they pick and choose the bible like it is a menu at a restaurant. i was wondering, for the listeners or viewers, do you think it would be possible, so

we would know, do you have to put the person's name or gender or religious affiliation. it would be nice if we had a percentage of people who work at c-span tell how they vote. it would shine a light on how the show is made up and which side you be on -- lean on. host: we appreciate the suggestion. we want to give the floor to you for your opinions. we will go to dennis and west palm beach, florida. dennis is also republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad you're having this discussion. to answer your question, will it make a difference -- what the pope had to say -- it will definitely make a difference in the sense that when he speaks

or writes, it creates a worldwide discussion. i'm very active in social media. this has been a major buzz for me and everyone else i know on there, and i have all the 5000 -- almost 5000 facebook friends. some of the main things that people have to understand about the pope when he writes or speaks is sometimes he talks about matters of faith or morals and we are pretty much obligated to follow that, he will follow talk about issues. if he says we are supposed to have a concern for the poor, he may give some suggestions as to how we help the poor, but that is his prudential judgment. we don't have to follow him. one person may say, we help the

poor by giving them fish every day. another person may say, we help the poor by teaching them to fish. even the pope himself, i think in paragraph 61, said that he realizes these discussions have to be left to the experts. what i think he is doing is creating a worldwide discussion on this issue. host: do you expect this to be talked about in your church this sunday? caller: it will almost never be talked about in the individual parish churches. they do not operate that way. the bottom line is that the message will go out basically all over the world. it will be individual people who talk about it, but a priest will not go to the point that and talk about it. in the catholic church in america, they will certainly not talk about it from a political point of view. in the catholic church, they have something called social teaching, and it really started

in 1891. they write about all the different issues and it is up to us to discuss them and determine how they enter. you have about 50% catholics and good meetin meaning people go the other way. host: several comments on our twitter page as well. michael burns in that both sides have been less than honest on climate change, can there be an honest discussion? also on twitter, sea of tranquility rwrites, is the pope believe in climate change, everyone knows that he is a renowned scientists. he writes that a very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are

experiencing a warming of the climatic system, and in recent decades, this has been accompanied by a rise of sea level. we will be talking about the pope's message and bring you parts of the message. we are asking our viewers to worry and this morning. do you think it will make a difference? we will go to john in arlington virginia, line for independents. caller: good morning. i come with the prophetic -- a prophetic perspective. before i mention that, i have to mention that pelosi is not allowed to even partake in sacrament for his dance -- her stance on abortion. we have moved above us that are

timed with the sabbath. we have fukushima melting down and the prophecy in the bible that speaks of one third of the ocean -- and one thing that the encyclical does not mention is the word "pollution." which has nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with corruption. one of the things that is happening the september is that we are having a u.n. meeting around the time of the appointed times of the fall festivals of the feast of trumpets, yom kippur. and september 28 is the final blood moon. host: also happening in september, the pope is scheduled

to speak before a joint session of congress as well. we are wondering if our viewers think it will change the view in congress wendy pope comes here after the encyclical that came out on climate change. here is some reaction from top republicans, including jeb bush. he was interviewed in iowa on the campaign trail, ahead of the cyclical -- encyclical. he says the he does not think we should politicize faith. he says that he goes to church to have his faith nursed and challenge. he said, i do not go to mass for economic policy or things in politics. one other top republican on these issues -- senator james andimhoff. his comment on the pope's

encyclical -- the pope ought to stay with his job, and we will stay with ours. jonathan in massachusetts, my for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i can forgive the pope for being brought on an issue once in a while. i think in this case, he probably got ahead of himself of the science. i think he will make a difference among catholics. i used to be in a poker game where one of the participants was a catholic priest. we talked politics all the time. this is just the sort of argument we would have had around the poker table -- as far as climate change. i think there are a lot of3 democrats like myself that are more conservative democrats that would agree that was premature for the pope to come out promoting climate changes. the form the change will take is

for people will be affected the most. the price of a lot of things will be changed when they start trading carbon credits on wall street. the pope got it wrong. i think he is a good man and a smart man and the church has come very far on science but the pope is wrong on global warming. he will have to wait until besides all comes in. host: sandy is up next in lexington, kentucky, line for republicans. good morning. you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. i do think it will make a difference. his message is universal. if you are a christian and you don't respect there is, you are not respecting god. earth belongs to god. to think that the earth is not changing, whether it is due to

man-made or nature, people are fuller's to believe that -- people are foolish to believe that. i is caps on melting. the sea is rising. the oceans are full of tons and tons of plastic garbage that wraps around turtles and fish. it is crazy to think that he does not change. it is not a republican issue or democrat issue. it is an american issue. we have to protect the planet. people have to respect -- they cannot keep putting so much plastic and garbage. everybody needs to recycle. i think it needs to be a law. host: you are calling in on the life or republicans. you think this and that's the republican debate at all? does this topic rise of higher in the republican primary debate sts? caller: several representatives

are so negative about it. you have to -- people have to open their eyes. the earth is changing. like the german before was talking about, the nuclear power plant melting, that is not nature, that is a man-made problem. we have got to protect the earth. no matter what reason the earth is changing, you have to admit it is changing. it is harder -- hotter. the ocean is nasty. we have to protect there is. -- the earth. host: if you want to hear the thoughts of another presidential candidate, rick santorum is expected to appear on "this week" this morning and is expected to address the popes's

encyclical on climate change. kevin is in hobart, new york. caller: good morning. first off, i'm very impressed by your last caller. it is very weird to hear a republican talk about climate change that way. it was very impressive, and we need more of them to speak out. the pope is going to say what the pope is going to say. some people are going to listen and some people are not. the likelihood of a changing our politics is slim to none. we have our politics in the hands of corporations that pay them. they give the millions of dollars to run the campaign, and we expect them to what? phifer causes? five for the earth? no, of course they will not. this is politics from the bottom up and we need to start changing politics from the bottom up. that is the only way will

change. germany has almost half of its power coming from renewables maybe even more. this is something we could change tomorrow. program that does something about it, we do nothing. that is pretty much all i have to say. host: a few treats from some democratic members of congress. one writes, we are witnessing a truly global leader, thank god for pope francis. senator patrick leahy writing in, unfortunately some may persist in meeting clear moral appeals such as the pope's with politics of the nile. carol, a viewer who watches this

almost every day churchgoers do as they wish. north of boston brights it is understandable that he is interested in global warming. scott is up next from san diego life for democrats -- line for democrats. caller: i would like to think that the pope weighing in on this would have some in that on political leaders of this country and the world, but i am afraid it won't. i was raised a catholic, but have not been catholic for over 40 years. i remember the love of money doing the root of all evil. what is being done in this planet, in the pursuit of money can be nothing else but evil. a couple of colors back said that climate change was a hoax

that man has nothing to do with it. let him try this experience -- experience. bring your barbecue bill into the living room. put plastic over the windows and doors. fired up and wait 30 minutes. see how his environment changes based on his behavior. if he is alive afterwards, he will change his tune. host: pope francis with some words for climate skeptics and his encyclical that came out on thursday. he wrote that as it often occurs in periods of deep crisis, we are tempted to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. such as a sickness allows us to carry on with our current lifestyle and models of production. this is how human beings can feed their self-destructive

vices, not seeing them, not technology them, and pretending that nothing will happen. taking your calls. we have a special lines money for catholics. richard is on that line from newport, north carolina, also republican. caller: good morning. a couple of things to begin with. i agree with them -- the climate is always changing, and it will always change. if people would look at "the national geographic," they did a core sample, and they want to the bottom of the black sea. when they pulled out the core sample, they were studying it and said oh, it was caused by climate change. the encyclical that the pope

wrote, the nancy pelosi is in favor of, it also says something in there about abortion being illegal. we need to look after the unborn. i don't hear anybody speaking with talking about that. anyway, have a good day. host: can i ask you before you go, you are on the line for catholics, do you think this is an appropriate role for the pope to take? do you think this was an appropriate step for him to put out this encyclical? caller: why not? everybody has an opinion. we are supposed to listen to everybody and what they say, and make up our own minds. what? resolve problems? host: that was richard. daniel is up next and kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning.

so richard just mentioned core samples. i can't help but want to follow up on that. i'm sure most people who are scientists are aware that we can measure the carbon dioxide concentrations, going back a long time. the carbon dioxide concentrations now are high, and scientists are pretty much ink and six -- in consensus. i think that pope francis' message is important for catholics, by don't know that a lot of republicans will change their mind about the science. to be frank, the science is politicized. i don't feel like the people who are firmly in the republican camp on the issue will be swayed by. i could be wrong. host: we will go to john in ohio, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

one, i agree with your last caller. i would like to think the encyclical will move minds, but i have doubts as well for the same reasons. what really bothers me is the fact that we have been told for quite some time not to agree or disagree based on contradictory signs, but in a lot of cases we are told that science is wrong because i am saying it is wrong -- whoever that "i" is, usually politicians. that is what bothers me. at some point, you are just not sure -- a person like myself is not sure, what am i supposed to believe? you wind up taking sides, not based on information, but usually on personalities.

that is really troubling. host: "the wall street journal" in the coverage on the encyclical have a poll on the percentage of americans and u.s. catholics who believe in global warming and man's wrole in it. among all adults, those who believe the earth is warming is 16%. -- 68 percent. of course, you can see the changes among catholic democrats, catholic independents, and catholic republicans. the strongest believe that the earth is warming amongst catholic democrats. cynthia is up next from

shelbyville, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not believe that the pope pos's encyclical will have any impact on the congress, or it shouldn't anyway. he went off base here. there are plenty of scientist to our christians -- not catholics -- there is a difference, who refute the idea of climate change. the climate has always changed. it has nothing to do with what the pope says. anybody who listens to that should look at the bible, not the catholic church teachings. that is what christians follow. we are not catholics. thank you, have a good day. host: i wanted to point out that a couple of our viewers brought up the issue of abortion coming up in the popes and cyclical --

pope's encyclical, coming out on thursday. a story notes that he condemned attacks on human life, such as abortion embryonic experimentation, and population control saying that creation and human dignity go hand in hand. that story from "the national catholic register." we have a special line for catholics in this first segment of "the washington journal." mary is on that line for catholics magnolia springs, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning.

happy father's day to all the fathers out there. i did not know that as catholics were not christian. that is a surprise to me. i thought we were christian as well as catholic. that is a shocker to me. the thing about the pope. church doctrine, he is infallible. that means that we believe everything, according to church doctrine. this encyclical is not church doctrine, it is opinion. he is a wonderful man and i think that he put in the part about abortion. abortions are killing babies. mrs. pelosi, she has been told to not receive her sacraments because of her stance on

abortion. she is not considered a good catholic. we believe in life, help mary full of grace, the lord is with thee. baby jesus started at conception. we do not believe in euthanasia. that is another thing against obamacare. host: at your parish this sunday, do you expect the issue of climate change to be discussed? caller: we have to be concerned about our environment. i live down here on the coast where we had the oil spill. we cherish the ecology here. we have buried centuries. this is a very sensitive place.

for 20 years, i lived in the key s. you cannot come either something more sensitive than the keys and the everglades. man has to take responsibility and do the right thing. keep the air as possibly clean. maybe china and japan should be doing something, and india. when japan have a terrible tsunami, we are now getting the trash from what came out of japan and hawaii and the west coast. when they went to look for the playing, the both were dodging cargo stuff that was floating in the indian ocean. people over there have to learn how to clean up themselves, as well as us cleaning up. . one country cannot do it in the world. we have to be part of it, but

why should we pay for china or india. they have to start cleaning up after themselves. host: a story from "the national journal" on this topic asking this question, will catholic presidential candidates follow the pope, and should they? it writes that john f. kennedy would be stunned and appalled to the domestic reaction on the encyclical, and horrified by a rush from conservatives and liberals to brand themselves as bad catholics. as the nation's only catholic president, -- today, they have become almost or team routine. one other story from "the washington post," an op-ed from

the former secretary-general of the united nations and the former secretary treasury of the u.s. the headline -- africa's moment to lead on climate. we will get to as many as your calls as we can. scott, good morning. caller: i have not read the encyclical. we are moving on to aviation. numeral making -- new rulemaking was announced on airline omissions. the thing about aviation is it is a class struggle. the pope have a big plane, and he rips a hole in the sky every

time he crosses the pond to see us. so do third world countries with their lower wage rates. the places that we find are changing. the epa has decided to wait for the united nations to roule on the proper airline regulations. that happened this month. host: that is got in independence, missouri. the epa also eyeing a supreme court case, expected to come out before the end of this term talking about the obama administration climate policies. it is something that we will certainly cover here, along with the high-profile case on the affordable care act, waiting for that to come down from the supreme court. in health care news this morning, a story making national headlines -- anthem on saturday

announced an offer to acquire in cignasigna. last month humana announced exploring to sell it itself. "the new york times" notes that parfitt margins -- profit margins have come under pressure . that story is an "the new york times" and several other papers this morning. of course, the shooting in charleston making plenty of headlines this morning. here is the state newspaper out of south carolina. talking about the confederate fight flying at the south carolina capitol building. the flag relocated to the

grounds of the building by a state law in 2000. certainly much debate on government on the fly. several tweets from, including one from the romney saying, take down the confederate flag, to many it is a sign of -- president obama responding saying, good point, mitt. chris murphy said, the inability of the gop presidential field to get consensus on the confederate flag terrifies me. finally, jared huffman says that

the flag represents racism, hate and murder, the same as a swastika which we would never allow on the license plate or flying over a building. certainly, much debate on that topic. we have a few more minutes to discuss the pope's encyclical on climate change. james has been waiting from new york, life or immigrants. caller: -- line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to respond to all the climate deniers out there. number one, the glaciers are melting. the oceans are rising. i just saw a documentary a couple of nights ago about the satellite imagery of all the aquifers that are drying up and collapsing around the world. how much evidence do you need? parts of california are dropping

one foot per year because the aquifers are collapsing as they dry up. that means they will never be able to be replenished. i cannot see why anyone would deny the fact that the climate is changing. 100,000 years ago, the volcanoes where the polluters. now, man is the polluter. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: we have a special line for catholic viewers, john is waiting on that line also in new york, john is a democrat. caller: i have a question for republicans. i just have to ask this. host: we are listening. caller: why do they always denied everything? i think sometimes they don't believe in science sometimes. it scares me. if you go overseas or to any other country out there, they

believe in science. united states, we have republicans lying to republicans about science. the device to them about everything. that scares me. when the pope goes out and tries to say that climate change is real, you hear all the crackpots out there saying, no, it is not real, i don't believe it. if they don't want to believe in science anymore, stop saying you are christian. it really really scares me. the republicans overwhelmingly l lie to people. host: you are calling on the life or catholics, what do you think of this pope? caller: i like him. host: we talk about climate change in your parish this morning? caller: i hope so. host: john calling in from new

york this morning. we have a special line for catholics. also waiting on that line is dan in corpus christi, texas. an independent. caller: good morning and happy father's day. to the last caller, i would refer him to a 1964 nobel prize broke called "anti- intellectualism in america. go back to whether the pope is doing his job, i think he is. the bible refers to doing good works. this is a community and he is referencing the community, and how it needs to survive. we do provide for ourselves. that is what economics is about. the pope is opining in a way that he is using his best knowledge to do that. that is his job to do that. for people different -- to say that is on biblical or wrong, i

think they are wrong. host: how often does pope francis, or his opinions, come up in your parish? caller: i stopped going. i used to be a lawyer. i sued a doctor, and my whole community came on me. i stopped going to church because i got dirty looks from people. i don't know. host: a few tweets from viewers as they have been following along. john smith writes that some politics and religion do not mix well, even in a blender. add one more tweet from north of boston writes, maybe more people will make up their mind on global warning. let's go to robert in brooklyn, new york. caller: statements previously

made by the media logically association and national academy of science affirmed climate change, i doubt that a statement by the pope will help. host: we will now go to stevie and washington. good morning. caller: i think the pope and his people better wake up. the weather is changing. they are manipulating it. do you ever notice around the sun, it is called solar radiation management. the government owns the government. i live on the coast. after two days of watching jets yesterday, there were massive 10 tales -- chemtrails behind the

jets. caller: good morning. the reason i wanted to call is what is inside aquifers? water. we put it in bottles on the shelf. that is one of the reasons that the aquifers are cracking. i do agree with the pope that man has aided in the warming of the climate. i am convinced that if we take the water off the grocery shelves, and put it back in the aquifers, that will help a lot. why do the republicans not like science? because, when it comes to money and science, money will win every time. they are making millions of dollarss. water has become the new goal. host: our last caller in this

segment. up next, we will be joined by whole "washington post" national political reporter, robert costa on his experience covering the shooting and trusting, south carolina. later, we will talk about hate laws with william youmans. first, bill cassidy is our guest this week on "newsmakers." during our interview, which as today at 10:00 and 6:00 p.m., he was asked about republican bills to replace the affordable care act. here is a bit. [video clip] them of this leadership plan that you have talked about -- there are other plans -- how close are republicans to having one cohesive solution that you can present not only to members, but to the public, and say, this is our alternative.

>> the specific point that you mentioned that there is commitment so that those folks who are currently receiving subsidies to purchase insurance -- insurance, by the way, that obama mandates have increased the cost of dramatically. we do not want a woman in the middle of chemotherapy to lose the insurance that she needs to pay for the care that she needs. there is a consensus that we will hold a woman, that family, that person harmless. with regards to a replacement -- the decision against obamacare word effectively repeal a portion of obamacare. there is not consensus on whether we should put forth a plan to replace that segment. the patient freedom act reforms that. host: it seems like one of the issues is how you protect those people.

some people want to restore the subsidies. some people are worried that doing so would be seen as embracing obamacare. you think the party can get together and one cohesive voice on that? caller:>> i do think so. obamacare implemented the law illegally. that is what will be determine if the supreme court rules against him. premiums have skyrocketed since obamacare past. the president talks about the cost of health care being flat. he is right. it started before obamacare, but he is right. the cost of premiums has gone up like this. host: you can watch the entire "newsmakers" program today at 10:00 after "washington journal" and again at 6:00 p.m. here at our desk, robert costa national political reporter from

"the washington post." last week, he like many reporters were in trusting, south carolina for what they expected to be a busy day for the 2060 presidential trail. can you talk about that night. guest: it has been a tragic week. i flew into charleston wednesday night, went to my hotel and was prepared to cover jeb bush. on thursday, he was going to have a town hall meeting. i was monitoring news checking e-mail and i saw the breaking news that there was a shooting in downtown charleston at emmanuel ame church. i said, that is close by. i.e. about my editor and said, i will head down there. known was sure at the time what was happening. it was 9:00, the police were still investigating things, no

one was sure of the fatalities. i went down there and stay down there, and worked for 24 straight hours, following it minute by minute. it was unreal. host: dozens of stories in "the washington post" you seem to have your name on a lot of them. that being down there to do coverage the most? guest: i think, being there when this was unfolding. when there was an active manhunt . when there was the scene around the church that was tense, and people were not sure what was happening. i head down to calhoun street, and there was a bomb threat there around midnight. all the reporters were pushed back. the first thing that stood with me was around 1:00 a.m., there was a press conference. this is where i first met mayor riley.

they had a press conference where they said they were looking for the suspect and here is what happened. charleston was very quiet. host: you bring up mayor riley. can you talk about him as a mayor and how he impacted the community there, and also the debate since the shooting? guest: he is implementing on how much leadership matters in a

crisis situation. he is a progressive democrat. in terms of his demeanor, his words clearly set the tone of the official response in washington. he and the police chief -- they kept saying that this is a hate crime and that they would pursue it as such. that reassured many members of the african-american community who wanted to make sure it was pursue that way. for mayor riley he has fought for flying the confederate flag in the state capital for over a decade. he was part of the over 40,000 that marched and got some notoriety for that. he has worked to mend me racial relations.

he is unique because it has firm relations in the african-american community the white community, and different communities all around. host: we are talking about the coverage of the charleston shooting, and some debates coming from the shooting with robert costa, national political reporter from "the washington post." if you want to join the conversation republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. and a special line for charleston residents, (202) 748-8003. as folks call in, i want to ask you about reverend pinckney. who is he? guest: a major force. he was the head of emmanuel ame, a pastor, estate senator --

a state senator. it has been devastating to talk to members of the church about come into -- about pinckney. he was no to the white house and state leaders as a real up and comer. he had a booming voice, a tall man. on the night of his death, he was rushing from the state capital and committee meetings and columbia to make sure he made the bible study in charleston. that is who he was. host: here is the front page of "the washington post." the suspects ran reveals hostility. you normally cover campaign trails. is there an exit tatian that you

have seen for presidential candidates to weigh in, and how long to wait before chiming in. whether be built confederate fight is -- whether it be the confederate fight issue, or guns. guest: i think the presence of candidates are reluctant to have any political conversation, but the political conversation is here. president obama brought up gun control in his remarks. you had mitt romney talk about how it is necessary to bring down the confederate battle five from the state capitol grounds. even if you don't want to weigh in well, the issues are already here. you are seeing the candidates in the last couple of days grappling with how to respond. this is a state that is powerful lyrically, one of the key states in the primary process. you do not have a lot of forceful comments to take it

down, as you do on the democratic side. host: president obama has spoken several times since the shooting. here is part of his statement from friday at the national conference of mayors referencing some of his earlier statements on gun control. [video clip] president obama: i know today's politics makes unlikely that we see any serious gun safety legislation. i remarks that it was unlikely that this congress would act. some reporters, i think, took this as resignation. i want to be clear, i'm not resigned. i have faith that we will eventually do the right thing. [applause] president obama: i was simply making the point that we have to move public opinion. we have to feel a sense of urgency.

ultimately, congress will follow the people. we have to stop being confused about this. at some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. it is not good enough simply to show sympathy. host: is that statement unusual for the president to have to come out and say -- i was not resigned in the first statement i made? guest: we see the president encouraging congress to take action. you do not see the energy on capitol hill to pursue this even in light of tragedy. host: we are take your calls for

the next 35 minutes or so. lou is up first in highland park , illinois. by for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. my, is that each state has very strict gun control laws, but for very few, a small segment of the population -- for example, try walking into any of our state capitals with the gun, you will be arrested. each governor or assistant governor has protection from state troopers, primarily to keep guns away from them. to me, this entire situation is very paradoxical. every person in america should have the same protection as our governors and vice governors. host: that is lou in highland park, illinois.

governors and state officials are weighing in as well. we have talked about some of the reaction from candidates. [video clip] >> on gun control, you are not seeing much action. it has been tethered to the tragedy, rather than bringing up any legislation. i think that frustrates the caller, who would like to see that happen. the partisanship on capitol hill, the way the gun laws have the support of many on the republican side, and democratic side, to some extent means that the momentum that you would need to get by partisangr legislation out is on the desk. i don't see compromise yet from people who are frustrated and angry about what happened in charleston. host: former texas governor rick perry made a statement yesterday

on the charleston shooting. here is what the former governor had to say. [video clip] rick perry: we all come here today with heavy hearts for the charleston christians who were gunned down in an absolutely heinous hate crime inside of their place of worship. that deranged individual did not just take the lives of black americans. he gunned down nine children of god. there is something more basic to our humanity that the color of our skin, our ethnic heritage our nationality. we are all made in the image of a loving god. we cannot let hatred and violence break the ties that bind us together.

we need to proclaim loudly every day that we are one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause]

he is a presiding elder and he just came outside and told me about the scene inside and brought me upstairs. it is so horrific.

that politics has a place to play in the broader discussion, but really i think rick perry and others are just trying to say they stand with the victims. >> a tweet on her twitter feed. it is not a gun control problem. john mcardle: we have someone in florida on the independent line good morning. caller: good morning. john mcardle: go ahead with your comment. caller: i find it incomprehensible that -- the confederate flag. they're stuck in the 1800s. in the civil war. the civil war has been over for a long time. it's time they come into the 21st century. i believe they were the last state to segregate schools. there the last state -- to

desegregate schools. i believe they want to be the last state to do everything. john mcardle: the washington post story here. were you part of that coverage? robert costa: i was a contributor to that story. my colleague is down there in charleston today on the ground doing excellent work. the washington post -- this has been a team effort. dozens of people come from the newsroom to provide a breaking news product. the flag -- in the first what you for hours, we are covering the manhunt and the suspect. after the suspect is caught, the coverage turns to the surrounding issues. the confederate flag has bubbled up as a central one. a lot of people have different opinions on how to move forward. i interviewed former mississippi

governor haley barbour. he defined it to me as a piece of heritage. he said it had nothing to do with the crime. he was taking a pretty strong position that it should stay on the ground of the state capital. he made the case that there have been slaveowners in american history, this does not mean your change history. a lot of people disagree with that. that is his position. others are saying this is a moment where you can seize on all of the unity to work with the victims and make people in south carolina more affected by this tragedy feel better. taking down the flag would do that. state legislature will have to decide. governor nikki haley wants to let the discussion continue. i think mitt romney's comments are really telling. a national political figure in the republican party is nudging his own ranks to consider more deeply getting rid of it. john mcardle: mitt romney tweeting about that yesterday.

we want to hear your thoughts this morning. john is in newark, new jersey. line for independents. good morning. caller: how are you doing, john? john mcardle: good. caller: i am an 80-year-old man. i am a korean war veteran. i am in a can american man. -- i am an african american man. i think barack obama has the message wrong. he is talking about gun security and the problem with guns. the problem is not with guns in this case here. the problem is racism. one of your callers called in and says that this man was a coward because he wouldn't -- because he shot people who were unarmed. and was just going hunting after

sheep and shooting them down. they don't have any cover any way to hide themselves. talking about the lag. the confederate flag is just like a swastika. it is just like the japanese flag with the rising sun. it is like -- if you took a german flag and fluid over a jewish neighborhood how would they feel. we feel the same way about that confederate flag. and eric holder had it right. that white people -- you have a lot of good white people in the world, and i can testify to that but you have a lot of them that are cowards. they want to hide behind -- they are shapes. they want to hide behind saying i am not a racist, i like black people, and they really don't.

they are just cowards as much as this young man. john mcardle: that is john in newark, new jersey. the shooter in this incident tied to a racist post. you can see pictures that have surfaced from a website that he ran called the last rhodesian .com. it was shut down, but the photos , including one with dylan roof holding a confederate flag there. whenrobert costa: when you read the manifesto, his whole perspective, the devastatingly off view of the world -- there is a ray of light when you read it. and it is that he had all this anger, all this racism, and in spite of that, he could not find accomplices to help him out. he says there is no kkk.

he says there is no one else who is articulating his position very few people out there are white supremacist. he felt he had to act alone. so my point is that in spite of all he has done, there is not a massive movement out there that he saw. so the color is right. this is all about racism. this is higher motive based on the manifesto is racism. it is still a pressing problem. one of the first things i heard in charleston was about walter scott, the tragedy in north charleston. people in the south and in south carolina still feel that race is a part of their lives in a way they would prefer it not to be. they would like to see more peace and understanding. john mcardle: new york city is

next. maxine is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i give my condolences for the nine beautiful black people that were murdered by this thug that nobody wants to say -- john mcardle: we can hear you. caller: i will be frank. why black people are not mad at what happened? i am very angry. i am not going to forgive white people for this. they have been doing stuff like this since we were on the slave ships. they have to stop. there has to be a big backlash against these people. they don't get it. they are very envious and jealous of the black race. no matter what they put us through, we are still strong. we are survivors and this is our country because we were forced to build it. we are not going nowhere. our numbers are getting big no matter where you drop us off. we are in big numbers to hear it we are not going anywhere.

i am very angry about this. i don't forgive them for what they are doing to us. john mcardle: maxine in new york. can you talk about the race debate as you saw it on the ground develop from wednesday night? robert costa: charleston has a troubled history when it comes to racial history. this is a place where slaves were brought in. there are still the remnants of a slave market in charleston not far from ame emmanuel. the tensions from the past, the crimes from the past haunt the city. but in the last 40 years under mayor raililey, a move for peace. this is a city that hasn't had uproar in the streets decade after decade. you have seen a lot of growth in charleston and charleston deserves credit for moving forward in a lot of ways.

but i think the caller, the anger is there there were not mass protests in charleston. but it is right beneath the surface in almost every conversation. people kept telling the two things on the ground. one, this is a charleston. charleston is better than this. they are really protective of the progress charleston has made, black or white. they are proud of their city. at the same time when they look broadly, nationally, they worry that what they have tried to do the last few years in charleston , come together and not have unrest, they see it in the country and it is back at their doorstep. john mcardle: do you think the walter scott shooting at all impacted the debate as it has played out? robert costa: i think so. there is an impetus to not let

the issues of gun control or policing or anything touched by race -- to leave it to the side. to address it now. these issues are here and they cannot be avoided. john mcardle: south carolina bud is on the line. caller: good morning. i'm glad to get in. i have tried and never made it. i just wanted to tell our so-called commander in chief that it is not going un control we need, it's god control. he has done everything possible to throw god out of everywhere. the military, the schools. killing 52 million plus babies in the womb. this country will be under the judgment of god. they're going to answer to this wickedness. it says when the wicked rule,

the righteous will weep. we are weeping and we are mad. john mcardle: bud in south carolina. due to talk what the impact in churches of south carolina since wednesday? -- do you want to talk about the impact in churches in south carolina? robert costa: do you need to have metal detectors on the doors of churches? the friends of the deceased have spoken to city employees teachers, pastors. these people were in a bible study. charleston is a place where religion is a focus of many people's lives. there is a real question of safety now. people realize dylan roof is a unique case. you do not have these mass shootings at churches regularly. but they worry, what else is out there, are there copycats.

dylan roof did not succeed in dividing charleston. the city for the most part has stuck very much together and it has been powerful to watch. at the same time the nerves persist because of what he has done. john mcardle: we have about 10 minutes left. we are with robert costa national political reporter who was in charleston for what was expected to be campaign coverage last week and turned into something very different. jim is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 60 years old. i live in charleston. ira member when the first black kids were brought to our schools. we took them in with loving arms. you had a caller that said we are last in everything. we have worked so hard to eliminate racism. that flag is part of our ancestors battle to get away

from the government. i wish all of the outsiders out there would not label us racists. we are not racists here. we are loving people. come visit south carolina. you will see for yourself. thank you very much. john mcardle: here's the front page of the state newspaper in south carolina. the killings reignite the debate on the flag. more than 1500 attended an anti-flag rally. michael is an raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: hello. i have been out here in raleigh for 25 years. since the election of barack obama, the racism here has gone through the roof. just yesterday after this incident, i was in a little town

just outside of the raleigh area. you have guys, i guess they are proud or something but on a day like that, the day after nine people were murdered, running around with rebel flags american flags just proud as hell. i don't get it. it all stems -- what i have seen in the last 25 years -- from a black man taking the presidency of the united states. these outsiders, really? this is america. john mcardle: can you talk about president obama and how you think his administration is going to be remembered on the issue of race relations in this country? robert costa: i think you will be remembered as someone who tried to make progress on many of these fronts. his work with young african-american males and

females as well in particular i think is striking in trying to provide an example to young people who are african-american. but also of all backgrounds. i think he has tried with his attorney general and his administration to bring people together. he is the first african-american president. that alone has set -- made him a historic figure. i think the frustrations that are out there about the racial problems in this country don't derive from president obama. there are historic tensions that persist. when i was in charleston reporting this with my notebook, i heard very little about president obama. it was more about the question of history. was this a war between the states or was this a symbol of racism and slavery that offends and should be taken down?

that was the debate. not so much about president obama. john mcardle: you think he is going to go down to charleston at some point? do think the 2016 candidates will be back? robert costa: i have not confirmed with the white house. i would assume that the president will head down to charleston at some point. it will be intriguing to see how republicans go down there. because the issue is sensitive with the flag. conservatives have different opinions. it is going to be a test for voters to see how candidates handled this moment. you often cover the big issue but what you really watch is how people handle things. how do they respond to the unexpected? that is a test of leadership that is much more telling than a policy paper or a speech. how do they handle charleston? what do they do when they go down there?

what do they say? what don't they say? john mcardle: bobby jindal is expected to announce in the coming week. do you think he will make some reference to charleston? john mcardle: i'mrobert costa: i'm not so sure. he may have to. things change, the tides turn, howdy respond? you may want to talk about immigration or foreign policy, but things happen in america and you have to respond. he is a longshot contender at this point. two-term governor of louisiana. it is a crowded field. how did he find room? how did he make himself seen as someone other than just "i am the hard right"? john mcardle: monica is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the previous caller saying that when

the wicked is empowered the people suffer. i would like to say who is empowered when black people were enslaved? when black people dealt with segregation and hanging's? i would like to know who was empowered been. the ministration that was empowered started the unjust war. but also like to say that we call ourselves a christian nation. but the bible tells us, how can you have love god you have never seen if you cannot love your fellow man who you see every day? and it also says god has not given us the spirit of fear, but the spirit of power, love, and sound mind. so what is the reason for all the guns? i don't believe it is for hunting. it is out of fear. fear of what? if you are a christian nation, you have nothing to fear but god. that is all i would like to say. thank you. john mcardle: we have that line open for charleston residents. if you want to call in during this segment.

kathy is on that line in south carolina. she is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to call and say that i am really sorry for what happened to the people down in charleston this week. but i think when you look at what has happened since then and the love that is outpouring from everybody, black-and-white, that i don't think we should be tarred as a racist state and a racist people here. it is just not right. john mcardle: what did you do the next day after the shooting? have you been down past the church? caller: no. right now i live about an hour drive from there and i am 68 years old. i lived there from 2003 to 2010. it is a beautiful city.

i don't think it deserves to be talked about like that. i think that people like alfred sharpton, that he is just mad because he can't start a race riot here. john mcardle: that is kathy in south carolina. robert costa, do you agree with the sense that she gave of the outpouring in charleston? robert costa: there has been an outpouring. everything is complicated. charleston clearly still has some issues. there are people who say charleston has developed a lot and brought in a lot of business and respect mayor riley very much. but bringing in all the tour is meant business, the black neighborhoods have been pushed out. the city has lost some of its vibrancy. the street were ame emmanuel is is now full of hotels and high-end restaurants. charleston is a beautiful place. i love going down there to cover

presidential campaigns. i remember from the 1:00 a.m. press conference and then the 7:00 a.m. second and third conference. i went to the waterfront and there was a beautiful sunrise over the port of charleston. it was just gorgeous as all this pain was unfolding and the mayor and police chief or dealing with the crisis. you just thought to yourself, in spite of everything that happens, this is a city that takes your breath away. all you do is wish the best for the people there. robert costa: just ajohn mcardle: gary in sterling, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say i see a lot of people laming president obama because he has allowed all these abortions. my question to all these pro-life profamily people is, what would they do with a single point woman who has two juvenile delinquents, one crack cocaine

child, and to severe fetal alcohol syndrome children whom she called her best behaved because they sat in front of the tv for eight hours didn't say a word to each other or me, and the only time she smiled was when i asked her because she told the fetal -- the cocaine child that she should have left him in the incubator. john mcardle: gary, do you have a question? or a thought about the charleston shooting? caller: yes. i bet you that mr. roof was one of these antiabortionists type people. john mcardle: that was scary in sterling, virginia. what we know about dylan roof at this point? robert costa: we know he had a trouble existence. he has been sleeping on a couch with friends and a small home for the last few months.

he has for relations with his mother and father. he has not been able to keep a job. we know he has dabbled in drugs including cocaine. he is someone who has drifted towards the french, the extreme racist fringe of american life. he was not known by many people. he did not have many close friends. 21 years old, had a weapon. very troubled. john mcardle: harold on the line for democrats is up next. caller: good morning. thank you for having this show. i wanted to comment on the angry black woman that blamed all the white people. she didn't watch and see the white people that were out there supporting them? i think that is where the race thing comes up. we group everybody together. what i really called about is the flag.

where else do we defeat somebody and they still get to raise their flag with ours? if we defeat isis, are we going to let them raise their flag, or are we going to make them take their flag down? john mcardle: sally is waiting in charlestown, rhode island. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i live in connecticut. there are many good reasons to believe that the sandy hook shooting did not take place as we were told. and i'm starting to believe that some of these other events, mainly boston and even charleston, are just a way for this administration to get rid of our guns. john mcardle: are you saying you don't believe children were killed at sandy hook? caller: absolutely not.

john mcardle: david on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning to mr. costa, i have a question for you. robert costa: ok. caller: a while back, they had april ryan on. she has a book, the presidency black and white. she says race matters. do you believe -- do you agree with that statement? robert costa: the statement that race matters? caller: yes. robert costa: are you talking about in politics? in the world? i think race matters in the sense that it continues to be an issue across the country. we covered at the washington post. -- we cover it at the washington post. we see it and racial shootings by police -- we see it in racial shootings by police. we are watching a country

grappling with violence that has racial overtones. in the case of dylan roof, clearly racially motor -- motivated. so does raise matter? yes it does. john mcardle: michael is on the line. thanks for joining us. caller: thank you for having me. my father is in the u.s.. my mother is from here in the u.k.. i spent about 15 years of my life in the united states. i have spent more time on this side of the atlantic, hence my accent. the one thing i will say is that i feel in the u.k. safer because we have the necessary gun control laws. i go to the united states, i have dual citizenship, i have the right to bear arms and vote in presidential elections.

i am registered in ohio. the one thing i really think the united states needs to do is put its hands up and say, look, and amendment is an amendment. it can be altered. i think it is mental that people start looking at things -- and when people bring things like race into it, i'm going to leave you on this, i really think you should ask the native american population what they think about race relations in the united states. because i think until that issue is dealt with, you are always going to have divisions in the united states that as a country, as a people. and the united states is supposed to be a nation indivisible. and yet these divisions -- i just think that that is quite sad. john mcardle: i will give you the last 30 seconds or so. robert costa: when it comes to gun control, you have a republican presidential field that is almost in lockstep when it comes to the issue of guns

and being fervent advocates of the second amendment. to get something through on capitol hill with the presidential campaign happening will be very difficult. i don't hear one candidate talking about expanded background checks. you don't hear congressional leaders moving forward with this. republicans control both the house and the senate. where does it come from? the president may desire it, but it needs people to push it through. those people are not there. there'll probably be some disappointment unless there is really a sea change. john mcardle: robert costa with the washington post. thanks for coming to join us this morning. up next, we will talk about the history of hate crimes and hate crime laws in this country. we'll be joined by former deputy assistant attorney general william yeomans. later former health and sex -- former health and human services secretary michael leavitt.

he will be talking about king v. burwell. we are taking you to the southernmost city in the united states on or c-span cities tour. we are traveling to key west, florida for booktv and american history tv. we will put all of our history programming together in one block. >> president truman spent 175 vacation days, 11 working vacations were spent in this house. after he left the presidency he was to return five additional times. we have him in key west for 16 vacations, 11 as president. he had great fun with his staff although he personally did not like fishing. he would go out fishing with his staff. in order to bet on the biggest catch. a sportswear company sent a case of hawaiian shirts to the president with the thought that

if he is wearing her shirt we will sell a lot of shirts. president truman wore those free shirts that first year and then organized what they call the loud shirt contest. that was the official uniform of key west. it was fun to all your long for the craziest tropical shirt you can find so the president was often seen wearing these loud shirts. the press corps followed suit. they were loud shirts, too. they formed a little group of which present refer to them as the one more club, because they were always hollering, just one more mr. president, please. john mcardle: join us this weekend on booktv and american history tv as our c-span cities tour explores the history of key west.

william yeomans is at our desk. he is the former assistant attorney general. loretta lynch said that the department of justice is looking into whether this was a hate crime. define what a federal hate crime is. william yeomans: hate crime is a generic term, not a legal term. it applies to a number of federal statutes. the central one is a law that was just passed in 2009. it is the successor to a law passed in 1968. it is worthwhile to think back to the fact that, for decades congress tried to enact an anti-lynching law during the jim crow area. southern senators successfully ella bustard that law --

filibustered that law until 1968. what that did was to establish a law that said that it is a crime to use force or threats of force against someone because of their race and because they are engaged in a federally protected activity. those are laid out in the statute. it is things like voting, acting as a jerk, attending a public school. that was a limitation on the law designed to restrict the jurisdictional reach of the statute. for a long time, there was a push to expand that law by doing away with the federally protected activity piece of it for racially motivated violence. finally in 2009, after years of trying, congress did pass the hate crime -- the matthew shepard james byrd hate crime act.

that said flat out that it is a crime to use force against someone because of their race color, or religion. john mcardle: if dylan roof is convicted under that law, what does it mean for him? william yeomans: he can be subjected to extensive penalties. the act itself does not authorize the death penalty, but if it is combined with a firearms violation, it can be a capital crime. he could be subject to the death penalty. there are other statutes that could apply here. one in particular which is called the church arson prevention act was passed in the mid-1990's after a spate of burnings of african-american churches. congress passed the law making it a crime to damage church property or to interfere with someone's exercise of their religious beliefs. certainly a shooting of people in church in bible study seems to fit that statute as well.

that explicitly carries the death penalty. john mcardle: a lot of reporting yesterday about this racist website that dylan roof had posted. is that going to be a key part of the evidence here? what is the extra burden of proof to make it a hate crime conviction? william yeomans: the challenge is always to establish the racial motivation. frequently, that is murky. in this case, it appears that it may not be murky at all. what investigators will do is look at all the things like the website, all his social media activity. they will talk to all of his friends, associates. they will try to track down all of his activities leading up to the awful shooting. they will try to establish that this was motivated by his desire to kill african-americans. one of the things that is sometimes difficult in these cases is that you have people who have some racist activity in

their background, but it is difficult to make the connection between the racist beliefs and the actual commission of the crime. but in this instance, at least the preliminary reports are that we have him saying, contemporaneously while he was committing the killings, that he was doing it because of race. john mcardle: william yeomans is our guest. we're talking about the history of federal hate crime law. if you want to join the conversation republicans (202) 748-8001, (202) 748-8000 democrats, independents (202) 748-8002. william yeomans is a law and government fellow at american universities washington college of law. we appreciate your time. we will start with muriel in florida. for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to say this person was just evil. he is just evil. i hope people control themselves. i hope it doesn't make it worse by people taking it out on everybody and things happen after this. i just hope people keep calm. people like this boy should be put to death. people like that -- our tax money should not be pay for him to go to trial. like all the others that went into schools and all of the rest of the places that they killed so many people. they should be put to death instead of having a trial for them. and another thing. why was this person thinking of going into a place where he knew

he could never get away with it that maybe had guns? he decided to go to this place where he went to the church. john mcardle: you talk to little bit about the death penalty component. can you expand on that? william yeomans: it is available. it is by no means certain. i really feel compelled to respond to the caller's suggestion that he should be put to death without a trial. i would not want to live in a society where people were not entitled to due process to determine their guilt or innocence. what'll happen is there will be a federal investigation and a state investigation. a decision will be made as to which jurisdiction will prosecute first. in the normal instance states are usually allowed to go ahead and prosecute. if the charges are adequate and if they do an adequate job of

presenting the evidence and if the outcome vindicates the federal interest, the federal government will stand down. in some instances, the federal government goes first because there are advantages to a federal prosecution. in some instances, the federal government will prosecute after there has been a state prosecution that was either unsuccessful or did not fully vindicate the federal interest. john mcardle: on the hate crime's component, south carolina is one of five states without a state hate crime law. what does that mean? william yeomans: under south carolina law, he can only be prosecuted for the regular crimes without the hate crime component. but he can still be prosecuted for capital murder. certainly the trial will be about his motivation and the fact that he was racially motivated. it may not have a big difference in the outcome. the importance of the hate element at the state level is

that it primarily makes a very important statement about what the prosecution is about. in instances that are short of capital offenses, it can enhance the penalties. it is important to distinguish between the state and federal government for those purposes. without the racial motivation, the federal government may not have jurisdiction over a case. congress can only create crimes according to the powers it is given in the constitution. has to act according to one of its prescribed powers and it does not have plenary authority to enact a federal criminal code. it has to be acting to enforce some particular provision of the constitution. in this instance the 13th amendment or the interstate commerce clause. establishing the racial motivation establishes the federal interest in a hate crime prosecution. john mcardle: for the stats on federal hate crimes and hate

crimes reported to the federal government, here is the stats from 2013. 5,922 hate crime is thence reported to the federal government. a breakdown by the fbi of how the lines that those breakdown along racial bias was about half of all of those hate crimes incidents. sexual orientation being the bias for a little over 20%. religious affiliation 17.4%, ethnicity 11%, disability and gender also coming in. you can check those out on the fbi website. we are talking with william yeomans about the history of federal hate crime laws. j is in temple hills, maryland. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment and two suggestions.

first, -- i know they are walking distance from your studio. would you please consider when there are topics of interest to the black community that we hear from not just statistics but from people that have boots on the ground. you have african-american newspapers. there are many sources in the black community. please don't me off. -- please don't cut me off. in south american apartheid they had a reconciliation. . period. in germany, they had to acknowledge that runs were done. that would never happen here. clinton got close. representative every year

introduces a bill that never gets out of office to be considered to study the effects of slavery in the black community. there are a lot of people both black and white the need to be educated on the effects of slavery. there was a young lady the other day that said chinese immigrants came here and build the country. they were not lynched or killed for not working. and they were paid. this was free labor. they came here for a better life in america after the labor of slaves had built up the country. a true reconciliation. . john mcardle: as somebody who worked closely on civil rights issues during your time at the justice department, a policy for slaver and the assessment on the impacts of the black community. william yeomans: we have never

fully come to grips with our legacy of slavery. we still have an enormous gaping racial wound as john stewart called the other night. we have approached it in fits and starts, but we have never been willing to follow through on comprehensive treatment of the issue. we need to do it. the only hope is that tragic incidents like this one can spur us on to more serious commitments. we have civil rights laws which are very important laws. antidiscrimination laws, anti-racial violence laws. they need to be enforced. there are so many areas where we have not come to grips with our racial divide. in recent months, we have seen

the criminal justice system and the problems in that system elevated to national attention. that is enormously important. that has to continue. this horrible incident is another instance that we need to find the positive aspects in it and use it to move forward to deal with these enormous problems. simply looking at the socioeconomic problems of people in this country based on race that are clearly a result of our racial history. his astonishing. median household wealth for african-americans is less than 1/10 of what it is for white house old. facts like that are just overwhelming and we need to address them. our politics have prevented us from doing it. people need to keep pushing to get these issues to the

forefront and make change happen. john mcardle: patricia is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the incident in charleston. and how people want to come and say this is an isolated incident, this guy was crazy or whatever. people don't want to admit that racism is alive and well. a lot of the rhetoric on the conservative radio conservative tv, fox news, all of this rhetoric -- i have called into fox news several times and i left messages and i was so angry with what i hear. ever since president obama was elected the first term, 24/7 they are condemning this man. i hate to say this, but bill

o'reilly said the reason for people are poor is because they are lazy. i called in several times and left a message and i told him the rhetoric that you all are giving the public is going to cause a race war. just wait and see. five years ago, i was walking down the street going to catch the bus to my job here in houston, texas. i was on the street on a saturday morning. two white guys came by and a truck and opened the door to get out of the truck and i started running. this is what they told me. these are the words they told me. run. n-word, take your a-s-s back to africa. this guy they pulled his head off, dragged him, in west texas several years ago.

people ignore this. it is only getting worse. if you read what the guy that killed the people in south carolina said, he said i made up my mind when i saw the trayvon martin and george zimmerman case. all of this is connected together. it is not getting any better. i know this because i make it my business to watch and see what is going on. john mcardle: patricia in houston, texas. on to this issue of hate crimes. has it been proven that hate crime laws have reduced the number of such crimes? william yeomans: it is very hard to establish that a law has been effective in reducing crime because you are trying to measure something that doesn't happen. but i think there is no question that there is significance to having hate crime prosecutions. what we are saying as a society is that we will not tolerate racially motivated violence. i think it is extremely

important that people be brought to justice for engaging in hate crimes. i think that stopping hate motivated violence is a much broader enterprise than simply enforcing criminal law. it goes back to what we were talking about earlier, which is that we need to address the broader problems of racism in our society. that is how we will get beyond this. john mcardle: on the legal side, there was a push to call this an act of terrorism versus a hate crime. can you talk about the legal differences. william yeomans: if it is an act of terrorism without racial motivation, it does not fall under the laws i have described. i think it is in or missing important to keep the focus on race. this is an active -- we can call it racial terrorism. it is an act of racially motivated violence intended to send a very loud and terrifying message to the african-american community. you are not even safe in the sanctuaries of your churches. and that is a powerful, and or

mislead disturbing -- a message we cannot tolerate. that is only part of the solution. john mcardle: mark is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: what about the terror to whites when the d.c. shooters? remember them guys? and the guy on the train that wanted to get up until white people? fort hood? i could go on and on, but you never get involved in that. you never talk about that being racially motivated. it's always when a white guy shoots blacks. william yeomans: i think it goes back to the history of our country. we have a long history of racially motivated violence of white on african-american violence.

obviously those other incidences are serious crimes. they were prosecuted. they were taken very seriously by the justice system. there is no dearth of laws to take care of those instances. i think criminal laws against racially aggravated violence are an outgrowth of the civil rights movement and our recognition that our society has a deeply embedded grain of racially motivated violence that obviously goes back to slavery. racially motivated violence was the foundation of slavery. it is what kept the system going. through the jim crow years racially motivated violence was persistent as an element of social control. there were over 4000 lynchings of african-americans during the jim crow era. those lynchings were public affairs that were intended to terrify the african-american population. white on black racially motivated violence has a special

place in our history and i think has a special place in our legal system. john mcardle: usa today was talking about the history of hate crime laws. they note that some opponents have argued that the expansion of hate crime laws created a special class of victims. other side as a threat to freedom of speech, making it possible to prosecute those opposed to homosexuality. your thoughts? william yeomans: those are humans are just wrong. in order to be prosecuted, you have to commit a crime. you have to engage in violence. that is otherwise a crime. every hate crime that the federal government prosecutes is a crime under state law. everything that is prosecuted as a hate crime is already a crime. there not some independent means of suppressing free thought. that is just misguided. john mcardle: what about the idea of treating a special class of victims? william yeomans: it is not a special class. what it says is -- it doesn't

say only certain classes are covered. it is the racial motivation that is covered. while african-americans are a particularly dramatically affected group lots of other groups are affected. our federal hate crimes apply to religion as well. they have been used in response to attacks on christian churches, on mosques synagogues. fairly broadly. it is not create in special classes. john mcardle: in labeling a crime a hate crime, is it to bring awareness to the public so we can deal with the hate that is still out there? william yeomans: absolutely. hate crime laws are in or mislead important. what we as a society choose to say, we say that this form of violence is particularly heinous and we are going to punish it. i think that is an enormously

important message and it is a message that was so important that southern senators felt it was necessary to block it for decades. even after the law was enacted it was very difficult to enforce it. it was very difficult to convince juries, particularly southern juries, that race was the motivating factor. we have made progress in prosecuting racially motivated violence. that is a piece of the picture. john mcardle: we have about 15 minutes left with william yeomans. he is the former acting assistant attorney general for civil rights in the justice department. we're talking about the history of hate crime laws in this country. smith is waiting in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. john mcardle: go ahead. caller: ok. i see that in america there are

racial incidents going on. you are looking at a low generation coming up and getting their lives painted different. the older guys from the history are not teaching young people the racial history behind us. now you see the young kids looking at it. nothing has changed. john mcardle: are you saying is not just penalties the need to address this, but the education side? caller: yes. william yeomans: i agree. i think our history is enormously important. i think unfortunately we have seen a growing strain in this country in recent years of people who want to deny that history. you see that play out in our politics and we see it play out in the laws.

for instance, it goes all the way up to the supreme court. the supreme court decided that a key piece of the voting rights act was no longer necessary to years ago. in a stunning decision. congress had gone through this extensive process of reauthorizing the voting rights act only a few years before. the court stepped in and five members said well, this law may have once been necessary, but we have concluded we don't need it anymore. it seems to me that this is part of a strain in american society that simply wants to deny that racism continues. it is astonishing. i think it is becoming unfortunately increasingly difficult to do. -- i think it is becoming fortunately increasingly difficult to do. as we witness these police shootings we see this horrendously racially motivated violence. so i am hopeful that the silver

lining in these tragedies is that it will help to overcome the deniers. john mcardle: let's get oklahoma city. sherry is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. on youtube, i heard about this on the news report. the state in the 2010 christmas holiday celebration in south carolina. they had a christmas party at the state capital for the governor's mansion. and the confederate gallregalia -- they had people dressed as slaves for the entertainment. my point in bringing that up is that the reason why racism has been so prolific is because you

have people who have been elected into political positions who are actually stoking and giving legitimacy to racial hatred against african-americans. they are given power by the hate radio shows and people like pat buchanan, who wrote a book saying the reason why the whites were on the verge of extinction because of racial marriage -- interracial marriage and abortion. whatever. john mcardle: that incident that sherry brought up, is that something you have heard about? william yeomans: i have heard about it and i have seen pictures. it raises the issue of the flag in south carolina on the confederate flag flying at the

state capital. and in and i it is inexcusable. that flag people use in order to defend. what is interesting is the flag changed in view between the civil war. it needs to come down. host: ray on the line for independents, good morning. caller: i think it answered the question from the tournament of pennsylvania.

these race hate crimes are holding us back. the two women killed back in february in florida, to white women by four blacks is an obvious racial hate, but you did not hear it on the national scene. i think you just explained that there can only be one way. white on black. i think you just said that and that is not true. tell me one case that you know of that we can look at where a white person was the victim of a black person in the bug person was prosecuted in hate crime. guest: i can't. -- i can. and prosecution of two african-americans in new york for the stabbing and killing of

a jewish student in new york, who was white. of course it can happen. a racially motivated violence can be prosecuted. as i said, these laws are downgrading of racial violence. it has been at the heart of our society for far too long. host: more than half of the incidents reported to the fbi in 2013 not necessarily about race. there are other protected classes as well. guest: there are. the hate crime act passed in 2009 expended the law to prohibit crimes motivated by sexual orientation or disability or gender. religion is covered as well. it goes well beyond what we think of as traditional and racially motivated violence. host: do you think an incident like this spurs to enact

something? is there any movement on that level? guest: it will be interesting to see. there has been resistance in some states. i think it is less likely that states with a strongly controlled republican legislature and governor will enact those laws. those states fall into that category. i would be surprised if there is movement, but i hope there will be. host: jackie from maryland on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about how to talk about racism in this country. black people are not -- let us pull out the ku klux klan, the

not to party. let us ask those people what they want to do these kinds of things. we are victims. let us beloved criminals who do these crimes. . the congress people who vote for racist laws. let us talk about the laws of the country. let us talk about the people who do racist acts. guest: i couldn't agree more. host: on the line for independents, phil, good morning. caller: think you for taking my call. i will take another spin on the flag here. it is a belief system. they fly the isis flag like they fly the confederate flag. it is the same thing. andrew a young man to violence. we are trying to prevent this from happening.

let us bring the flag down and reduce it to a novelty, which it is. we only have an american flag and state flags. that is it. thank you. guest: i agree. as many people said, the flag belongs in a museum as part of our history. that is where it should be. issued not be given any kind of sovereign authority come a which it gets on the state capital ground in south carolina. host: a few more calls with william yeomans. denise and bonita springs, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a small comment. i was raised in a house where my dad was born in 19616. no race was ever involved in the education of us children. i am from minnesota. i moved down to florida because

i married a man from there, and what a culture shock. there is so much bigotry and prejudice down here. it is not the blacks against the whites with the whites against blacks. it is the people against the people. if you breed hates, there will be more and more hate. there has to be a way to stop the violence and the education of these idiots. in texas for instance, taking our history and changing history -- taking out history and changing history will not make anything better. we took this country from the indians, and they are trying to push it off on everyone else. thank you. guest: i agree. we need education, as i said. people need to understand our history. i think it is enormously important in being able to move forward as a society intent on solving a great problem.

host: we have shown the fbi's hate crime incidents reported in 2013. how are those incidents reported? guest: those are reported by law enforcement agencies. one of the difficulties is that the reporting is voluntary. there is no mandate that jurisdictions cooperate. it means crimes are underreported. many simply do not report. last time i looked at it, the state of alabama reported no hate crime incidents. the numbers are instructive simply because they are large and they suggest there is a serious problem, but they are by no means complete. host: the department of justice reporting to try to get a better sense of the picture, something you worked on? guest: in the early 1990's, congress finally passed a law

that authorized the department of justice to collect statistics. didn't tell the states they had to report statistics, but authorized report reflection. the fbi worked hard to set up a data collection system. they can be improved. host: we have covered this a bit already, but other than enhanced penalties upon conviction, what do hate crime laws add to our body of criminal law? guest: i think they at a very significant expression of our values and what we think is significant. i think it is crucial that we as a society express our contempt for violence that is motivated by race or religion or color or ethnicity or gender or disability or sexual orientation. these are things that have traditionally inspired hate violence.

we as a society need to stay very loudly -- state very loudly that we will not tolerate it. host: onandre, good morning. caller: i just want to talk about the hate crime period. host: go ahead. caller: just in america. when he to come to a solution that there is hate period. it is not a color. it is not a black and white things. it is just hate. everyone is trying to what they want -- everyone is trying to pick what they want and using it for the wrong cause. we need to come together as men and women and know that we are here to live together and know that the past, we can't

change it. we have to move forward. we are always worried about the past and what everyone has done in the worst. host: to think we are focused too much on the past in this country? caller: yeah, we focus too much on the past. you have a generation where it is born, he doesn't know anything about hate and he doesn't have a color with him. you put a bunch of kids together and they play together. as we get older, we divide each other. host: what is your suggestion? how do we do that and move forward? caller: when someone is doing something wrong, he hurts somebody. when he to punish the situation. do not put a color to it. host: are you in favor of hate crime laws specifically or no? specific laws that call out hate crime specifically.

caller: in some ways because some people target certain people. guest: i think obviously hate is at the root. we should do everything we can to eliminate hate, but it is important to understand the root causes of the manifestations of hate in order to address it and move forward. i think it is enormously important that we as a society understand our past so we can move forward constructively and productively. that means gaining a full understanding of consequences of our past and trying to build a healthy and coherent world. host: steve writes this in on twitter. there is no doubt this hateful simple influenced him -- symbol

influenced him. tim on our line for republicans, good morning. caller: a real bummer what happened in south carolina. i think people are starting to really wear out the race and hate thing. stuff like that will happen. people are going to get guns unfortunately. the whole race thing and angle that is very outdated. nobody is slaves now. has not affected people in years. host: what would be your suggestion? caller: i think probably -- will

let me turn the flag thing also. history is history, events that have already occurred. it doesn't affect me at all, and i don't believe it affects african-americans or other minorities. guest: i think the flag stands as an insult to african americans. i think it has a dramatic effect. i take severe issue with the caller's's that slavery has not affected people in years. we still live with the consequences of slavery and the subsequent racial repression of the jim crow era and the continuing racial discrimination today. if you look around at our society, you will find dramatic

inequality, socioeconomic inequality that can only be traced to our history of racial oppression. i think it is absolutely wrong to say slavery has not affected anyone in years. it is affecting people today as we speak. that doesn't mean we have to hearp on -- harp on finding fighting slavery. host: can you talk about eric holder or loretta lynch and how you think they have dealt with this issue and their time as the head of the justice department? guest: i think they have done a good job. eric holder worked really hard to reinvigorate when he came in as attorney general. if you look at their statistics, they have been extremely active.

eric holder was willing to speak out about racial issues in a way to president can't. it is important to have a voice in government. loretta lynch coming in is a good thing for civil rights. as a prosecutor, she was involved in civil rights prosecution. she comes from a background of involvement of civil rights. her family was involved. host: when was the civil rights division established? guest: the civil rights act of 1957 was the first modern civil rights law passed. it was a very watered down thing but it was significant because they filibuster was broken. strom thurmond said the record for filibusters by an individual. he talked to 24 hours to try to stop that built. it finally -- to try to stop that bbill.

it finally went through. a give the attorney general the ability to enforce the 15th amendment which prohibits racial dissemination in voting. the on that, it was a pretty weak bill. congress had to enact the civil rights act of 1964 and to others and the laws i talked about. host: was there one attorney general who you think is the most to strengthen the civil rights division? many were important. book marshall was in some of the most tense times of the civil rights movement. another was crucial in getting the civil rights act. meant to lead the 1968 act

through. they all deserve enormous credit. host: let us go to brenda waiting in virginia. good morning. we have a few minutes left with william yeomans. caller: i was just wondering about the educational question. the native americans were brought over from india first. they were the first slaves, not african-americans. no one ever brought that up. everyone always brought up that it was the african-americans that were the first slaves. we are people. who should not be judged by our color. when children are born, they do not have a specific color. they play together. we do not need to continue to bring this up because when we do, the more we empower it and

give people entitlement. host: do you think it is important to punish specific hate crimes? caller: you have to determine hate crimes as more specific. not by color or gender, but with the action is -- what the action is. a person is not a specific color or gender. is something that is done for someone -- it is a lot a break. people should be punished when they break laws. host: we talked about loretta lynch and she explains why the department of justice is opening up a specific hate crime is to get into the south carolina shooting case. wanted to show that to our viewers. >> i am not going to go into the

specifics of it because we have someone in custody. we want to make sure to preserve the integrity of the case but some of the elements that came out let us to conclude that was a possibility. so we opened it as a hate crime investigation. we be exploring all the motives that might have been in play there. host: that was loretta lynch announcing the federal hate crime investigation. where does this go from there in terms of the timing before specific charges are brought? guest: the fbi is in the field now and going to work, no doubt working hand-in-hand with state investigators together evidence -- to gather evidence. it will have to be a decision made about which jurisdiction will prosecute. the federal government has to go through the process of taking the case through a grand

jury to seek an indictment, and that will take a little bit of time. the state will probably move more quickly if they are the ones want to prosecute first. it is always dangerous to put a time limit about how long an investigation will take because you never know what will come of. host: this is this something to drag out months or possibly years, especially with the evidence we have seen on the website we have talked about in the statements he made during the act? guest: this could move more quickly than some investigations, simply because so much of the evidence to be out there already. the fbi wants to make sure they have nailed everything down before they move forward. i would think months, not years. host: thomas in maryland on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: first thing we have to eliminate is hate speech.

you have to get rid of some of the statements by jeremiah wright or luis farrakhan and al sharpton and michelle obama. she made some terrible statements horrible, at the tuskegee institute. as far as hate crime equal protection, it is not. you have these knockout games with the blacks go around smashing what people in the face, and no hate crime is far as i know there's been on them. host: i will let you jump in here. if you want to talk about hate speech. guest: it is important to distinguish between hate speech and hate crime. we have very robust protection for speech, which i think is very important.

it is only where speech crosses the line into action into a bit of violence that it is prosecutable. i and i think most prosecutors would be worried about prosecuting speech. host: let us go to andy in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: my question would happen to be what happens if the democrats owned most of the south and the parts of the south where they had the slavery come in, i agree that history is a very important part of this. if we are going to correct history, what would happen when the slaves came in and the democrats and we have the slaves coming into the parts of the area of the south and the democrats had all of the slaves coming in. if we are going to make sure we have an understanding of the correct history what do we do about making sure the kids

understand that when the correction of history comes in, we have to make sure they know that david duke was in congress and we make sure they understand who we have all of the correct history of the north and the south and the division, can we make sure we have all of the correct understanding of what the structure of the southwest of the north. guest: it is important to have history to get history right. i always find it interesting that people have an interest in pointing out that the south was politically democratic during the era of jim crow. that as a result of reconstruction because the republican party led reconstruction and the south became democratic. on the other hand, once the civil rights revolution came along, most of the southern democrats became republicans and we now see we have a solidly republican south.

i don't think we should make it our history a matter of -- i don't think it is significant to point out democrats were in charge except as a matter of history and the fact that there has been a major change in party affiliation. many of the same people who are democrats before i now republicans. -- before are now republicans. host: do students these days have an understanding of history and how you approach this topic? guest: i say many of the same kinds of things i say this morning. we are very focused on law. i want to give them an understanding of how the justice system has an impact on the struggle for racial equality in the country and has been an extremely important tool in helping us move to a more just society. students come in with a mix of awareness.

i think clearly our education system is not as good as it could be on these issues. there are certainly students increasingly in this past year especially who are waking up to the fact that there are major issues here we need to address and that there is history behind it they are interested in learning it. host: william yeomans. appreciate your time so much on a sunday morning. guest: in my pleasure. -- been my pleasure. host:, we will talk about the upcoming decision in king v. burwell. we will be joined by michael leavitt to talk about how states are preparing. we will be right back. >> some were sitting kind of

front left of the chamber. when brooks comes into the chamber, he comes into the center doors, sits down, and is almost looking directly at sumner. sumner is not looking at him. his head is bound.wed. he is signing copies of his speech. he approaches sumner. sumner oblivious to what is going on signing speech. brooks lives his cane over his head and says mr. sumner i have read your speech over twice. sumner looks up at this point. brooks is blurred and his glasses because he is so close and brooks strikes some on the top of his head with his cane. sumner head explodes in blood almost instantly. >> the author on the caning of

charles sumner by centerline of commerce and brooks -- south carolina congressman brooks tonight on c-span's q&a. monday night on the communicators, cochair of the privacy caucus joe barton on recent fcc regulation rules and the issues with privacy and cyber security. >> you have the basic principle whose information is it? is automatically in the public domain because i choose to use the mobile app and we know that the way these things work they go into the cloud and all that or can i use and still have a reasonable expect tatian -- a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. for a lot of you it is personal. it changes the way you regulate

and legislate. if you take the position that i am by act of being a part of and participating by using the app i am forgoing my individual right to privacy that is a different issue in its entirety. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> this weekend, the c-span cities to her partnered with comcast. to learn about key west florida. ernest hemingway wrote several novels at this home. >> i found this house for sale. they bought it for $8,000 in 1931. pauline converted this loft into his first formal writing studio. here he fell in love with fishing, the clarity of his writing, how fast he was producing the work.

he knocked out the first rough draft of a farewell to arms in two weeks when arriving in key west. he once had a line that said if you really want to write start with one true sentence. >> for a true writer, each book should be a new beginning. should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> key west is also where president harry truman sought refuge from washington. >> president truman regarded the big white house as the great white jail. he thought he was constantly under everyone's eye. by coming to key west, he could come with his closest that, let down his hair. sometimes he would let their beards grow for a couple days. at times they used off-color stories. they could have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without scrutiny from the press.

a sportswear company.set a case of hawaiian shirts to the that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of our events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span twos book tv. >> washington journal continues. john mcardle: in our last segment this morning, we will be talking about how states are preparing for that decision in king v. burwell. is expected anytime now.

we are inviting our callers to join us. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. joining us now is michael leavitt. he was the health and human services secretary during the bush administration. how prepared are those 34 states that use federal exchanges for the outcome of this decision? michael o. leavitt: it is difficult for a state to prepare at this point because we don't know what the decision will be. it is time for them to be doing scenario planning. because if the court chooses to rule for king to indicate that the subsidies were not lawfully provided and that they should cease, that throws millions of people into a situation where they will have their insurance

affected. they will undoubtedly begin to turn to their state legislature and say to them why don't we have a state exchange? can you get one? i need help. the states need to be taking about that very clearly. john mcardle: you are currently a member of leavitt partners. at author of a book about king v. burwell. -- and author of a book about king v. burwell. if you are a governor and one of these states, what are your options for preparing for this decision? michael o. leavitt: let's walk through what will likely happen. if the court rules for king, then within eight hours president obama will say, you can fix this, just change three words in the statute and

everyone's insurance who has received a subsidy will be secure. that is a strong and direct message and it will be one that will be heard. then the republican-controlled congress will respond in a way that is not quite as certain. there are basically three different points of view among republicans. one is that this is the moment that will allow them to repeal and hopefully replace the affordable care act. another group, who believe that goes a little too far, to use it as a means of taking the law part why don't we just ask for a lot of changes in exchange for those three words? and then the third are among those who say, let's just pass a temporary fix and then after the election we will have the ability to go back and do it the way it should be done or the way we would like it to be done. so you have one voice versus three voices. with different points of view. that will create an opportunity

for the president to make their point. that is the dilemma in terms of the way this debate will unfold. what will undoubtedly occur if they're not able to get together, if there is continued clash, is that the people will turn to the governors. i have seen demographic research that indicates why a two to one measure they will turn to the governor. the governors need to be thinking now about what they can do to react. john mcardle: in your publication on how to prepare for this, you say there is an opportunity for governors to join hands and be a united voice and pushing for specific changes? . is there a political role out there among governors to push for common changes? michael o. leavitt: let's talk about what their options are. i think there are four. the verses they can do nothing and hope that someone else gets the blame.

-- the first is that they can do nothing and hope that someone else gets the blame. the second is they can get behind one of the plans in congress and try to move it in that direction. the third is they could try to form a state exchange under the existing law. that will prove to be highly problematic even the time frames involved. or the fourth. through their national governors association and national conference of state legislatures, they could in fact go to the secretary of health and say we need to form a state exchange. there are a series of things you could do that would make this possible. right now it is not. it is too complex. simplify it. give us the authorities we need in order to make this happen. i think personally that is the most logical thing for the governors to do. they need to start now if they are going to start moving in that direction, because they have very complicated policy processes they have to go

through in order to represent all of the states. is the political will their? hard to know. there will be a certain number of governors, particularly republicans, who will find that to be inconsistent with the position they have taken. they will fall into the let's just let obamacare fall apart camp. it is hard to know. if they are going to do it, it needs to happen now and that is why we're at the paper. john mcardle: michael leavitt was the health and human services secretary from 2005 to 2009. here to answer your questions as we talk about the coming king v. burwell decision. what state would you say is best prepared at this point? is there a model other states should be looking to? michael o. leavitt: there are

two states who have notified the department of health and human services that they intend to build a state exchange. the state of delaware and the state of pennsylvania. they met a june 1 deadline that is part of the rules to indicate dhhs that they plan to build one. -- to indicate to hhs that they plan to build one. one of the changes hhs would need to make would be changing that june 1 deadline. there are 14 states that have state exchanges, some of which have worked very well and some of which that worked less well. i think the others that haven't will begin to follow the pattern of those that have. given the ability to dramatically simplify it to be able to use existing resources

like -- there is a group of businesses known as the e-brokers -- to be able to share software among states. those are the kinds of changes that would allow states to move rapidly enough to be ready for january 1, 2016. john mcardle: it is important to mention the state exchanges would not be affected by the outcome of this decision. the subsidies for the state exchanges are not at issue in the king v. burwell decision correct? michael o. leavitt: that is correct. among the 14 who established state exchanges, they are golden. john mcardle: michael leavitt is our guest. he is from salt lake city, utah. we have a caller on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just think it's really crazy that these states don't want to do their jobs and to set up the exchanges that they were supposed to do under the law. if they had done that these people would are you have had their subsidies to get their medicaid. michael o. leavitt: in the defense of the 34 states, the federal government took the position that if they didn't, then there would be a federal exchange. and for those that have not followed this as closely, that is the dispute. the law explicitly uses the words established by the state a state established exchange. those three words. those 34 states who chose not to do it just relied upon the federal exchange, hence people got their subsidy. there are those who believe that the court will find a way to allow those 34 to continue in the federal system. the states do find themselves now in a bit of a -- between a

rock and a hard place. i think people like the caller and others will undoubtedly call on the states to form a state aske exchange of the law goes for king. john mcardle: what are the insurance company saying about this? do they have a plan to keep all the new enrollees? michael o. leavitt: that gets very complex. once the subsidies are lost, according to hhs roughly 72% of them were of an income bracket that would make it unlikely that they could afford their insurance. that would mean that the insurance companies would essentially go without payment for that coverage. there is a provision in the law that allows them to go for 30 days or requires them to go for 30 days after payment isn't received. after that point, they are caught between the policyholder

interests and their stockholder interests, or their company's interest in being able to continue. they cannot pay claims without receiving premiums. they are all very concerned about this. they don't want to lose the business or be in the middle of all this. i'm sure they're thinking about contingency plans, but unless they get paid, they will not continue. otherwise they would put at risk their company who ensures everyone else. john mcardle: anthony is up next in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to discuss another option. i fundamentally believe that paying a private company for a product and be mandated by law is totally wrong. i think that maybe the federal government should become the insurance company. take the billions of dollars

that the insurance companies make every year and profit, turn that around and subsidize those that can't afford it. michael o. leavitt: will there are many people who have made the proposal over the years. it is often referred to as universal health care, where the government either puts everyone in medicare and because the insurance company. a lot of folks are very opposed to that. they think the government doesn't particularly do things well when they run things but they're better at organizing things that they aren't operating things. i think it is quite a universal push back on the government being the insurance company and having the information and making the decisions. john mcardle: your paper with the five other members from the george w. bush administration talks about preparing in case the supreme court decides in favor of king v. burwell.

what the supreme court decides in favor of the obama administration? do you think the affordable care act is your to stay at that point? michael o. leavitt: it certainly removes a big hurdle from those who want to continue with the law. because it would allow them to continue to pay the subsidies under the current statute. there will be other challenges both legislative and i suspect legal, but this is the one that is ripe right now. and forms the biggest obstacle. it might be valuable to talk a bit about what happens in a king verdict, how that does have other effects on the law. one of the ways in which it affects the law is that in a state where there is no state exchange, therefore no viable market for the exchange, and the employer mandate is nullified. that is another important part

of the affordable care act. if there is no employer mandate, it becomes very difficult -- and no marketplace -- it becomes very difficult to enforce the individual mandate. there are cascading consequences in a king verdict and that is why it has some republicans rubbing their hands with anticipation and others with great concern because they know that politically, this is a very difficult proposition. you have seven or 8 million people who are now without insurance who had it before, that is going to be a political problem. there are some republicans who believe it would be better not to have the court ruled that way, because it allows a political advantage with the president who can speak with one voice as opposed to a congress that might be divided. if they can't come together in situations like that the executive branch is a real advantage.

john mcardle: kerry is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to say that whomever they pick to make the changes in the health plan, be it insurance companies or whomever, i wish they would just for once put on a few citizens. maybe we could put a little input into it and tell them -- john mcardle: what would be your input? caller: pardon me? john mcardle: if you are one of those citizens you are advocating for, what changes would you push for? caller: i would ask for a well of money somewhere that people who have medicare only, we get hit with hospital bills that you can't -- i am still paying $10 a month for two hospitals. we don't have the money that goes along with these health plans. help us out. but i want to say yesterday was your best day on c-span. god bless you.

it was just a beautiful program. john mcardle: appreciate that. you want to tackle some of her suggestions? michael o. leavitt: i think the point was your question, that c-span is a great form for people to make the kind of points that they want to make. i'm glad to receive them and talk about them. john mcardle: patrick in kansas is up next. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is is the subsidies funded by an annual appropriation, or is it generally subsidized through tax credits, or can you explain that process, how the money gets approved by congress and forwarded to the insurance companies? michael o. leavitt: it is a complicated set of gears.

some of it comes from various special taxes or fees such as the tax on employers for those that don't me to their obligation. some of it does come from general tax revenues. i might add that this week the congressional budget office indicated that it would -- if they did have a king verdict that would actually cost the government money and it would be because of various fees links to this. so it probably defies the ability -- my ability to explain. and the time we have to actually go through each of the mechanisms. but it is a combination of different taxes and general tax revenue, but it is in fact appropriated on an annual basis. it is built so that in the early years it doesn't pay for itself and in the latter years it does.

it does assuming all of the money is collected. john mcardle: we have been discussing the different potential republican plans some looking for a bridge in the federal subsidies for up to two years. is there one plan you have heard of that you think works the best as this gets figured out if the supreme court decides for king? michael o. leavitt: there are three different groups basically. one is the idealist, let's just continue the subsidies for a few years, get us through the 2017 election. then we can figure it out. that would give people a little bit of time to respond to it. i think in reality that is the one that will gain the most traction among republicans in the final analysis. all three of those -- there will be plans for all three, and they boil it down to that the question becomes, will be president except that? -- will

the president accept that? they will undoubtedly ask for substantial parts of the law to be changed. my guess is the president, given the position he is in will likely say no, i will veto that. i like the way it is. you have put yourself in this position, see if you can find a way out. i don't know. hopefully they can find a way to resolve it. there is nothing gained from having 7 or 8 million people lose their health insurance. the republicans are basically saying, if we have an election we think we can win, this will help us. but we don't want people to suffer in the meantime. john mcardle: we have 10 minutes left with michael leavitt former utah government and former hhs secretary under the george w. bush administration. devon in greensboro, north carolina is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

my question is, are there any political personnel right now vowing for universal free health care in america? is there any debate going on for that so that people who are in the low income poverty level income or people who do have more than enough to put towards a system of universal health care -- is there a debate going on in our country about that or is that just something that is shunned away and given to the insurance companies to say let's take, let's take, and not give, not give. is there a debate going on about free health care in america? michael o. leavitt: there are voices who make that point. it should be pointed out that right now we have two very large programs that cover the majority of americans. one is medicare, which pays for those who are aged or disabled.

the other is medicaid, which pays for substantial group is the people who have incomes below 400% of the poverty line. if you look at the size of those two programs. medicaid is projected within 10 years to be nearly 100 million americans. medicare is growing rapidly because of the way society is aging. it will have nearly 75 million people by that time. when you get to that point, we are going to be close to 55 or 60% covered by a federal program or under a program administered by the government. then you add back in those that are covered by private insurance through a commercial plan, and you begin to see that is the strategy that the affordable care act begins to run at. i think there is a widely shared

aspiration, republican and democrat, for every american to have access to an affordable insurance policy. there is no disharmony in that goal. the question becomes how much can we afford as a country yet of that money has to come from somewhere? that money has to come from somewhere. many argue that it puts a burden on taxpayers and the economy. as is not a simple subject and one that has been debated a long time. john mcardle: william is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say, i go way back into the early 50's when social security was having a big bank and they scare the hell out of people. i am 80 years old. i should have listened. this all have to do with money. insurance is insurance. that means money. the government is not going to take that money.

the rich people are going to continue to try to control it. and you. -- thank you. john mcardle: texas is next. janice is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is the way this law was passed was not where the american people were respected. there are hidden things in the law. there is nothing for free. there is cost everything. when something is subsidized, it is subsidized by the taxpayers. not only do you have to pay for your policy which has gone up -- mine has gone up, my deductible has gone up, my doctor's visits has gone up, the cost of my prescriptions has gone up. there is nothing affordable about this particular law. it is a slap in the face to the american citizens that congressmen and senators did not

even read the bill to know what was in it. another thing is the insurance companies. if you want to get a cost -- a break on it, you need to invest in their stocks, because their stocks have soared in these insurance companies. i think it is a shame that our government and our representatives did not respect is enough to understand what was in the bill and look out for the american people. that's my comment. john mcardle: i will let you jump in. michael o. leavitt: very well selected callers, because they represented the various points of view on this very well. some people believe that the government ought to just take this over and others believe that the government stepped in far too deeply and that taxpayers need to remember. she was correct, there is nothing for free. this is just a function of people needing health care and how do you pay for it. that is the debate we are engaged in. john mcardle: time for just a

couple more calls. if you want to get your call in now with michael leavitt, former hhs secretary. henry in virginia is waiting period good morning. caller: good morning. i just have one little question. we talk about money that is appropriated that we have to pay for everything. we pay wars, we have spent trillions of dollars. for the general public, not to know what is going on, it is a shame. it is a travesty. can i ask how much money is given for -- giveaways? family services and children. services for families and children. how much money is given to the family services and children in

this country? john mcardle: you say that people don't know what's going on, do you mean specifically with health care? caller: health care and anything else about money. everyone is talking about we have to pay for everything. but yet the rich don't pay taxes. and no one is saying anything about it. michael o. leavitt: the truth is, there are very few people in this country who don't pay taxes. the ones that do tend to be those with low income, not those with high income. the reality is everything does have to be paid for period. the government only has one source of money and that is taxpayers. this is a reasoned debate. people need to get involved here . if the government spends a dollar, they are going to take it from someone in the form of taxes.

he makes a good point. i don't agree necessarily with his conclusion, but he makes a good point. john mcardle: bill is in virginia beach. good morning. caller: good morning. michael, the payments for medicare claims. i was thought that the money that paid medicare claims came directly from taxpayers money from the federal government. i know with obamacare the policies are actually paid for through commercial insurance companies. is there any commercial insurance company involved in paying claims for medicare, or is that all government money through taxpayer money? the second part of my question is -- john mcardle: i'm going to let michael leavitt answer that because we have 30 seconds left. michael o. leavitt: over half of the money in medicare comes from

medicare participants. they have to pay a premium around $100 per month. it is substantially below the cause, but they do contribute. the rest of it comes from taxpayer money. there are private insurance companies who are involved in medicare. there is a program called medicare advantage or private insurance companies are given the premium by the government and they pay the claims. the narrow private insurance companies who contract with the government for various services. john mcardle: i will point viewers to leavittpartners.com if they want to read the paper on king v. burwell. thank you for your time this morning. michael o. leavitt: thank you. john mcardle: that is our show for this sunday.

happy father's day to all the fathers out there. we will be right back here at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you will be joined by the executive director of families usa to continue to talk about the king v. burwell decision. we will also be talking about the trade adjustment assistance program. that federal program provides aid to u.s. workers who have lost their jobs as a result of or in trade. that is all tomorrow on the washington journal.

senator bill cassidy. inc. you for being with us. -- thank you for being here. also, we have our guests on the health care beat. let's begin with the ruling of king versus burke well -- versus burwell expected at the end of this month. what is the alternative?