the privacy groups are worried that if they do it and lots of personal information will end up hands of the government, particularly the nsa or the military because they are worried about those kinds of constitutional issues about who should be having access to information. mingle a to mix and little bit with the nsa problem that has been circulating. you are seeing a similar dynamic is different in some fundamental ways. >> lots of public interest in this edward snowden story. how will this change the legislative process? i was interviewing a lot of the people who were opposed to these programs, everybody was saying we're still not quite there yet. this is about one week ago when i was doing intensive interviews.

we are not quite sure where this is going to go. the polling is all over the place. we are very much opposed to this. if you asked people how much security you would trade if there is a choice between giving up civil liberties, what you think of that, the polls are great. it is to the point where congress is hearing mixed messages depending on district and whether they are republican or democrat. this has essentially killed the momentum on it. >> these are all big and complicated issues. thank you so much to both of you for your questions. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today on c-span, we will show

you reaction to some of the soup in court major decisions last week before it ended its 2012 term. ernest, naacp leaders -- first, the naacp leaders and the congressional lack congress react. the members of congress react to the rulings on the same-sex marriage cases. >> it is criminal to me that i had to authorize my financial people to write a check for 400 80 $4 million, a little bit more than a month ago to extend our contract with the russians to continue to carry this to the international base station. we have not yet brought about the american capability that is coming with this. the budget called for a hundred million dollars. we are not halfway there. to try to persuade

congress that the plan is good and that we will be efficient users of the taxpayer money. i have not been successful in that yet but i'm working on it. we are up to 525. 821 million and the 2014 budget is vital if we are to make the 2017 date. americans are transported to space again on american spacecraft. >> more with charles bolden tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> tuesday the supreme court struck down a provision in the voting rights act that determines which state must get federal permission before they change their voting laws. civilnaacp leaders and rights activists speech reporters about the ruling.

>> good morning, everyone. good morning to all of our friends and supporters, especially those at ldf, barbara, everyone who has been very supportive of our local units. i'm charles wide and on the national field director for the naacp. -- charles white. we come this morning yet affirming our belief in section five. the court not say much, but they

gave us, i think, the juice and what we continue to need that preclearance is important. this is the same kind of advocacy work our units across the field will play in making sure the formula in section four is one that is just and fair but represents the people in jurisdictions that it covers. again, we thank all those who have worked hard with us, worked hard on behalf of many people across this country who come from the jurisdiction in which we talk about. they are our members, loyal supporters. this is a victory for us but there is still a lot to be done. i will now turn to our friends who have been with us leading the litigation part and i will ask them not please come forward. -- now to come forward. >> good morning. and the president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense fund and i'm joined by my colleague ryan. since the voting rights act was

enacted and even before, we are part of the team that mitigated the shelby county case. we argued the case on february 27 before the supreme court and we represent black voters in shelby county, alabama. make no mistake about what has happened. the court has decided that it stands in a better position than congress to determine how to protect voting discrimination. the 15th amendment makes clear it is congress that has that power. in 2006 when it was up for reauthorization, congress exercised the power in a bipartisan manner. they determined that the same coverage formula that had been used needed to be extended. we believe that congress is in a better position to determine

how voting discrimination plays out in this country. the ball is in congress's court. we should be turning our attention and cameras across the street because it is now to do what it has done so many times in the past, come together republicans and democrats, to reauthorize, to enact, to amend the voting rights act to ensure the protection of minority voters in this country. this is a critical issue of democracy. this speaks to the very poor of values.

this decision by the court today is a game changer and leaves virtually unprotected minority voters all over the country. i hope when you report on this case that you will remember that your focus and attention should not be on washington. your focus and attention should be on the town councils and the school board district, the county commission district, the water district, the utility districts all over this country, particularly in the south, where minority voters struggle to have their voices heard and are unable to participate equally in the process. this is a critical day for participation. we believe strongly that congress can fix it. the supreme court, in its decision, has say that you can fix it. we demand they get to work, come together finding a formula that will respond to the supreme court's concerns that will

ensure that minority voters in this country continue to have their voting rights protected and participate equally and fully in the process. >> this strikes the coverage provision of the voting rights act. the first is a substantial act of judicial activism and overreach. the court today diverted from its own precedent of over four decades, four times, the supreme court has upheld section five as constitutional and upheld the provision that covered the provisions in section five as constitutional. the second truth is this -- there are now millions of minority voters covered by section five of the voting rights act which are now vulnerable to the types of intense and pervasive voting discrimination that section five had protected them from for more than 48 years. the good news is this. as we are providing these remarks, we are facing the nation's capital which houses members of congress. in 2006, in an overwhelmingly

bipartisan effort, 98-0 in the senate, they voted to reauthorize the voting rights act for another 25 years. it is the judgment of congress to reauthorize section five, which should stand, and not the overreach of the supreme court today. if there is any moment, it is now that the country can unify around the importance of protecting those voters who have been made most vulnerable neither stays persistent efforts to discriminate against them in the voting process. they must see this in a bipartisan way and seek to reenact a measure that will protect the voting rights of those voters who have been vulnerable since 1965. my name is ryan haygood from the naacp legal defense fund. haygood. we are a separate arm. we work very closely with the

naacp, but since our founding we have maintained a separate board and an entirely separate organization. >> good morning, everyone. i am barbara, the president and executive director of the lawyers committee for civil rights civil rights under law. i'm here today to speak to this decision. i want to say two thing straight up about the decision. one, it is deeply disturbing. it undermines and puts our democracy at risk. nothing is more important than ensuring that every single voter is free from racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination in the exercise of their vote. today's decision severely undermine the legal protections that have been vital for more than almost five decades of protecting voters of all

nationalities. i also want to say the second problem is that this decision is a betrayal of the american people. there is nothing more critical than making sure that the highest court in our land gets it right when it comes to what the appropriate coverage is for protecting american people. four of the voting rights act, by saying that the formula is outdated. the court has made a misstep of tremendous proportions by making that decision when congress had 15,000 pages of records that it generated from hearings. they looked at the states that were covered.

80% of all lawsuits involving voting rights have been generated from these states. the state accounted for more than 2000 plus findings that there have been racial violations in the proposed practices and procedures. this big preventative stop sign that is section five has now lost one of its arms. what we have done today is go forward. we will go to congress and we will ask congress to do everything that it can to come up with a new coverage formula. we will also have to renew our efforts because when we have seen with all of the new voter suppression laws that have come out in the last couple of years, and really makes it imperative for there to be a formula to

stop the states. this has plagued our democracy. so i say, today to our nation, that the fight goes on. i say to our nation that we have to fight like ever before to deserve our democracy. i implore everyone to become active in calling upon their congress

>> this is not an issue just for african-americans and latinos. we have allamerica come to expect and enjoy. of.to become proud the question for us is, are we willing to fight for it? would believe this is the stance american voters have to take today, in light of the supreme court decision, and they have to pressure congress to do their job. thank you for your question. clearly, congress has the ability to correct this decision today by passing a new coverage formula. it will have to go state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and make certain findings.

for every person in america, we pride ourselves on our democracy. we have americans go to the polls and vote for the candidates of their choice. if you believe and care about your democracy, today, you stand up and you say to your congressman, to your senator, that this decision is wrong, and you want to make sure every american has the right to vote, so you demand they pass a new section for that will answer the court demand and protect everyone. it is imperative. spend the next how many of months it takes, the next how many other years it takes. we will not be silent.

theill not accept evisceration of our rights. we will stop every step of the way to make sure voting rights are available to every single american. ,e will use every tool, legally organizationally. we will do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of each and every american citizen. thank you. >> thank you very much. leading our work and bringing us altogether historically has been the leadership conference on civil and human rights. we are glad to have wade henderson here. we will have wade henderson come forward. >> good morning. voting is the language of democracy. if you do not vote, you do not count.

an activist segment of the supreme court has turned its back not only on the contemporary problem of voter suppression in america, but on the history that brought us to the point we are today. traditionally, a bipartisan majority in both houses of congress responded to that history in 2006, and reauthorized a voting rights act that was strong and meaningful, under the power of section five of the 14th amendment of the constitution. today, the court upheld the constitutionality of the most important provision of the voting rights act, but they have challenged us yet again to go back to congress, to demonstrate once again that the evidence is clear and irrefutable that voting discrimination occurs today in the united states, and must be addressed to respond to

the demands of a healthy democracy. we are very confident that members of both houses of congress, who helped lead the effort in 2006, many of whom are still there, will respond to those challenges, and will help to restore the power of section four. one last point. this is the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. march on washington was the game changer of the political time. in 1964 civil rights act 1965 voting rights act became law. we will use this anniversary to rekindle our commitment that

everyone, regardless of race or circumstance, is given the full privilege of citizenship in this country that the constitution guarantees. while we are angry and disappointed, we are inspired to respond to the challenge with the kind of force and impact that justice ginsburg referred to today, and dr. king's speech will once again reign over this land. >> thing q4 bringing into perspective the march on washington. the naacp, as well as labor organizations, will gather here in the nation's capital on august 20 four, saturday, august 24, for a commemorative march on washington. it is not to commemorate what happened 50 years ago, but to reinvigorate those in the field,

out there doing this work. i turn to a passionate advocate for our people, a passionately go advocate for voting rights, jerry and armand. >> thank you. obviously, we are disappointed the supreme court has struck down section four. it is an act of incredible judicial activism, as we have heard. it is also a slap in the face to congress. the voting rights act is one of the few pieces of legislation that has enjoyed bipartisan support. in 1965, 1970, 1975, 19 82, and in 2006. it was disappointing of the supreme court would think it is the best decider of when racial discrimination and voting has ended in our country.

the constitution says it should be made by congress. in any other area of the law, the supreme court would never have done what it did today. i join with my brothers and sisters to say that we will go to congress and we will fight because we have been in this fight a long time. we are not turning back now. i am confident because i know that one day, we shall overcome. this is an outrageous slap in the face of congress. bipartisan congress, several times, has recognized that we as a nation are better when all of us am a white, black, and every color and an ethnicity, -- when all of us, white, black, every color and ethnic city. supreme court has said, congress, you are out of bounds. we have been in this fight a long time, and we are not turning back now. there is nothing stronger than a made up mind, said dr. king. we believe this congress knows, just as it did in 2006, that it can act in a bipartisan way, and it will do so. i am confident because i know that one day, one day, we shall overcome. i am an attorney from south carolina who argued the first cases under the voting -- this

is the attorney from south carolina who argued the first cases under the voting rights act in the 1960's. ,> a bipartisan congress several times, has recognized that we as a nation are better when all of us, white, black, and every color and ethnicity are part of the political, -- political process and our society. eliminateet out to racial discrimination in voting in the worst places. he supreme court has now said, congress, you are out of rounds because there is some improvement. but the 14th amendment in the 15th amendment did not empower congress to simply get the job half done. they said congress has the power to eliminate, to end racial discrimination voting. this act is on its way to doing that and now the supreme court has crippled congress halfway through. there is a precedent for this 130k in the 19th century.

years ago, which was the last time the supreme court, in 130 years -- this is a new 130 year novelty. but 100 30 years ago, the supreme court said the same thing. took an important civil rights act of congress and said, you do not have the power to do that. that decision ushered in three generations of jim crow in this country. we do not expect this decision to bring back jim crow, that it --ll destabilize the country. but it will destabilize my state, destabilize the country. things that we have gotten used to. used to trying to make efforts that isdiscrimination. going to be destabilized. congress, we believe that

congress will step up to the plate as it has done again and again. and overcome this outrageous and disgraceful decision. >> they represent over 80 years of passionate work in this area. we thank you for the work you have done. the naacp, legal defense fund, all of us will be calling on passionate advocates across the country to keep watch and keep an eye open for jurisdictions who may try to implement some kind of voting changes during this interim period. we will also be setting up a hotline number and that number will be released soon. our organizations will be taking complaints from citizens who may have continued complaints. especially in these covered jurisdictions. i want to thank all of you. our work does not end here. we will say to congress, keep this act together.

we believe that we are right and on the right side of history as we have always been. we believe in the basic fundamental right of democracy. that is afforded to us all as american citizens. thank you very much. >> do you still believe that the south should be stigmatized when congress acts on this? >> the issue is not geographic. the issue is not a geographic stigma. section five of the voting rights applies to alaska, new york, california. it applies to those jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination and who over a decade has failed to come out from under the voting rights act as the law permits.

those jurisdictions, the over 200 restrictions, -- jurisdictions, have never been denied. this is not about a geographic stigma.that is a myth. we are talking about the act at the guarantees the to vote for every american. the voting rights act was in a porn tool to complement the 15th usher was an important tool to complement the fifth and an importantwas tool to complement the 15th amendment of the constitution -- was an important tool to complement the 15th amendment of the constitution. i think all americans to celebrate the importance of our democracy would be there in support. [inaudible] i do not think that is accurate at all. -- >> i do not think that is accurate at all. >> we represented black voters in shelby county and we argued the case and the supreme court on february 27.

the premise of the question reveals the problem with the decision today. the 15th amendment does not pass go with the courts think about how to deal with voting discrimination. it does not matter what i think or what you think. the 15th amendment gave congress the power to make the gavemination.it actually congress the power to make the determination. the only question, did congress act responsibly?over nine months, congress holds 52 hearings, 15 thousand page record, and looks at discrimination since the last reauthorization and finds what it found, over 600 objections to voting, based on intentional discrimination. it is our job to allow congress to exercise the authority it was given by the framers of the 15th amendment.

that is what they did under and other -- and under the coverage formula. whether the court thinks it is a stigma is irrelevant so long as congress acts responsibly. in 2006, they acted responsibly. now we are calling on them to do it again. >> i would like to respond to that question. come to my state, ok? part of the problem is most of the justices who wrote this opinion do not live in my part of the country. congressmen and senators who voted in 2006, they do live in are part of the country. we know the job is not done. in south carolina, mississippi, alabama, it is a help to bring about the end of discrimination, the end of practices that were found -- human change does not

human change does not come overnight. therefore, it takes somebody from somewhere else to think that we do not have a problem anymore. we do have a problem. congressmen from our senators and states recognize that we do have a problem, the voting rights act can help us overcome the problem and what we have today is a decision by justices who sit far away -- who lived far away in the city.this city is not in any part of the country, as far as i can tell. they think we do not have a problem anymore, because they read the record differently than congress so exhaustively did. >> any message to the department is there anyway for the department of justice to get

around this? with preclearance? or does this take away preclearance? >> it creates tremendous -- what we do call upon the department of justice to do is to use its toolbox of litigation, its toolbox of providing guidance, its toolbox of speaking to the states, to make sure they do not run roughshod over the rights of racial minorities. it is important to understand that to this question of stigma, this court, it's a guarantee of equal justice under the law means that it has to look at the rights of the people. what it did today was it went decades, almost a century backwards. talking about state rights again, the sovereignty of what is so important for

states. it forgot its role of protecting voters, protecting the american citizenry. it is important for us to not go backwards to the states rights doctrine. wroteow the chief justice this decision. we know what his ideology has been on the voting rights act for decades. it is no surprise that we have seen what he had predicted he wanted forever. to strike down this provision of the voting rights act. i am disappointed that his colleagues joined him, that they ran over the rights of congress, and they forgot about their obligation, their deference to congress, and that they have once again played the shell game of coming up with a new standard meaning that they put

a higher standard on congress than existed before this decision to come up with a new coverage formula. it is definitely -- this fight over states right is something that we will indeed address. at the same time, the tragedy of the decision is that all of this continues to happen against the backdrop of modern-day voter suppression. yesterday, justice ginsburg talked about, you have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to have not understood the necessity for affirmative action programs as a remedial device. today, we see the ostrich with his head in the sand ignoring all of the states that have been passing these voter suppression , most of them,em

from these covered jurisdictions. the court erred in letting shelby county, which not only discriminated in 2002, the discriminated again in 2008. found by the courts to have just ainated.not preclearance decision by the department of justice, but found by the courts themselves. county, with its dirty hands, to come before the court and undo such an important law is absolutely an american tragedy. it calls upon this congress, call upon the american people to do what we must do to rise up and demand the court deliver what its duty is and that is the duty of justice. >> if you have individual questions, you can approach thank youdividually. all again.

>> there are rumors nelson mandela has died. >> we have no confirmation.>> thank you all. >> afternoon. thank you for being here this afternoon on a day that will go down in he the history of this country as

one of the worst days for civil rights and civil discourse in this country's history. i am marcia fudge, the chair of the congressional black caucus. i was hopeful that today would bring better news but the decision that came down today is certainly one that has disappointed us all. i would like to begin by having our assistant democratic leader, jim clyburn, give us a few words. mr. clyburn? >> thank you very much, madam chair. colleagues. about four years ago, i sensed the supreme court sort of gave us an indication that today's result could be what it is. i don't remember the case, the i remember the case, the court seemed to signal at that time, that the kind of history that we used in 2008 when we re-

authorized the voting rights act, they considered to be outdated. and that something needed to be done to update the formula we used. now, we in the congress did a study, to my memory serves, it was 15,000 page study. and the vote in the senate was 98-0. the vote in the house, i believe, was 390-33. and we decided that enough evidence was there in front of us to require a re-authorization of the voting rights act. that was just 2008. now, if we were to look, in my opinion, if we were to look at

the reason that the supreme court gave in talking about our failure to take into account the progress that had been made, i believe the best way to take into account the progress that's being made in this country on any subject is to look at the actions as well as the debate that is undertaken by those who are elected every two years, and in some instances six, but the house is re-elected every two year. we're still very close to the people. we then issued our opinion. but we saw, when this case was being discussed, justice scalia seemingly wanting to eninject himself in the -- and the court into this, saying to the effect

that the congress seemed not to be able to get it right. i think this is a very sad day but let me conclude by saying this. if we were to accept the supreme court's reasoning that we didn't take into account the progress that's been made, i want all of us to remember that in 1865, when we had just after emancipation proclamation, been this way for two years, people of color were elected to legislatures all over the south. in south carolina, 2/3 of the south carolina general assembly was african-american.

so in 1870 and 1880, the same assessment should have been made, look at the progress we have made. then in 1890's, you started getting legislative actions and we started getting a united states supreme court decision, plessy v. ferguson, which started us down the road and then by 1900 there were no african-americans left. so what i'm saying here today is, i can envision that the beginning of next legislative session, a lot of states, including my own state, will be taking a look and probably will be having some redistricting, not just for congressional seats but also legislative seats, because we found out in the texas case that it's not beyond some of our friends to have special lennell slative sessions

-- legislative sessions and special redistricting in the interim of the 10-year period, that was done in texas several years ago, and i can envision this supreme court decision leading to that for next year as well. it's a sad day for civil rights. i would hope that the congress would step in and in the bipartisan manner in -- and i might add in the house there were more republicans than democrats than voted for the re- authorization in 2008. i would hope that kind of bipartisanship could take place at this time. with that, i am pleased to yield to the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, ms. judy chu. >> as chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, i

join my colleagues of the tricaucus in condemning today's supreme court decision as a setback for all americans. it is with a heavy heart we see this erosion of the voting rights act that ensures the promise of democracy for each and every citizen. the 14th amendment equal -- provided equal protection for all of us under the law this 15th amendment made the right to vote color blind. both were undercut by poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation. but it was the voting rights act that put an end to all of that it ensured an impartial review of new voting laws for regions that have a history of discrimination at that ballot tox box.-- at that ballot box. when that section was renewed in 2006 it passed by bipartisan vote of 390-33 in the house and the unanimous vote in the senate and was signed into law by george w. bush. despite this overwhelming

bipartisan support, today the supreme court struck down one of the key commonets of the voting rights act on the ground that it's outdated. while the asian american community knows all too well how easily the right to vote can be taken from a group that is not protected. when congress passed the chinese exclusion act of 1892, it prevented any chinese citizen from becoming a naturalized citizen and it stood in effect for 60 long years. we are now only at the present time overcoming the scars of disenfranchisement and that's why we know all too well how precious the right to vote is. passing the voting rights act was the right thing to do in 196 in 1965. renewing it was the right thing to d in 2006. updating the formula to ensure the protections remain intact for the american people is the right thing to do now.

i urge every member of congress, regardless of party, to join us in ensuring that the voting rights act remains the pillar of our democracy that it has been since its inception. >> it is just truly mind- boggling to me today that we have the highest court in the land that can't really make the kind of decision that this country deserves. they want to have their cake and eat it too. they recognize that discrimination and racism still exist in this country yet they would strike down the very -- parts of the very law that have changed what they say has made this country better. it is disconcerting at best to know that just in 2012, there were 22 laws and two executive actions restricting voting rights in 17 states across this country.

even worse, there were 176 restrictive bills filed in 41 states. and they say that things need to be cheaged, yes, they need to be changed. they should not have struck down section four, they should have expanded it. i would ask that my colleagues from texas -- my colleague from texas, mr. pete gallego, please join us. >> hello, i'm pete gallego, the congressman from the 23rd district in southwest texas, member of the congressional hispanic caucus and vice chair of the caucus' task forced on civil rights. s that sad day for the democratic possess. the disenfranchisement of voters based on race and ethnicity still happens. in the 23rd district of texas, which i represent, a federal court found that the map drawers deliberately weakened the voting e-rength of hispanic voters.

mails from mapmakers revealed the redistricting strategy was to make the 23rd a latino opportunity district in name only. latinos with high voting turnout were taken out of the district and replaced with latinos with a low history of voter turnout, in essence, gaming the system. that was the safeguard to latino voters. today we see the communities of color, communities of interest have always had a referee. they've had someone who will call a foul ball a foul ball. and today that opportunity to go to that referee or go to that um peer has been stricken by the-- to that umpire has been stricken by the court. 15 million latinos across the country are safe guarded by the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act. the preclearance provisions protect voters in arizona, texas, portions of california, new york, and more. 32%, nearly a third of latinos in the united states, live in jurisdictions that are covered by preclearance.

in 2012, the preclearance provisions blocked texas from enacting a discriminatory map and a law that would have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of texas voters, mainly latinos, african- americans and asians. let me say one thing -- the voting rights act, it's not about political parties and it's not about politicians and it's not about candidates. it's about the opportunity to give voters a chance to elect the candidate of their choice. someone who will allow their voices to be heard in a district where their vote will count. today, the supreme court has turned its back on those voters who are disenfranchised. they've gotten rid of that umpire. that referee who, whether it was

a democratic justice department or a republican justice department, who through the years has served as that umpire, that referee, that decision has essentially taken away that safeguard in states with histories of discrimination. i urge my colleague on both sides of the aisle to develop a system to take the voting rights of americans into account and protect them and safeguard them as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of any american. thank you so much for being here. >> for those of you who may not be aware, since 19 2,-- 1982, approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes have been blocked as a result of section 5 objections. and today work this decision, the supreme court chose not to acknowledge any of that information, nor the success or the effect section 4 or 5 has had on our democracy. we have been joined by our whip, mr. hoyer.

>> thank you very much, congresswoman fudge, the chairman of the congressional black caucus. i join members of the asian pacific caucus, members of the hispanic caucus, but this is about all americans. not just particular americans. particular americans are protected. but in a real sense it's about all of us and the kind of country we are and want to be. today's ruling is a disappointing blow to voting rights in america. and will have a real impact on voters. in 2006, congress in which i serve, re-authorized the voting rights act in a bipartisan fashion and under a republican president. significantly bipartisan support. overwhelming. there was a broad consensus

then, as i believe there still is today, that sections 4 and 5 of the voting rights act were both responsible and necessary answers to the lingering problems of discrimination at the ballot box. if anybody thinks there are not continuing efforts to make voting more difficult for some people, they haven't been reading the papers, listening to the radio, watching television, or, frankly, listening to what's going on in america. in america, no state or local authority should be able to make it easier for some people to vote and harder for others. in america, nobody should have to march for their most fundamental right, the right to vote. john lewis, an extraordinary american, beaten bloody, almost died, marching for voting

rights. march 7, 1965. here we are some 60 years later, 50 years later. almost. and the supreme court says the problem no longer exists. the formula needs to be reworked. we marched across the edmund pettus bridge 10 times together to memorialize how much work it took to get the voting rights act passed and that highlights its relevance to this day. the first time john marched he nearly lost his life, as i said. american responded. that's not what they thought america was about. the ballot is the instrument by -- ourour repub elect is republic is

sustained, and congress has a duty to protect ballot access and exup and down opportunities for all eligible americans to vote and have their votes counted accurately. today's ruling is a setback. but congress still has a mandate and a responsibility under the 15th amendment to the constitution to secure and protect the franchise for all americans. let me quote quote that provision of our constitution. the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

frankly in 1965 and subsequent authorizations, congress took that responsibility very seriously. and as i said, with jim sensenbrenner as chairman of the judiciary committee, overwhelmingly passed the 2006 re-authorization. after thousands of pages of testimony and findings which the supreme court in a 5-4 decision has essentially set aside. 113th congress must make addressing today's unfortunate decision a top priority. and that's why democrats and republicans, as we did in 2006, ought to come together to begin a process that ensures political jurisdiction where the history of discrimination cannot impose new barriers to ballot access.

i came in when pete was talking, he talked about the significance for a lot of the people he represents and i suggest at the begin, all the people that he represents. so i'm looking forward to joining with those on this platform and those in congress on both sides of the aisle to make us sure that america is what we say it is a land for all with opportunity for all and protection for all to cast their ballot. now it's my privilege to yield to my friend, the assistant leader, he's already spoken? i yield to marcia fudge, who knows what's going on. >> thank you. we will now be joined by the co- chairs of the civil rights task force of the congressional black caucus. in this order, representative john conyers and representative john ---- john lewis.

>> when i first came to congress i went immediately to the speaker of the house, john mccormack and asked to go on the judiciary committee and the reason that he -- as he and i both knew was the civil rights act that was so important. but today, citizens united has been eclipsed by the decision in the united states vs. shelby and holder, this case takes us back to a civil rights act of 1866 which didn't give african- americans the right to vote.

then we went into 1869 when the 15th amendment did give african- americans the right to vote. then with the 24th amendment, poll taxes were outlawed in 1964. and then in 1965, president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act into law, permanently barring barriers to political participation by racial and ethnic minorities, prohibiting any election practices that denied the right to vote, and requiring jurisdictions with a

history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before the changes in election laws can take effect. what the supreme court has done with the ruling that was issued only hours ago is to obliterate that collection of jurisdictions that were under review. so the voting rights act signed by lyndon baines johnson in 1965, then by president nixon, president ford, president reagan, and president bush have all signed them. and this is what makes the bipartisanship of where we dust ourselves off and start all over again become so important. we can rise to this challenge, we don't have any alternative. and it is up to us to see that we remedy this in as meaningful,

as fair a manner as possible. there were members on the supreme court that wanted to take out section 5 while we were at it, and i can't remember who it was that restrained that from coming in too but our job is big enough as it is. this is a day from which we will be planning, strategizing, working with both bodies of the legislature, and of course everyone in every party to get this right. it's been done before. we faced challenges like these. but the voting rights act must

be continued. i haven't heard anybody say yet that we don't need it. obviously the record is replete with those that have been challenged or actions taken that have prevented it from happening. and so i join these members of which we are only a small number but i think that we're up to the task. we've got to be up to the task. this may be the most important civil rights action that we take. >> thank you, madam chair. today the supreme court stuck a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act of 1965. they're saying, in effect, that he'sry cannot repeat itself but -- that history

cannot repeat itself but i say come and walk in my shoes. as justice ginsburg described in her dissent, the history is relevant because voting rights have been given in this country and they have been taken away. after the civil war, slaves were given the right to vote by constitutional amendment. they were elected to congress and served in this body. after a few short years later, those rights were nullified. in one of the worst, most brutal periods of discrimination -- those those digs. decisions. it took exactly 100 years from 1865 to 1965 to get those rights back. the nation turned a blind eye to legalized seggeags and racial--

segregation and racial discrimination for 100 years. it took organizing people who feared for their lives, it took standing in unmoving lines. it took people struggling and dying for the right to vote. just 49 years ago, three young men that i knew on june 1, 1964, andy goodman, nick, and james went out to investigate an african-american church that was burning. a church that had been used for voter registration workshops. they were detained by the sheriff, later taken to jail, taken out of jail, beaten, shot, and killed by the klan.

we don't want to go back, we want to go forward. the only thing i did, a few short years ago, i gave a little blood on that bridge, but others, brothers and sisters of mean and other people in the struggle gave their very lives. the record congress produced demonstrated the clear need for voting rights protection in our country. even the court did not deny that discrimination still exists. the american people should use the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and other opportunities to say, we still need voting rights protection in our country. they must compel each and every member of congress to act in a bipartisan fashion, to fix or repair what the supreme court broke.

we must do it. we must do it now. before another national election takes place. it is our calling. it is our mission. it is our mandate. and we have an obligation to act. >> thank you, we're going to be joined by three more members, terri sewell from alabama, hank johnson from georgia, and steve cohen from tennessee. >> thank you, madam chair. this is indeed a sad day for our nation, but it's especially a sad day for my home state of alabama. as a native of selma, alabama, and as a member of the currently represents the civil rights district of alabama, i can tell you that i know that the injustices suffered on that bridge, the he had monday pettis

-- the edmund pettis bridge on bloody sunday, 1965, has not been fully vindicated. i think it's ironic that the very state that caused us to get the voting rights act is now being used by our supreme court to dismantle that very -- that very law. but i think that as long as there are facts like the facts in the shelby county case, which so clearly demonstrate that there's so much work to be done, the fact of the matter is that without preclearance, clara, the -- colera, the city of colera, the county of shelby, redrew the lines such that an african- american city councilmember would lose and the discriminatory effect was that he lost. he lost that election. this wasn't in 1965. this wasn't in 1970 or 1980.

this was in my lifetime. this was but a few years ago. i think it's unacceptable, and as long as there are voters whose rights need to be protected, there is a need for the voting rights act. now, we in congress have an opportunity, an opportunity to develop another coverage formula, but i can tell you that whatever coverage formula that is developed, i can't imagine that my state, alabama, would not continue to fall under it. it's disheartening for me because i know that so much progress has taken place, but the unfortunate reality is there's still so much work to be done. i look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get that work done so that the effects of section 5 will continue to be available.

i would have never thought that i, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement, would be on a stage today with john lewis, steny hoyer, jim clyburn and so many of my colleagues fighting still for the protections of the fundamental right to vote. the right to vote is sacred, and we who are in congress, republican and democrat, should be fighting for that right, not looking to restrict it. and the very fact that in this past election we had 38 states, including alabama, that had voter i.d. laws, looking to restrict people's right to vote. we have to stand up. we have to stand up.

and i look forward to joining my colleagues in standing up for the voting rights act of 1965 and for the protections of minority rights. >> good afternoon, everyone. today an active u.s. supreme court cynically legislating from the bench jim crow-style engaged in historic overreach, ignoring their own precedence and-- precedents and disregarding clear and convincing evidence of ongoing discrimination at the polls. a call for strong, swift action by the congress is now front and center. i will work with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that all voters have their precious right to vote protected from state and local enfringement.

in 2006 during the last renewal of the landmark voting rights act, congress conducted more than 21 hearings with nearly 100 witnesses and amassed a 15,000- page record documenting ongoing discrimination against minority voters. this is occurring, ladies and gentlemen, not only in states with a history of discrimination, the 2012 elections saw voter suppression taken to an entirely new and despicable level. during that election cycle, we saw an uptick in attempts to disenfranchise voters in many jurisdictions around the country that were not covered under the voting rights act. the voting rights act is as

necessary today as it was almost 50 years ago. congress must act quickly to strengthen our protections of this fundamental right. thank you. >> thank you. i just wanted to join my colleagues here today. they have all spoken and covered the territory, particularly my friend, congressman conyers, this in conjust with citizens united this is the second attempt by the u.s. supreme court to destroy democracy as we know it in our country. when you put this money into politics it diminishes people's votes and the wealthy have more votes because dollars have power. and we should have redistricting that is not political, that's not covered by state legislatures and politicians and that's what we've seen over the years. there is a bill that john tanner had, heath shuler had, that would have nonpartisan judicial

groups to redistrict which is what we should have. mr. clyburn mentioned this is probably going to affect states that will try to go and redistrict like texas has and i fear that will happen. my home is shelby county, tennessee. in each of the last two elections we've had at a minimum misfeasance and many people think malfeasance and that is to thwart the population, the majority, which is african- americans. it's been a risk in this country and the republican party has admitted, the reason having voter i.d. laws is to suppress it has happened worse than any time in the last 50 years. for the supreme court to admit discrimination but then throw this out and ask us in the judiciary committee to come to a resolution that promotes civil rights, it's a bad day for america. thank you. >> thank all of you for coming.

we have been joined by emanuel cleaver from missouri. >> this will be short. the fact that the supreme court did the wrong thing should inspire congress to do the right thing. in august we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. please understand this. this time it will not just be predominantly black. this time we will have the rainbow of this coalition here in congress. this time we will have republicans, democrats and the sons and daughters of the dixicrats. people who are for right will come here to washington because what was done today is wrong and the people of this country, the good and decent people of this country need to speak out. >> mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman.

let me make it clear. i know that the supreme court has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said. this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country.

like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have congress balance this out. and so now is the time for us to act and do the right thing and restore equality and justice for all americans. thank you. >> again, thank you for coming. i think that all of us today understand there are two americas. whether you can agree with the policies of our country or not, we live in one america that goes outside of our borders and says we are going to fight and defend democracy. we're going to do for others what they will not do for us in our own country. and today we have a supreme court who will not fight for the rights and the democracy of the people who live within our borders. with that we will take any questions you might have. >> the gridlock that's taken congress right now and how close this issue is, how do you have confidence that congress will address section 4 of the voting

rights act within the next year? >> i still believe in america. i believe that we will all get together and do what is right. this has been historically something we have done in a bipartisan way, and i certainly believe and hope we will continue to do it that way. and anyone can respond. >> i have a question and perhaps representative lewis is the best to answer it. a couple hours ago i asked congressman jeff session -- senator sessions of alabama, whether preclearance needed to exist given that section 5 was upheld. he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and to my knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures? >> i'm going to let my colleague

from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination. and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the shelby county case was an overt example of racial discrimination. the reality is that in the city council, this was an indumbent black elected official who was redistrict out of his seat and he lost re-election. so with all

due respect, i think while much progress has happened in our state and i'm proud of the progress that we've made in our state, i think this case, this very case ironically is a bad case to have nullify section 5. look, those of us who love the state of alabama, like i, we have to claim our painful past for what it was. it was because of our painful past that we had a civil rights movement, a voting rights movement which ultimately led to a global human rights movement. but the reality is progress has been made but decisions like today have eroded those progress by -- progress and set us back. so i look forward and i'm sure that many in the state of alabama look forward to getting the protections, the full protections of the voting rights

act. >> i was born in alabama. i lived in alabama most of my young life. i saw the signs that said white waiting, the clerk will designate waiting. white men, the clerk will designate men. white women, the clerk will designate women. in alabama, the same year that president barack obama was born, white people and black people couldn't sit together in a bus station and ride together in a taxi cap cab. we had to change that. i stood with those people in the lines in selma, alabama. people had to go through a set of steps, go through double doors and get a so-called literacy test. teachers, college professors, lawyers and doctors. and they were told they could not read or write well enough. they failed the so-called literacy test and they could not register the right to act until

the voting rights act was passed in 1965. we made progress, yes, but we are not there yet. it is still needed today in alabama and throughout the 11 states of the confederacy and other parts of our country. >> knowing that the supreme court was looking for a rewrite of the formula in the 2009 case that they sought, why not take the opportunity to address this year when democrats controlled congress? >> i don't know. i wasn't in charge. maybe i can give it to somebody else who was. what i can say to you is congress doesn't always act unless it is forced to. that has been my experience, and i've only been here five years. maybe now that we're forced to we will act now. but let me also say to you i think all of us have some type of a moral compass we know when something is right that it should prevail, and i believe that to put in place whatever is necessary to make sure that

people have the right and the opportunity to vote without some form of discrimination or some way to block them is right. and so i believe we will do the right thing at some point. if someone else wants to respond, feel free. >> only thing i can say, madam chair, after martin luther king jr. received the nobel peace prize in 1964, he came back to america, had a meeting with president lyndon johnson at the white house, and told the president that we need a voting rights act. and dr. king said, mr. president, we need a voting rights act. and the president said, we don't have the votes in the congress to get a voting rights act passed. i just signed the civil rights act. then president johnson said, make me do it. make me do it. and that's what the american people must make us do it. and we will do it. >> the other thing, history is one thing. to look back and try to decide why something wasn't done, who knows. why wasn't immigration done when

george w. bush was president? why don't we do a lot of things? we do them, as my colleague said, because we are now forced to do it. and, you know, some of us say it's a dysfunctional body and to some people say it may be. we do things when it is necessary to be done. now is the time to take care of voting rights. yes. >> chief justice john roberts focused on the fact that he said part of the six southern states have a higher percentage of black voter registration than white and there are, he said, no voting tests, no polls tests at this point. would any of you agree -- clearly you do not believe it's unconstitutional but do you believe that the formula could have some kind of update and how could you update it? >> i think ohio should be included. i absolutely think it should be updated. and i think it's going to be a decision that we made

collectively how it should be updated. i do believe it should not be restricted, it should be expanded. >> i think that chairwoman fudge is correct. if you look at the activities that were taken by, i believe, 38 states and the actions that 38 states took in the runup to the 2012 elections, there are records that have been developed. most of us have very familiar of the voting records of pennsylvania and i'm familiar with the activities taken by the secretary of state in ohio. let's look at their language and the record we will develop this

let's look at their language and the record we will develop this time, we'll bring their words into this record. we didn't have their words in 2006. we got them now. so the intent to turn the clock back is very, very clear. i think that there are counties in pennsylvania and in ohio that would probably come under any new formula we develop. so i'm not arguing with the fact that this may need to be tweaked. there may be some jurisdictions that because of their recent actions that maybe they reach a point of exclusion from the law. now, remember, in this law currently in existence there is a process by which you can opt out.

so if shelby county has such a pristine record, then why didn't it present that pristine record and request for brought out from under the law? that's what the intent here. the intent here is national movement to find a way to gut the voting rights act. so i think we ought to go look at these jurisdictions and look at the opt out provisions in the law and maybe -- there may be a county somewhere in the corner of alabama that may be able to opt out of the law. though i doubt it. >> again, we thank you. i think our friend pete said it best. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is an american issue. we believe that every single person in this country has the constitutional right to have

their voices heard. we have our voices heard through our vote. i thank you here for coming and i thank my colleagues. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you.>> the supreme court ended its current term last week. this week we will bring you oral arguments of some of the closely watched cases. tomorrow, the oral argument in shelby county dealing with the voting rights act. listen to the argument in its entirety at 10:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. is criminal to me that i had to authorize my financial people to write a check for $454 million a month ago to extend to carry the clues because we 2017

have not brought about the capability. it called for a hundred 20 $1 million. we are not halfway there. my job is to try to persuade plan is good the and we will be a phishing users of the taxpayer money i am working on this. as i have told every member of congress 821 million is final if we are to make the 2017 date pld and we will be a phishing users of the taxpayer money i am working on this. as i have told every member of congress 821 million is final if we are to make the 2017 date so that what newt gingrich said is true. >> more with charles fulton tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> wednesday, the supreme court doma> down a decision of

next we will show you reaction opponents ofrs of the ruling followed by house des responding to the ruling. now supporters and opponents of these is record decision striking down the federal provision in the defense of marriage act. the provision prevents retirement benefits to marry gay couples. this is about half an hour. >> i am a reverend. i had just come from the courtroom. the opinions have been filed in both cases.

i will make statements on behalf of the evangelical church alliance, which represents thousands of evangelical clergy from around the country, as well as 350cle milita chaplains. as you heardyy -- they have found no standing on the part of the advocates of proposition 8 in california. i'll be addressing both of those outcomes on behalf of the evangelical church alliance, churches like ours and traditional christians who advocate for marriage between a man and a woman.

no matter how any of us feel about the outcomes in these cases, one thing is true. the supreme court has no authority when it comes to the nature of marriage that no matter how any of us feel authority belongs to the creator, whom our founders declared is the source of all of our rights. the public conversation over marriage continues, and that is a good thing. when it comes to the defense of marriage act, there are a myriad of perspectives among evangelicals. some believe it is best to get the federal government out of as many areas as possible,

including marriage. there are those of us who are disappointed with the court actions on doma. others say yeah a. others of us say another tooth has been extracted from the federal role monster. on proposition 8, the question of whether the people will get to decide for themselves how marriage will be practiced in their state appears to await another day. that is a good question to

pursue. we are disappointed in the short term results, and the short-term questions that remain unsettled. the public conversation continues. the is a good thing. one thing true about today's court decision on marriage, a do not change the biblical or timeless truths of the nature of marriage as between a man and a woman. just as importantly, for christians of traditional faith, like evangelicals from whom i speak, today's decisions are an invitation to look at the results of same-sex couples and

this is a challenge our families need to meet. i know we will meet it. million voters in the state of california who voted for proposition eight.

i'm here today to -- the state of california has a system of direct or mock receiving. more than 7 million voters voted in 2008. more than 2 million voters in the mid-1990s voted for proposition 22. while i have been quiet for the last five years for this proposition to take its course and our legal system, i'm here on behalf of the 7 million voters in the state of california to express our disappointment. we believe every vote should count. they key. my name is jennifer kearns -- kerns. i will be over here a few need any additional comments. >> the congressman from the

state of kansas. in the decision today, the supreme court is offering contradictory rulings. they claim to make a decision that states have a right to decide the definition of marriage. in their second decision, the state voters do not have the right to decide. the dissent on the first decision was very clear. this court has taken upon itself a radical attempt to redefine marriage. what gets lost in this judicial i tend to shorten the process -- every child deserves a mommy and a daddy. [crowd cheering]

[chanting usa] >> usa, usa, usa. [applause]

[no audio]

>> good morning. i'm the executive director for the organization for equal rights. speaking first will be david boyd. >> this is a great day for america. 10 years ago, the united states supreme court in lawrence against taxes took the first important steps guaranteeing all americans, regardless of sexual orientation, or -- are equal citizens under the law. united states supreme court

brings us that much closer to true quality. in the decision striking unconstitutional, the so-called doma case, the nicene supreme court held that there was no purpose for depriving game is being couples of the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that principle guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case, the supreme court held that the proponent for proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that case, the supreme court could not reach the merit.

everything the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion, where they did reach the merits, demonstrates that when that case it finally does come to the unitedtes spring court, marriage equality will be the law throughout the land. our plaintiff is now get to go back to california and with every other citizen of california, marry the person they love. [applause] the next step, is to translate the promise that was in lawrence, and reaffirm today in the doma case, the every citizen in every state has the right to marry the person that they love. the supreme court's decision is important for another reason. when we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. marriage was a fundamental right.

the other side accepted that. we said we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of a right to marry the person they loved seriously harms them and the children they were raising. even the opponents agreed with that. third, we said, we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they loved regardless of sexual orientation did not, could not harm anyone. not only did the proponents on

cross-examination have to accept that, but today the united states spring court said as much because they said the proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harms them because these loving couples, and couples like them throughout, for you -- california, are going to be able to get married. this is a wonderful thing for our plaintiff. it is a wonderful thing for our for everyone around the country. it is a wonderful day for americans. we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that was in our constitution, in our declaration of independence, that all people are created equal, that all people have the available right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. this is a great day. we think the supreme court. we big al view -- we thank all of you.

we think all of the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades. people who did it in a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olsen and myself to go into court. the living i regret today is that my friend and colleagues -- ted olsen cannot be here. given a leader in this battle for the last four years read he is in another court in another part of the country arguing another case. his spirit is here. he will be with me tonight. we will celebrate. this is a injury -- this is a victory. thank you. >> we will have comments from the plaintiffs in the case. >> today's a great day for american children and families. we want to say how happy we are, not only to be will to return to

california and finally get married, but to be able to save the children california no matter where you live, no matter what family you are in, you are equal. you are as your friends parents. we believe from the very beginning that they -- the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. we can go back to california and say to our own children, our four boys, your family is just as good as everybody else. we love you as much as anybody else, and we are going to be equal. now we will be married any will to every other family in california. ain't you. -- thank you. >> we want to say thank you to

all of you, our supporters. thank you to our amazing lawyers. thank you to the constitution, and thank you to justice that was served today. it was an amazing day. is important for us and all families. we think the justices for allowing us to get married in california. we cannot wait. it is about kids in the south, and kids in texas. we want everyone -- we will take this fight to get quality for everyone in this country. it has been a leisure to represent you. -- it has been a pleasure to represent you.

>> i do not need these. our desire to do something, and get involved in this case was very important to us. perry changed the conversation. it created a ground swell of momentum, and passion that brought us here to the supreme court today. today, the court said i am more equal, we are more equal, our love is just like our parents and grandparents. the any children we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. our desire to marry has only deepened the last four years. as has our loving commitment to one another. we look forward to using the word married and husband. those words matter. they are important. i said in my testimony in court. if they weren't important, we

wouldn't be standing here today. i would like to give special thanks to -- the entire legal team. ted and david specifically. their passion for equality is only trumped by the size of their hearts. i would like to think chris and sandy for taking this ride with us. to chad griffin for his strategic vision. to the entire team at the american foundation for equal rights. and for the support that we have received from countless people that we do not even know, but who will benefit just as

profoundly from this ruling today. they keep very much. today is a great to be an american. [applause] >> i'm not sure i can add anything after those statements. today is a great day. we enter this building, and we see those words. equal justice under the law. today, we are closer to that equality. we are lucky, we know the fight continues across the country pray we cannot forget our lgbt brothers and sisters that are in states that still discredit against them. we will not allow it. will continue to fight until all of us are legal -- equal. it helped us turn anger into action. it led to the foundation, the american foundation for equal rights. it led to this case and today's victory. we stand on the shoulders of so many people who came before us. people who risk their lives to stand up and be who they are. they gave us the legs to stand on today. they gave us the momentum to run, and the voice to speak loudly and say proudly that we are gay. we are americans. we will not be treated like second-class citizens. although we celebrate today, although we sell but today, we want to make sure that everyone might jeff and i, we want to get married because it is the next

up in our relationship. we want to join the institution of marriage take -- not to take anything away, but to strengthen it. today's a good day. today i finally get to look at the man that i love, and then finally say will you please marry me. [applause] >> we will now hear from the current president of the human rights campaign. >> thank you very much. thank you to these plaintiffs, and the legal team led by ted olson and david boyd. what a magnificent job they have done representing thousands of him -- thousands of people in

california and around the country. angst of the sister of decisions today, we are one step closer to finally realizing those words inscribed upon that building behind me. equal justice under law. today, at long last, this nation has wiped away the shame of proposition 8 and the discriminatory defense of marriage act once and for all. . they work of equality is far from complete. -- the work of equality is far from complete. we got to rise to this historic occasion with an urgent commitment, a commitment to the gaze -- the gay and lesbian americans in states without marriage equality. it took less than five years to strike down proposition eight. today, let us set a new goal. within five years, we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. [applause]

the lesson of the perry case, and these plaintiffs, is that we cannot wait for justice. because they thought tirelessly, every single day, today america's values have prevailed. now it is up to us to make this historic victory reach each and every corner of this country. loving and committed couples in places like hope, arkansas will still be waiting for justice, and every moment of the lay has real lives, human consequences. every day in these places, a

child is born. a parent dies. the person you love me the rest to the hospital. the inability to access the basic protections of marriage destroys families, and ruins lives. make no mistake about it. tomorrow it is certainly a new day. the sun will still rise on an unequal country. at this moment, acidity or no bigger than bigotry. if state legislatures have to bash at the ballot box, and congress, and in our federal courts, this movement for equality will advance on all fronts like we have never advanced before. i promise you, in the end,

equality, fairness, and basic human dignity will prevail as it has so many times in this country before. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i'll -- my law partner is in court. i want to say a few words. first of all, proposition 8 is dead. let's let the weddings begin. people can get married in california. [applause] and the two decisions together, i have copies, really paved the way for what chad griffin just said, marriage equality in this country. with marriage equality back in california, 40% of the population in the united states is covered by marriage equality. and the doma decision, the

framework that's laid out by the court in doma, paves the way for striking down marriage restrictions across this country, so this is a huge day and we're so pleased. it's a great day for the supreme court. the court has demonstrated its commitment to equality and justice and fairness, found that second-class citizens. that's a fundamental, fundamental point, and it's going to carry the day. the wave that started four years ago in this country towards equality just got way bigger and it's going to sweep this country and we are going to have equality across this country for all citizens very soon. thank you very much. \[applause] now we'll take your questions. \[phone ringing] no questions. we silenced you. >> san francisco, they are celebrating right now. we wish we were with you. >> we are on our way to california and we'll see you in los angeles and san francisco in the next day or so. \[applause] may the marriages begin.

>> thank you! >> thank you so much. >> nancy pelosi and members of the house democratic od et task rulings. this is a half-hour.

>> equal justice under the law, those are the words inscribed on the wall of the supreme court which i can see from my office. this is the value and the idea upheld by the supreme court today. many of us have believed section three of the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. we believed the hold till is unconstitutional. the supreme court agreed and justice was done for thousands of lgbt families nationwide. just think of what it means to them. from the start many of us believe proposition eight had -- no place in the state of california. justice will be done for loving lgbt couples across my home state. on this day barely 44 years to the day after the stonewall riots, -- turned nation's attention.

the federal government will never discriminate against family married in the united states create -- united states. a cold protection will not simply be a promise unfulfilled, it will be a promise kept. victory is not at the end of the journey for civil rights equality. this ruling will make us work harder in the courts and the state legislatures everywhere to ensure that all men and women in every part of our country are granted equal rights no matter who they love. this is an extraordinary day for american values.

for lgbt americans and for all americans create another day that will go on the history books as a moment when our history -- nation expanded the reach of the highest ideals of our constitution and our democracy. i want to say on a personal note how important today is. i feel personally the inspiration and admire the courage of edie windsor. she will be speaking right now or just later today. i congratulate her, i think her for her courage. i want to say one more thing. in march the week apart, many have stood on the steps of the supreme court. one day it was we're hearing oral arguments on the voting rights act. the next week it was about proposition eight and doma.

many of the same people were there both days because this is the same subject. about discrimination in our country. we have work to do in terms of expanding rights and ending discrimination against those in the lgbt community to make america a more -- more american but we have important work to do on the voting rights act. again, the same subject. now to a person who has been a leader on this issue for a long time, mr. hoyer. we are waiting for one more of our lgbt task members. we salute them for their courage and their leadership and for the joy we all share today. mr. hoyer and then our special guest. >> thank you. as disappointed as i was yesterday, i am happy today. today the court stood up for the principles of america of equal

justice under law. the supreme court's historic decision to strike down section three of the defense of marriage act offers -- opens opportunity for thousands of couples. they said we wanted to have equality in maryland. in 12 other states and the district of columbia. recognizing they are entitled to the constitutional equal protection of which we have spoken so often. the court listen to voices of millions of people who said that they wanted to have justice and be able to choose those whom they love. justice kennedy's majority opinion makes it clear. the about her purse and effects

are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages. today my that stigma has thankfully been erased. i was proud to join in an amicus brief with other senate and house democrats making the case that section three of doma violated our constitution and stood opposed to our most basic values as americans. this is a good day for every

american. one of my first votes when i was elected in 1966 was to vote to repeal the miscegenation statutes in maryland. that was some 50 years ago. this is another step in redeeming america's promise of equality, justice, and inclusion. >> thank you. in presenting mr. nadler, much he has a personal invitation from 80 -- edie to be with her. >> touch of the history of the united states can be read as our expanding understanding of what the declaration of independence meant what it says men are created equal. in 1776 it did not mean black man, it did not mean women of

any color or creed. it did not mean white men without property. most of the history is how we have continued to expand that to finish and to include hopefully everybody. today is another step in that continued evolution of this country toward greater liberty and equality. it is a joyous day for celebration and breathes life into the guarantee of liberty for all. this decision means participation and critical federal programs ensuring the security and well-being of their families.

it means that they will receive the support and respect that their commitments and marriages deserve instead of the contempt and animus embodied in the defense of marriage act passed by congress years ago. to my constituent, the money she had to pay in taxes when the government treated her and her lifelong partner and lawful wife as complete strangers will be returned. helping ensure she has the resources she needs in her 80's. we must celebrate today. it is a great day but our work is not yet over. we still need to wipe doma in its entirety off the books. we will be reintroducing the respect for marriage act. this repeals doma in its entirety. the court has struck section three but section two was not before the court. section 262 excuse states from even considering a marriage performed in a sister state. this is a day for celebration. it is another day in the march of our country toward a greater understanding of liberty and equality.

it is a rebuke to those who still support doma. it is a great day and congratulations to everyone involved. >> where you leave the way? >> moments ago i was on the steps of the supreme court when these very exciting decisions came down and two things really struck me. one was that thousands of people were there a girly anticipating the decision. every single person i saw was on the side of equality, on the side of respecting marriage for all americans create it was a mark boal to me that i did not see one protester or one voice on the other side who denied their fellow americans equal rights.

perhaps they no longer dare show their face but there are mean those among us who would continue to deny their fellow americans equal rights. the second thing is this is a said -- a system working for families like mine. this is a system working to help keep our national couples together. raising children without the fear of losing custody or what to do if there were no falls ill. i said -- applaud the supreme court for making a decision that america is more than ready for as majority shows support for marriage equality. it is a step toward the respect for the committed relationships

that gay and lesbian americans have. the battle is far from done. in over 20 states, people can still be fired from their job just because they are gay or lesbian. across our country in schools, it gay kids these bullying and sometimes have no place to turn. that is why a lot of supreme -- the supreme court made a step forward. congress has a critical role rejecting a and lesbian kids from ending and -- from bullying and ending housing discrimination. i strongly applaud this step forward. gay americans and lesbian americans want what all other americans want. we want our committed relationships to be celebrated before our friends and family create we want to not have to worry about the responsibility and rights that come along with marriage, and today, couples that are married in -- will enjoy those full rights under federal law. i am excited to introduce the representative from rhode island. certain advantages, and to harm them. it said and gave real examples and denied them access to

healthcare and denied fairness in our taxes. it went through the consequences of this discrimination and it said this while it's the equal protection of the law. it -- the basic revision of our constitution. in this decision and has helped to transform the lives of millions of families across this country who now will be treated equal in the eyes of the law. this is a huge victory not just for the lgbt community but for our country because it gives meaning to our values. this is a country where individuals are treated equally and discrimination is not permitted. i applaud the court's decision. i hope it will inspire us to continue the work that needs to be done in our march toward full equality and i think everyone and congratulate -- everyone who has been part of this. and now, sean patrick malone. >> thank you very much. a short while ago i called my partner randy of 21 years to tell him about the decision and to congratulate him. i could not get the words out.

i realized in that moment that it was the first time in 21 years, 20 of those years spent raising our three amazing children. that i was not talking to him as someone who was seen as less than in the eyes of my own country's laws. what this decision means is that for families like mine, when i get up and get the kids ready for school, make them breakfast, and make sure the left shoe is on the left foot and pick them up at soccer practice, and all the things we do every day, it

means they do not have to grow wondering why our family is less than someone else's. that is a good thing. and i want to congratulate the court and i want to congratulate the people who felt -- worked so hard to get us to this point. on june 17, 1950 four, the court said that it was wrong to segregate us and it is -- in education. people who were brave enough to love across the legal barrier of entry a -- anti-interracial laws. this will be a date we have made more hold the promise of america and the idea that -- the beautiful idea that this is as fundamental as our founding documents and that we saw for the first time today and it makes us even more american is why i love this country.

why i am so proud to serve here with my colleagues in congress. congratulations, it everyone. -- congratulations, everyone. >> this is a great day. as an openly gay member and married member of congress, our nation recognizes the love and commitment that two people make in states that recognize a quality. 93 million people live in states that will be recognized for their marriages. 50% of the country supports marriage equality. we now have the people, the constitution, and the courts behind us in this important decision. also the proposition eight decision allows for 18,000 couples to have their legal marriages recognized. it is a very important day. that reminds me that i live in the state of wisconsin and as

someone who has been with my partner for almost 11 years, and mary for over six and a half, we still face barriers and we have to make sure that every single person who gets in that loving and committed relationship can be recognized. there are tens of hundreds of thousands of people who are not able to have basic things like hospital visitation rights for my decisions about and of life matters with someone they have had a commitment to. this is a day to celebrate. i am ecstatic at it shows that hath we still have to do in congress and our states and i am happy for the supreme court today. >> i represent the 41st to strict in california. this is a victory for the people of my state. i challenge every clerk in the state of california to start issuing marriage licenses to

every couple that desires one today. i feel jubilation, i feel fabulous, i feel every day word i can think of. -- gay word i can think of. [laughter] the -- justice kennedy did something that i try to teach my students as an english teacher. i taught high school for 23 years. i always taught it was important to write beautiful sentences, to reach for the poetic and i was worried he was because of the question, he would get weighed down and down in the language, the legalese of federalism and states rights. he really went for the poetic

justice kennedy that i have seen evidence of in previous decisions. he predicated his decision on the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment. equal protection. he used words, stirring words like doma humiliates the children of same-sex couples. humiliation is the opposite of equality. this decision reaches to the very essence of who we are as americans. it is the advancement of our founding principles of freedom, justice, and equality. there is going to be dancing in the streets tonight in washington, san diego, san francisco where i will join the leader this weekend. thank you very much.

>> i am so proud of all of you. we're very proud of the presentations in the leadership made by our lgbt members create i want to mention one other person and that is barney frank. he has been in this fight for so many years. we were at the unveiling of his portrait in the financial services room at the rayburn elting. he has worked so hard on these issues for so long but when his painting was unveiled he talked about some things he was proud of in the picture, proudest most of his wedding ring that he would -- he was married to jimmy, his husband who was there. all of that -- and all that said about america. i want to acknowledge his great leadership over the years. when mark was talking about the writing, i was thinking about and some colleagues noticed about the proceedings when the oral arguments were heard at the court. the justices asked on more than

one occasion, did the republicans know that this was unconstitutional? the answer was, whatever. we know they knew it was unconstitutional. why else 10 years after it passed with a have had a bill in the congress that would strip the court of the right of judicial review claiming that [indiscernible] if they thought that doma was constitutional. that animus that jerry referenced and mark alluded to was something that was definitely present in that debate. hopefully with this court decision it is rejected from the debate. i know my colleagues would be eager to take any questions you may have. >> what does this mean for transgender and bisexuals? [indiscernible] >> transgender couples face a different set of challenges. in some states they have been able to get married because in some cases the sex of the birth certificate is recognized and in some cases their current gender is recognized. sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things.

some members are straight and smart bisexual and some are gay. this would -- certainly those who are transgender and gay and recognized as a member of the gender of their current gender identity in states would also be able to have their urges counted for federal purposes. you have been some in the past who have been allowed to marry because they are identified as a gender that was on their birth certificate. >> just to remind that one of the acts that we passed in congress that became the law of the land was to -- the fully inclusive hate crime legislation. some people said why don't you just take out transgender and we could pass this. the purpose was to end hate crimes, crimes committed on the basis of discrimination. we recognize how important the whole lgbt classification is. i associate myself with the comments made today.

>> [indiscernible] >> it simply means that they, like any other americans, any other gay or lesbian americans can get married now if they live in a state -- they can already if they live in a state that recognizes it. from now on the federal government for all purposes will recognize that marriage whether it is military, visitation rights in military hospitals,

health benefits in the military or death benefits, anything going through the federal government will go to them on an equal basis. >> congress woman bachmann put out a statement that the decision cannot undo god's word. what is your reaction? >> let me respond this way. in the fullness of time, i firmly believe with every conviction in my heart that every american will come to celebrate this decision. this decision was not imposed on the american people. it ratified what was already in the hearts and minds of the great majority of the american people. >> let me add to that if i may. it is important to understand that people can believe what they want, they can go to what

church they want, what synagogue or temple or mosque. that is a question of religious belief. we are not dealing with religious belief. we are dealing with what the state or the federal government does and we have a separation of church and state in this country. for government purposes, you can be married. the church may not recognize but that is their business. if you do not want to recognize it from a religious point of view, that is your business. no one is forcing anybody to get married. the point of the separation is when we deal with public businesses and the celebration of marriage by the state, the recognition by the state of who is married is not a religious question. >> could you [inaudible] is this -- does this decision guaranteed that if a married couple if they are living in a state that does not recognize their marriage, do they still qualify for benefits or is that something -- >> my legislation would deal with that. the answer now is complicated. most of the statutes were not written with this in mind. they were written pre-all of this.

some have language that would tend to lead to a result that says if you get married in a state -- in new york which recognizes same-sex marriage, which recognizes marriage equality and you live in a state now that does not, some statutes would indicate the federal government will recognize it for that purpose and some do not. to clarify, to say that the federal government recognized marriage the matter where you live if it was legal when and where celebrated. it recognizes gay marriage equality. nomad or where you live the federal government will recognize it. >> you're on the bipartisan group. speaker boehner -- the republican leadership was the one who told them to defend before the supreme court.

do you know what the cost of that was? >> it was a matter of how they spent the money. $2.3 million of taxpayer money was wasted on this pursuit. it is really unfortunate. what was interesting to me was they kept talking about the bipartisan committee. it was not bipartisan in the vote at all. it was 3-2 and that is why mr. nadler took the lead on the amicus brief. it was $2.3 million. i would hope that the court decision would put at least that part of doma to rest as we try to undo the rest of it. we shall see but $2.3 million. it was done in a way that was

not according to the regular order but that is a whole other subject. maybe another day we will go into the details of how the engaged there contract. we want to salute the cord and celebrate the victory and extend our greatest gratitude to edie windsor for her courage. we had some in california and this seemed to be the best case and clearly it was. it is a cause for celebration. we will try to deal with what happened yesterday in the court in terms of the voting rights act. when we were on the steps we are there together. a coalition of people who want to and dissemination in our country whether it was to support the voting rights act or

to overturn doma and proposition 8. nextk you all very much. republicans respond. this is also happen our. half an hour.o >> good morning. we are here curious on to the supreme court's ruling on the defense of marriage act and proposition eight. he believe the courts got it wrong on these rulings. the access ruling on the defense of marriage act ignores the bipartisan majority of congress. this is a danger president which stripped power away from congress with respect to defining national marriage policy. we must work to defend the right of americans to make marriage policy. the ruling is a loss for the millions of americans who have gone to the ballot to voice their support for marriage between one man and one woman.

the attorney general who refused to defend the peoples wishes abandon abandon the people of california. it is a loss for democratic self-governance. with the supreme court denying them standing, they have let the old voiceless. what california silences their 38 states have a firm belief of their citizens that marriage exists between a man and a woman. it is a necessary building block of society. we must work to defend the rights of americans to make marriage policy. we should work to promote the truth of marriage between a man and a woman. it is wise policy to uphold the reality that every child desired -- deserves a mom and a dad and society as a whole benefits when they do. now we have some statements by

some of our other members there. e's policeave stev from louisiana. >> it is a sad day when unelected judges change the definition of marriage and turn their backs on the will of voters and their elected representatives who have made it clear that we want to continue to maintain the traditional union between a man and a woman. fall for -- far from resolving this issue, it ensures the definition of marriage will be fought out in the court rooms by unelected judges as opposed to a state legislature and here in congress were ultimately elected representatives should be making those decisions. the issue is far from resolved. it creates a lot more chaos than lawad beef or -- before the that was passed with a bipartisan coalition of congress that was in place.

>> i am john fleming from louisiana. i would like to comment on marriage itself. marriage is a fundamental building block of our civilization. it precedes this nation itself. it is the fiber that keys are civilization so strong. it is the ideal model from which we raise children. it is a marriage bond between one man and one woman. with regard to the issues at i agree that the supreme court got it wrong. it is surprising that the supreme court in the case of obamacare, a bill that was passed purely on a partisan aces, unpopular, and somehow the supreme court had to make that constitutional. to make itfind a way

unconstitutional. is that the 38th state that currently do not recognize anything but traditional marriage are not forced to recognize do not do their own laws need to be appropriate marriages. this is a good starting point. i cannot disagree more with today's supreme court decision. congress is well with in its rights to define marriage as it has been construed for thousands of years for federal purposes. dictate state and now the supreme court wants to dictate to the american or what elected legislators can do regarding federal law.

i want to thank speaker boehner for defending the house of representives and law. their rights were compromised when state officials advocated their responsibility to represent the people. in both of these cases, the people acted through the democratic process to define marriage as between one man and one woman and now see their decision invalidated by the court. the majority got it wrong in both cases but they didn't take the more radical step to redefine marriage for every state. i think this decision will have negative consequences for children who are raised by a mom we redefine marriage peril of strong families, who are the building block of

our society. >> i am scott garrett, from new jersey. it has been the president through our nations history that a court's decision cannot decide for the american people. we must not forget that our constitution established for we the people. the court, therefore, obviously int it wrong in both cases. prop eight and in dilma. the decision about marriage should be returned to where it rightly belongs, the people. the institution of marriage should not be manipulated by the courts, who are unelected, or by elected officials who have failed to uphold their responsibility. the court failure in goma inappropriately leads to states dictating to the edible

government on various policy. obviously, in that case, the courts got federalism wrong. regardless of the supreme court ruling today, decisions such as these rest in the hands of the people. the debate over marriage policy will and should continue. i yield. >> commerce mint town walberg from michigan. -- tim walberg, from michigan. we have clearly defined marriage to be that relationship between a man and a woman. nowhere have we defined what a love relationship is, what a relationship is in any case. we have not said those relationships cannot continue. we have said that for the best interests of society itself, and to make sure we understand the desires of adults are not more important than the needs of children, we have defined marriage to be that relationship between a man and a woman, for the best interest of

those children. it is also for the best interest of society. without the designed building , of a man marriage and woman coming together, society itself is at risk, and cannot continue. and so i believe that the bad decision, the wrong decision of the supreme court today, on these two cases, taking away the authority and the right of the people, taking away the voice of the people, will only continue the debate that goes on, and it will probably be good for our country as we look at what works and is best for our children, and goes away from declaring our needs to be the most important thing, saying, how can we do best for those who are counting on us for the future? i appreciate standing with my colleagues today, and i

appreciate standing with our debate thiswill issue and will decide this issue. over to randy weber of texas. i will turn it over to you. >> good afternoon. marriagehe ideal that has been debased by this decision, and that the moral fiber of our country is affected greatly by this, long-term, we have seen this is going to knew the people's voice. in theate legislator a federalitizen, and legislator, we see this happen today. when you are out on the street, talking to people, campaigning, going door to door -- a decision like this makes the people's voice muted. people say, why should i even vote?

a court is going to wipe away the decision i have made. that takes away the faith people have in the system, as well as when they see officials like an attorney general in california that refused, because of politics, to defend what the people had done. not once or twice in california. ,hen politics injures into it and they say, we are not going to defend what the people have to say, they have no standing in court, because no one will stand for them. there faith is completely eroded in the process. this is a very bad decision for families as well as the legal process and the voters, the people's faith in their government. where do we go from here? i do not know. i do not think it ends here. i think they will not be satisfied with the decision. they will want to force their way into people's religious freedoms, and see that churches may have to perform things they

are against within their institutions. i do not know where it does and. i do know it is a sad day for america. >> i am randy weber, from texas 14, and i am extremely disappointed in the supreme court decision. it seems to me that they are in collusion. the supreme court appears to be in collusion with the president and his in justice department when they decided to not defend goma, that they could selectively enforce whatever laws they felt like they wanted to. unfortunately, it has been at the expense of children. marriage is the government's least restrictive way to provide a good up earning for children. it will also be at the expense of religious institutions. i believe this is one more attack on one of the deep, abiding institutions of american society. the president washington said

that marriage -- religion and morality were the pillars and foundation of our country. we see a supreme court that seems out of control, that will override voter wishes and institute their policy in its place. it is a sad day in america. that weto make sure stand up for the least effective whogst us, those children, statistics will tell you have the best chance of growing up and being productive citizens in a normal family, with a mother and a father. that is what is best for children. the supreme court has ignored the needs of children, ignored the wishes of american voters. i will remain committed to fighting this decision, to being part of the discussion that will be ongoing in seeing that state rights are upheld and we continue to promote the great american society that we have, which is built on those pillars.

i will yield to my good friend from texas. i appreciate what you have done, putting this together. it is a sad day. some may try to brand us hateful. this is not a hateful group. this is a group that has love and compassion for our country. and when you know that the president -- now we know that he boring, adebate with very informal one, and he abandoned what he had been saying previously about homosexual marriage and support for it, and said what he knew he needed to say in order to get elected. after he has won a second term, and actually before he won his second term, he comes out and says something different. whoave an attorney general

has come before our judiciary committee and lied, either lied to us or lied to the court. and now we have a decision today that includes -- it has to include, for the decision to stand, a live. in page 22 of the windsor saysion, this holy quintet the principal purpose is to forse inequality, not other reasons like governmental efficiency. they know that is a lie. they are smart individuals. they know that is a lie. that was not the principal purpose. heard mypurpose you friends up here site. i read the windsor decision first, before i read the prop 8 decision. disappointed with the intellectual dishonesty, but i knew, for the court to be

consistent, since they said members of congress would have a standing to defend a law that which gave the supreme court the authority to strike it down -- at least, on the prop 8 case, they would have to say those who pushed through this referendum, the people who passed a referendum, the voters -- they would have to have standing in order for it to be intellectually honest and consistent. they would have to say they had standing. they would have to cite the same provisions they did in windsor that says the state has total authority to decide what marriage is in that state, in essence. you read the prop 8 decision, and you find they were intellectually dishonest, and intellectually inconsistent, because they then struck down the party as having standing

that actually passed the referendum. so, dishonesty, inconsistency, and for them -- i do not know what kind of cloistered walls this court has been behind for them to make the statement at the bottom of page team. came a new however, perspective, a new insight. they just said marriage between man and woman had been thought with that role, and function throughout the history of civilization. apparently, they were not aware that the most wise man in history, solomon, said there is nothing new under the sun. this is not new. ,t has been tried over and over and it is usually tried at the end of a great civilization. just in closing, i would remind

you of the document that allowed the united states to claim its independence and be free, as recognized by england, the treaty of paris, 1783. at that document, you will see bold letters at the very top. put yourself in the place of the americans. would you make a witness swear under that they would be so afraid to go back on their word? what would you make them swear that, under that document, required england to recognize our independence? what our founders came up with were these words. in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. it started that way. evendid not believe that the adversaries in war would have the nerve to go against that. is a holyw have today quintet who goes against the

laws of nature and nature's god, and that is very unfortunate. i am michele bachmann, from the sixth district of minnesota. these decisions are offensive on so many levels, but primarily because we are a nation of laws, not man. we are a nation that exists under the concept of limited government. what the supreme court ruled today was on the basis of equal prection, and yet in one of the greatest ironies in this decision, they denied equal protection to every american in the united states. how did they do that? because they undercut the people's representative when they voted on the defense of marriage act in the first place. the people were duly represented. they represented the will of their constituencies. todaypreme court

undercut the equal protection of every person who elected their representative. they did it even more so, even more personally, in the california case, where voters directly went to the polls and cast their vote. by the way, the same year they voted to elect barack obama president, they voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state of california. but the supreme court denied the equal protection, the right of that vote, to every californian. this is historic. the supreme court is asserting the supremacy of the court over all three branches of government. they are saying we do not have three coequal branches, the executive, the congress, the court. we have the supreme court. you have five individuals on a court who decide it is their theirty or immorality,

view of morality or immorality, which must prevail. five people. is that a denial of equal protection? now, we have an effective oligarchy of five, who decide the most fundamental issues of our day. nation ourming a founders would no longer recognize, because as a nation that exists under the rule of law, as limited government, that means we as members of congress -- he cannot do anything we want. we are constrained by article one, and specifically article one, section eight. we are constrained. the executive is constrained by our constitution. let this be a newsflash to the supreme court. they are constrained by our constitution, although this decision belies the constitution. every time the supreme court

meets, it is another constitutional convention, because they say it is. i believe the people are more important than the supreme believe the do people will have their sway. this decision is one that is profound, because the supreme court not only attacked our constitution today. they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our constitution. they attacked something they have no jurisdiction over the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage. that is something that god created. that is something that god will do fine. the supreme court, though they may think so, have not yet arisen to the level of god. here today, standing foursquare in support of our constitution, and for the

institution of marriage. i yield back. >> i apologize for walking in late, and hopefully will not repeat things. the court did not declare there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. much of the decisions were a logical. on the one hand, the state of kansas will be able to maintain its marriage amendment, i helped author. at the same time, voters in california have been overruled, essentially. what i am afraid gets lost in this discussion is that a narrow, radical majority of the itst has had to substitute ideas on marriage for the will of voters. most,who were hurt the in my opinion, or the children of america.

iny clearly, every child america deserves a mom and a dad. with this attempt to redefine marriage, using the courts, because they failed in numerous other cases, i think those who ourhurt the worst are children. centuries of human experience indicate that a stable marriage is the best thing to raise our children, and i fear for their future. i will be working with our colleagues for a response. i think we have some options. again, a very sad day for the children of america. i yield back. >> thank you for being here today. this concludes our opportunity to share our thoughts. think you very much. press conference if you do not take questions. no questions? ended itsreme court current term last week. this week, we will bring you supreme court oral arguments of

some of the closely watched cases. tuesday, oral arguments dealing with same-sex marriage, first in hollingsworth v perry on proposition eight, and then u.s. the windsor on the defense of marriage act. starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. monday night, we will show you what the southwest airlines ceo has to say about air travel in this country, as he takes questions from an audience at the university of denver. then, we will open up our phone lines to get your thoughts on the subject, and ask what advice you would give the federal government that you think would improve air travel in the u.s.. we recently asked the same question of ronald reagan national airport, and here is what people had to say. >> i think they could have more tsa agents at peak travel times.

it seems the lines are increasing longer and longer. i thinkr thing is, more of the security, the prescreen security -- i am a prescreened security traveler, but those are as long as the other lines now. i think more agents, getting people through faster, mixed traveling a better proposition. >> it concerns me when people get stuck on the tarmac for a long time tom at due to delays, for whatever reason. it would be good to have a way to bring those people back in, have a ruling that would help those people. eight hours on the tarmac is a little long for people with health issues and small children, things like that. >> i think the government needs to bite the bullet and get the next generation air traffic control system built, and although these airplanes to really get between places as efficiently as possible, with

the most efficient use of fuel and the resources we have to manage airplanes in the air. role do you think the government could play? how could they go about making that happen? >> the government keeps hesitating on pulling the trigger on getting this all done. some of that is because of things like the sequester, and some of it is because of all the bureaucracy that is in the faa. i think the time for delay on this has come and gone. we are wasting precious time and precious fuel, and we are making people spend a lot more time in the air than they really have to, at the end of the day. the other thing the government needs to do is to make sure the airlines pay their fair share. to get hugeng benefits from fuel savings. alsoems fair they should have to participate more fully in that system. >> we will get your thoughts on the same question monday night,

following remarks from southwest airlines ceo gary kelly, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. host: we want to welcome back david savage, longtime observer 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 facade, 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 1965 basically saying it's time has passed, that there is no longer any justification for this special seemedght for the south. 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 this -- did is surprising that he ruled in favor of the 5-4 decision? guest: no, justice kennedy since the mid-1990's, he has written the court's only important decisions on gay rights. one in the 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, perhaps people would not have been trouble, would not have thought about a lot 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 they were not married? he says it's not feasible today. justice kennedy was very skeptical of doma. host: the oral arguments, it is available on our websites, part of c-span's video library, www.c-span.org. let's share with you some is paul clement, the former solicitor general in the bush administration. 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 doma 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

term "married" from the united states code, and replacing it with something more neutral. "certified domestic units." and define this in the exact way the way section three, exactly the way doma defines marriage. would that make a difference? in that instance, the federal government would not be purporting to say who is married and who is not married. it was who is entitled to various federal benefits and burdens based on a federal definition. >> that would make no theference, justice alito. hypothetical helpfully demonstrates that when the federal government is defining ,his term in the federal code it is not regulating marriage, as such. it is important to recognize that people that are married in their states, either by legislative act or by judicial recognition, remain married for purposes of state law. host: that was an exchange on

the role of the federal the question from associate justice kennedy, and samuel alito weighing in on his point of view. guest: you can tell they are in deep water, 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. in the end, 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.but there are parts of his opinion he hinted at in his exchange. 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 but weal right to marry. are not there yet. host: comments of linda greenhouse -- 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 marriage act of 1996. the liberal group of the court and justice kennedy struck down one. the conservative group with justice kennedy struck down the if it is a question of

trusting congress, there is almost no one on the court who -- 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 back to theain goes point about justice kennedy on the major rulings of this past term. he is very much in the majority or a key player in the majority. 5-4 decisions. guest: that has been so for a very long time.especially since justice o'connor left, 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: i think i have this right if you go back to the late 1980's, he was the first choice. attorney bork. he recently passed away. then there was a second choice. guest: he used to joke that there were number three choices. harry blackmun had also been two nixonafter nominees were knocked down. anybody who follows this for a long time, that summer was a momentous change.if judge bork had joined the court, 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.he writes for "the l.a.

times" and "chicago tribune." questioning the attorney for , ith wilson, edith windsor apologize, the 86-year-old woman from new york who 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 i am trying to see where that comes from. comes from a moral understanding -- >> the language of the report comes from a moral understanding

today that gay people are no different, and gay married couples' relationships are not significantly different from straight married couples. >> i'm trying to see where the moral argument comes from. >> i think akin to a societal understanding.i do not believe that societal understandings come strictly from political power. i don't think that gay people today have political power.this court has used that term in connection with the heightened scrutiny analysis. host: the chief justice talking about the political debate that ensued over this legal issue. guest: implicitly, the gay rights side is saying, we need special protections in the law for discrimination against gays and lesbians.they are a minority group. you should look skeptically at discriminations against people like that.john roberts, the chief justice, is saying, your side seems to be winning a lot of these battles. ofmade this point a lot

times. attitudes are changing. you are winning elections. why does the supreme court need to second-guess these laws? he is saying, we should let this play out state-by-state.let the country changed by its own rate. host: 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 also send us an e-mail or join us on our twitter page as well. chuck in west virginia, thank you for calling. caller: i'm a gay west virginian. it is one of the states in which same-sex marriage is banned, not iy amendment but by statute. have a question about what this is going to mean for a gay couple that moves to west virginia.for instance, if you have a gay couple that is legally 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. does the state subsequently say, you are unmarried? you are no longer married? and if 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 -- the reason i want to introduce president obama, i think the obama administration is going to have to resolve some of these questions on federal benefits. the federal government's view is 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. but there is -- there is a lot of laws that are not resolved yet, if you would talk to ,awyers.somewhere down the road the administration is going to put out regulations to clarify how this is going to work. host: a couple of points on that from vivian shepardson.he says

this -- married is just a word. meanwhile, from justice anthony scalia, the weekly standard has reprinted his opinion from the court.let the people decide. i'm going to share with you one justice scalia was appointed by ronald reagan. guest: i listen to justice scalia give that dissent. i thought it would have been stronger had he done it the day he not doned almost the exact opposite the day before. in the doma case, he said, the powerful point he has said again and again -- he said,

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 it and strike it down. that is exactly what he did before with the voting rights he said, everybody in congress voted to extend the voting rights act, but who would not be for that? that is exactly what was said about the defense of marriage act. who wouldn't vote to defend marriage? what is troubling is not only the sentiment or the substance of it. he's willing to say in one set of cases, we the justices should not second-guess laws passed by congress, but he's willing to strike down a very popular law the day before.that says we are going to second-guess. host: the voting rights act -- when history is written, will be roberts decision be called "the second dred scott"? thest: that's going very far.

voting rights act -- there's a lot of things to say about the voting rights act.it is a great law, one of the most successful laws in american history. even in striking it down, john roberts cap making the point of what a resounding success it was. in the 1960's, 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. that is, how your votes

translate into political power. from the conservative justice's point of view, the special scrutiny for the south in more recent years has become a question about districts, electoral districts. they think striking that provision down doesn't do away with voting rights act. they're just not going to allow this special scrutiny for the south. host: the u.s. supreme court our topic today. we welcome you to the conversation. good morning, steve. caller: it's amazing that the 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. the state couldn't stop sandyor katrina,

and are not going to be able to stop the heat wave we have now. the democrats, when they had control of the house and the presidency, should have repealed natural law and the laws of physics. therefore, their ideas and their programs would then work. host: thank you, steve. guest: i don't quite understand the point about the church. i can't respond to that. host: a tweet -- guest: 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.as you know, the court sort of dodged 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.this is a situation where the liberal justices and 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 gays. host: california 2009, ken starr now the dean of pepperdine university's school of law, infamous for his investigation into president bill clinton and defending gayky. marriage. here's part of the exchange as the state supreme court took up the issue. [video clip]

>> 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 ameliorative actions. both statutory and equitable, they will achieve the values of fairness that are of concern to the court. i think the court for its time. i would be delighted to answer any questions.the court has been very indulgent. >> 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. it is always one of the hardest questions for the court. i thought this year the court that a pretty good job of pushing that question down the road. they say, proposition eight had been pushed down already.it is the case, if it had not been struck down, there would have been a new ballot initiative, and everyone agrees the result would have been different.there would have been a large majority for gay marriage. , it pushes the question down the road. 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. the court, 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.1967. 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: i think this is exactly right. 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 it is much better --

she is a veteran of the women's rights movement. her thought is that it is much better to win step-by-step.win one decision after another, one area of the law. down the road, that's how you get full equality. host: a caller on our independent line. caller: good morning. we should not forget about ken starr or the justice's they were just recently announced. i believe the issue is moral. more than equal rights. to be more precise, it is about 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 nature of how society develops. please hear me out on this. their arguments saying that nature shows that between animals, they do it between the same sex and that is not abnormal. it is not able] deviation. there is a minority that needs to be recognized in all of this. but we all know that also, in the animal kingdom and in real life, there are men who like to have more than one woman. those minorities,

they are happy and they want to have 10, 15 wives. or maybe the opposite. there are women who want to have this is aive men.if minority, why are we going to discriminate against them? discriminate against those who love to have, you know, as a couple, a 17 or 16-year-old? host: the question is, how far does this although?-- all go? guest: he began making the point 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 immoral and violates religious precepts. others would say that equal andatment is what is moral. that is what the court should insist on. that is why these are great, hard questions. 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.let me share with

you from cindy can't well -- -- cantwell -- why don't we the people get a chance to end their terms?why are justices appointed for life? the constitution put it that way in 1789. the constitution could be amended. 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. there have been proposals to say, maybe they should serve 10 or 16 years.sort of like the federal reserve chairman or the fbi director, an extended term, but not forever. the constitution would have to be amended.that is one of the things we were left with in the original constitution, the judges serve a life term. host: a tweet -- who is in the

wings, and who is most likely to guest: that is a tough one. i do not think i know the answer. if you just said who is most likely to leave, it would be justice ginsburg.80 years old this year. she said she would like to stay for another two years. if she were to leave in 2015, president obama would presumably pick someone 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.you hear different names, but i don't know of anybody where they say, this is a likely candidate.i think there is a lot of possibilities. host: someone recently confirmed

by the senate, potentially the first indian- american pick for the court? guest: he would certainly be a contender.very highly regarded. host: and he is young. guest: he has also 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.as you say, it would be a historic pick. he is young and has a judicial temperament.he is a new person on the court. he is just starting. it would be nice to have a year or two on the appeals court before he is a candidate for promotion.but he would be a good candidate all stop -- candidate. the potential 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. whoever 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.first, dan is 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.my personal opinion is that, historically, i don't believe -- rand paul went under scrutiny for making a comment about bestiality.in the texas

decision, justice thomas gave a comment about it as well. i want to ask the guest in particular -- can we as a nation really sayin 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? guest: i think it's quite reasonable -- i don't think anybody would dispute it, states can regulate who gets married. for example, a common regulation is that you can't marry somebody who is very young.states have laws of that sort. 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.none of , state limitsons

on marriage, are affected here. this case involved a situation where in massachusetts and 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.it does not -- i don't think the logic of it requires to say, all limits are off.or anyone can marry any group of people. host: let me go to the dissenting opinion by justice anthony scalia.this was published this morning on "the weekly standard" website. it is also available on our website. 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 that i think is very strong and very powerful is, basically, the public, the voters, the people of the united states should make these kinds of decisions. the constitution set up a structure of government and it allows in states and cities and the federal government to make certain political decisions, and judges should not second-guess that.i do think it is a very -- i think that's where the court is. this is going to continue to play out, state-by-state. people are going to vote in 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 somees this weekend.what call the judicial activism of the court. this viewer saying --

guest: if you put that to a vote, 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.it is on our website. 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 justice clarence thomas, who has not asked a question in seven years, has made the same criticism. here is a portion from the greenbrier event yesterday. [video clip]

>> there are excuses for it. we don't talk about cases before the argument. when we get on the bench, it is the first time we begin to get clues about what our colleagues think. we are often using questions as 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. i have had to act as umpire in 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.i do think we have gone too far. host: your comments from the chief justice roberts and that reference to being an umpire. which he made during his confirmation hearing. guest: he spent a lot of years as an advocate in front of the supreme court.he knows what that is like. you stand up and want to make one point. 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 and then you can go. --does, actually 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. host: chief justice john roberts

speaking yesterday. "the hill" newspaper is writing about the issue. michael is joining us on the line for independents. caller: good morning. you partially answered some of here on this decision. i have no problem with same-sex people wanted to follow in love with each other. i think it's a little strange, but i realize that some people are born with that sexual anyway, myn problem. big concern is the -- i'm not sure it was addressed by the court, maybe your guest

can tell me whether it was or not.mike it -- my big concern was that, is the benefits involved in these married couples, when the federal benefits were decided in the 1930's, i'm sure there were people with orientation problems. i don't know if it was even recognized back then. host: 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.nobody would think that --

but on the other hand, if it is to people who just live together, they don't have a 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. it is like 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 spouse can receive benefit under social security. host: a caller on our republican line. caller: are we really free from religion and the constitution? all our problems are about that