credits for a $50 cash prize. >> brown: mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> suarez: and we close with the author of a new book "does jesus really love me?" and his journey as a gay christian to find answers that question as church's struggle with homosexuality. >> you look at american families and how there isn't one that's untouched by this issue. the conversations are happening at kitchen tables in a way that they weren't. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i want to make things more secure. >> i want to treat more dogs. >> our business needs more cases. >> where do you want to take your business? >> i need help selling art. >> from broadband, to web hosting, to mobile apps, small business solutions from a.t.&t. can help get you there. we can show you how a.t.&t. solutions can help your business today. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: brazil braced today for more mass protests, after crowds filled the streets overnight in more than 100 cities. at least a million people took part-- the most since the demonstrations started more than a week ago. as in days past, it was mostly peaceful, with more than 300,000 people marching in rio de janiero alone. then, as on some previous nights, trouble started: masked youths challenged riot police and pitched battles erupted. the air crackled with police firing rubber bullets and lobbing tear gas into the crowds. at least 40 people were injured. >> ( translated ): we have stopped here and we aren't doing anything, but they came out with the horses into us, that is all that is all that happened. and now look. >> ( translated ): who is violent? the police, throwing gas. there are people living here, all of them have families, kids, elderly people, and all of them are fighting for their rights. we want nothing more than justice. just justice. >> brown: in the capital, brasilia, protesters smashed windows and broke into government buildings. by daybreak, broken glass and debris littered the streets. back in rio, many said they support the protests, but condemn the vandalism and crime. >> ( translated ): the people are right to be demanding their rights, but only up to a certain point. when it's a question of breaking into shops, looting, stealing things, this has nothing to do with the protest movement. >> ( translated ): i think that the people are really doing the right thing. the first phase has begun. people taking to the street shows that we are not a population so conforming, like the whole world thinks. someone needs to take the lead of this and guide the people, using all this energy and really achieve a positive change. >> brown: the protests started last week over a 20-cent fare hike on public transit. when police in sao paulo cracked down on a small demonstration, thousands surged into the streets to vent other grievances, as they did last night. >> ( translated ): it's a lot more than simply 20 cents. it's education, it's health, it's a lot of things combined. >> ( translated ): just lowering the bus fare isn't going to convince me that they are going to improve brazil. for me, the 20 cents isn't significant. >> brown: what is significant for many is the huge public spending to prepare for hosting the 2014 world cup and 2016 olympics-- more than $26 billion, told. more millions will go to receive pope francis when he visits next month. many argue the money should be spent to improve schools and bring down the sky-hgh costs of health care. on tuesday, brazilian president dilma rousseff denounced the violence, but acknowledged the protesters must be heard. >> ( translated ): this direct message from the streets is to improve civility, for better schools, for better hospitals, for better health services and for the right to participate. this direct message from the streets is to demand quality public transport at fair prices. >> brown: otherwise, she has said little about the spreading unrest. she held an emergency closed- door cabinet meeting this afternoon, but made no comment afterward. meanwhile, on social media, calls are growing for a general strike next week. for now, the country's top unions say no plans are in the works. a short time ago, margaret warner spoke with matthew cowley, sao paulo bureau chief for "the wall street journal." >> warner: matthew cowley, welcome. what is the latest news today after that night of violent protests last night? have the protests resumed? >> hi, good evening. yes, the protests have resumed, but on a much smaller scale. very sporadic and not really sort of organized. they're not part of this big movement that we've seen over the last two weeks. i think in the meantime, what we're watching to see is what happens to this broader public enthusiasm that's built up for these protests and how this is going to be channeled because it will go far beyond just this one issue of the bus fares. and there are other issues that people are concerned about as well. >> warner: what is at the heart of the discontent? there's a woman in our piece saying it's about health, it's about education. what is she talking about? >> brazil has made enormous progress over the last ten or 15 years. the economy is in far more stable and a much better place than it was before. but what's happened now over the last two or three years is that we've seen a sharp slowdown in growth and an uptick in inflation. and i think those two things combined have fed through into frustration, a broader frustration that people have learned and have appreciated and have come to understand the benefits of having an economic stability. they see where the country should be going and they have had a taste for a bit of equality, a bit more of an improvement in quality of life and now they're concerned that they're going away. that that is slipping out of their hands. >> warner: and why has the hosting of the world cup, what, a year from now, and the olympics become such a sort of rallying cry of this protest? >> well, i think we have to remember that these protests have by coincidence come at the same time as a warmup tournament for next year's world cup. it's called the confederations cup. these enormous stadiums that were built to host these events are being used for the very first time. so all of a sudden they're a symbol people can look to and they can see. and i think basically this isn't brilliance turning their backs on soccer. brazilians love soccer. what this is is just a frustration that an awful lot of effort and money, of course, has been put into building these stadiums and they wonder why the same amount of effort and the same amount of money isn't put into things that are going to affect them in their daily lives: health, health care, education, public transportation. >> warner: well the president -- well, first of all, how has the president responded? dilma rousseff and her leftist ruling party government? >> well, i think it's very difficult for governments to respond to these types of protests. remember, brazil is a democracy, it's not an authoritarian regime in any way and so all of a sudden when a big protest movement like this evolves basically on social networks, on facebook and twitter, then without it core leadership, without any particular person you can necessarily sit down and negotiate with it's very hard for traditional political systems to respond. that said, i think the president has come in for criticism in the last couple of days because she's been relatively silent. she did address the nation on tuesday and she did discuss the protests at the same time and tried to identify herself with the protests and said this was a demonstration of how vibrant brazil's democracy is. but since then there hasn't -- there has been nothing from the president and, of course, we had this huge protest last night on thursday night with more than a million or around a million people across numerous cities all over brazil and yet we've had very little leadership from the central government. and so i think there has been some criticism and we are expecting the -- the president did meet today with some of her senior ministers, senior advisors to discuss the events and there is an expectation that she may address the nation on television this evening, though we haven't had any confirmation of that as of yet. >> warner: briefly, is there one central demand? is there any kind of central demand? something that she could respond to in an effort to calm these protests? >> i think that's exactly the problem. there isn't a single answer to this. it's a much -- a broader sort of feeling of frustration rather than a single thing that you can come out and say, right, i'm going to deal with this today. so i think that's what creates a lot of the uncertainty and i think that's what makes life very difficult for the politicians of all creeds. >> warner: matthew crowley of the "wall street journal," thank you. >> suarez: still to come on the "newshour": should immigrants be required to learn english? is money the root of all evil? what do shields and brooks think of the week's news? and a new book asks: does jesus really love me? but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the death toll soared today in the monsoon flooding that's ravaged northern india. the chief minister of uttrakhand state reported nearly 600 people have been killed in the mountainous region. more than 30,000 others have been rescued so far, with another 50,000 stranded-- in up to 100 towns and villages. the indian air force used helicopters today to fly in food and medicine to the displaced. more and more people were forced to evacuate their homes in calgary, canada today as floodwaters rose. officials estimated as many as 100,000 people may have to move to higher ground. the two rivers that flow through calgary have risen rapidly after four inches of rain fell over the past two days in southern alberta. only one of the rivers has reached its peak. in singapore, air pollution set more records as a thick haze drifted across from forest fires in indonesia. the fires burned out of control in peat swamp forests on the island of sumatra, sending large plumes of smog across the sea. the result was the worst haze in singapore's history, for the third day in a row. the u.s. today upped the military ante in a growing confrontation with syria's assad regime. president obama notified congress that 700 u.s. troops plus patriot missiles and fighter planes will stay in jordan, until further notice. he said the kingdom asked that they remain after joint military exercises ended yesterday. the decision follows the u.s. move to begin arming the syrian rebels. the president nominated james comey today to be director of the f.b.i. comey is best known for blocking bush white house officials from renewing a warrant-less wire-tapping program in 2004. at the time, he was deputy attorney general. today, the president took note of comey's reputation, at a time of new debates over surveillance. >> he is that rarity in washington sometimes. he doesn't care about politics. he only cares about getting job done. at key moments when it has jim understands in time of crisis, we aren't judged solely by many plots or how many criminals we bring to justice. we're also judged by our commitment to the constitution that we've sworn to defend, and to the values and civil liberties that we've pledged to protect. >> sreenivasan: if confirmed, comey will succeed robert mueller, who took over the f.b.i. the week before 9/11. on wall street, stocks managed to stave off any more big losses, after a two-day plunge. the dow jones industrial average gained 41 points to close at 14,799. the nasdaq fell seven points to close at 3,357. for the week, both the dow and the nasdaq fell nearly 2%. miami heat fans savored the franchise's third n.b.a. championship today and second in a row. lebron james led the heat to a game seven victory last night, capping a grueling, back-and- forth series with the san antonio spurs. james was named most valuable player. a victory parade has been set for monday. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to ray. >> suarez: and we turn to the major political issue on capitol hill. with a fourth of july recess in mind, senators are speeding toward a monday vote on a border security deal, as part of a proposed bipartisan overhaul of the nation's immigration system. the compromise was formally introduced today after republicans bob corker of tennessee and john hoeven of north dakota worked out final details. >> this is about securing the border first and doing comprehensive immigration reform and doing it right. >> suarez: the proposal was billed as a border surge. it would nearly double the number of border patrol agents along the u.s.-mexico boundary... and erect some 700 miles of new fencing all at a cost of more than $30 billion over ten years. according to the congressional budget office, some nine million people could receive provisional legal status. they'd have to wait for permanent status until the security measures are completed. the compromise quickly picked up support from five republicans who had been undecided on the immigration bill. others, including jeff sessions of alabama, insisted the legislation still doesn't go far enough. >> if you're holding a bucket of water and it's got a bunch of holes in it, and you close one of the holes, all the water's still going to run out of the bucket. there are other problems with the legislation. >> suarez: the senate's democratic majority leader harry reid brushed aside the criticism, and called a key procedural vote for monday evening. >> this amendment will put to rest any remaining credible concerns about the border, about border security. the opposition of a small group is not going to stop this bill from moving forward. >> suarez: reid aims to finish work on the bill next week, before the july 4th recess. meanwhile the house is crafting its own bill, focused entirely on border enforcement. >> suarez: now, more on another provision of the senate bill. the legislation calls for immigrants to prove they're learning english before they can become permanent residents. florida republican marco rubio has proposed an amendment requiring immigrants to be proficient in english and pass a civics test. under current law, only applicants for u.s. citizenship, not those applying for green cards, must prove english proficiency. for a debate on that issue, we turned to barbara mujica, a professor of spanish literature at georgetown university, and max sevillia of the national association of latino elected officials, naleo. i spoke to them recently as part of our ongoing series: "inside immigration reform." max, currently if you want to become a legal resident, is there any language requirement at all? >> no, there's not. there's a language requirement vis-a-vis as you were saying naturalizing and becoming a u.s. citizen and what senator rubio is proposing it actually goes contrary to the current proposal, bipartisan proposal, that already calls for people to learn english. i think it would make it to unique to these undocumented community going through a path to legalization and not a requirement of any other immigrants attempting to get a green card. >> suarez: professor, the senate proposal currently recommends people trying to become legal residents demonstrate their they're learning english. is that a useful advancement on current law? >> i think it's a useful advancement. what i like about the amendment that marco rubio is proposing is that it provides another incentive for people to improve their english. having proficiency doesn't mean that you have to speak english like a native speaker. in 1980, we had 1% of the population of foreign-born residents of the united states who said that they didn't know any english at all. now we have 8.1% of foreign-born residents who say they no-no english at all. but 51% of them say that they don't know english very well. >> suarez: but isn't that some of the difference in the -- both the number and the percentage that the average foreign-born person in the united states in 1980 had been in the country longer than the average foreign-born person today? we've had a large number of immigrants arrive in the country in a fairly short period of time. >> yes. but i think that what rubio is proposing is that before people could apply toward the green card they would have had to be in the country a while because he set up a number of steps that they have to follow in order to get their green card. they have to pay back taxes. they have to go to the back of the line. and they have to prove that they have worked in the united states. they have to show a work history. and in addition to that, they have to show proficiency in english and knowledge -- some knowledge of american civics. >> if i may, we're not getting to the core of the issue. the current bipartisan proposal actually incentivizes individuals, immigrants, to learn english. it allows the option of either passing an exam and showing english proficiency and enrolling in a course. senate or rubio's amendment does not provide tools to empower people to learn english and meet this added demand. therefore what it's doing, it's actually filtering down and creating an impediment, a barrier for immigrants to actually continue to move forward in the path to legalization. we know from experts right now that approximately 5.5 -- approximately 55% of individuals-- anywhere between four to six million undocuments-- will currently not pass the sort of exam that rubio is trying to impose at this time after ten years. therefore, what we support would be for tools to empower, to actually provide english proficiency and opportunities for people to learn english. there is no need to incentivize the immigrant population. they know that if they learn english they earn more money. >> suarez: professor, does this take us to someplace different from what faced earlier generations of immigrants? people came to this country from -- >> well, may i respond? i think we agree on a number of things. i think one of the problems that we're facing right now is that we don't have enough classes available. we don't have enough teachers available. we're telling people that they have to learn english but we really have to provide the mechanism by which they would learn english. so i think in that sense max and i agree. >> suarez: well, there's money in the bill. is it enough? >> very little. it's about $150 million total for a number of opportunities for legal services, for english learning, for public awareness. >> it's not enough. >> it's certainly not enough. we're talking about billions of dollars if we were to truly look to reach the sort of requirement that senator rubio is mandating. >> but there is -- >> suarez: you support the language requirement but you'd want -- >> i would want courses, yes. i would want more resources allocated to that. i think it's really hard, maybe impossible to project what will happen, who will pass this exam and who won't pass this exam. the exam has to be created. it has to be geared toward the reality of these people who will be taking it. we can't ask for fluency, that's not realistic. i think -- i don't see this as an impediment, i see it as an opportunity. this is -- i see it as an incentive that will encourage people to learn english and when they learn english they will have an opportunity to get their green card. this seems like a very positive thing to me. >> the rubio amendment takes away the belief in the immigrant that he or she wants to actually learn english because it denies them their good faith effort to engage in a course that teaches them english. and then again, this is -- this amendment is very particular to the undocumented community. it's the only community going through the immigration process and attempting to become legal permanent residents that will be required to pass this english proficiency exam. it would not apply to agricultural workers, it would not apply to adults going through the business process. it would be unique to these undocumented communities that will be r.p.i.s. >> suarez: well, let me just close with this simple question. it takes what's now a requirement if you would like to become a citizen of the united states and moves it back one step to becoming a permanent resident of the united states. is that a desirable thing? is it a workable thing? >> i think it's a desirable thing because as max has said, people need to learn english. we have statistics that show that when people -- when immigrants know english they earn twice what people who don't know english earn. it's desirable and people who -- immigrants who know english are making more or less the same hourly salary as native-born americans or naturalized citizens. >> suarez: professor mujica, max sevillia, that you can both. online, you can view our entire portfolio of stories on this issue. watch my discussion series examining the legislation, and track the debate on our immigration page. >> brown: last night the question was "can more money make you a happier person?" tonight, does the amount of wealth you have affect the kind of person you are? "newshour" economics correspondent paul solman is at it again, part of his ongoing reporting on "making sense of financial news." >> reporter: in california, you're supposed to stop for a pedestrian at a crosswalk and, in a recent study, some 90% of drivers did. except, for those driving luxury cars like this b.m.w. they were almost as likely to run the intersection as wait for the person to cross the street. >> drivers of those b.m.w.s, those porsches, those mercedes, were anywhere from three to four times more likely to break the law, than drivers of less expensive low status cars. >> reporter: in a country more and more polarized by inequality, u-cal berkeley's paul piff led a series of startling studies showing an apparent link between wealth and, well, unseemly behavior. >> oh, by the way, there's candy there. it's actually for children for another study, but you're welcome to take a few pieces if you want to. >> reporter: that's the script an experimenter recited to every subject. and the results? >> wealthier participants took two times as much candy from children as did poor participants. >> reporter: another experiment tested honesty in reporting dice scores when cash was on the line. >> people all the way at the top who made $150,000 to $200,000 a year were actually cheating four times as much as someone all the way at the bottom who made under $15,000 a year, just to win credits for a $50 cash prize. >> reporter: so, experimental evidence that rich people are more likely to break the law while driving, help themselves to candy meant for children, cheat in a game of chance. also, to lie during negotiations and endorse unethical behavior, including stealing, at work. the academic paper that resulted made headlines everywhere. the "wall street journal" article leading with the question, ready the pitchforks? >> it is very clear that this study of social class touched a nerve. >> reporter: psychology professor dacher keltner is paul piff's boss and co-author. >> we publish these studies in relatively obscure scientific journals, and literally the next day were getting, hundreds of emails from around the world, and a lot quite hostile. >> i've gotten a lot of vitriol and hate mail from people calling me out for junk science and having a liberal agenda. >> reporter: hey, but wait. didn't those who complained have a point: that the research was done at a famously-- some might say infamously-- liberal university? hey, they're at berkeley. what other results did you expect them to get? >> i regularly hear the berkley idiot scientist who's finding what they expect to find. let me tell you, we did not expect to find this. our findings apply to both liberals and conservatives, it doesn't matter who you are, if you're wealthy you're more likely to show these patterns of results. >> reporter: results consistent across 30 studies he's run on thousands of people all over the united states. so, what is it about wealth that might make people behave differently? what are we doing here? >> we're playing a game of monopoly that's rigged. >> reporter: this game is typical of another kind of experiment piff likes to run. instead of studying actual rich people, piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab. the designated monopoly moneybags starts with a few legs up: $2,000 versus the poor man's one thousand; an upscale playing piece-- the rolls-- versus an old shoe; the right to toss two dice instead of just one. two. i've got snake eyes. meaning i, assigned the role of rich person, get an extra turn. so i roll again because i've got... >> yep, cause you rolled doubles. >> reporter: doubles. six. one, two, three, four, five, six, and that's tennessee avenue and of course, i'll buy that. meanwhile, poor paul piff... >> i only get to roll one die and as it says here when i pass go i collect a lower salary. i collect $100. >> reporter: here's your one die. >> great, thanks so much. i can't roll doubles. i don't get opportunities to move very far along the board. >> reporter: piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the berkeley campus. the rich players are determined randomly by coin toss; the game rigged so they cannot lose. and yet, says piff, despite their presumably liberal bent going in... >> when we asked them afterwards, how much do you feel like you deserved to win the game? the rich people felt entitled. they felt like they deserved to win the game and that's a really incredible insight into what the mind does to make sense of advantage or disadvantage. >> reporter: so even though a subject like myself is just play-acting... you consistently find that i begin to attribute success to myself even though its a coin flip that got me on this side of the board as opposed to that. >> you, like a real rich person, start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents and you become less attuned to all of the other things that contributed to you being in the position you're in. >> how is the american dream achieved? >> reporter: piff is part of a team, headed by dacher keltner, that studies the psychological effects of both absolute and relative poverty and wealth. >> we can also ask, do people believe in this dream? >> reporter: what they're studying is economic inequality, which, as our viewers probably know, is as high as its been in almost a century in this country. >> there are new data coming out on a daily basis from top laboratories, showing no matter how you look at it, the effects of inequality are pernicious upon things like bullying on school playgrounds; the quality of your physical health; how you handle disease. >> reporter: what's somewhat surprising, says keltner, is that even the haves suffer. >> one of the things that wealth and money does is it comes with a set of values and if you want a deeper ideology, one of them is: generosity is for suckers. and greed is good. but it turns out, there are a lot of new data that show if you're generous, and charitable, and altruistic, you'll live longer; you'll feel more fulfilled; you'll feel more expressive of who you are as a person; you probably will feel more control and freedom in your life. >> reporter: of course, there are plenty of wildly generous rich folks, just look at the growing list of billionaires who've pledged to give the bulk of their fortunes to charity. and six, i got doubles again. but statistically speaking, there's a significant tendency to look out for number one if you're at the top. what do i got? >> oh, you got a get out of jail free card. >> reporter: oh, excellent that's very nice. although, i could probably-- given the fact that i'm the rich person-- get bailed out. and, as piff observed when he ran this experiment with hundreds of doggedly friendly berkeley types, those in the role of top dog began to bark like one. but eight and so i get $200 for... >> yep, you get $200. >> reporter: well, give me $140 because i'm going to buy mediterranean. >> okay done. now, listen to the way that you just spoke to me. it was very directive, almost like a demand. we found consistently with people who were the rich players, that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life. they were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned off to the side. they ate with their mouths full so they were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person. >> reporter: while i was thanking god no pretzels were present, piff continued: those arbitrarily assigned the role of low dog became more nearly man's best friend. >> if i take someone who is rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well off, they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person. >> reporter: so, when people are playing this monopoly game and they're in the poor person role that you're playing, they, if they were rich in real life, become more understanding, more compassionate? >> not just in this game of monopoly but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we've run where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich, you find the same kind of differences. >> reporter: differences that could conceivably help people understand their subconscious biases and perhaps even moderate the costly effects of economic inequality. but until that happens, wed suggest you look both ways before crossing. >> suarez: we have more of paul's conversation with psychologist dacher keltner about how wealth influences generosity on our making sense page. >> brown: and to the analysis of shields and brooks: syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. and the obvious first question is do you stop for pedestrians. mark? >> i do. (laughter) >> brown: and david i have some interpretta pretzels for y. >> well, david's rich. (laughter) no, having been a pedestrian enough myself, i do stop. >> brown: let's start with immigration. real movement in the senate this week? mark, new hurdles in the house. what's going on? >> new hurdles in the house are this, that the house is out of control. that the leadership has lost control in the house and what we basically have is a situation, jeffrey, that is very analogous to where the democrats were in the 1970s and 1980s. between 1968 and 1992, the democrats had five presidential election which is they averaged getting 17% of the electoral votes and carrying an average of eight states. they got one state in two elections, in '72 and '84. but in all that time they had the house. and so members of the democratic house didn't really care. it would be nice to win the white house but they didn't care. the republicans right now are in that position. they are -- they have the house, that's all they care about. the house members care about. they are indiffer different to the flight as expressed by lindsey graham, if we don't do something on immigration, if we don't reform ourselves, if we don't enable ourselves as a party to be able to speak to latino voters we're dead in 2016. and i think that right now is falling on deaf ears among house remembers. >> brown: do you see that? >> semideaf. so what happened this week was the debate got down -- funneled down to its core issue. there was a lot of talk in previous weeks about border security, border security. we had this amendment in the senate to really spend as much as humanly possible on border security, i'm not sure how much good it will do but we're certainly sending a lot of money on everything down there. so then it shifts to the core issue which is according to the budget report right now we're scheduled to have about 20 million people enter the country just under current law. this will increase it another 16 million. so we'll have 36 million new people in this country over the next 20 years. that will fundamentally change the nature of the country. that's a population as large as canada so that's what this debate is about. all the other stuff is surface more that. do we want to have that many new people from different parts of the world? will it change the character of the country? will it change the social fabric? that's what the debate is about. >> brown: but that's a substantive debate. you're talking about a political breakdown. >> david's right about what they did. you can't solve a problem by throwing money at it but you can assemble a senate majority. it got northern border senators on board from north dakota, maine all of a sudden we're going to keep dan ackroyd and john candy and martin short and leslie nell seine all these canadian subversive hue wrists. >> are all canadians that funny? >> that's what they've done and it can be helpful. it's what i call a border surge and that i think that's what you're seeing. we've doubled the number of border agents, jeffrey, in the past ten years now we'll add thousands more. >> on the politics of it, just the structure of the house, clearly this farm bill there was a revolt against the leader. will there be a similar revolt on immigration? possible, but possibly not. there could be a lot of republicans who oppose the bill because of their own district, their own contribution but who know for the reasons lindsey graham described the party has to get this done. and so they could say i'm a posed but i'm going to let you, mr. speaker, take this to the floor, i won't block it. >> brown: you raised the farm bill. pick up on that. that was a surprise to some degree because that's one that usually gets -- goes through fairly easily. >> it's money for everybody. so it's money for rural america, money for corporations, money for the poor, a lot of money for a lot of different things and so a number of republicans said enough is enough. this is big spending as usual and we're against it. on a substance i'm a third with them. the big bulk of the money is food stamps which has radically -- the number of people on food stamps has exploded, nonetheless when you look at the data the people getting food stamps deserve to get food stamps. i think that's basically true. nonetheless there are other parts of the bill that are unattractive. sugar subsidies, commodity price supports, crop insurance. that's corporate welfare. so i have some sympathy for them but the two elements here are the substance of it, no more business as usual and the politics of it are very in your face rebuke of this bill. >> brown: that's another example of what you're talking about? >> exactly. the primary purpose of an agriculture bill, a, is to feed hungry people and to make sure farmers and farm workers are lifted up out of poverty and protect the environment and the land. that ought to be it. david is right, there are corporate subsidies in there. he's absolutely right about food stamps. people who will r getting food stamps need food stamps. this country has through a wrenching economic experience but the biggest surprise is to me that the leadership was surprised. the house leadership. leadership should never be surprised. >> brown: john boehner. >> eric cantor, the house majority leader voted for an amendment-- a punitive amendment on food stamps-- that he had been warned would cost them the coalition. and then he turned around and said it was all nancy pelosi fault. they lost 62 house republicans. you can't lose that many on your own side on a procedural vote as to whether you're going to bring up the legislation. it was a terrible blow to the speaker, a terrible blow to the leadership. i just think it's -- and to the coalition. it had always been a great coalition between urban liberals and rural conservatives that had worked together to pass the farm bill in the past and that is obviously not the case. >> one of the interesting reasons is not the case because even rural voters have decided the money is for us but we'd rather cut spending. so debt as an issue, even in rural america, the money going to rural america, people would rather cut spending than continue with their subsidies. >> brown: but the question of what's happening with the republicans is a running theme here at this table, particularly with tea party members coming in, the new class of members coming in and then john boehner's leadership. >> we've seen this before in the budget negotiations. if you remember boehner and obama were engaged in negotiations, boehner walks out and decides he'll have something called plan "b" which is going to be the option, his own party destroys that. so we've been here before. basically off large number of people, especially those elected in the last couple elections who say my loyalty is not to the leader of my party, not to washington it's to -- i have an oppositional attitude toward all of this and they're eager for chances to show that. and this is the chance. >> it is a threat to john baner? >> it's a threat to john boehner. these are people, let's be very frank, whose districts overwhelmingly do not have latino voters. i mean, that's part of the reality. so they're not being responsive in terms of immigration, the fact that they have constituents who are concerned in this sense. it is a problem that john boehner -- john boehner three times already has violated what the hastert rule is. the hastert rule named for speaker dennis hastert was that you only bring up legislation when you're in control of the house when a majority of your own caucus is on board in support of it. he three times on relief for hurricane sandy victims, on the violence against women act and on the fiscal cliff at the beginning of the session he three times brought up legislation and passed it with a minority of his own party and democrats providing the margin of victory. and, you know, that i think in all three cases it was in the interest of the nation, certain in the interest of the party not to go on record against violence against women and not to be against hurricane sandy victims but it does jeopardize his leadership, his -- i think his speakership. he's under siege right now. >> it's hard to believe there's anybody else who could be doing any better. >> i agree. >> this is the structure of the party right now and we're going to have a presidential election and somebody like rand paul will represent a certain wing of the party and maybe something like marco rubio or somebody else will represent the other wing and it will be argued out but that structure is yet to be resolved within the party. i think the marco rubio establishment side will win. >> the democrats lost all those elections save one, the 1976 after the republican vice president resigned rather than be convicted of crime and the republican president resigned conviction of the senate pending. they won one election in all that time. the house didn't do anything until all of a sudden it looked like the house might be in jeopardy. that's the problem with the republican house is like the democratic house was then. they were in winning. they wanted the national party to win but they continued to apply litmus tests. you had to pass a labor test, a teacher's test, a women's test, gay test. >> it's corrupting to have a majority but no actual power because they can't get anything passed because they don't control the white house. but they have a majority and that leads to this kind of fight. >> brown: i want to go overseas because the president was overseas this week at the g-8 summit and in berlin giving a speech. what did you make of his -- and he ran into vladimir putin, all kinds of thing this is week. what did you see? >> i confess i found myself underwhelmed by the speech. i don't think it was up to the problems we have. this is a general thought i have about politics these days, especially in global pairs. they are gigantic extremely difficult issues: the arab spring, globalization, the decline of authoritarian governments around the world. global warming. these are just epic and we don't have solutions big enough for them and therefore we're funneling around. so when i looked at the president's speech there's worthy nuclear initiatives in syria we're probably getting in enough to make ourselves semi responsible without actually making a difference. so there's a lot of little tepid gestures and some of them are very sensible. syria gesture is probably sensible but somehow it doesn't feel up to the moment. that was my genre action in berlin and to everything. >> brown: what did you see, especially the speech at the pwrepbdenburg gate which has all kinds of symbolic power. >> first on putin. he really is writing a book "dale carnegie was wrong." he has to be one of at least two or three of the least pleasant people. >> brown: he does let you know what he's thinking. >> he's not a great poker player. and i felt for the president trying to forge any kind of relationship with him or cooperation. as far as the brandenburg gate, that to me, it's such a marvelous icon. it really is and it's so much history to it. but you don't do that speech before 4,500 people. and especially when you've got footage. i mean, you've got footage of president obama as a candidate getting 200,000 people in berlin just five years ago to say nothing of president kennedy's speech or president reagan's tear down that wall speech. i mean, just the idea -- first rule of an advanced man in politics is you always have a crowd bigger than the room so it looks like there's enthusiasm and overflow. this didn't. i do think the president addressed the subject that's of concern to the germans and that's loose nuclear and russia's problem with them and he sounded defensive, quite frankly, on the n.s.a. listening. >> brown: all right, mark shields, david brook, as always, that you can very much. every friday mark and david show a slightly different side, talking about the sport of politics and the politics of sport with hari in our newsroom. tonight they took your questions. here's a sneak preview. here's a sneak preview, a clip where they weigh in on which cities have the best baseball stadiums. best ballpark to watch a baseball game? >> i'm going to be a total heretic here and i should say fenway and camden yards and -- i think the colorado rockies stadium. >> sreenivasan: it's a beautiful stadium. >> it's the best stadium i've ever been in. why? because when you go to the stands to get a coke or hot dog or beer the sight lines are such that you can watch the game while you're there. that to me is as viewer-friendly and fan friendly a place as you'll find. >> i like that stadium. the people are too nice, though. i would like a little tension in the -- (laughter). >> well, the higher you are the nicer you are. >> and the arizona diamond backs have a nation stadium. i'm going with the pittsburgh praoeurts stadium. >> i've never been there, i heard great things about it. >> brown: you can watch and you will want to watch the entire special double header on our web site. it will be posted at the top of the rundown later tonight. >> suarez: finally tonight, a personal tale about coming to terms with being christian and gay. the subject was in the headlines again this week. the president of exodus international-- the oldest and largest christian ministry seeking to curb or eliminate same-sex attraction-- announced he is shutting down the group. alan chambers apologized for exodus's past work, saying: "i am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. i am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts." the choices made by gay christians trying to reconcile their lives and identities to their christian faith are explored in a new book "does jesus really love me?" by journalist jeff chu. jeff, welcome. >> thank you so much. >> suarez: so many christian denominations have had really divisive family fights about the status of gay people. but others have been pretty categorical: it's a spin, it's irreconcilable with the christian religion and must be judged. where does that leave gay evangelicals? >> i think it leaves a lot of people in a confused place because we look at a situation where so many people are interpreting a very ancient document and have fundamentally different views about what the bible says about human sexuality. who do you listen to? most of the voices are well-meaning voices but the conclusions they come to are so radically different. >> suarez: you wrestled with that yourself as a youngn coming out and then headed across america to talk to people in n all kinds of -- who've made all kind of conclusions about how to proceed. did you know what you were going to find out there in the out there? >> i think it's always dangerous as a journalist to presume that you know what you're going to find. i was surprised at much of what i found. my goal was to uncover stories that hadn't been told before. and even in some cases where the subjects were familiar, say westboro baptist church in kansas where their "god hates fags" protests signs i uncovered things i didn't expect to find. >> suarez: i came away with some of the stories in your book with sadness, sometimes admiration and sometimes just head-shaking wonder at the sort of schematics that people make for themselves. the compartments they build for their lives so they can just keep on living. >> i think faith is such a core thing to so many people that they construct elaborate arrangements to make sure that they can hang on to that. when you grow up in church and then you're told because of another part of your identity you can no longer belong people do try to find ways in many cases to get back to god if not to church. >> suarez: a lot of people made the choice to leave all together rather than finding a church that would love them. that's kind of a sad conclusion. they threw the whole deal out when they were in a place that would not welcome them and would not find them in fellowship. >> i think for some people who have ended up an the atheist/agnostic part of the religious spectrum they feel a sense of triumph. they feel like reason has won out. that's not where i've ended up. i have tried to hang on to my faith because it is very important to me. i think the conclusion i have that is that we can't make these decisions for anyone else. we're not talking about something that's rational when we're talking about faith. there is an element of the absurd in it. kirkegaard talks about that in his writings. faith is not a rational process. >> suarez: but you went out to these people having already in some way come to terms with who you are, how you want to live your life. did you have to resist the temptation to judge some of these people who've made some very different choices? a gay man, for instance, who marries a woman and tries to live the straight life even though he's fully aware that he's still gay. >> there were moments where internally i was judging and at that point i had to put on my journalist hat and remind myself there is an element of objectivity i have that to maintain here. i have to tell this story so that when my subject opens the book they recognize themselves. that was the commitment that i made. at the same time, i have a stake in this game, too. i think every reader who approaches these stories-- whether it's the story of the gay man who marries a woman, or the story of a man who chooses to be celibate for 30 years or the story of the congregation that gets kicked out of the lutheran church for calling a gay man to the pass tort and then has to decide whether to rejoin or not-- everybody will read these stories in different ways. because we all have our own biases and baggage and i think that's okay. we just need to have a more gracious conference about those biases and about that baggage. >> suarez: is the whole thing, the whole story, in motion? is this just a capturing of a moment in time? will the church capital "t" capital "c" big institutional church be somewhere different in ten years, 20 years? >> i hope so. i hope we're constantly growing and evolving but you look at american families and how there isn't one that's untouched by this issue. the conversation conversations r happening at kitchen tables in a way that they weren't 10, 20, 30 years ago. the church has to respond in some way to that conversation. and it will be shaped by that response. people will choose to leave if the church is not candid, if the church doesn't learn to deal in some constructive way with this issue or people will stay if it feels like the church is being relevant. >> suarez: we're going to continue our conversation online, taking a closer look at exodus international. the book is "does jesus really love me? a gay christian's pilgrimage in search of god in america." jeff chu, thanks. >> thank you very much. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: there is late word that federal prosecutors have charged edward snowden with releasing secret surveillance. the "washington post" says he's accused of espionage and theft. brazil braced for a new round of mass protests and potential violence, after more than a million people turned out last night in cities nationwide. the death toll soared above 600 in monsoon flooding that's ravaged northern india. and president obama nominated >> suarez: online, a novelist retells the story of three historic voyages. hari sreenivasan has the details. >> sreenivasan: colum mccann, winner of the national book award, talks to jeffrey brown about his latest novel, "transatlantic," which interweaves storylines of three trips from the u.s. to ireland. watch their conversation plus mccan reads an excerpt from his work. sunday will bring a so-called super moon, but maybe it's not so super after all. on lunch in the lab, we debunk the term and offer some tips for moongazing. all that and more is on our website newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> suarez: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on monday, we'll look at the latest round of decisions from the supreme court. i'm ray suarez. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thanks for joining us. good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> this is nightly business report with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you by -- >> thestreet.com, international tools for an ever changing financial world. the stock advisor guides and helps generate income during a period of low interest rates. real money helps you think through ideas for investing and trading stocks. action alerts plus is a charitable trust portfolio that provides trade by trade strategies, online, social media, wearethestreet.com. wild week. we saw ups and big slides down, but now that the nerve wracking week is over what happens next? >> sentenced reduced. he was the man at the center of the nbig financial scandal and e