is somehow more clear.

>> we have a few minutes left. can you take two or three minutes? i mentioned whether or not the roberts court ought to be thought as pro-business. it was complicated. i wonder if you could give us this. >> there are four class action cases. if you look at the business cases, this is a pro-business court because of various decisions involving businesses. i do not agree necessarily. they are statutory construction cases. a lot depends on your federalism and things like that. usually these will come up in the context of antitrust cases, class actions, state portions of action.

discrimination cases, retaliation cases. three of these came out in favor of the defendant. the last of which was a case involving american express. the principal, the one that cannot in favor of the plaintiff you did not have to prove materiality. this was a 6-3 decision. one decision suggested if you looked at all these cases and look at the walmart case from two terms ago which the supreme court unanimously was very strict with respect to the

requirements, there was a similar decision today. i cannot remember the exact title. the other area that intersects with this came together in this american express case. it was an arbitration clause in the contract between american express and the establishments that it does business with. it included an arbitration provision and an exclusion of class action and the way a merchant could bring a small case asserting that american express was violating the justicen express laws. kagan wrote a very interesting dissent stating that that if your anti-class action

everything is a class action. the outcome of these cases is not necessarily predictable. the court is looking very carefully at class actions. >> quick comments. >> not so much that the court is a pro-business court. it is that it is an anti- litigation court. where the court is appropriate,

the employment discrimination cases that came out this last week reinterpreting title vii as too complicated to go into. this was very reminiscent of the ledbetter case. perhaps the same thing might happen this time. >> we do have a couple of minutes left. i want to put one general question on the table. looking back at the comments i made at the outset about the country of the court in the process the court had, i was struck between justice kennedy and justice scalia in the doma case. justice kennedy speaks of the primary rule in determining the

constitutionality of a law. scalia even by his standards had a scathing dissent. he said this is a draw dropping -- jaw-dropping assertion of judicial supremacy of the people's representatives in congress. it envisions a supreme court standing he has enthroned at the apex of governments. they are joining an issue on this. justice scalia had voted to strike down the section four voting right act. the question i want to put to

the panel to bring us to closure is, looking at the major decisions that we have talked about and some others, what do they tell us about the collective or individual conception of what the court job is in a democracy? that is a big picture question, but it is interesting when you think about the individual cases , to stand back from it and say, what is the court up to? what is going on with kennedy and scalia debate points? >> this is something i tell my students. no theory has a market on that argument about judicial restraint. i think it can be used by anyone in dissent when they are upset at the decision to strike down an act of congress. i am not sure i believe it is something we can ascribe to the roberts court. it is a rhetorical argument you

could say when you're not in the majority. that might be kind of skeptical. >> i think there are fundamental differences. it is not a surprise as something that is not well rooted. he is really someone at least in the area of the bill of rights that believes in an evolving constitution. he is going to do the evolution. the court might be a better institution. it is important to understand he is in many ways someone who believes the constitution should be moved ahead the abstract principles, sometimes that is that security.-- that is obscure.

he is a left liberal. he is a libertarian. he still believes the court has this ability to see these principles that have evolved in society. this is very connected to his vision of the court. >> not on the docket would be kennedy opinions in cruel and unusual punishment cases. they have been dealing with things like what sort of punishment you can make for juveniles. it supports a cruel and unusual punishment which most see as an evolving standard. it could go on as a more general debates. do you want to comment? >> i think these have come out throughout history.

the rehnquist court shocked when we got into the guantanamo cases and becoming the superintendent of whether the rule of law would apply at guantanamo. they did not expect that at all. we have to step up and show our hands. it is important to keep rooted in the larger context in which these disputes emerge. that's always forms how we understand them. >> this debate about standing is about what cases can be decided by judges and what matters should not be in courts. the scalia dissent in the doma case goes back where president washington was asking for an

interpretation of the treaty. they wrote very politely back to the president that is not our business. we are not in the business of writing advisory opinions. it is interesting that he goes as far back as that. he's very concerned on very restrictive rules with respect to what matters belong in courts. once you acknowledge that it belongs there, you can decide it. this is going to keep coming back. whose numbers are being

collected at nsa? that case will come back again. we will see some more standing discussion. it will be interesting. it is about the rule of law and the role of courts. >> if you watch oprah winfrey, they are suggesting you go home and find a good book to read. ours is somewhat different. i hope we whetted your appetite to go home and read some cases. lawyers and judges do that all the time. we try to sit up there a lot of -- sift through a lot of cases we could have suggested you write and pick out a few that must be reading when the time comes. thank you for having us here. thank you to the panelists for engaging in the conversation of the court. >> now supreme court

speaks inice roberts white sulfur springs, west virginia. the supreme court wrapped up its 2013 term this week come announcing decisions on affirmative action, the voting rights law, and the defense of marriage act. this is about 40 minutes. >> even the not can it. i just wanted to have a few comments before i set down with judge wilkinson. i think these conferences are very valuable. they give the members of the branch and the bar a chance to get together and understand the differing perspectives they have

a little better. they were not as necessary in earlier days when they reacted on a regular basis and could gain some insight through that normal interaction. like the time when they were arguing before a judge in england. he said i have three arguments today. one of which is a complete dead cinch winner. one of which is so-so. it could go either way. one of which is utterly frivolous. the judge said, by all means, begin with the strong arguments. the lawyer said i have no intention of telling you which is which. [applause] of course i cannot talk about the cases we just decided. this always makes me wonder why all of you are here. i will share a few things about

the court last year beginning with some statistics. we heard 77 cases out of the 8000 presented to us. we have five cases from the fourth circuit. this is quite a bit better than 72%. this is only reversed because it overruled one of our existing precedents. the decision was correct when it was decided by this circuit. it was a success rate of 50%. that is really quite good these days. we have 45 cases already set for argument. this is more than usual. as a result, i will be able to

schedule a few extra cases in the fall. we will hear it three names three each day- several times. it might allow us to diesel up on the arguments. we will be able to get our work done without a mad rush on the end. what a fantasy that is. one of the new cases is from the new circuit. keep up the good work. oral argument is promptly at 10:00 or taking a day off. last time i reported on our construction at the court.

it indicated we were close to completion. the project turns out to be an example of this is the idea that an arrow they get halfway toward the target every second continually progresses. we never quite reach the target. this is how our construction project is going. we discovered.we discovered -- we discovered we had extensive rain andused by acid birds. we discovered this pretty much the way newton discovered gravity. things started falling off the

on some, nearly landing people like newton's apple. we have to work on that. it will take about another year before it is finished. we've had to put up scaffolding in front of the court, which we do not like to do, but this time we put a really delightful scrim over the front that is remarkable. you look at it in a certain light and you cannot tell it is crib at real building least the visitors touring the capital get a sense of what the building should look like without the scaffolding. the landscaping is an ongoing project. things are so dug up you would think we were looking for jimmy hoffa or something. i did want to echo something the chief judge said last night. that is a tribute to judge hogan for his work as the head of the administrative office. i prevailed upon him to agree to

spend one year in the job. my plan was to entice him with the many sources of entertainment the job provides into staying longer. it worked for almost a full year, for which i am very grateful. tom leaves the post in the able hands of the judge from the district of columbia. tom wanted me to announce that john begins his job officially on monday. any inquiries and complaints should be directed to john. tom also wanted me to announce john's cell phone number but i do not think i will do that. the service john is undertaking is emblematic of the service so many in this room provide to the judiciary in the case of judges above and beyond their obligations. that is in epitomized by the chief judge that serves as the

chairman of the executive committee of the judicial conference, an enormously important position for which i am very grateful. now i think i will sit down with jay and have a little talk. thank you. [applause] >> welcome. i want to thank my colleague who judge gregory for his leadership in this wonderful and educational conference. this was virginia's year told a conference. i know the commonwealth joins in the appreciation of judge gregory's distinguished service and shares the appreciation his colleagues have.

thank you for all you have done to put this conference on. i want to say a word about chief judge traxler and the magnificent leadership he has provided to the fourth circuit. he is held in the greatest respect by all members of the court. we are lucky to have a chief judge of his caliber. thank you for being here. you have been through a grueling term. i am sure you would love nothing better than to spend time with your family. the fact you have come to join a throng of lawyers and judges, we are ever so appreciative. i cannot begin to express the respect and appreciation with which you are held for of the

judiciary for the dedicated service you have given us. it is a very hard job. we appreciate the warmth and dedication and sterling character of your leadership. it is a pleasure to be part of a court system with you at the head. >> i like this conversation so far. [laughter] do not let me interrupt. [laughter] >> you can interrupt any time you want. chief rehnquist was here for many years. when we did the supreme court review session, it always amazed me the music and poetry that

chief justice rehnquist new. he would begin each session with a quotation from sir thomas gray's elegy in a courtyard. many a gem the caverns bear. many a flower is born to waste its sweetness in the desert air. some of the flowers may be some of the cases that did not merit the headlines or public discussion like some of the marquee cases did. they were nevertheless very important in the lives of ordinary americans. i wonder if there were any blushing flowers in the desert

from this last term that went unnoticed. >> there are always are. if you look at the cases we have come out of 77, there are maybe half a dozen people will be talking about at panel discussions and things like that. some of the little ones can be fascinating. my favorite from the past turned involved the question of the admiralty and jurisdiction of what counts as a vessel. the way cases develop in the law, you have things that do not fit comfortably into a category, it was either a floating home or a houseboat depending on what side you are on. it was attached to the shore but

could be disengaged and would float and could be towed. issue was whether it was a vessel or not. it is one of those things where a picture is worth 1000 words. it looks like a house that got swept into the ocean rather than a boat. the court did hold it was not a vessel. we had a lot of fun looking at the different characteristics and posing interesting hypothetical at the argument. we had a bankruptcy case that was surprising. i am sure practitioners -- it may not have been as much of a surprise to them. there was a term in the bankruptcy law and had been for 150 years that applied when you were not entitled to discharge its debt in bankruptcy, when you are guilty of defalcation.

i had not heard the word before. in jurisprudence, we often quote dictionaries to get a better sense of the meaning of a word. i was looking up in the dictionary to find what the word had to do with. defalcation. it was a surprise to all of us that the term had been around for so long. there was a complete lack of coherent understanding about what it meant. i do not know if that tells as a blushing flower or not. >> is sometimes a relief to have these sorts of cases where you can get into them and be traditional lawyers and deal with the raw materials of wall-- of law without the volatile component that comes with more controversial topics.

i know that is true on the court of appeals. they matter intensely to the parties involved. they sometimes have an impact that is in inverse correlation to the publicity that they receive. as much as i have enjoyed talking about the high points of law, at some point we will need to talk about money. i know the sequester has hit a great many government programs hard. it has hit many public agencies and institutions hard. it has had a severe impact upon the federal courts. why should a man or woman in the street care about the budgetary impact the sequester is having upon the federal judiciary? why is this an issue for

somebody who is not a lawyer? this budgetary impact of increasing cuts are having on the federal courts. >> people who are not lawyers have a vital interest. the sequester cuts are going to the heart of the process. that is whether you are talking about courthouses, keeping them open, in terms of funding not just judiciary but the justice department. if they are not working, they are bringing cases. the cases get held up. the pace of justice which is already too slow in most cases is held up even more. everybody makes a special pleading in the time of this

sort. you should not cut our budget because of this, cut everybody else but not us. the judiciary does have a special case to make. we're less than 1% of the federal budget. you get a whole branch of government under the constitution for relative pennies. the idea we have to be swept along because it is good public policy to cut everybody -- i am not commenting on that policy, but the notion we should be swept along with it is unfounded. the cuts hit us particularly hard because we are made up of people. it is not likely are the pentagon where you can slow a program or the other agencies. when we sustain cuts, people have to be furloughed or worse. that has a more direct impact on the services we can provide. in general, it is going to be a cold winter of austerity.

we're going to have to bundle up. >> do you see any hope? will it get worse? >> i tend to be optimistic on these things. i hope we're able to make an effective case for why we need more flexibility than others. the administrative office, led by tom hogan and after by john bates, are working hard with our appropriators to get them to go to bat for us. i want to say publicly i think the appropriators in congress are the best legislators since henry clay and daniel webster. you can quote me on that if you like. [laughter] >> we may have touched on this before.

there is the recurrent subject of the hot bench. a hot bench is one asks a lot of questions. as someone who follows the court with the greatest interest, the supreme court bench seemed to get hotter and hotter. there are more and more questions coming from the justices. i wonder if the lawyers are able to get in a word in edgewise or whether the adversarial process has become one of more dialogue between the justices as opposed to the clash of views between the lawyers. i have the same concern at the court of appeals. the lawyers have spent weeks and months preparing their case. the oral argument means

everything to them. they sometimes come to court and leave and feel like we have not gotten it out because we have been bombarded by questions from the bench. i know if the bench is too passive, they wonder if the justices have prepared the case. this seems an exceptionally hot bench in historical terms on the supreme court. as a former advocate yourself, is this a good development? >> first of all, there are excuses. i am not sure everyone understands this. we do not talk about cases before the argument. when we get on the bench, it is the first time we start to get clues about what our colleagues think.

we are using questions as a way to bring out points we think our colleagues ought to know about. we do intend to debate each other through counsel. that is an explanation. it is not meant as an excuse. i think you are right. we do over do it. i do think the event has gotten more aggressive. recent appointees have tended to be more active in questioning than the justices they replaced. there's nothing bad about either of them. it is just a fact. i have had to act as an umpire in terms of the competition among my colleagues to get questions out. they are not being rude, but you do not always pick up in the acoustics the fact that one of your colleagues is already asking a question. i do think we have gone too far. we have talked about it a little bit. we try to make sure we do not

prevent a lawyer from reserving argument time for rebuttal by asking questions when he is trying to sit down. it is too much. i do think we need to address a little bit. i do think the lawyers feel cheated sometimes. it is nice for us to get a good feel about where everyone else is. it also would be nice for them to have the chance to present their argument. i am sure i am as guilty as most from time to time. i remember one time i told my colleagues let's not interrupt the lawyers when the white light is on signaling they have five minutes left. i found myself asking questions when the white light was on. you get wrapped up in the dynamics and forget to ease up a bit. >> this is sort of a personal question.

for years before you went on the bench, if you were one of the most distinguished of public-- thellate advocates in nation before the court of appeals and a large number of cases, you were arguing before the supreme court. do you miss your former life occasionally? do you have the impulse to be an attorney again? do you miss the satisfaction of that? you were so good at it for so many years. you had to leave it all behind. >> if it were the day that a client was paying their bill, i would jump over the side of the bench. when i became chief justice, i found out i had no idea i was as good as people tell me i was at the time. i think the judges would say the

same thing. you miss it. i miss the competitive edge. on the court, we do not win or lose. you have a particular position you think is the correct understanding of the constitution. one of your colleagues may have a different view. you debate internally and through memoranda. the court goes one way or the other. i never felt i lost a case or that i had won a case. we were both working to the same end. we ended up where we ended up. as a practicing lawyer, you do win or lose. you have to make the call to the client because it does not want to hear that we hope the court reached a resolution. they want to know whether they win or lose. it does give an edge to your work. it is a wonderful bar at the court these days. it was when i was practicing as well. you tended to be on the same

side as your fellow appellate practitioners in some cases and on the opposite side in others. you were able to work together well. i enjoy it. i have no great desire to go back. >> sometimes i feel like writing a letter to losing lawyer to say i know you lost the case, but you gave the better argument. too bad it is not moot court. that would be of small comfort because you cannot take a letter to the client. >> it is a funny business because we are not picking the best lawyer. you are right. i know the best argument i ever thought i gave was for a losing cause and vice versa. the worst i ever gave happened to be on the right side of the court.

>> i would like to ask about the membership and composition of the court. when one looks historically at the court and their past experiences, you get chief justice william howard taft. he was a former president of the united states. you get chief justice charles hughes who was a former presidential candidate. at one time, i think the supreme court had three former united states senators with hugo black and harold burton. then justice powell was a former president of the bar association. thurgood marshall was the chief litigator for the naacp. before coming on the court, they

were giants of public life. now we have a situation where the immediate past experience of the court's membership with the exception of justice kagan, they all come with sometimes extensive experience on the court of appeals. do not get me wrong. i love court of appeals judges. i wonder when the supreme court draws from this narrow band of the immediate prior experience whether we're missing something in terms of the court's ability to relate to some of the larger

aspects of american life. if you get a former appeals court judges whether it becomes more technocratic as opposed to those in times past. is this a danger? >> you were very delicate the way you phrased this. you have william howard taft who was a president. earl warren was a governor. then you. [laughter] i liked the beginning of the conversation better. it has to be enormously significant what you are saying. you have courts that were made up of governors, senators, people like felix frankfurter, different backgrounds. it might be accurate to say more prominent statesmen.

it was an historical anomaly before justice kagan you have entirely people who had been on federal appeals courts before. that has to have an impact on the work. i do not know yet if it is a positive one or not. if you think the job of the supreme court is trying to apply the law to particular cases, maybe it makes sense to have a court of judges. if you view it as more in terms of playing a political role as part of the political process, maybe the way a constitutional court in european countries

does, maybe it makes sense to have people who have been active in the political realm. it has to be saying something about the role of the court in terms of what the make of this. -- make-up is. you see in the arguments as well. we have a very good bar. they present legal arguments. if you go back and look at briefs filed in the warren era, they paint with a broader brush in terms of social policy and concerns. it reflected the audience there were in front of. people can and should debate whether that is a good development or not. i think one consequence is it is probably a good development if you have a sense of what type of issues should be presented to the supreme court. a different sense of whether it is good or bad if you think different types of issues should

be before the supreme court. it is all interrelated, the background of the judges and the issues presented. it is an interesting development people need to think about. >> having a broad experience in elected life or high public office is no guarantee one will be a successful justice. hugo black was one of the great justices. there were two other senators with whom he served that i do not think anyone would say were great justices. it is hard to draw a correlation. >> if you have been a president or senator, you have a particular way of looking at issues, matters of public policy.

if you have been a judge on the court of appeals, you have a different way of looking at it. you have to decide what type of questions you think the court should be deciding and if they call for people who have one way of looking at public policy as opposed to technocrats. i do not think that is the right word. but a more focused way of dealing with the law. you may think there is a mismatch between the type of questions the court is being asked to decide and the personnel that have to decide it. you can resolve the tension one way or another. it is not a coincidence or happenstance you have a court that looks so different from what it looked like in the past. >> one of my favorite parts of our conversations is to ask you -- i think it is one of the most fun parts for the membership.

before we head off into the summer. we're all interested in getting relaxation and reading some good books and seeing some good movies. we're always interested in what books you have been reading and what movies you might recommend. people are interested as to what we should put in our suitcase to take to the beach. what are you reading these days? >> i mentioned a little while ago we already have 45 cases for the fall. [laughter] i do not want to be seen as endorsing any book. i picked one up the other day i have not begun to read. it had a very good review in the "wall street journal." of course i can not remember the author or the title. it is about the 20 most significant battles in world history.

the author began with the romans carrying all the way through iraq. it looks nice. it gives you 20 pages about the particular battle and an overview of the history in general of that time. that is what i will be reading on the plane. >> very good. are there questions from the audience? we're running short of time. we would be happy to take a question or two from the audience if you have one for the chief justice. >> good morning. my name is dana moore. i graduated from law school at a time when the women were scarce but the bourbon was plentiful. i have a suggestion that he read a book written by professor larry gibson. he will give you a sense of what

the path to greatness looks like and what makes for a great justice. >> thank you very much. "young thurgood." i saw the one-person play and cannot remember the actor who did it. it was just called "thurgood." it was a spectacular performance. it was a one-person show that went through his life from youth until the end. it was changes in the tone or posture that convey the notion of ongoing time. it was a wonderful, gripping performance. they were talking about turning it into an hbo type show. and i hope that they do.

>> do we have a final question for the chief justice? >> you have talked about a hot bench. what are the best ways for the lawyer at the podium to handle the bench effectively and be able to make his or her case? what would be the tips you would give that practitioner? >> it is difficult. you do have to try to keep track of the questions. i remember one case i was arguing. somebody would ask the question and somebody else would jump in before you could answer. a third one before you could answer. justice stevens asked me a question. before i could answer, one of his colleagues jumped in with another question. before i could ansr that,

another question. i have been told you should try to go back and catch up. i did. i answered the best i could the third one. then the second one. i was feeling very proud of myself and turned to justice stevens and said i do not think i had an opportunity to answer your question. he had a very warm smile on his face. i was smiling back at him and realized i had forgotten completely what his question was. i mumbled something about the case and his smile faded. [laughter] the one thing you cannot do is show any kind of impatience. i have found sometimes the most effective thing is to stop talking for a while instead of trying to get something in while everyone else is talking. if you stand there, the justices will realize there is somebody

who is supposed to be speaking who is waiting for us to get finished. if you are the lawyers and the justices are bouncing questions off of you, if you do not play along, it is hard for them to keep it up. next term, there will be nothing but lawyers standing there saying nothing. [laughter] it is a challenge. it is worth trying different things. it is almost quietly scolding the bench for not giving the lawyer the time he or she deserves. it might be effective. >> may i ask that you remain seated while we adjourn the conference. may we also express our appreciation for the wonderful visit of the chief justice to the fourth circuit court of appeals. i cannot tell you what a pleasure and honor is to have you with us. >> thank you. appreciate that. [applause]

well done. thank you very much. [applause] >> next, live your calls and comments on "washington journal." with michaelers" mccaul. in reaction to the supreme court decisions on the voting rights act and the defense of marriage act. it is criminal to me that i had 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 our contract with the russians to continue to carry our cruise to the international space station for 2016 and 2017 because we have not yet brought about the american capability that is coming with our commercial crew

program. the president's budget calls for 820 $1 billion -- million dollars for commercial crew. we are not halfway there. my job is to try to persuade congress that the plan is good and that we are going to be efficient users of the taxpayers money. i have not been successful yet. member oftold every congress with whom i've talked to, it hundred 21 million dollars in the 2014 budget is thel if we are to make -- $121 million in the 2014 budget is vital if we are to make it to space on american spacecraft. >> more with nasa administrator bolden tonight-- at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> this morning, a republican roundtable with jim manley and ehery, what the house might do with the immigration

bill that passed the senate, gay marriage, and the voting rights act. later, david savage reviews the recently completed supreme court term and its notable cases. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning on this june 30. it is the start of a holiday week as our nation celebrates our independence, the fourth of july. if congress is in recess for the week. the, -- the president continues his trip in africa. one of the stories getting attention inside open "the new the web, itand on provides -- it requires most employers to provide free insurance for contracees