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 contraceptives.

this morning, we want your comments. join us with your phone calls, your e-mails, and your tweets. our phone lines are open -- you can join us on facebook and twitter, you can also send us an e-mail. our facebook address is facebook.com/cspan. the front page of "the new york times" has the president as he continues his trip in south africa, paying tribute to the former president nelson mandela, who remains hospitalized on a life-support, he is 94 years old. the president's health-care law, often referred to as obamacare, and the issue of contraceptives. "new yorkon the the times" website.

the final rule issued a adopted a simple version the proposal -- concerns that the catholic church and those with religious objectives provide coverage for contraceptives. after considering four hundred thousand comments administration officials refused to budge on the basic principles. the will, they said, is there a similar to their proposal. exemption is included for churches. many catholic schools, hospitals, and universities will have to take steps so that coverage is available to employees and their dependents.

we want to talk to you about this specific issue, the president's health-care law, and free contraceptives under the obamacare ruling. the issue is continuing to spark controversy among democrats is and republicans, including this but pat robertson of kansas, who delivered his response to the president's week the address. [video clip] >> health care as you know it will change. it you know what it will cost, what it will cover, will you be able to see your family doctor, will your personal health information remain private and safe? will you lose the health insurance plan you like? with a high cost of force your employer to make you a part-time employee, change your plan, or drop your coverage altogether? simply put, will you and your family have the health insurance you need to ensure your well- being?

now you cannot answer these questions and neither can the obama administration. the office cannot make sure they are up and running by the october 1 deadline. as one of the authors of the bill said, "american families are facing a train wreck." this massive federal government takeover of federal health care work? even president obama says there may be some glitches. in california those glitches are all too real. a major national insurer will no longer offer individual market plans there. those 50,000 people are expected to turn to the exchange. how many more will follow suit? too little is known about the exchanges.

all costs will further skyrocket. host: republican senator pat roberts. our phone lines are open and be heard by an alliance between democrats and republicans. some of you are already weighing in on our facebook page. one of our viewers points out -- on our twitter page there is this from bill king -- and this is part of "the washington post" website --

finding a middle ground between the two is no easy task. the final regulations, which were published on friday, demonstrate just how complex the process will be to deliver contraceptive coverage to the employees of religious nonprofits that oppose such medication. among the findings of the nonprofits, they will not have to refer employees for contraceptive coverage. -- theyd to buy one need to buy a plan that covers such benefits in their plan. at the end of the insurer took its the money the client is paying for contraceptive.

the federal government than at some additional funds to cover the cost of administering the program. this this morning from washingtonpost.com park is joining us from massachusetts. a good morning. i want to say good morning and thank you for c- span. this is a very interesting topic. i am not female but i support rights of women to make birth control to choices for themselves. if you look back at the legal history, what proceeded roe v. right to use contraceptives in the privacy of america relationship. my view is they should be available under an insurance , that we are not a

theocracy. i respect people of faith that might have conscientious .bjections to contraception but it should be available at the lowest cost to the most women possible. it is a simple health benefit and need and one that ought to be available. i support obama and obamacare matter for doing just that. host: thank you. sandy is joining us from springs, maryland. caller: i want to know if catholic universities or other old -- or other religious organizations were objecting -- what if they had decided not to do it?

-- what would be the consequences? host: how do into your own question? caller: i really do not have an answer. i cannot imagine the government moving in on one of those institutions. i really don't know. host: thank you for the call. many of you weighing in on our facebook page. you can join the facebook conversation at facebook. com/cspan.

on our independent line, good morning from ohio. the focusing on the president's health-care law. on friday.was made likely to continue debate in congress and states around the country. your reaction? i do not mind contraceptives just as long as they use it responsibly. host: is that your point? we will go next to michael, also on our independent line from salt lake city, utah. caller: good morning. i wanted to point at something -- point out something that doesn't seem to be clear. this is a grand experiment. 90% of the free world has it and it works. canada -- i am not sure the

but theirompanies, plan has a real success. it is not the first time it has been done. it seems like a lot of roadblocks to it are man-made and we should see the bigger picture of what it can do for people. host: thank you for the call. the same story -- our focus is the decision made by the obama administration on the issue of contraceptives --

all this coming as the issue of late term abortion became a state issue in texas. this is a filibuster that ensued in austin, texas with windy wendy davis. it being it became clear that the rule was to restrict abortions for any fee is 20 weeks or older would not take place. the texas legislature could come back for a at a special session. this is the scene from the state capitol in austin.

the state senate in austin tx whoh senator wendy davis, some now talk about as a potential candidate for governor. the lotbuster withheld taking place in texas. it could come up again in another special session. we will hear from governor rick perry in a minute. in the is joining us in fairfax, virginia on this debate over the health-care law and contraceptives.

your take as a republican? caller: i have never heard the set during the objection, ever thee the aids epidemic government has been providing free contraception. anybody can go to any health department and get all the bedoms you want, it may not the contras -- it just may not be the contraception you prefer. contraception is a health care issue. the malady york trading would have to before we get the malady you are treating it would have to be -- administrationa --

next is susan joining us from north which lend hills, texas. texarth richland hills, s. is a hero.ndy dvis what i find interesting is that the ones that are so opposed, these business leaders, particularly, do not have any complaints about by agra and see

alice and these other and thesens -- viagra other medications covered for men. any of these offering anyders kind of child care for their employees and children. birth control pills are used for many other conditions other than just preventing pregnancy. i want to know who comes into -- it wouldms and be a subject to dwell in to. >> thank you for the call. laura has this point and you can join the conversation on our twitter page -- "the washington post " has a piece this morning looking at

the president's health-care law --

the story is found this morning in "the washington post. on our republican line, john is on the phone. good morning. i would like to make it clear, it is not something being talked about very much, 99% killed as, living human being. i know that the current movement that seems to be let's try not to weeks."ies after 20

that is like saying let us not execute any prisoners on death row because they can feel the in the gas chamber strangling them or the electricity going through their bones in the electric chair. the ones that are being put to death with lethal anesthetic, that is ok. what people are ignoring is the fact that is not right to kill people. the same thing with the babies in the blue. , "ifve in a country where they can feel it it may be not so good." page,from our facebook ken has this point -- gov. rick perry responding to

what happened in this texas state legislature, the filibuster that led to the moment the lawless stopped. the law is very much pro-life. he commented what happened with windy davis. [video clip] is trivial in got eyes. trivial in god's eyes. [applause] filibusteredn who the senate the other day was difficult som circumstances. she was a teenage mother. she managed to eventually graduate from harvard law school and served in the texas senate. it is just unfortunate that she has not learned from her own

example, that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and every life matters. governor rick perry following the action in the texas state legislature, a debate involving president's health-care law. --k at the state level something the supreme court will likely take up. we will talk about the issue of abortion and what the supreme court may or may not do in the year ahead. let us get back to your phone calls. the issue is the president's health-care law, obamacare, and free contraceptives. victor is up early in san diego. good morning. why are men in default

-- men involved in the decision making for women? let them decide what they want to do. 99% of all men, they dropped the ball. they cannot believe it. they're not jumping for joy saying, i am going to be a dad. most are the leash shocked, -- most are really shocked. impregnate girls by accident. the come to a universal conclusion.

it should just be what the women decide. host: ed has this point on our twitter page -- going the conversation at twitter.com -- join the conversation at twitter.com. the polls are looking ahead at the house of representatives as the senateeturn, will pass the immigration bill. kane --ce by paule john feehery and jim manley that will be joining us in 20 minutes. republican line, good morning,

welcome to the conversation. caller: it is interesting, listening to all of the callers. personally, i have no issue whatsoever with contraception. i think many people should be on contraception as they prefer. means --ruly believe what is the conscientious objection in obama's governing philosophy? what is the worst thing that america has had to deal with? it has probably been the fact that we have had to face and, for naziism. when they conquered that, if there were people conscientiously objecting to fighting be respected and, they did for that. and accommodate it for that. ministrationand

does not have the sense of that philosophical standpoint and will not, -- and will not accommodate that objection, i have great concerns about that philosophy. host: thank you for the call. a lot of you being in on our weighing in on our facebook page. arnold has this the ruling friday department of health and human services. bobby is joining us from california, good morning. is ar: obviously this

highly emotionally charged issue. i wanted to insert the the east question who called before, inquiring what would happen if catholic university's do not want to participate. i am in a local region. many people did not realize most -- onedent colleges pressure point the government use -- the government could use to withhold those funds from the institutions. that is a possibility down the road. the other point i would like to the framework of our constitution intended us to have opportunities, not to have complete control by the government. they fear a very centralized government. i do agree with the gentleman

called earlier and said every time we give over some right to choose for ourselves we lose that individual freedom. as an independent people you have to be caeful what you hand over to the government. once you have made the sacrifice it is hard to get it back. host: this is the piece from -- this is a piece from "the national journal but, -- "the national journal" --

-- to moscow, which refuses to extradite him. he is asking for asylum in ecuador. that story is on nationa ljournal.com. back to your calls on the issue of the president's health-care law and contraceptives.

is your take, what on this? caller: actually, as far as the contraceptives being covered, i do believe they should be covered and should have a cup pay. -- have a co-pay. i have seen several people in drug stores and at doctors' offices picking those up. young woman in virginia, saying anyone can go into a local health department and pick up contraceptive, unfortunately that is not true. at least it is not in our can touch the county -- our county in kentucky. incomee based on

levels. for the gentleman i would like to point out that a contraception prevents that beatty or fetus -- that they be or fetus or embryo starting to form. i am pro-life myself. when the sperm and egg join, that is when you have to start making that choice, if you are going to either with the morning after pill or anything. that is a different type of ,uestion as far as obamacare whether they will cover that. i do not know whether that one is included in the contraceptive coverages that they were discussing earlier. normal,ieve that the

what we consider traditional contraceptives should be covered. host: ok. dina, thank you for the call from kentucky. the cover story of the "weekly standard," as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the civil war, certainly one of the most significant battles that took place in july 18 63, the battle of gettysburg. jeffrey norman writes, a century and a half later, the gettysburg battles place in history makes you think it is inevitable. atmight have been not fought all or fought on some other ground. it might certainly have ended differently, the gettysburg battle, one of the most closely studied battles in american history. joining us live on the phone is the representative who is in congress from gettysburg, pennsylvania. he is a republican. his strick includes -- district includes gettysburg.

a big day today. we will be covering it live on c-span 3 american history tv as we look at the reenactment and the significance of the battle of gettysburg, 150 years later. what do you think those on hand in gettysburg today will see and learn? thet: certainly, there is normal range of options for anybody traveling to gettysburg, but there is so much more on the 150th. gettysburg itself has rolled out the red carpet for everybody with adding additional things to their program, additional events, different memorials, the lighting at the cemetery. numerous events that would not normally be there. i think you must imagine that anybody that is interested at all from a reenactment standpoint or vendor standpoint, this time is set aside for years in advance to be there.

gettysburg,come to the end of june, the beginning of july, it will be a fantastic experience, and it will be very moving. this year, it is really turning up the volume in a very spectacular way on those type of events. this is a town 150 years ago of about 2000 people, and after it, three days, over 50,000 dead soldiers. 50 south -- 50,000, that is a huge number. if you think about a 10 year war in afghanistan and iraq am a the numbers, 5000 horses lay dead on the battlefield, and the town ravaged. consequenceental for a little place. then the historic significance. it is hard for us to imagine fighting family against family,

brother against father, but this literally would happen. ,he turning point of the war mostly, that is what most historians signify this as, because until this point, the south had been racking up that juries -- victories. it is one thing from a military standpoint to be victorious, but if you do not have the will of urination to fight -- the will isyour nation to fight, that a war of conflict most people think we could have one -- vietnam -- but the will of the american people changed. had that happened in the civil war, we would've been living in two different nations. it is hard to determine what the course of history would've been. this small town in three days not only changed the course of history for this nation but for the world. .hat is truly the significance

you cannot overstate what happened here and the significance and the course of history. host: congressman, we are looking at the battlefield scenes in the many monuments, over 1000 that have sprung up, to commemorate what on this hollowed ground. it is about a two-hour drive from washington, d.c. to gettysburg in southern pennsylvania. the battlefield outside of the monuments looks very much the way it looked in late june, army july 1863 as lee's made his push northward to pennsylvania, never to return, which became a turning point in the civil war. guest: known as the high water mark for the south. they never came up any further than this point. this whole area -- and not only covered gettysburg, but the district includes harrisburg and york. the other evening, we had the commemoration of the burning of

the bridge, which was the longest covered bridge in the world at the time, and the union soldiers ended up burning the bridge to save it from being a river crossing across the susquehanna. up in raidcome harrisburg and continue to point northward in philadelphia and so on. it had major impacts for the whole region as well. the monuments and so on and so forth, it is the big story, that some of the more obscure stories as well of individual stories, of individual events of heroism, and most people are familiar with josh chamberlin. there are so many smaller significant stories that you do not hear about often. it is an opportunity to breathe that in and see the wheatfield and sea devils then and what to see wheree,

pickett made his charge across the open ground and to place herself there, after days of walking in uniform, carrying heavy gear and the canons bearing down and people walking grade they lined up shoulder to shoulder and walked across the open field into a fusillade of horrific and will -- withering fire. they did it not for their cause, but their country and the man standing next to them. when you can place yourself in those monuments in that circumstance, trying to see through your mind's eye, go back that 150 years, would you have the resolve? what kind of people were these that did those type of things? it is a great time of reflection for our nation. host: the battle of gettysburg. you mentioned heroes, congressman parry. the story focuses on a key general in the battle of

gettysburg, general george meade. guest: george meade, celebrated by many, unexpectedly found himself in charge with the death of the general that was expected to be in charge. well, asl you this as a military officer myself, people travel literally the world over to walk these grounds , to see the strategy and tactics used, they are still relevant today. i just recounted a story where a new york soldier wanted -- he moved away from his hometown after the war, after serving, he moved to south dakota, and he wanted to name the town with some people he served with in the civil war, they wanted to name the town after meade. the postmaster said it was too popular a name and they could not name the town that. consequently, the town in south

dakota was named gettysburg as opposed to meet -- meade. he was a prolific figure at the time. host: congressman scott parry represents gettysburg and york, pennsylvania. the 150th back on anniversary of one of the key battles in american history and one of the most significant battles in military history throughout the world, the battle of gettysburg, a turning point. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. i hope you are taken -- thinking about taking a look at gettysburg. please look online if you cannot travel, and i'm sure there are some things on your local television that commemorate the anniversary of the battle. host: you can watch it right here on c-span 3 as well. it will take you to gettysburg if you are unable to join the events today commemorating the 150th anniversary. our live coverage gets underway at nine: 30 eastern time and conclude at 10:00 eastern time

with the candlelight vigil that the congressman referred to, live all day on c-span 3. you can check it out online anytime at c-span.org/history. hear the events, you will from harold holzer and the the lincoln book, doris kearns goodwin. the historians and writers will be taking your phone calls and tweets this evening. the civil war, the battle of the gettysburg, 150 years later, live on c-span 3. back to phone calls, we are focusing on the issue of the president's health care law and contraceptives. doug is on the phone. caller: good morning. hello? host: you are on the air. caller: the whole thing about the government controlling how lives want to live their or decide whether they want to have a child or not should be up

to them. no taxpayer should pay for it. there are so many kids that are born, and they are not taken care of. they end up being controlled by the government. what is it? development -- whatever -- it is wrong. ok? taxpayers should not pay for it. people should be adult enough to take care of themselves. host: thank you for the call. the story from the "new york times." the headline despite some strong resistance from religious organizations

this morning, the cover story in "the new york times" sunday magazine mark joins us from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i think your name is steve? please let me finish my statement. obama -- the government should not have anything to do with this contraceptives or anything else about planned parenthood. that is one of my statement, but listen -- the definition of life , any object that is able to move on its own and serve a function is considered life. the cell splits and has human dna -- it automatically becomes a living human -- nothing other. how selfish our people not to

part that one human to be -- to be brought into existence? it is a one-time thing only. please, i have had it done to me. i am telling you the psychological problems it causes for people is intense. -- as a man, i was not even allowed to make any wasements -- all i could do tell the person not to do it. host: mark, thanks. this morning from politico pro areooking at where we today, pointing out the sequester will get worse -- this quote from a former aide to senator harry reid who points out

jim manley will join us in a couple of minutes as part of our sunday roundtable. the mother news, first lady michelle obama traveling with the president in south africa, theyesterday, comparing u.s. civil rights era to south africa's struggles against apartheid. the first lady telling a young south african audience yesterday that she and the president obtain the white house because of the bravery of the little rock nine students in the 1950s. she also urged the young people to follow her example and ignore the haters in society. asknow that i center today first lady of of the united states of america. my husband is president because of those young men and women in little rock, arkansas. all these years later, some of us are still benefiting from the sacrifices i made." robert joins us from virginia. -- robin joins us from virginia. caller: good morning. i called about what the davis

and governor perry. i would like to mention as far as the catholic objection to birth control -- i do not think any of their employees will want to use birth control. nobody is forced to use contraception. i do not see what the big deal is except they are try to control other peoples's lives who do not share their beliefs. perry, wendyernor davis was married and got pregnant and later divorced, so she raised her child as a single mother, and the way she tell -- the way he tells it, she was this woman sleeping around and accidentally got pregnant. there is a big difference in raising a child alone after your husband leaves you and the kind of pitcher he likes to paint. if a man dies and leaves his wife to be a single mother, people do not look down on her. i do not understand these men that are so hypocritical. back

to the catholic church again, it is every year that a catholic woman is able to bear a child, she has a child -- she will end up with 20 children. it will go on and on. that is the reason the catholic church is opposed to birth control. we want to keep their church as the biggest in the world. that is the easiest way to do it. it doesn't cost them a thing. they do it in the name of pro- keep but these people that having babies after babies year after year, it is disgraceful. host: barbara from roanoke, virginia. you can join the conversation on our facebook page. you can also send us a tweet. our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org. one other note regarding this anniversary of the battle of gettysburg -- we found it online at nationaljournal.com.

bloodis still some bad the between a pair of northern and southern states. essentially, here is the controversy -- virginia governor bob mcdonnell asked minnesota to loan to fly to them. bob mcdonnell is the governor of virginia who declared april 2010 confederate month. he later apologized for not mentioning slavery in that proclamation. minnesota governor mark dayton's response was a simple "no way." he told the crowd earlier this governor asked that the flag be loaned, and we declined the invitation." that story is related to the 150th

anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. you can read it online at nationaljournal.com getting underway at 9:30 eastern time, you will take you to gettysburg, pennsylvania, in what is expected to be a picture-perfect day here in the mid-atlantic states. to commemorate the anniversary. the speakers will include author and historian doris kearns goodwin, your phone calls, and the candlelight vigil will get underway at about 9:00 this evening. you have a chance to phone in with your calls and comments as well all day on c-span 3's american history tv. check it out online at c- span.org. our sunday roundtable is coming up in a couple of minutes. john feehery and jim manley will be here to take her calls and look ahead at the issues congress will be facing. a piece from "the new york times" on hillary clinton in 2016, and the supreme court as it ends its term this year.

morning programs can be heard on c-span starting at noon eastern time. nancy, good morning. today's sunday talk shows, topics will include news of the week including immigration, the vote in the senate, where it goes from there, supreme court decisions on same sex marriage and other issues, and the latest on government security leaks. c-span radio re-airs those programs beginning at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press. today's guests include state senator wendy davis, house democratic leader nancy pelosi, and kansas republican congressman tim whewell's camp. this00 p.m., here abc's week with julianne assange and chad griffin, president of the human rights campaign, bryan brown, and another appearance by state senator wendy davis of texas.

is fox news, it sunday with chris wallace talking with senators john mccain and chuck schumer. also republican congressman trey gowdy south carolina and mario diaz-balart of florida. cnn's state of the union follows at 3:00 p.m.. andy crowley sits down with bob goodlatte of virginia and louise gutierrez, an illinois democrat. also an appearance by david boies, a lawyer for the couples that challenged california's gay marriage ban. at four clock p.m., it is face the nation with texas state senator wendy davis, former solicitor general ted olson, and michael hayden, omer director of the national security agency and the cia. the sunday network talk shows are brought to you as a public service the networks and c-span. c-span radio re-airs the show beginning at noon eastern. the lineup is meet the press at noon, 1:00, abc's this week,

2:00, fox news sunday, and 3:00 cnn's state of the union. you can listen to them all on c- on 90 and oneard fm in the washington, d.c. area, and xm satellite radio channel 119. you can download our fewer -- our free app for the smartphone. or listen on the web at c- span.org. ontoday, american history tv c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the monument behind me is the monument to the 20 fourth michigan infantry. the 24th michigan belonged to a larger organization that had become famous throughout the army as the iron brigade. they had a reputation for being pretty hard fighters. the 24th michigan brought 496 men onto the field. 363 of them will remain here as casualties. 1889, on michigan day at gettysburg, over 115 survivors

of the 24th michigan who were wounded or captured returned to the spot for the dedication of their money meant. it -- the major of the unit was the speaker on that dedication day. as you look out over the assembled veterans, he grew a little quiet, and then he said this -- "volumes have been written with the battle of gettysburg is the sole and only topic, at the whole story has not been told. much of the planning and more of the doing has been omitted. the living may have given their version of what they did and what they witnessed here, but if the dead lips could be unsealed, what truer and larger testimony might be spread upon the pages of history." of the150th anniversary battle of gettysburg, live coverage begins at 9:30 eastern with historians throughout the day, including harold holzer.

we will also take your calls and tweaks later on -- tweeps which are on -- tweets later on. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris kearns goodwin followed by a candlelight procession all. withll and the day at 9:15 peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. use twitter to stay up to date on this weekend's activity from gettysburg and submit questions for our guests. "washington journal" continues. host: our sunday roundtable with two veterans of capitol hill. .ohn feehery and jim manley gentlemen, thanks for being with us. this is the piece this morning from the "washington post" as we talk about immigration and the house of representatives.

styleoehner's laid-back is acceptable in some circles. tost: with all due respect my former boss senator reed, i honestly think that speaker boehner has the toughest job in town. he is trying to manage a caucus that is all but an -- unmanageable. i have known speaker boehner for a long time going back to when i used to work for senator kennedy. they worked together a no child left behind, pension reform, higher education act reauthorization, and a host of other bills. i have seen him legislate before. i know he knows how to do it. the fact is he's got the caucus that is so far out of the mainstream -- i'm not sure i could give any advice in how to approach those guys right now. host: just a minute to read what the "washington post" writes

guest: the house is a bit of a mess. they are having a hard time passing legislation. we will see what happens with immigration. so be a test or the speaker's style. i think what happened over the have seen thisou steadily eroding par of leadership as each member of congress has their own base of power, their own ability to raise money. when the house of representatives to await earmarks, it made it very -- took away earmarks,

it made it very difficult. athink the laid-back style is good style. i a big fan of john boehner. you've got to yell at these members. you've got to intimidate them if you want them to vote your way. if you let them do their own thing, they will. i think you see that it is very difficult with this unruly band -- a lot of different opinions out there. i'm not sure if john boehner was going to start screaming with -- screaming at these members, i do not know if it would make a difference. you have 15 members of the house republicans caucus voting against john boehner when he became speaker. my advice was to kick them out of the caucus because i think at the end of the day, you've got to have some discipline. we will see how this develops. counting votes is difficult when you have members who have a lot of different opinions. this story, silicon valley prepares to push the house towards immigration reform. tech companies fishing -- facing

a fresh set up legal challenges in the political -- the republican house. time is running out for action. guest: a couple things good regarding the involvement of the tech companies, it is interesting -- the good news is they're getting involved, but the bad news is whenever you involve yourself in these hot button political issues, operations and associations get tarred by their involvement. a zero-sum game. you get into the game like this, and you're going to suffer some blowback. having said that, the immigration reform -- the senate did a good job of passing it last week -- anyone who says they know what is going to happen in the house is lying. like john and a lot of folks, we are waiting to see how they will proceed. host: i'm not going to ask you for predictions, but for options print what are the potential options? what could happen in the house?

guest: they will take up several different pieces of legislation good one that will be tough on border security, another on the high-tech visas. a third on farm workers. they are going to pass these elements, and eventually they will get to conference committee. from that committee, they will thede how much of legislation, how much of the senate they want to agree on, and then they have to make a decision on timing. there has been this theory that you have to hurry up and get this done. i have another theory and that is that you wait until after the primaries or you wait until after the election in 2014 and have it in a lame duck. this immigration bill could take a while. to jim's point, it is important that companies get involved, but if they get involved, they have to give more than political money. the have to engage grassroots. they have to get constituents talking about this.

those constituents do not -- when they talk to mother -- members of congress, a say, do not pass this amnesty. i am for the bill. i wanted to pass. here from of congress the bulk of their constituents that this is an amnesty bill, they will not vote for it. host: did it surprise you how critical some house republican members were to their senate counterparts with regard to senator corker and hoeven? votes. if it was a substantial win, not enough -- it was a substantial win, but not enough to appease these members. likes toe house criticize the senate. host of their work product is not very good. [laughter] guest: i do not intend to object. a couple different things -- there is going to be a house republican caucus on july 10 where for the first time

republicans will sit down as a caucus and begin to work through these issues. there are, republicans within the caucus that do not want to do anything. there is also a handful within that caucus that would like to see something done, but they do not want their fingerprints on it. very few ofdown -- these guys, they're only concernd -- their only is facing a primary election. host of these republicans are in safe districts because of redistricting. like i said, the only thing they have to worry about is a primary probably from the right and the tea party types. host: john feehery and jim manley here at the table to take your calls and comments as we look back at the week in washington and look ahead as congress takes the we off -- the week off for the july 4 break.

move ahead to 2016 for a moment. the front page of the "new york times" - with you a couple of examples -- examples of the jonathan martin refers to --

guest: i read that story this morning, talking about reruns. any republican that listens to failed republican strategist stuart stevens or karl rove needs to get their head examined. leaving that aside, i see something like that, and i see republicans that are scared. what is going to happen, i have no idea. i got a lot of respect for former secretary clinton. i have a lot of respect for vice president biden. i myself will hang back and see with these two folks are up to. like i said, anytime a top romney aide is criticizing anyone about reruns and old- school, i've got to laugh. host: the last time we elected a 60 nine rd to the white house, ronald reagan. -- 69-year-old to the white house, ronald reagan. i worked for obama in 2008. he was a fresh new face, and clinton was kind of stale news.

what would be more interesting to me would be the ideological thinker she is seen as a centrist, still seen as somebody who is the establishment wing of the democratic rt. people fear her and the power of the democratic power -- primary. for republicans, who they nominate is much more important. they've got to nominate someone who can not only appeal to the tea party, but to the broad middle and have some governing experience. be able to articulate a philosophy. republicans need to focus on that. hillary clinton, it is a long time until 2016. host: hillary clinton will be delivering remarks in september at the national constitution center in philadelphia. she will be introduced by former governor jeb bush. [laughter] guest: so it begins. this is the whole thing -- we had the bushes and the clintons

dominating politics for two decades now. the big question is, is it time to move on? if you ask barbara bush, she would say yes. host: anthony joins us from washington, d.c.. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning gentlemen. aboutment is talking comprehensive immigration -- some of the same people in the gang of eight, especially on the republican side, they were against the health care act. if you are talking about comprehensive immigration, that is 20 million more people -- a lot of it low-wage employment. how will this work? we basically do not have health care for them. a lot of low-wage employers do not offer health care. host: we will get a response. jim manley? guest: the fact is that the issue relating to health care it relates to immigration reform

partsme of the toughest of this process, especially in the house. the house and senate republicans have made it very clear that they do not want to have these 11 million immigrants to have access to healthcare. amongst the fights going on, especially on the house side, is whether they can even enter into these exchanges with their own money. again, it is a scare tactic by republicans. trying to throw obamacare into everything they can. they are spending a lot of time talking about it in immigration reform. host: before you respond, i want to share with you one of the latest ads. as is from the chamber can't -- chamber of commerce. president was standing this newe president --

32nd spot released this week. [video clip] >> what we have today is chaos, de facto amnesty. >> we have to invite people to come out of the shadows. >> let's secure our borders, welcome our neighbors, and practice the values of freedom and family. >> we all wish we do not have this problem. even at the way it is is amnesty. you have to solve this problem. and de factoess, amnesty, create jobs and economic growth i can -- by supporting conservative immigration reform. host: we should point out this is what the chamber called a significant seven-figure by on cable and national -- buy on cable and national networks. guest: i would prefer the chamber would spend more money mobilizing the grassroots greed i do not think ads work that will. the colors point about the cost of health care -- he is -- the caller's point about the cost of health care -- a team 11 million

people -- letting 11 million people into obamacare will drive up the debt. if you are looking at driving up healthcare costs, a lot of that is hidden by a legal immigrants here who do not have access to healthcare and are put in emergency rooms. that has a significant cost to the treasury. actually a significant cost at the local level. you can make the case that getting folks in a legal status where they have access to healthcare can have an impact on impact, anditive also have a positive impact on healthcare costs. this is a huge debate within the public and party. i am of the opinion that we have a broken system, and we've got to fix it. host: speaking of health care, this is a story that we focused on, the president's health care law, now commonly referred to as obama carter -- obamacare. this is on the issue of

contraceptives -- some employers on religious grounds do not want to cover contraceptives in any form. now that the rule is final, it likely clears the path for legal action. courts have held off on some decisions on the lawsuit. now that the regulation is out, these challenges have a big green light to move forward. guest: a couple things. first of all, speaking of i was right when the link which was negotiated during passage of obamacare -- that took a couple days off my life, watching that being negotiated. that was some of the toughest parts of the bill. is that that is where we are. i think that the administration has made some missteps in trying to formulate the regulatory

language. we listened to the first part of the show -- there is still some significant disagreement amongst the american people on how to proceed. jim manley, whose resume includes his work on capitol hill for a number of leading democrats, including senator kennedy, and a term agile, and harry reid, and john feehery who worked for members including congressman bob michaels, majority whip tom delay, and former speaker dennis hastert. edward joins us from the united kingdom. this program is carried live on the bbc parliament channel. or in the uk are you coming from? you are an american citizen? caller: i am a dual citizen. host: and you for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. caller: i wanted to comment on the ruling of the defense of marriage act good i have lived in the uk for nine months now, and i could not disagree more. i used to vote very liberally. i am an independent.

i cannot believe the ruling. this country of the united states was founded on christian principles. people can say it is not a christian nation anymore, but i think we should follow the constitution. i think we have been really strayed away from the constitution lately. it is pretty much all i have to say about that. host: edward, thank you for the call. you --i think that if this fight is not over read what you will see, because of the ruling, that there is not a this,l role in deciding what will end up happening is you have the states battling it out. you have arty scene 36 states who have defined marriage as between a man and woman. thatnk 12 or fewer than say that gay marriage is fine. this is not a done deal.

bothnk you'll see that sides will be energized by it. there are passionate people on both sides. what you will see is the legislative process work its way out. mostly at the state and low- level. host: this is from one of our viewers who said let me ask you about that word amnesty. it is the same debate that came up when you are in the senate when president george bush put forth his plan, some calling it amnesty, and others call it a path to citizenship in the other part is, if not citizenship, then what do you do for these 11 million illegal immigrants? romney called itself deportation, and many question whether or not that is even likely. [laughter] guest: in this judeo-christian system of ours, i do not think that self deportation is possible.

it is cruel and inhuman to try to do that to people. we are beyond that. if you begin with the premise that there are 11 million folks try to get out of the shadows, you've got two options -- you can pretend that the current -- take a blind eye and pretend that it is not going on, or you can try to address the situation . thankfully, there are good folks on both sides of the aisle this time around that or try to negotiate in good faith and trying to deal with deal with this -- do with this problem. the current situation is untenable for a host of reasons. i've got to give credit to senator schumer along with the rest of the gang of eight for negotiating a pretty good bill. i have some specific objections to it. host: let me go back to the onst issue, which was speaker of the house john boehner. there was this

is that the case? guest: i think john boehner is plenty tough. i do not think you get to be speaker of the house by being a wallflower. he can make the tough decisions. he has made the tough decisions. when he needs to be confrontational, he can be. i think the bigger issue for what is going on in the house is the lack of ability of the leadership to exert power. i take us back to campaign- finance reform, mccain-feingold, when they destroyed the power of the political parties. at the house took away the to do earmarks. this is not a john boehner issue. this is the ability of the leadership to exert discipline. if you're going to have a speaker of the house and a house majority that has to work its bel, and the way to successful is by exerting discipline, you need to give the leadership those tools. they do not have them from a

fund-raising or earmarked standpoint. host: based on that point, let me share with you the point from dana milbank on darrell issa's scandals guest: i think darrell issa has been very aggressive. host: two aggressive? guest: i think he has been fine.

his job is the oversight chairman is to overdo oversight and to aggressively find out where there is wrongdoing. what i have always said about this iressa thing, the problem was never the -- this irs thing, the problem was never the president: the commissioner and saying, though investor -- go investigate these people. what is at issue is a tax code that is unwieldy, too big, and it has too much power over people's lives. it is really retarding the growth of our economy. what we've got to do is reform the tax code could if we can use the scandal as a reason to reform the tax code, we would be far more productive. host: jeff joins us on the republican line from texas good --. -- texas. caller: good morning. a couple of things. -- first one the in congress

i am glad that we have somebody in congress, meaning the house, that will stop the obama agenda. i do not mind obama. i am a republican, but personally i do not care. when it comes to my kids and grandkids, i hate the fact that obama is spending them into oblivion like he is. --immigration, i do not care i do not care what they do with the people in this country, as long as they secure the borders and they get no benefits. the house kind of ticked me in the butt when we did the sandy bill and it went from $11 billion for the east coast to $70 billion is everybody had to have their pork. lerneras the irs, if wants to take the fifth, she can pack her bags and get out and never come back. was are my comments. i will take your comments off the air. guest: he is absolutely right about lois lerner. the more we have reached into her past, the more we wonder

about what her political motivations are. guest: i agree with what the caller said. if we are going to have an immigration bill, we've got to make sure that we are smart about order control, although i think we have to make the gate or so more people can come in legally, and i think he is right that the house of representatives ha pretty good job of stopping the obama administration in its tracks. you can see the obama administration trying to do other things without the congress. that is unfortunate. i agree mostly with the caller could host: this is from karen referring to jim manley guest: i believe that is the truth. he honestly has the toughest job in washington right now. he is trying to deal with the caucus that is unmanageable or they do not want to be managed.

each and every one of these guys thanks that he or she should be the next speaker of the house, and they are marching to the beat of their own drummer. - ans just on an - untenable situation. i disagree with some of what the last caller said. congress -- i see congress that does not want to investigate. they just want scandal after scandal. they have no agenda. they have no new ideas. they will to drive to -- they will try to drive this irs scandal for as long as they can. they do not have any ideas. everything they do is wildly unpopular. host: another point on our facebook page -- you can join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan

to norman from idaho, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am calling on the independent line. host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: i'm calling on the independent line because i used to be a republican, and i just decided that there is nobody who is actually representing me. my were presented to us here, three of them -- representatives fear, three of them voted against the immigration bill, and i thank them. i have sent letters to the republican party and explained why i am no longer a republican. the last caller that was arepubr him -- but i want to talk to him right now and ask him, why don't we form a third party with sarah

palin and all the conservatives? we can leave the republicans behind. they left us behind. frustrated because nobody -- there is nothing that they do that represents us. host: let me ask you this question, and then i'll and then -- thenut john feehery i will put john feehery to answer your question. who do you identify the most in the public and party in the past? guest: we have not had a true conservative -- caller: we have not had a to conservative run for president. a warm, nice was person, and he was conservative, then he went along with the immigration bill because he was promised the other stuff, just like republicans are promising now, all this garbage. anything willve happen.

they will come here and get citizenship. that is it. host: i will stop either so we can get a response. thank you for calling. last: if you look at the election, one of the most fascinating things is how republicans and independents were breaking form it romney, and everyone thought, including me, thought that would be a good way romney could win the election could all those independents were former republicans who were angry at the party. case palin has made the that she might want -- that she might not want to be a republican anymore. a lot of republicans would be fine with that. guest: a lot of democrats as well. guest: the party is going through some cleavages right now. there is the right-wing portion of the party, the more moderates , the more established went -- establishment wing, they are

having a hard time communicating with each other and finding common ground. hopefully one of the things that will happen is there is a binary choice. if you have a third party, it gives democrats all the power. they have a chance to do whatever they want. host: i want to share with you to events that happened this last week. jeb bush, former governor of florida, speaking in new york at the new york conservative party dinner on tuesday. online on our website as part of c-span's video library at c-span.org. former governor bush talked about immigration. [video clip] >> we need to continue to improve our border security, and tracking down the thousands of people who overstay their visas. 40% of the people here illegally in through legal visas. a great country ought to be able to figure out who those people are and politely ask them to leave when their visas expire. getting here and staying here illegally should be much harder

with greater risk and greater and than staying, coming staying illegally, but today, there is no legal immigration for great numbers of people. that is why we need to have a comprehensive approach. order security by itself will not solve this problem unless we make a path to legal status for those that we want to, and allow them to come. host: jim manley, going back to our conversation about 2016, based on his view about immigration, how does that play in a republican primary? guest: i'm not so sure i'm the best person to answer that. [laughter] regardingo answer it, his comments on border security, i guess we now know how to get republicans on board, at least in the senate, and that is to spend $30 billion on border security and doubling the number of enforcement agents. leaving that aside -- host: republicans still said no. guest: absolutely.

but it was enough to get it over the goalposts and pick up 67 votes. leaving that aside, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. vast fissures within the caucus about how to proceed. for many republicans, they do not want to do anything. based on partze, of what they feel from business interests, that something needs to be done. i think this is symbolic of a long-standing issue within the republican party. we will have to wait and see how it plays out. host: to eliminate that point, let me share with you the comments of senator ted cruz as he appeared on the rush limbaugh show, a very different take on --igration and the support also rand paul. [video clip] >> the gang of eight bill provides that a few people here

illegally will be eligible for green cards. that means they are eligible for the full panoply of federal welfare benefits. i think we should welcome immigrants from across the globe, but you cannot welcome immigrants with a full welfare state where the incentive is to be dependent on government. we want people coming here who want to achieve the american dream, and this system, this will - bill would have on enormous cost on the state, treasury, and also the federal treasury. >> that is one of the many things missing, the assimilation to a distinct and unique american culture. we are balkanized and in this country. people are coming from wherever. they are staying in those cultures in pockets, population centers across the country. the romantic days of immigration in the early 1900s, those people came here, and they remained in their identity, but they wanted to be americans.

they wanted to participate in whatever they thought the american dream was. that is a distinction that can be drawn today. the exchangeke on between rush limbaugh on his radio program and senator ted cruz of texas. that was before the vote is past week. guest: not that surprising. they are against the bill because they think it will lead to more people being on welfare, it will cost the treasury, and will -- and you will have a bunch of here that are not americans. my own view is if you fix this broken system, you are going to have a greater economic growth, more people who are going to be not on a pathway to citizenship but a pathway to the middle class, which is leading to a more robust country, a more diverse country, which has always been the american experience. rush limbaugh talks about how people in the past did not have their own enclave. that is not true. milwaukee was a german city. they spoke german more than they spoke english in the walkie.

the irish had their own communities. the italians had their own communities. the jews had their own communities. for a couple generations. ,hat is how america was built it was built by immigrants. -- mexican immigration is not what it once was -- it is now mostly from other parts of latin america. they provide such economic vitality. asian-americans, they provide such a manner esch economic vitality to this country. -- such economic vitality to this country. without them, we would not be america. i think this idea of us changing america is not true. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, we are heard coast- to-coast on xm channel 119. if you are tuning in on c-span television, our guests -- democrats jim manley and republican john feehery.

john joins us on the republican line from florida. welcome to the conversation. me a minute here. about a year ago, i heard on the , a liberal station, that there were 65,000 terrorists plus the illegal aliens coming across the border every year. rubio renamed marco possibility the terrorist illegal alien amnesty bill. going to have any back run checks on these people because in these century cities, they are not even allowed to pull them over for crimes. they do not arrest them. they do not do anything. they commit murders and do everything. they are not arresting them. john mccain was on there the other day. about, coming across the desert in 110 degrees , no water. i did not hear him say the first

americans that these people are coming over here and killing or robyn or whatever they are doing to them. host: john, take your point and turn it into the form of a question. caller: i do not want this amnestyalien terrorist bill passed. there are 23 million people out of work. they are lying about the 11 million. now to cut it down to 11 million immigrants, a few years ago it was 30 million. it took all the jobs. -- they took all the jobs. we are sick of them being in this country could mexico deported 40 million of them. it did not cost them anything. just cut their benefits off. host: thank you for the call. jan has this point this is a recurring theme

in america. you have immigrants that come here to try to find the american dream, and people here who say, let's get rid of these immigrants. the whole term paddy wagon came about because all of our people, the irish, we were patty's throne and police wagons. the irish are here. i have a sympathy for people who have come here to achieve the american dream because that is what america is built on. host: it is not the heat out is a bookthere entitled the "slowburn." the debate is to local right now, it has not reached a critical mass into the national dialogue. guest: it has not. we keep on getting -- it keeps getting subsumed by one other so-called scandal after another. like the irs scandal.

as i point out in that article, but if you do the google and check in the local media, there is a lot of stories being written about the impact of the sequester, but it is not really filtering into the national conversation. as far as i can tell, we are on the sequester from here on out. for months to come. i don't see anything changing a simpson. changehe potential to it. what is going to happen? guest: i have my crystal ball here. it means they will have a bigger deal. my guess is, you see the finance committee putting out papers , your taxt, you know

break, which i think of a precursor to perhaps getting some sort of tax reform, as part reform,l on entitlement which hopefully will get us a bigger budget to deal. the problem here is what policymakers at the beginning of the year is a raise taxes, and they cut spending, discretionary spending, the one place you should not be cutting spending. they ignored long-term tax reform and ignored more importantly long-term entitlement reform, which will hopefully put us on a glide path towards economic stability in the future. the sequester, as jim has pointed out, is not really a national story, but it ought to be because it has a real impact on a variety of different programs, how to create jobs in the short term. now, i think it is good to have some retrenchment of federal spending. i think it is always good to get more efficiencies out of the

government. the sequester has done a pretty good job of getting rid of a lot about spending. that being said, the big battle is not between republicans and democrats. it is entitlement spending and discretionary spending. right now, entitlement spending is taking discretionary spending's butt. democrats linehe from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning and i love your tie. host: which one? caller: steve, your pink tie is so pretty. host: it is from my daughter. caller: that is very nice. it makes it even more attractive. my comment is this -- we are not a theocracy. we have separation of church and state in this country. theident obama inherited

worst legacy since roosevelt. i don't think anyone could doubt that. about thed an article top 10 greatest countries. they all have socialized medicine. canada was number one. and there was a range of studies that came up with the good policies in these countries, most of them were scandinavian countries. rove the weight is settled law. wade is settled law. both roberts and alito agreed to that. whereas the and the parties is their political statement at a time when our country was facing bush's impending depression, that their number one goal was 's destroy president obama administration. to me, that was one of the most

unpatriotic things i have seen in my 68 years. the constitution says that a person's total control over their own body is the hallmark of civil rights. and i cannot think of a single problem that we have today, such as the flooding of immigrants across our borders, which started after reagan's amnesty. and all these subsidies that go to the very corporations who are poisoning us and making us sick while they are creating more unhealthy people. the republicans protect them. gail, thank you for the call. we appreciate it. john feehery, would you like to respond? guest: she gave pretty much the liberal talking points.

a lot of people would agree with her on the democratic party, and a lot of people would disagree with him was everything to 70 republican party. "ost: the "national journal has a piece this morning looking ahead at 2014 and the race for governor. one of the worst senate candidates in years now may run for governor. for martha coakley, that may actually be a great idea. specialoakley 2010 election campaign for the ted kennedy seat was not even slightly slightly pretty. now three years later, the "boston globe" reporting she is giving serious thought to running in 2013. she actually has a strong case for a run. guest: she actually does have a pretty good case to run, i will agree with that, but having said that, i am still singed from the experiences and what i saw during her last run for the senate. i defy you to find a worst campaign than that one.

the worst example was the situation at red sox stadium campaign,refused to or she did not campaign in front of fenway. it was just something that folks are never going to forget. i guess is what i'm trying to say. weigh in?ou want to guest: we tried to win senate seats, but we are very competitive for governorships. i think we have got a mitt romney -- a shot at winning this grea. host: but go to bob in wisconsin. caller: good morning, and thank you for our call, and thank you for our country having the ability to do these things. other countries have no idea what freedom is. thank our cable

supporters. caller: i think our veterans. i'm a veteran. i'm under the the impression that these illegals are breaking american law. why are we putting up with an? why should they not be punished and put away you go as an american, go to mexico without proper papers and see what happens to you. you will get arrested and put away. now, i understand certain things they talk about about the hardship, but they came here illegally. raking american law. law.eaking american please deport them, give back america to those who came here to be american. host: bob, let me ask you about that point because we have heard about the issue of the deportation. how do you do that? caller: you pick them up like they do in every other country, put them on a bus, process them back to mexico, tell mexico here

they come. kick them out. and that lady before, go talk to a canadian, ma'am, and talk to them about their healthcare. a friend died up there waiting to get health care. how dare she? thank you. host: thank you, bob. guest: the practical the legalns of that, immigrants, they are terrible, blah, blah, blah. the vertical implication is that our economy will collapse. if you want to throw them in prison, our prisons are already full. he is absolutely right that it is a scandal that we have 11 million people here who are not documented. , whenin over 30 years president reagan signed that bill in 1986, we were at an estimated 3 million. some say that number is even higher than 11 million. guest: what that means we have

got to fix our our system. we've got to make sure that there are incentives. we've got to secure the border, which i think every person talks about it. but we have to do it in a smart way. talking about the practicality of it, you've got to be able to kick a million people -- 11 million people out of the country. you cannot that the men present. it is not work. host: i want to get your reaction to the story on salon .com. the nsa "has been working with at least seven european countries to collect personal indications that appear go -- communications data." according to madison, countries agreements secret with the u.s. by these agreements, nations

are categorized by the u.s. according to their trust level, and of course all this comes as president obama was in germany, criticized by the german chancellor on this program, according to this story, a program that she certainly was familiar with. guest: yes, which is why i think those governments overseas, and europe, need to be careful about their criticism about the u.s. when it comes to these programs. let me say this -- i think that snowden has raised some very interesting issues. we can talk about that, but the fact of the matter is when i hear him say that he took this ,ob with the contracting firm or with the nsa, to try and get access to the secret, that really gives me reason to pause. add that to the fact that, you know, he went to hong kong, he is now in russia, allegedly, and he is thinking about going to

ecuador or cuba, neither of which are back to the free press, and a lot of the stuff is not beginning to ring true with me. host: this is from the "washington post" this morning. secretary of state john kerry continues with shuttle diplomacy, something we heard in the 1970's with henry kagan -- henry kissinger. host: do either of you think something is going to come from this? guest: it could. you never know. what is most interesting is how kerry, how hard he is working. it is actually kind of interesting because when hillary left at secretary of state, everyone was saying she was the best thing since sliced bread, but i think kerry has done a pretty good job kind of showing her up a little bit. if he does get something, it is all in him, because of his hard work. he deserves credit. guest: despite the fact that he

is gone the extra mile to try to reach agreement, i do not see anything coming out of the middle east anytime soon. host: democrats line in dallas, good morning. caller: hi, it is the independents line. i wanted to say a few nice things about john feehery. i know john, and we had a professional debate about health feeheryhis blog, the theory.com, where i affirmed obamacare because i believe that healthcare is a right, and , was in course, denied the negative about obama care. but there is a point that we both agreed on, but i think it's applicable right now. i will say that, but just before i go, i wanted to give jim

manley another candidate who is worse than coakley. limit my point, you think john and i both agree with, and this -- and our written debate is on john's website, and that is that obama care is the fraud bill, there is absolutely no questions about it. in order for that bill to have been put together thomas obama had to buy votes, there was the nebraska horn -- cornhuskers, the louisiana purchase, and that bill was put together sort of like how surgeons operate on incoming wounded. he just do the best you can with what you have, but it was not a laser focused surgery. it was just put together any way he could do it. ani definitely believe it is

imperfect bill, and i am sure john would agree with that. congressink is that's should stop talking about repeal, repeal, repeal because we all know that that is not going to happen, but what we can do is -- you know, the thing that we can all agree on that are bad in the bill, we can get rid of, and we can improve. host: we are short on time, i will have you jump in. sharron angle in nevada. host: i will stop either because we only have a few minutes left. john feehery. guest: good to hear from you. we do believe that obama care is flawed, and we have another agreements that we talked about on my blog. the big question is -- do we repeal it? is it so bad that we can repeal it, or can we make it better and improvement and keep remnants

that will continue to skew the healthcare marketplace, and that is a big deal with publicans. guest: i want to know how much you pay to get it on the phone like that. we can all agree that john feehery is a nice guy. , it: kevin, stay on the line want to share with you one of the -- one other event. we cover it live on the c-span network, part of our white house coverage. the candidates are in early primary caucus states, including rand paul. that in south carolina. here is a portion of what he said to republican activists in colombia. [video clip] >> i have had a few questions for hillary clinton. [laughter] [applause] she has not really answer them to my satisfaction, and i have got a few more that keep cropping up all the time, so i am hoping we get her back when i trade's committee and

isupp frankly think she is not telling the truth. -- wereher point blank we sending arms from libya to turkey to syria, and might that have sunday to do with the terrorist act that happened? she said she had never heard about it. it has been in the "know your times -- in the "new york times ," it has been on fox news. my question is -- if it is classified, are you allowed to buy? that is what came up with the nsa issue. when a national intelligence director came before the senate, and he was prompted in advance, senator wyden wanted him come i'm going to ask you this question, i do not want to spring it on you, i want you to think about appeared is the nsa collecting any data on americans? no,he said in public forum, we're not collecting data on americans. that is an out and out lie. it is against the law law to lie to americans. what is i do? you know what has damaged our here and now ing

don't know whether to trust them. [applause] rand paul.senator another story this morning inside the "new york times" by jonathan martin. what is this all about? guest: i think that rand paul represent the libertarian wing of the party. anyways he can attract a much younger audience than a typical republican. so by laying into hillary, he is taking on a sacred cow of the democratic party. , it cann get her elevate himself. she is a formidable foe, so it will be an interesting discussion. host: caller from marion, massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the immigration issue. i think they put in policies where the people that broke into

where they will actually sell support themselves, you put in basically the employers who were hiring them, if they have no work, they will go away. they will self deport. i also wanted to speak on martha coakley. running for governor. the democratic machine in massachusetts is so corrupt. to theght marky get in pandering and everything. the republican always comes up short in this state because the ichine is so corrupt, and would like to see a republican andidate get in and make even playing field in politics in massachusetts. i certainly would. host: ok, we will get a response. jim manley. guest: i'm not quite sure what

to say. maybe if the republican party of massachusetts came up with better candidates than scott brown or geomet, they would have a better shot to win a seat. the fact of the matter is, that ofnot where the people messages are right now. they a mini fascination with republicans a few years ago, but when they finally saw scott brown here in washington, across the street in the capital voting time after time for republicans, they decided they had had enough. host: a couple of other things happening this weekend this month. former commerce meant jesse jackson junior will be sentenced. he can face four years in prison. your thoughts. guest: i don't know. you read the stories about that, and you think -- all you can think about is why. i think it is too bad. i'm not quite sure what else i can say besides that. his dad, obviously a big figure. i think that he has some big shoes to fill with his father.

what happens in politics is you are in the spotlight, and for a lot of people, can be very tough because you kind of run the highlife, and you get caught up in things, and all of a sudden you are going to jail. we have seen the story many times in congress. it is an unfortunate, sad story. host: we saw the defeat of the farm bill in the house of representatives. is that a precursor to immigration, or are these two very different if there's -- different issues? guest: i think frank lucas is not given up on the farm bill. you're still is a lot of important parts of the program. for republicans, they have to make a decision. they won a bill that is even more conservative, and then hopefully get the vote that they need. they need 50 votes because then you lose all of the democrats. get a won't try to bipartisan bill. that is very difficult to figure out. you have the same problem with

immigration. if the immigration bills, i think they will take a different approach. they will do different build and try to get to conference on one of those bills. i am hopeful they will get something done. host: you get the final word. guest: when i talk about e-house as unmanageable these days, one of the case in point is what happened to the farm bill. i am afraid it is a precursor of the things to happen -- to come. we have the farm bill, we have that the appropriations ross s process where both parties at extreme levels, $70 billion, i believe, between the two, above and beyond the sequester cuts, we have appropriation process that is broken. we had to deal with the debt limit again. that will be interesting. and john manley feehery, thank you both for being with us. have a great july 4 weekend. guest: thank you.

writes about the supreme court at some of the significant decisions this week as the court takes up the issue of equal justice under law. david said which will be here at the table to talk about the court, what happened this past week, and what to expect in the year ahead. "he "washington journal continues. it is sunny morning, june 30, we will be back in a moment. ♪ >> today, american history tv on c-span3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. quite the money men behind me is the monument to the 24th michigan infantry. it belonged to larger organization that had become favorite -- famous iraqi army at the iron brigade. they had a reputation for being hard fighters. the 24th michigan brought men

onto the field. 363 of them will remain here as casualties. in 1889, on michigan day at gettysburg, over 115 survivors of the 24th michigan, who were wounded or captured here, returned to this spot for the dedication of their monument. the measure of that unit with the speaker on dedication day. as you look over the assembled veterans, you grew a little quiet, and then he said this, volumes have been written with the battle of gettysburg at the sole and only topic, but the all -- the whole story is not mental. much of the planning and most of the doing have been omitted. the living may have given their version of what they did and what they witness here, but if the dead lips could be unsealed, what tour and larger testimony might be spread upon the pages of history. christ the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live

coverage today begins at 9:30 eastern with historians throughout the day. including kim masterson brown and bruxism. later a 5:30 we'll take your calls and tweets for penn state university professor. 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris kearns goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession to the soldiers- national cemetery. peter decorated -- carmichael is taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions using the #gettysburg150. " continues.journal host: we want to welcome back david savage, longtime observers of the supreme court, he covers it for the "los angeles times" and the "chicago tribune." thank you for being with us. let me discuss a story -- the

supreme court promises equaled justice under law, the words carved into marble and its façade, and last week the justices set out a new definition of equal justice that they see as suited to this time. can you explain? guest: it was a remarkable couple of days because on tuesday, the justices struck down part of the historic voting rights act from 1955 basically saying it's time has passed, that there is no longer any justification for this special oversight for the south. assessing to be sort of an ending of an era of civil rights enforcement. the very next day, they hand down to decisions that are big wins for gay rights, and that is sort of the new era of equal rights, the new sense that discrimination against gay couples is not justified. host: often you can glean where a justices going to go based on the questions, and of course when it came to doma and gay rights, justice kennedy was a

key player in the spirit did is surprising that he ruled in favor of the 5-4 decision? , justice kennedy since the mid-1990 close the, he has onlyen the court's important decisions on gay rights. tournament 1990's, one in 2003. justice kennedy as one who think the constitution protects liberty and equality of law, and there is an evolving sense of what is fair and equal. perhaps 30, 40 years ago, thomas people would not have been trouble, would not have thought about a lot says given merit -- gays and lesbians cannot marry. he says there is an evolving sense of equality in this country. people's ideas are changing. now, what is the justification now, he said, if you have got 13 states were gays and lesbians can marry legally in their states, marriage is usually a state law matter. what is the justification for the federal government to treat them as if there will -- as if they were not married yet go he

hes -- not married yet go says it's not freezable today. justice kennedy was very skeptical of doma , it ishe oral arguments available on our websites, part of c-span's video library, www.c-span.org. let's share with you some questions. you will hear from associate justice kennedy and justice alito. [video clip] >> we've switched now from federal power to rationality. there is a difference. i think we are assuming now that there is federal power and asking about the degree of scrutiny that applies. or are we going back to whether there is federal power. >> i think there still is clearly a federal power because doma does not appear anywhere in other than in a federal statute. if there is not power for

statute in which these terms appear, that is a problem independent of doma, but it is not a doma problem. >> i think it is a dome a problem. the question is whether or not the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage. >> it is not have the authority to regulate marriages as such, but that is not what doma does. doma defines a term as it appears in federal statutes, many of those provide benefits, burdens, disclosure obligations. it appears -- >> congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved under section three by excising the " from the united states code, and replacing it with something more neutral. "certified domestic units." and define us in the exact way the way section three, exactly the way dilmoma defines marriag.

in that instance, the federal government would not be purporting to say who is married and who is not married. it was a who is entitled to various federal benefits and burdens based on a federal definition. >> that would make no difference, justice khalil. justice alito. regulating marriage as such. it is important to recognize that people that are married in their states people who are married interstate remain married for purposes of state law -- in their state remain married for purposes of state law. they're trying to figure out the law in this area. there are several ways to look at it.

marriage is a state matter. marriage is a right to be treated equally. justice kennedy said a little bit of both in his opinion. he's going to keep people guessing in his opinion. if you believe marriage is a state law question, he said every state law in the country gets to decide whether were going to allow gay marriage or not. he said that if you view this as a matter of equal rights and justice, down the road, the supreme court is going to say, you must allow gays and lesbians an equal right to marry. the real john roberts emerges. he says, congress cannot be trusted. he makes this point.

guest: that is rather ominous sounding. if the court had two big federal statutes that they struck down, part of the voting rights act and part of the defense of .arriage act of 1996 the liberal group of the court and justice kennedy struck down one. the conservative group with justice canney struck down the other. -- kennedy struck down the other. no one voted to uphold both of those laws. i don't know the john roberts is the only one who is skeptical. you can say the same thing about the court's liberal wing. host: this is a graph i want to show you from the "new york times."

majorityy much in the or a key player in the majority. aest: that has been so for very long time. justice kennedy is the one who is in the middle on all the big issues. he is with the conservative justices about two thirds of the time. he is with the liberal justices about one third of the time. almost every year, at the end of the supreme court term, you can see the liberals won a couple big cases with justice kennedy. the conservatives won a couple big cases almost always with justice kennedy. he is the one justice that does not fit into a simple category of left or right. host: if you go back to the late he was the first choice. he recently passed away. the know was his second choice

-- then there was a second choice. he used to joke that there were number three choices. anybody who follows this for a long time, that summer was a momentous change. there would've been a solid 5-4 majority to overturn roe versus wade. justice kennedy is a much more centrist conservative. it has had an enormous impact on the court. host: we talking with david savage. the 85, 86 europe woman -- 86- year-old woman from new york was in a relationship for 40 years

and brought this case to the supreme court. here is more with chief justice roberts and her attorney. [video clip]>> the language of the report comes from a moral understanding today that gay people are no different, and gay relationshipss' are not significantly different from state married couples -- a straight married couples. >> i'm trying to see where the moral argument comes from. think akin to a societal understanding. think that gay people today have political power.

the chief justice talking about the political debate that ensued over this legal issue. implicitly, the gay rights side is saying, we need special protections in the law for discrimination against gays and lesbians. you should look skeptically at discriminations against people like that. they are a minority group. the justices saying, your site seems seems to be winning a lot side seemsttles -- to be winning a lot of these battles. why does the supreme court need to second-guess these laws? he is saying, we should let this play out state-by-state. looking ahead to what we could face in a upcoming term, we will talk that in a moment. let's get to our phone calls. our phone lines are open.

you can join us on our twitter page as well. chuck in west virginia, thank you for calling. caller: i'm a gay west virginia. -- virginian. it is one of the states in which same-sex marriage is banned, not by amendment but by statute. about what this is going to mean for a gay couple that means to west virginia. -- moves to west virginia. if you have a gay couple that is .egally married in iowa they're entitled to survivor benefits, they file joint tax returns and everything.

say that a couple legally married in iowa, one of the spouses gets a really good job opportunity in west virginia and they decide to relocate here to west virginia. say,the state subsequently you are unmarried? you are no longer married? so, all those federal protections and benefits they used to have in iowa, do they suddenly become canceled? guest: good question. i think the answer is not quite clear at this point. it is true that the couple that moves to west virginia -- west virginia would not have to treat them as a married couple. president obama and the federal officials, he has basically said -- i think the obama administration is going to have to resolve some of these questions on federal benefits.

view isral government's that the couple is still married under federal law. if you want to file a joint tax return or get social security benefits, think the federal government wants to say, our point of view is that they are still married. there is a lot of laws that are not resolved yet, if you would talk to lawyers. host: a couple of points on that from vivian shepardson. meanwhile, from justice anthony scalia, the weekly standard has reprinted his opinion from the court. i'm going to share with you one part.

guest: i listen to justice scalia give that dissent. i thought it would have been stronger had he done it the day before. in a dome a case, -- in the doma case, he said, we the court -- the court should not be deciding these momentous issues. when congress passes a law and the president signs it, we should stand back and not second-guess a lot of strike it down. that is exactly what -- it and strike it down. that is exactly what he did before with the voting rights act. who wouldn't vote to defend

marriage, is exactly what was said about the voting rights act. he's willing to say in one set of cases, we the justices should not second-guess laws passed by congress, begin he's willing to strike down a very popular law the day before -- but he's willing to strike down a very popular law the day before. written,n history is will be roberts decision be called "the second dred scott"? far.: that's going very there's a lot of things to say about the voting rights act. it is far the most successful laws and american history, even in striking it down, john roberts cap making the point of what a resounding success it was. in the 1960s, less than 20% of

blacks could register and vote in places such as alabama and mississippi. now he pointed out that african- americans are registering to vote at higher rates in the deep south states than do whites. the big problem that the law was meant to address, the right to register and vote, has largely been solved. if you talk to the conservative members of the court, they will tell you that since the 1990's on, the voting rights act has been about redistricting. they have a lot of cases of what they call racial gerrymandering. from the conservative justice's point of view, the special scrutiny for the south in more recent years has become a ,uestion about districts electoral districts. they think striking that vision down doesn't do away with voting rights act.

they're just not going to allow this special scrutiny for the south. court areu.s. supreme topic. -- our topic today. we welcome you to the conversation. good morning, steve. theer: it's amazing that united states has forward an argument of the diversion of the separation of church and state. the latest supreme court rulings are saying that church is the state. couldn't stop sandy and are not going to be able to stop the heat wave we have now. host: thank you, steve. guest: i don't quite understand the point about the church.

can respond to that. -- can't respond to that. host: a tweet -- this particular lawsuit was brought initially by gay and lesbian couples who were married in massachusetts. they had different problems. something as simple as filing a joint tax return. they sued, saying we are being treated unequally for benefits. the other case from california is about a right to marry. it's not about benefits at all. it's about a right to marry. the court sort of dodge that question by throwing out the appeal come a which had the effect of upholding a judge's order that allows gay marriage in california.

the liberal justices and just as kenny were willing to make -- justice kennedy were willing to take a small step but did not want to tell the states all around the country, you must allow right to marry for days. -- gays. the dean ofarr now pepperdine university's school of law, infamous for his investigation into president bill clinton and monica lewinsky. of the exchange as the state supreme court took up the issue. the voters are charged with this information. we can see from just looking at the polls, this was an issue that was very carefully discussed and debated by the policy. we think when you take context

language of the proposition and now the language of the voter information guide, the intent of the voters becomes quite clear. you have the assurance that there are emulated served -- there are a malia tour of -- ameliorative actions. i would be delighted to answer any questions. >> we may have run out of questions. [laughter] host: an exchange with ken starr. he is pointing out the political side of all of this. voters in california had a chance to weigh in on proposition 8. guest: that's right. should the voters of each state or their legislators decide this question, or should it be decided in the courts? that is a really hard question. courtght this year the that a pretty good job of pushing that question down the road.

they say, proposition eight had been pushed down already. if it had not been struck down, there would have been a new , and everyoneive agrees the result would have been different. each state is going to get to grapple with this. four years from now, 5, 10 years from now the supreme court is going to take it up. this is what happened on the issue of interracial marriage. even after the famous brown decision where they struck down racial segregation in public schools did not touch the question of interracial marriage. they waited until the late 1960's. only a handful of states that continue to make it illegal for blacks and whites to marry. then they said this is a matter of equal protection in the law and we are striking down those

laws. it was of no great consequence at all. the country had come around to the view that this is not a matter of great controversy. host: that comes a point that justice justice ginsburg made about getting too far ahead of society. guest: if you get five justices who support gay rights, what is in the court just strike down all the laws? justice ginsburg has continued to make that point, that the supreme court should not be ahead of the country sort of announcing big propositions of law that are not widely accepted. is a veteran of the women's rights movement. her thought is that it is much better to win step-by-step. that's how you get full equality. host: ar onur

independent line. good morning. we should not forget about ken positionshe justice's . i believe the issue is moral. aboutmore precise, it is what is the fundamental basis for society. as human beings, we develop and reproduce based on opposite sides. what we are discussing here is about changing the fundamental develops.how society please hear me out on this. their arguments saying that that between

animals, they do it between the same sex and that is not abnormal. [indiscernible] in the animal kingdom and in there are men who like to have more than one woman . like in utah. they are happy and they want to have 10, 15 wives. or maybe the opposite. there are women who want to have three or five men. host: the question is, how far

does this although? the pointbegan making that this is a moral matter. i thought, you can view this either way. some people would say traditional marriage is moral and anything other than that is a moral and violates -- immoral and violates religious precepts. others would say that equal treatment is what is moral. there is clearly more than one way to view what is moral. host: people weighing in on the court on our facebook and twitter page. why don't we the people get a chance to and their terms? -- to end their terms? the notion was that you

pick a judge, the person serves an extended term, life term on good behavior. i know it does offend a lot of people. the turbine proposals to say, maybe they should serve 10 or 16 years -- there have been proposals to say, maybe they should serve 10 or 16 years. the constitution would have to be amended. as one of the things we were left with in the original constitution, the judges serve a life term. a tweet who is in the wings, and who is most likely to be confirmed? guest: it would be justice ginsburg. she said she would like to stay

for another two years. if she were to leave in 2015, president obama would presumably who is on the left side of the divide. a lot of people think he would seek another woman. ginsburg is a historic figure in the women's rights movement. if anybody where they say, this is a likely candidate. where they say, this is a likely candidate. potentially the first indian-american pick for the court? guest: he would certainly be a contender. he's got what it takes to be a justice. he has a good mind. he can stand in front of the

justices the way john roberts could and take rapidfire questions and explain the law and carefully make distinctions. that's the kind of mind that can do very well in that court. it would be a historic pick. he is young and has a judicial temperament. have a yearnice to or two on the appeals court before he is a candidate for promotion. earthquake is if one of the conservative justices, justice scalia or justice kennedy were to leave. then you are in this situation of changing the ideological balance. i wouldn't bet that that's going to happen. i don't think either one of them has intention of leaving soon. but it could happen. and that would be a real big fight. president obama picks, you think the republicans would be inclined to give that person

fairly close scrutiny. host: the chief justice speaking over the weekend. we will show you some of the news he made. , dennis joining us from virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to comment on the same- sex marriage equal benefits ruling. i've always felt we've been a nation of laws regarding marriage. historically, i don't believe -- rand paul went under scrutiny for making a comment about peace deal with the. -- bestiality. ask the guest comic and we as a nation say it is wrong for same-sex couples to get certain benefits now and say it is justified to deny other

certain groups or certain persons seeking a different type of marriage those same benefits? i think it's quite reasonable -- i don't think anybody would disputed, states can regulate who gets married. is that youulation can't marry somebody who is very young. you can't marry one of your relatives. there is a whole series of regulations on marriage. you can't marry two or three people in this country. this case involved a situation where in massachusetts and quite another -- quite a few other states allowed to adults of the same sex to marry. all this decision says if they are legally married, they're entitled to equal legal benefits. i don't think the logic of it all limits are,

off. host: let me go to the dissenting opinion by anthony justice -- justice anthony scalia. few public controversies touch an institution regarding marriage so essential to the lines of so many and few inspired such attended passion by good people on all sides. guest: the part of his dissent is that basically the voters, the people of the united states should make these kinds of decisions. the constitution set up a

and itre of government allows in states and cities and the federal government to make certain political decisions, and judges should not second-guess that. i think that's where the court is. this is going to continue to play out, state-by-state. inple are going to vote referendums or through legislatures and decide, we want to change our laws, or do we want to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. host: a follow-up with a lot of stories this weekend. this viewer saying guest: if you put that to a vo te, i think many people would say judges should have a fixed term. but we would have to amend the

constitution to put a limit on their terms. host: the chief justice speaking at the lawyers' conference. we covered it live yesterday. politico is writing about it this morning with this headline. justice john roberts says, the high court asks too many questions. as he spoke to his colleagues and lawyers, justice robert saying the justices over do it a bit in posing questions to lawyers. here is a portion from the greenbrier event yesterday. there are excuses for it. we don't talk about cases before the argument. isn we get on the bench, it the first time we begin to get clues about what our colleagues think. asare often using questions a way to bring out points that we think our colleagues ought to know about.

we tend to sometimes debate each other through counsel. that's an explanation. it's not meant as an excuse. but i think you are quite right and we do overdo it. the bench has gotten more and more aggressive. recent appointees have tended to be more active and questioning than the judges they replaced. there's nothing bad about either of them. it's just a fact. umpire in to act as terms of competition among my colleagues to get questions out. they're not being rude, but you don't always pick up that one of your colleagues on the other end of the bench is already asking a question. host: your comments from the chief justice thomas and that reference to being an umpire. he spent a lot of years

as an advocate in front of the supreme court. before you can get out one sentence, someone asks you a question from this site and you start to answer that question. as he said, as chief justice, he sits there. a lot of times he will say, let's hear the answer to that question first. i don't know if umpire is the right word, but he does have to slow things down and allow the attorneys to answer the questions they been asked. justice john roberts speaking yesterday. the hill newspaper is writing about the issue.

michael is joining us on the line for independents. good morning. you partially answered some of my concerns. i have no problem with same-sex in loveanted to follow with each other. i think it's a little strange, but i realize that some people are born with that sexual orientation problem. i'm not sure it was addressed by the court, maybe your guest can totally whether it was or not -- -- tell me whether it was or not. benefits involved in these , when theuples federal benefits were decided in , i'm sure there were

people with orientation problems . i don't know if it was even recognized back then. edith windsor was the centerpiece of their case, correct? guest: these benefits are the same benefits of every married person. if the wife dies, for example, the husband does not owe an estate tax on the property they owned together. that's their property. hand, if it isr to people who just live have ar, they don't common estate. i don't want people to think that when i say the word benefits that this is like welfare or food stamps or something like that. saying, a married couple can file a joint tax return.

they can save money on taxes. that is one of the main so- called benefits. it is true that social security has a survivor's benefit for a spouse. this decision means that legally married same-sex couples are treated like legally married opposite sex couples. when one person dies, the other benefit undereive social security. host: a collar on our republican line. -- caller on our republican line. caller: are we really free from religion and the constitution? all our problems are about that .eligious stuff i want to thank ted turner and cable tv.

this religious stuff, we start all the wars over religion. [indiscernible] guest: the first amendment had two provisions. no laws respecting the , andlishment of religion the free exercise of religion. no official government religion, but freedom of the individual to practice religion. it is true that religious ideas and moral ideas are part of the society and they do get into political questions. the court doesn't decide this because they based on just religious views. host: let's take a look at what

we could potentially see as one term wraps up. potentially deciding how far states can go in regulating the issue of recess appointments, and what authority the president has for executive orders. guest: the second case on recess appointments will be argued in the fall. the argument will be whether the president can make temporary recess appointments. more narrowly with the labour or all recess appointments? guest: all recess appointments. they will say the president, any time the senate is out of session for two weeks, the president can make a recess appointment or say no, there is no recess. even if congress is gone, they are not really on a recess.

recess is only that one or two week period when one session of congress and another begins. and on state issues and abortion. guest: that is a big issue coming down the road. the rabbinical series of fights and a lot of different states. -- there have been a series of fights in a lot of different states. majorityennedy and the said that the you're going to stand behind a woman's right to choose abortion, but states may regulate the practice of abortion. a lot of these republican-led states are saying we want to impose more regulation, more restrictions. decide howas got to far the states can go. there is a case in oklahoma where there is a mandatory ultrasound test for all women seeking abortion. they have to listen to a description of the fetus.

a lower court struck it down and the state has appealed. it is very likely the court is going to take one of those cases to say how far can the states go to regulate. host: if you want to read more on the current term, david ."vage of the "l.a. times thanks very much for being with us. continue our conversation on the u.s. supreme court and some of the significant decisions of this past term. firstly want to look at what is on c-span radio as we re-air the sunday morning programs beginning at noon eastern time. nancy callow is standing by. >> good morning. today and every sunday c-span radio does re-air five network tv talk shows. topics on the programs today include immigration, the supreme court decisions on same-sex marriage and voting rights, and

the latest on government security leaks. we begin at noon with nbc's "meet the press." today's guests include democratic state senator wendy davis. and tim hills cap. week."lay "this julian assange, cried griffin -- chad griffin. appearance by state senator wendy davis of texas. news sunday, fox with chris wallace talking with senators john mccain and chuck schumer. also republican congressman trey gowdy of south carolina and mario diaz of florida. state of the union follows at 3:00 p.m.. candy crowley talks with representative bob goodlatte of virginia. and louis gutierrez of illinois. also making an appearance is a

lawyer for the couples who challenged california's proposition 8. host bob schieffer talks with senator wendy davis, texas state senator. former solicitor general bob olson and michael hayden. the sunday network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. c-span radio rebroadcast the programs beginning at noon eastern with "meet the press." 1:00, abc's "this week." 4:00 eastern, "face the nation." listen to them all on c-span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington xm area and nationwide on f satellite radio. download our free app for your smart phone.

>> they had a tremendous role. going to camp every winter was huge. it wasn't just valley forge. it was every winter of the eight long years of the revolutionary war. she hated it. it was dangerous. she was a prime object of hostagetaking. to boostas keen morale. he would organize the other officer' wives. the soldiers for and nurses soldiers and pray for the soldiers. washington could say he could not have done it without martha.

he begged her to come to camp every year so that she could work. the troops annoyed her -- adored her. obertslie stahl, cokie r discuss first ladies. from martha washington to michelle. monday night at 9:00 eastern. for the next 15 to 20 minutes were going to continue with your calls and comments on the supreme court. the term wrapped up with a number of significant decisions. our phone lines are open. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. you can join us on our twitter page or join us on facebook. the president continues his trip to africa. he is in south africa this weekend.

today, visiting cape town with white house -- what the white house is calling a significant speech. below the fold is paul kane, a story about speaker john boehner's so-called laid-back style seen as a boon and bane. here are some of the headlines from this past week. "the hill", gay marriage scores a victory. this headline from "politico." another significant decision by the u.s. supreme court. this past week, the supreme court and used a striking down key part of the voting rights -- striking down a

key part of the voting rights act ruling. that ruling was a 5-4 decision. your thoughts about the supreme court. paul is joining us from nottingham, england. there. hello, i really enjoy every sunday on bbc. in relation to the supreme court, specifically about its gender balance. a lot of your previous guests were talking about things like abortion. . lot of lawmakers are men if there was more of a gender balance, 50% of people having to be women and therefore more

representative of the united states. host: you're right. there are three women justices, the most they have ever had. is potential for vacancy in the next couple of years. the question or mains who fill that potential vacancy. -- remains who would fill the potential vacancy. laura has this point. linda is joining us from columbus, georgia on the line for democrats. caller: what is the military going to do with these same-sex when they start sending people to different ?tates

what's going to happen then? did the justices think of this? with same-sexple marriages wanting to become an american over here? stateave to go to the that recognizes us. they haven't really thought this out. viewers,m one of our has in the decision set a precedent that a state can define any kind of marriage -- hasn't the decision set a precedent that a state can define any kind of marriage, even to a plant? we will go to cannes next -- ken next. i want to go off-topic

just a little bit. i want to to say something about the supreme court. speak about barack obama overwhelming support from the black community. he refuses to be with the black causes for 700 days. i don't know if you would consider any black federal judges. a white woman and a hispanic woman welcome. he's not hiring enough blacks in his cabinet. he refuses to do something about black unemployment. court issue, did he even consider a black man or woman for the federal courtship? , to be healthcare deal able to buy the morning after

pill without parental consent, i think that is terrible. immigration, the senator said [indiscernible] host: i'll stop you there. thanks for the call from south carolina. times" thisw york morning. linda greenhouse also writing

about the court. a caller on our line for democrats. i am a 50 eight-year-old woman from oklahoma, very conservative state -- 58-year- old woman from oklahoma, very conservative state. that the state can impose forcing a woman here to ultrasoundinvasive before she can obtain an abortion. an abortion is not an easy thing. matter a very personal between a woman and her physician or partner. i know some women who have had them.

a cousin of various different reasons, whether it was rape or, and for various reasons, whether it was rape or incest, are they going to force these women to have these babies and give them up for adoption? it's absurd. on the defense of marriage act, i have no problem if these married.nt to get let them get married. they can also get divorced if they want to. i don't understand why they are discriminating against an extremely small number of people. host: thanks for the call. next is leroy joining us from pennsylvania. i've always wondered why the supreme court didn't offer

the solution of making these unions instead of using the term marriage rate just giving -- marriage people -- marriage. everyone is deserving of equal benefits and rights. when we get to a definition of marriage where some people interpret it as a religious thing -- we know that's going to be tough to defeat. host: thanks for the call. david savage's piece this morning. pointing out that on the last day of the court's 24-hour term, it struck down a 1990's era federal law that denied legal recognition to tens of thousands of same-sex couples legally married in the past decade.

good morning, welcome to the program. caller: as per your previous caller, i agree that perhaps using the term marriage was very volatile. if the federal government had passed necessary laws to provide for people that were

in a civil union and not to discriminate against them, most of this could have been avoided. i think a marriage is a civil union, but a civil union is not marriage.y a the federal government should not have been distributing against people who were engaged in civil unions. prepares fornation the july 4 celebration, the firework displays here in washington, d.c., the associated press pointing out that the fourth of july will not have a patriotic room in the sky over some military bases because -- boom in the sky over some military bases because of budget. the annual july 4 celebration being scrapped at the marine corps's logistical base in albany, georgia. the issue is money or namely, lack of it as a result of sequestration. thomas joining us from maryland. morning.ood

as far as the gay ruling, they base it on equal rights under the law. not gettingjustify rid of affirmative action? it is only discrimination against white people. and what about polity in -- paula deen? she is white, so she is being crucified. "the washington post" with this headline. documentsf classified have pointed to the role of a special court. mike maccoll, the chair of the homeland security committee,

talked about nsa surveillance. part of the>> problem is the intelligence committee. the only committee of oversight. they're the only committee that knows about most of what is going on in this area. they have these documents available for review for members of congress. it is buried in other documents and not made well known. i think there needs to be more transparency about what the nsa is doing with all members of congress so that the american people will have a better understanding about this. it is very confined. i know in the intelligence you're going bill, to see very healthy debate about the future of these two programs and where the nsa should be headed. host: the chair of the homeland security committee joining us up in "newsmakers."

a caller from texas on our democrats' line. caller: i want to say something about this voters right that was struck down. nowhere in our constitution does it say that anyone has a right to vote. if you can show it to me, i would sure like to see it. agohe other hand, 150 years today, i had two great grandfathers who fought on .pposite sides at gettysburg i know what i'm talking about when i say that nowhere in our bill of rights or constitution does it say that states can make its own laws.

the laws are made in washington, d.c.. it states that no state can contradict those laws in washington, d.c. the democrats used the same argument that the republicans , state rights. the states cannot pass laws that contradict laws made in washington. host: our last color is joining us from asheville, north aller is calling us from asheville, north carolina. the previous caller mentioned the battle of gettysburg. right now live on our companion network, c-span 3 we are looking at maps and hearing about what happened, the significant battle over three days in july 1863. this week commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle

of gettysburg. you can watch the entire day's event on c-span 3. doriseakers will include goodwin. also a chance to weigh in with your calls and comments as we look at the battle of gettysburg 150 years later. you can also check it out on our facebook page and any time on our website at www.c-span.org /history. tomorrow morning we will continue the conversation and focus on a couple of key issues that congress deals with, including the irs taxpayer advocate nina olson. she released her own report to congress last week, which expresses concerns about the irs budget and what she calls the procedural shortcomings of the agency. as congress continues to deal with health care issues -- october 1 is the deadline for

americans to sign up for new health insurance coverage. former executive from radio free europe will be joining us. a lot of holiday programming coming up on july 4 this week. you can check out the schedule of information on our site at www.c-span.org. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

voting right act. first from -- first-time ncaa -- naacp leaders. likes our guest this week is congressman michael mccaul of texas. this puts him at the intersection of some of the big issues this country is discussing. including government surveillance. thank you for being with us. let me introduce our to report to. tim stark is the reporter on intelligence issues and jonathan allen. we're going to speak of immigrat issues and jonathan allen. we're going to speak of immigratio t