about 3% of all seafood entries and performed laboratory annual sis on less than 1% of those entries. we have to understand that this asian fish is raised in places that quite honestly run a higher risk of contamination based on the growing conditions, based on the overall sanctity of their environment compared to ours. i think they present more health risks. i think it only makes sense that once we know that one-third of these imports that come from southeastern asian nations, places like china and vietnam, where food safety standards are just not as high in the u.s., once we understand that, it makes sense that they would be afforded the same inspection regime that we would have here in the u.s. these foreign countries are

currently flooding the u.s. market with potentially harmful products, and those products could be putting u.s. consumers at risk. there has been several news reports about some of the growing conditions over there and some of the possible harmful side effects to human health if humans consume those, and here again we have the safeguards in the farm bill to do the inspections as they should be done. the new inspection program would subject domestic catfish processors to daily usda inspection and imported catfish, much of which is raised in the unsanitary conditions that i mentioned before, and it's also treated with antibiotics and other chemicals that are not deemed legal here in the united states, but that's the growing conditions that they're in over there, it would require that they would receive more rigorous inspection than they are currently subject to. and again, i don't see this as

protectionist. i think this is truly to make sure that all the food supply, whether it comes from overseas or is grown here domestically, meets our u.s. standards, and our people, our american citizens understand that when they purchase fish, that they're going to get something that won't make them and make their families sick when they consume it. so, mr. president, with that, i want to say that i appreciate all of my colleagues looking at this provision, i appreciate senator stabenow and her whole team. in fact, all the members of the ag committee that helped on this and all of their staffs, they have been great on this issue. catfish is a very small part of our agriculture picture in the u.s., but it's an important part. people all over -- especially all over the southern region of the united states love to consume catfish, and they just need to understand that when

they buy catfish in the u.s., that it's going to be safe for them and for their families. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise today to express my support for senate joint resolution 37 and to express my deep and profound disapproval of the obama administration's handling of the utility mact rule. let me first address what this debate is not about. this is not about a debate between one side that supports clean air and another side that does not. we all support and understand the importance of maintaining our pristine environment, maintaining the quality of human health and the ecosystem. in my state, the great state of utah, holds some of the greatest land resources in the country and some of the most beautiful

landscapes. they are all a source of pride for all americans and especially for all utahans, and they provide a significant economic benefit for my state in the form of tourism dollars. i would not support any legislation ever that would damage our environmental brand in utah or that would harm our environment. what this debate does expose is this administration's vigorous, unfettered attempts to severely limit the use of coal technology and a complete and utter disregard for the economic benefits of this industry and the economic effects of this kind of overall aggressive regulation. if implemented fully, the utility mact rule would give utilities nationwide just three short years to fully complete very costly upgrades to their plants. many industry experts believe

that these standards are nearly impossible to meet in that time frame. utilities will need closer to five or six years to make the necessary upgrades required by this regulatory scheme. those who are unable to comply will have no choice but to shut down unless or until they can meet those standards. this inevitably, with absolute certainty, will result in sharp spikes to energy costs, increased power bills for all americans, affecting the most vulnerable among us, the most severely. higher energy costs will in turn have a direct impact on the family budget. the more we as americans spend on higher energy costs, the less we have available for savings, for education and for other priorities. although the president campaigns around the country by trying to convince americans that he knows how to create jobs, this rule alone has been estimated by some industry experts as likely to

kill 180,000 to 215,000 jobs by 2015. so one has to wonder why it is that this administration is nonetheless imposing rules that it knows cannot be met and that if they must be met will kill this many jobs and hurt this many americans. why are they ignoring the obvious economic consequences of shutting down an industry that produces about half of all the electricity we use in the united states of america today? it just doesn't make any sense. we can have sensible regulations that keep our air and our water and other aspects of our environment clean. we need those things, we want those things as americans. we can also have a balanced approach that considers the economic cost of new rules and restrictions on small businesses and on consumers. that's what we need.

utility mact is an example of a regulation that does neither of these things. it accomplishes none of these interests. i strongly urge my colleagues to support senate joint resolution 37, and i stand with a growing bipartisan group of senators, private sector unions and business interests who believe we can do better as americans than imposing these kinds of regulations on the american people. and who also believe that it's vitally important that when we do put these kinds of regulations on the american people, that we first have the kind of robust debate and discussion that americans have come to expect from their political institutions. two separate provisions of the constitution, article 1, section 1, and article 1, section 7, clearly place the legislative process, the power to make rules that carry the force of generally applicable, binding federal law in the hands of congress, not in an executive branch agency.

the american people know this, they understand it, they expect it, they rely on it because they know that if we pass laws that the people don't like, that the people can't accept, that kills jobs, that hurts those most vulnerable among us, that we can be held politically accountable come election time. every two years in the case of members of the house. every six years in the case of members of this body. when we circumvent that process, when we allow that process, the law-making process to be carried out entirely within an executive branch agency, consisting of people who are perfectly well-intentioned and well-educated, do not stand accountable to the people, we inlate the lawmakers from those -- insulate the lawmakers from those governed by those same laws. this is exactly why we need to exercise our authority under the congressional review act by passing these riewgz of disapproval from time to time. but it's all the more reason why we need more lasting, significant reform, reform that

can be had through the rains act proposal. this is a proposal that has already passed through the house favorably and needs to be passed in this body. it's a bill that would require that for any new regulation promulgated at the administrative level, any new regulation that qualifies as a major rule because it costs american consumers and small business interests, individuals and families and all others in america more than $100 million in a year, that it would take effect if and only if it were first passed into law in the house and in the senate and signed into law by the president. this is how our law-making process is supposed to operate. this is a system that our founding fathers carefully put in place. assuring that those who make the laws and thereby have the capacity to affect the rights of individual americans can and will be held accountable to the people for the very laws that they pass. now, i tried to get the rains act up for consideration in

connection with the ag bill. we were not successful in doing that. apparently, some in this body, some in control of this body were unwilling to have a vote on the rains act proposal as an amendment to the ag bill. sooner or later, we need to have a vote on the rains act. we need to have this debate and discussion to assure that the laws that are passed in this country are passed by men and women chosen by the people accountable to the people, that we may yet still have that guarantee in our country, a guarantee of government of the people, by the people and for the people. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> the senate is in recess now to allow members to attend their weekly party meetings. when they return at 2:15 p.m. eastern, they will begin voting on up to 73 and amendments to the farm bill. live coverage of the senate resumes at 2:15 p.m. here on c-span2. tomorrow, the house oversight and government reform committee

meets to consider a report holding attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress are failing to provide subpoenaed documents related to operation fast and furious. committee chair darrell ice said friday he would postpone a vote against mr. holder if the justice department comes forward with the document. they are scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. today to discuss turning over of those documents. will have live coverage of tomorrow's oversight committee meeting beginning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. we hear more about this from congresswoman sheila jackson lee this morning on "washington journal." >> host: representative sheila jackson lee, democrat of texas where she represents the 18th district in the houston area. thanks for coming in. >> guest: pleasure to good morning. >> host: we saw president obama shift is caused on immigration relating to young people who came to the country at a young age who are trying to pursue education or a military.

texas faces a lot of immigration issues. how do you think it will play back in your home district? >> guest: i think a lot of people be happy. i know the casework that i sit in my office personally, i have dealt with what is termed d.r.e.a.m. act youth children. we have embraced each other when i said it. that come to my office. i have seen them on college campuses. i've seen him in high schools. i have seen tears in the eyes. i see them decide to serve an united states military. so frankly there is a large population. that will be impacted positively by the order that the president rendered. i think it's important, i served continuously on immigration subcommittee and i'm on homeland security. and i said as ranking member for good time, introduced comprehensive immigration law which include access to legalization, that a pattern of criteria what you have to do. many people should recognize

first of all the 60% of hispanics are us-born citizens but there are only 40% that are labeled, requires order is not true. we see the increasing number of patients. we have seen a irish. many people are impacted by what is called dream act children and have been here since 16 or before, have been at least five years in the country, came through no fault of their own, excelled in school ready to go to college and cannot work. and i think this is an enormously valuable step the president has made to the president has made it with the authority that this is not unconstitutional, and congresses have time to do. as i indicated, and many of us have introduced legislation. this has been 11 years percolating. we almost had it under president bush's administration and could not get it through parts of the congress, the senate. we almost had the dream act passed in the session before,

and 55 senators, we did not get enough to break the logjam. what are these children to do? and the deportation process, it is cruel. it separates families. it since the two countries they have never been. the president made it very clear to they came through no fault of their own. the criteria and since that the record is clear, therefore, the way it is framed, major incidents, criminal incidences, those individuals will not be eligible to i think it's the right thing to do. i have cases in my office right as we speak that involve teenagers, high school, college, that were moving toward deportation proceedings. we have saved youngsters who were in college and were destined and were ready to be deported. they were to be picked up. now they will be stayed, and

they will have the privilege of renewing that. and i think that's a good process. but we would like to permit process to all those critics, we would like a permanent process. if congress develops a permanent process, i'm ready to do so if they already do so. >> host: let's look at the new details and how it does differ from the dream act. as you mentioned it would come young people are immune from deportation. they had to come to the u.s. before the age of 16 and either 30 or younger currently. it affects over 800,000 immigrants have been in the u.s. for at least five years, have graduate from high school, or have a ged or a military service. as you mentioned, no criminal record. different than the d.r.e.a.m. act and that it is temporary. >> it is temporary. it isn't not citizenship. it is not amnesty. you still have to get in line right now, and what it does do is it allows these individuals to have work-study jobs, summer jobs, normal american, one that

is a citizen. and it's only fair way of not losing this great talent. let me just be very clear, since i'm in texas and i traveled throughout my high schools. these are young people who are as american as anybody else walking down the streets of washington, d.c. or walks into the united states congress. they love america. they celebrate all of america's wonderful assets. they are fun. they are champions of their high school or college. they are here to stay and to contribute to this nation. the simple question is, and i have always said this, i chair the founders of congressional children's caucus. are there any children in america that we should throw away? i don't think so. this legislation, excuse me, executive order, said that within the powers, there are provision specifically under homeland security that the president and immigration law regulatory process that he is able to utilize and rely upon

your that's what the executive order is based upon. frankly, senator rubio did have legislation proposed, or thinking, but never introduced, never showing any signs that it would move forward in the united states congress. >> host: we are seeing the story from the seattle times that marco rubio plans to drop his immigration plan after the presidents announcement on friday. let's take a listen to senator rubio. this is on a fox news last by speaking with sean hannity, talking about the u.s. immigration policy and how he needs to be enforced. take a listen. >> on the one hand we do have a significant illegal immigration problem. it has to be confronted. it has to be solved. we cannot be the only country in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. on the other and we have some very compelling stories like the case of these young people have been here their whole life of grown up here, brought at a young age through no fault of their own, and it touches your heart to the stores, and trying

to find a reasonable balance that honors both her legs as a nation of immigrants, and also a nation of, the legacy of the nation of law is not easy. >> host: that is senator rubio speaking last night, talking about trying to balance enforcement law ith having empathy. >> guestyou deal so much with the border issues, the obama administration has actually increased the number of deportations. we're expecting to see 400,000 this year. is that working out rex. >> guest: even some of those deportations are under the present law, if those are hardship deportations. they separate families. i've seen women and mothers separated from their families. i've seen hard-working fathers separated from their families. we have to know that by and large those immigrants who have come most recently, in particular have come across the border, southern border, really have, for opportunities. i frankly think that the administration has been strong and enforcement. i've seen it from both sides.

i've been to the california border. i've been to the texas border. i've been to arizona. just came out of arizona just about three weeks to a month ago. and so, i think since i've been in congress we have seen dramatic improvement of the resources of the border patrol with my dogs, helicopters, equipped, laptops, et cetera. and and gradually it improved. even those advocates of the fence know that has not been the best source of investment. but it is partially there. the relationship between the border and the united states is huge. it is $12 billion per month in trade that we are doing with the border. so we have to balance both the relationship we've had with mexico, south and central america, over the centuries, with where we are today. i think we have gotten somewhat of a hand over around the influx of individuals looking for work, if you will.

those are the people who came there for no other reason than to provide or involve themselves in economic economy of this country. and we have to face the huge violence in drug cartels. does that exist? yes. do we make a mistake by confusing that with people coming over for work? absolutely. human trafficking, dastardly, we must stop. we have been working, we have one of the major trafficking task force in my region in houston, in particular that coordinate with other agencies. drug cartels, violence, absolutely. encourage, support all efforts of the justice department and others dealing with stopping that. but let's separate immigration, people wanting opportunity and how we address that. that's where empathy comes from. so congress, my fellow colleagues, and we get along and get together to work this out. >> host: representative sheila jackson lee, democrat of texas.

let's go to houston calling right now. otis is a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing, sheila? >> guest: good morning. >> caller: the question i have is this. i know we are at the border, but let, let, obama did this without congressional approval. this is the only thing i have against this whole thing. it's like was said on tv, the election, you know. and i think if he had three years of, you know, senate and legislative, democratic, and doing nothing. so it looks like an election prop. but also i also heard watching c-span and news networks that this was done behind janet

napolitano, who gutierrez asked for her resignation. and obama panicked and did this immigration thing. now, i see you smiling. i really am on this. and another thing, talk about coming through no fault of their own. okay, somebody has got to be held responsible. no -- path to think we're getting multiple calls crossing over. let's address some of his points. this tweak the game invested this is only temporary policy that can be recalled. after the election. isn't this just pandering for votes? we're hearing both the mr. otis and from a boring file clerk that this is purely critical. >> guest: let me say first for otis, i must say happy juneteenth. i will answer his question, but it's a very emotionally driven holiday.

our recognition in our state, and it has to do with the emancipation proclamation by abraham lincoln, which was in 1863. and those of us in texas and elsewhere along the gulf region did not get to work until 1865. that the fillets -- that the slaves were freed. over these last few days we've been commemorating that with a variety of historic opportunities. we have something called friedman cut in houston. it was a great event, emancipation park. just many other places. in celebration by representative al edwards established a state holiday. even in the united states we are looking to recognize this commemoration. the hudson institute of legislation as well which i joined her in and will join her in. but it is a very special time to recognize the importance of freedom. and so i wish texas and others a happy juneteenth. and i think that's a good

lead-in to what this legislation is about, and to answer of his question, secretary napolitano called me early in the morning of the president's announcement, and i've worked with her over the years. and, in fact, is many people will remember, just made a couple of months ago, the i.c.e. director issued some new guideline to use discretion to only focus on the hardened, serious offenders and criminals, and those who would do america harm as priorities over others. in terms of deportations. and we have seen those spike in crime. crime is at its lowest. we see no crisis in particular, in unemployed because i know a lot of people are sensitive about their taking jobs. we see many states unemployment has gone down so we are not where we need to be. and the idea of whether or not this was political, the process

of government is a political process. frankly, does the executive order help? and the answer to that is the yes, it does. right now as we speak 800,000 youth will be in the midst of central deportations. we at texas tech student that i have just a few months ago that was picked up because of a traffic infraction and was stopped in the area of the school and taken in. the oldest of five children, hard-working parents, and he was in line for deportation. the dreams of that family, the contributions he would make to america, lost. we were able to help them. but now this will be a process that the student cam involve themselves in, contribute to society. it is temporary but it is temporary to allow the congress to get its act in order, to allow, if you will, going forward either president obama reelected, which i hope and look forward to, or someone else to

be able to be fair in this process. america has always been a just nation. we have not taken from others to give to someone else. this is not taking from anyone. this is correcting an error, where you have children who have not been to their country for however long, being in the deportation process. and none of these children wanting to harm to the united states of america. >> host: let's hear from derek in minneapolis on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning c-span. good morning, america. all right, so, this is very interesting. this is politics but the good thing about our country is that we are based on law. that's why we are a republic. now, when you say, would we to any children away, we have abortion. you know, we do that every day in multiples. you support planned parenthood, too. now the question is, is it unconstitutional. of course, it is

unconstitutional. you can't invoke executive power to offset a law that is already in the books that has been signed into law. so i don't understand what you're talking about. it is taking we think summer country when people can just break the law. >> guest: well, first of all, i support choice. i don't know what that would be, if that's what you're trying to say. at a certain support planned parenthood, responsibly in providing access to health care for women. which is a great issue in texas. but how i would respond to come and i do appreciate your interpretation, yes, there are provisions that allow this executive order to be issued, and the president has executive order powers. but in particular and homeland security their art discretion the tory powers the secretary of homeland security had. the secretary is the one that announced the policies and

design the policies of which the president captured in executive order, which is within his authority. it is limited, so that means it is judicious by its very nature. it is two years so it is balance. it bounces what senator rubio said between enforcement and empathy. and it does not exceed the powers that are best in the department of homeland security. and, therefore, the president has not issued in order for them to use those powers in this manner, which is a discretion of preventing those individuals of this criteria, having been in this country for five years, having been there since the age of 16, actively with hud high school diploma in school, going to college, military service, who have the ability to stay out of deportation and have it revisited and renewed every two years. i think that is a very fair utilization of existing

regulatory powers under the department of homeland security. >> host: let's are from the corpus christi, texas, caller. james, democrat. >> caller: yes-men. i've been watching you this morning, and watching the proceedings going on. do you not have a dictionary? do you not understand the definition of legal and illegal? i really don't think you or the president understand host a what do you see that is illegal? >> caller: have come to this country illegally. it's like a bank robber. you cannot call a bank robber someone getting an unauthorized alone. they are criminals. >> host: earlier caller also asked about who is ultimately held accountable. you talked about how you don't see it as the child's fault but if the parent brought him over or a relative brought them over, can you address these two concerns? >> guest: first of all, let me give a small small historical perspective on immigration.

and i think we have politicized this whole issue of immigration. this nation is a nation of immigration or immigrants, and it is a nation of law. and, frankly, if we went over our chronicle history, i indicated that this is juneteenth. i came as an immigrant it might ancestor came as an immigrant. obviously, insulated. in the 1800s to quit massive influx with the irish, early 1900. italians. me people came to this country. in fact, nini overstayed in this country are from your. many of them are polish but i remember working with the polish community on immigration issues. answer the question of illegal and legal sometimes is a very murky set of facts. what we are saying is that parents have come over and brought children who can make no decision as to whether they stayed or went with the parents, arthur innocently.

they may be undocumented, but they have gone throughout the system of education, and there is an answer to the senator rubio have said balance into the with enforcement, the president has chosen to use empathy in circumstances where these individuals can contribute to the growth of america. just one quick example. i'm a big promoter of ensuring that americans have worked. i've been one that is supportable we called h-1b1 visas. but i question it as it might impact on minorities and other hard-working americans. that is to bring h-1b1 visas deal with how the person, engineers and others. but one example comes from a young man graduates our best goaltender to get an h-1b1 visa to work for apple. be trained to start his own business. apparently we stalled and stalled, and he went back to indy. now there's a $100 million business in india with many, many employees.

those employees and that business could have been in the united states. that's a unique example, but it is also to suggest that these youngsters who have not been to the home country, and if you're deporting them, you are deporting them on their own back to their home country. because some of those parents have become static, but they failed to get these youngsters status for whatever reason. and so this is to attempt to respond to that. this will be under supervision by the department of homeland security. this is not an easy process. it is a process that will be reviewed every two years. and i hope that the congress, will put in place, establish immigration reform that will help our agricultural industry, that will help our business industry, that will help the american worker by creating additional jobs. instrument will help young people who desire serving in the

united states military, and as well contribute to the economic infrastructure of this country. >> host: representative sheila jackson lee serving a ninth term representing the 18th district of texas which is centered in houston. she serves on the judiciary committee, focusing on immigration and policy enforcement in particular. also, homeland security. a store here in political, fast and furious is up in the air. congressmen darrell issa, the chairman of the ice oversight and reform committee plans to meet with attorney general eric holder today, and we will see if this move forward, or actually hold off the potential contempt vote. how much did you have in attorney general holder right now? are you taking a stand behind it? >> guest: im post a detail like other democrats are? you are one of the voices who did speak up for him in the judiciary hearing recently to give you like other democrats are doing the same thing?

>> guest: i can't speak for all democrats, but i know that those have had the opportunity to hear him before the various committees, and belief that the general has been forthright and is willing to cooperate. as we speak and we know that there is an intent for chairman issa and the attorney general to sit down and discuss what compromises they can engage in with respect to further documentation. let me try to clarify the record, and indicate that this fast and furious debacle started under the bush administration, and it has been evidenced by various reports that it started with the office in arizona, unbeknownst to leadership in washington, d.c., at least leadership that came in under the obama administration come in this instance, eric holder. after it was brought to attention, there was some confusion. he even admits that he sent a letter to congress that was incorrect. he ultimately corrected that.

every request for him to appear on fast and furious before a congressional committee, the general has attended and been open. the issue that we have is that this is an open investigation. i have spoken to atf officers who want to come forward and clarify even their position. unfortunately, since this is an open case, since there is an ultimate tragic that occur, we are still in this, which again, give our deepest sympathy to the family of a fallen officer, and have no desire to see it happen again. but we have to be adults in this process, particularly when we're trying to get to the bottom of the issue of fast and furious. it was intended, if i might say, to pierce the gunrunning and cartels of the border. it was intended to be a good thing, to have smalltime gunrunners capture the big guys. it didn't work.

for those law enforcement who attempted to do this, let me attribute them good intentions. i would not imagine that they would organize this to say we want to do wrong. they did do wrong. it didn't work out. we understand that now. i truly believe and have no problem with continuous hearings with others, other than the general, to get continuously, what happened. but what has happened between the general, and in this instance, the chairman of the oversight committee, has gotten to be very pointed. and i don't think you get answers when you're very pointed. and so i defend the general one, on the service is given to this country over decades of public service in the federal law enforcement, and the work that he is doing in the area of civil rights come in the area of federal crimes, in the area of mortgage relief come settlements

that he has brought about because of that. and the help that he is given in patent law and conventions in terms of protection. and antitrust. justice department is about more than fast and furious. and so i would defend general holder for his years of service, but also for the integrity i think that he believes that he brings to this office. and i think if we can recognize that, get to the bottom of the issue that we're concerned about posting another texan on the line. michael is on a republican line. good morning. >> guest: good morning. i am a third generation scottish american, and i went to college for computer software designer. >> guest: yes, sir. >> caller: computer remote controls. a computer designer but we program computer program for, it's a computer operated machine

that does all the work for the human being. like they would use that general motors or ford motor corporation. there are smaller operations. >> host: where are you going with this, michael? comic jobs are harder to get. since i moved to florida, my grandfather died, my father died. you can't find anywhere. immigration, immigration, immigration -- there are no jobs where they are falling off. it just -- it needs,. [inaudible] third generation immigrant, it leaves me with no work to rely, nowhere to go. i'm working for $2 a day. i'm back to living with my grandfather lived before me.

>> guest: let me just tell you, and look you straight in the eye if i can come and say that is unacceptable for any american, any american, an immigrant american, an american the third and fourth generation. we have a problem in this country of job creation, and it is our responsibility here in the congress, along with the private sector and states and businesses throughout our states to create that economic engine the. ..

>> that might be more productive for you. so my commitment to the american people as a member of the united states congress is that we should fight for jobs. we now have a log jam, if you will, on the passage of the transportation bill. that will create thousands on thousands of jobs. we shouldn't have this kind of log jam on a bill that helps to rebuild america's infrastructure and to put construction companies and others, engineers and others, back to work. we have a crumbling infrastructure. many of you know that. and so i think the issue has to be are we all americans working for the betterment of this nation? if we are, then the congress that i'm very proud to be a part

of because my constituents sent me here, need to have that same reflection of who we are and let us rise above to pass legislation that will help you and many other americans. >> host: donald is calling from cookville, tennessee. independent caller. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span, and good morning, ms. jackson-lee. i remember you back from i municipal court days. i liked you better when you ran your court better than a legislator, but that's another conversation for another time. >> guest: that's okay, i've got fans on both sides. [laughter] >> caller: well, i'm p in the other room watching this, you ladies raise your hand if you know anybody who's had a water heater blow out in the middle of the night. the first thing you do is shut off the water. the next thing you do is mop up the mess while you're waiting for the plumber. that is not the time that you

start thinking about put anything one of those kohler12-head showers. that's what comprehensive bills are, is talking about changing all these aspects. you need to fix the problem first. now, i don't have a problem with immigrants coming in since i'm from houston. i'm used to this. i've never had a problem with visas getting handed out and work permits, but they pay guest worker dues like a cab driver has to pay a lease on his cab in order to earn some money. well, if their kids are getting educated here, fine. pay some guest worker dues to help offset that cost. >> host: donald, we'll leave it there and get a response from the congress woman. >> guest: well, we miss you in houston. what i would say encourage your member of congress, wherever you are, to support the idea of comprehensive immigration

reform. all of those initiatives, as i indicated, one that i introduced and one that many others, former congressman ortiz and, obviously, a champion of these issues has been luis gutierrez, the hispanic caucus working with many others in the congress have been championing balanced immigration reform that would include access to legalization and have a fee structure that would generate millions and millions of dollars into our coffers in the united states treasury. but let me be very clear, many of the parents of these children, guardians of these children pay taxes every day. they pay state taxes, they pay state income taxes, they pay state sales taxes, property taxes. so taxes are being paid for these young people or those who are their custodian and their guardian. it is important that we realize that taxes are paid in many forms. they are purchasers of goods and

products, but there's no quarrel with the idea of a comprehensive response. the president responded to an emergency. when i say that, he could hear stories throughout the nation of these young children being in the deportation process. in fact, it was, in essence, taking space and time from the i.c.e. process for those who would be here to do us harm, and i think it's more important to focus on serious offenders than these young individuals. >> host: as our last caller mentions, our guest, representative sheila jackson lee, was a municipal court judge for the city of houston. she also served two terms as one of the first african-american women at large members of the houston city council before she began her career in congress. you are calling for the attorney general to investigate a case in texas, a chad holly case.

this is a story from kiah. you've called the case houston's rodney king. do you think the attorney general can adequately look into this when he's under so much scrutiny and so much political fire right now? >> guest: there are topnotch lawyers in the department of justice. in fact, the department of justice through all administrations has been a steadfast agency dealing with violations of law. how i would complement and attribute leadership to general holder is that for the first time we've had a vigorous civil rights section that has looked at a number of cases dealing with voting infractions, purging of voters and civil rights violations. let me be very clear over my tenure as a member of the house judiciary committee i've had a very strong record in supporting our law enforcement across this nation. our local law enforcement with funding and resources and laws

that would protect them, our federal law enforcement. and that's why i so steadily want to be persistent on making sure the integrity of all law enforcement is upheld. in this instance this was a case that showed, from my perspective, inappropriate actions by law enforcement officers in the beating of a teenager who, by the way, was violating the law and has since had another run-in with the law. i separate that. i do not condone those actions, and we want this young man to find an opportunity to move forward in his life and go the straight direction. and many are working with him. but the video was so potent, so powerful of the beating of a 16-year-old who was on the ground with his hands behind his head that i view this as a case that should be reviewed at the appropriate time by the civil rights division of the u.s. department of justice, and i frankly believe that general holder continues to supervise that agency appropriately, and

the department of justice lawyers will continue to review cases, and they'll make their decision on the facts. but i think the country should know if they feel an injustice has been done, department of justice is open for business and ready to serve. >> host: let's hear from henry in michigan, democrats' line. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: good morning, representative lee. and i'd like to say happy juneteenth to you, a fellow houstonian. i was born and raised in sunnyside, i'm sure you're familiar with that area. >> guest: yes, i am. great area. >> caller: i would like to clear up a few things. first of all, the president tried to pass an immigration reform bill in december and, of course, that was blocked and filibustered. i'm tired of hearing these people who keep talking about the president had the 60-vote majority in the senate and the

necessary votes in the house. they keep forgetting that we had an independent who used to caucus with the democrats but decided to campaign for john mccain. so that took us down a notch, and we've got a bunch of conservative democrats who have blocked the president as well during that two-year period. also eric holder actually brought this problem to the fore about this fast and furious, and now the republicans are grandstanding and, basically, what they want to do is to try and block attorney general holder and make a big tempest in a teapot because he's trying to stop these voter suppression laws. so i want to commend you for speaking up. you were the only democrat who spoke up for attorney general holder, and i hope that you and the hispanic caucus, i hope that

you and the hispanic caucus will try and get together and get people out to vote for our president. he deserves a second term, and we need to mobilize the people and keep together in unity. thank you very much for the job you do, and i'm proud of you. thank you. >> host: henry brought up voter issues. let's talk for a moment about what's happening in florida, a battle there between the governor, rick scott, and the obama administration. the attorney general because of purging the voter rolls. we had congressman allen west of florida on yesterday, let's take a listen to how he framed this issue. >> guest: well, it's not targeting minorities. it's just the same thing as, you know, people say you should not have a voter id or a picture id to be able to go and vote. and i found it interesting that the democrat convention is requiring people to have picture ids. so that's a little bit ironic. what is happening in the state of florida is very simple. the florida government mandates the states to be able to police their voting rolls and to have

integrity of that system. we found out about a month ago we have 58,000 dead people on the rolls in the state of florida that we're trying to take care of. >> host: representative allen west, republican of florida. comparing what's happening there to people being asked for their ids at the democratic convention or needing an id to fly. [laughter] >> guest: well, let me debunk those analogies and simply say this. first of all, the congressman is right. there is a responsibility by states to manage their voting rolls, and we respect that. there's also a responsibility by the federal government under the civil rights laws and under the 1965 voting rights act to protect the voting rights of minorities that may be impacted in certain states. florida happens to be one of them covered by the voting rights act because of conspicuous past discrimination.

there should be no quarrel with the idea of removing people who are deceased. the intervention of the department of justice, asked for by others who felt that the purging which may result in millions of voters might be discriminatory. we have the same representation possibly going on in the state of texas where there's the possibility of a million plus voters being purged. this whole idea of the voter id -- and i'm glad that the department of justice is looking at each of these voter id laws in the states, the states that they are now looking at -- determine whether or not there's any impact that would kill the rights of a person to vote. an id to get on an airplane, you're absolutely right. i'm on homeland security, and it's gotten quite, quite challenging to insure that you fly, when i say that, to make sure that you have the right id. you can't leave your id at home.

but the idea of travel and the constitutional protection that you have gives you any number of ways of traveling. hitchhike on a truck, drive a car, walk, bicycle. so you are not forbidden from moving where you are to the next location because you don't have an id. but if precious right, the constitutional right of voting is taken away from you because you don't have an id, there is no alternative. and to all my friends that use that kind of analogy, i will say to you that travel gives you other options. voting, if you cannot vote, you have no option. if you're purged and you cannot vote because you're purged, there is no other option for letting your vote be counted. so this is something that many of us applaud and, frankly, if the state of florida can prevail by proving the procedures for doing this is a fair procedure and not discriminatorily pointing to one group of voters

over another, so be it. but the justice department has its right to do so. let's be civil in all of this. let's realize that this is the responsibility of this administration and the attorney general. and as the last caller said, attorney general holder has been looking very closely at various issues, fast and furious. he was right up front and center as he became aware of it to oppose this action and to, also, bring it to the attention of the united states congress. >> host: congresswoman sheila jackson lee represents texas' 18th district as a democrat. thank you so much for coming in this morning. >> guest: thank you for having me. pleasure to be here. >> host: happy juneteenth. >> guest: thank you. >> the senate is in if recess until 2:15 eastern. when members return, they'll vote on amendments to the farm bill. some 73 amendments will be considered. final passage will require 60 votes. later today members will pause in considering the farm bill for two hours of debate on a motion to proceed to a resolution related to an epa rule on

emission standards for certain steam-generating units. live senate coverage here on c-span2. wednesday the house oversight committee holds a meeting to consider the contempt of congress report for attorney general eric holder. committee chair darrell issa says he will delay the vote on the report if the attorney general provides the documents related to operation and furious. that's wednesday at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. now more on the attorney general with congressman gohmert of texas from this morning's "washington journal. ". >> host: republican of texas, thanks for joining us. >> guest: great to be with you, libby. >> host: it's texas morning here on c-span after having representative sheila jackson-lee. wanted to start off with this from florida, the attorney general is planning to meet with the chairman of oversight, darrell issa, today. do you expect them to come to some sort of agreement, and do

you think a contempt vote should go forward? >> guest: it depends on what's produced. if the attorney general produces all the things that were requested properly, then there wouldn't be a need for contempt. there actually already has been an act of contempt, and that's refusing to furnish documents that were properly requested over a year ago and continuing to simply provide some bluff and bluster in the year since. so we could go ahead with a vote. i think the contemptible action's already happened in refusing to comply with a legitimate request. but if he turns everything over, then i'd say there's no need for a vote. >> host: how political is this? >> guest: well, it may be very political from the attorney general's standpoint. i was shocked during our last hearing with the attorney general when he said, and i think it was in answer to one of randy forbes' questions, there

are political aspects to justice. libby, that flew all over me. i've spent so much of my life as a prosecutor, judge, chief justice. there's no political aspects if you're going to have true justice. that's one of the -- that's why the statue of justice has a blinder on it. you don't look at anybody's political persuasion, race, creed, color. you know, you don't look at any of those things. gender, that's not supposed to matter. what's supposed to matter is true, fair justice. so to have the highest-ranking justice official in this administration, in this country say that justice has political aspects was just so offensive to me. but, so that's why i say there may be political aspects as the attorney general has already said for this administration, but for some of us we really do just want the country to do what's right, the people that are running the country to do what's right, and it may not be a surprise to you, but i have a

lot of people in my party's leadership who are not always very happy with me. in fact, i asked our whip before i came over, i said anything you want to say? and he says, it wouldn't matter if i told you. [laughter] so anyway, you know, some of us what's important is the country. >> host: representative louie gohmert, republican of texas representing the first district of that state. serving his fourth term. he's on the judiciary committee, immigration policy and enforcement subcommittee and then, also, natural resources, and we'll talk about that as well. let's talk, though, for a moment about the immigration issue. the president changed his policy on friday. latino voters show new enthusiasm for obama, says a headline in the baltimore sun. a deportation freeze pumps up support. will your party suffer because of this? >> guest: well, i don't know. that's, again, that's to me not what's important, whether a party suffers.

it's when the country is suffering. and when you have, again, the justice department, they already showed their hand, they started going after states that were simply trying to make sure that those who voted were actually eligible to vote. i mean, it keeps bringing back the old line from the late, great lyndon johnson when he told his campaign worker who was urging him to move to the next tombstone, lyndon told this story. he said, come on, lyndon, you know, we can't read what's on that tombstone. he said, no, sir, this man has every bit as much right to vote as everybody in this cemetery. some people think, hey, it's not fair. everybody in the cemetery ought to be able to vote if anybody does. but the attorney general goes after states that are trying to clean up their records and then immediately thereafter the president announces that they're going to give 800,000 people who are illegally here a chance to go to work in front of

african-americans, other americans -- i bring up african-americans because they've got, like, the highest unemployment rate for young people in history. so why would you do that? well, there are politics involved. and that poll is indicative that the president's doing exactly what he thinks is good for him, but it's certainly not good for the country. and others sometimes say, well, you must be against immigration. i really believe, libby, that immigration has helped make us the greatest country in the world. you know, e pluribus unum. out of many one. people come from all over and become americans which we saw 9 9/12. it didn't matter who you were, gender, race, origin, around our squares we held hands, we sang hymns, we prayed together. we were americans. it was not hyphenated. i think immigration is a life

blood for this country, but it's got to be legal. for that reason i say, hey, let's let people come legally, give 'em work visas if that's what they need to come legally, but we, and it was said so well this morning in an article. it was pointed out that not only is border control fundamental, but what is fundamental is the principle that immigration policy does not exist to accommodate foreigners, but to protect americans. and the american culture's made this world the richest, freest, most powerful nation for more than a century. we've got to have border security. if you start giving additional incentives to lure people into this country without controlling the border, then we just created a bigger problem. first, control the border, then we can work out these immigration issues. so it's political to some. heck, i've got a bill that would require, would be more freely giving in visas, but since we're

going bankrupt and since health care costs are a large part of that it would require in order to get a visa, you have to show you'll be covered by health insurance. if a farmer wants you to come this and have a worker visa to pick the crop, we're told, well, you won't get fruitses and vegetables if you do this. fine, but you've got to cover them with an umbrella health insurance policy. i think that's more the way to approach it and not just have the president say here's another incentive to come in here illegally and to vote for me illegally. >> host: survey and breakdown, enthusiasm among latinos for president obama versus enthusiasm for mitt romney, blue being more enthusiastic. dominating there, president obama. 49% versus mitt romney's 10%. marco rubio, senator from florida, was on sean hannity's fox news program last night and talked about how this issue is playing out. let's take a listen. >> yeah. well, i think, ultimately, he

needs to do better among all americans. you want a president that would unite our country, and i think he's going to, especially when we start talking about economics. as i said, immigration's an important issue for americans of hispanic descent, but it is not the only issue. just as important, if not more so, is the fact that people are struggling to make ends meet, they're worried about their kids' future, they've been hurt badly by unemployment, their house is worth less than what it was when they bought it. and nothing's gotten better over the last four years. like most americans, hispanics are not better off than they were four years ago, and this president's responsible for that. and i think you're going to see mitt romney's numbers improve dramatically. >> host: how he thinks mitt romney can gain votes among the hispanic community. let's get to the phones and get some calls in, people are eager to talk to you. mike is a republican in fleming island, oregon. >> guest: first of all, i want to correct the record for the state of florida, and then i have something, representative,

i'd like you to correct the record on from the previous guest, sheila jackson lee. florida never prevents anybody from voting. we always give them a provisional ballot. in fact, governor scott was taken off the rolls, purged in 2008 because they thought he was dead, and he got a provisional ballot and voted. so there is a way in florida to cover everybody that wants to vote. but i need you to correct her statement on fast and furious where she stated, and i tried to call in but couldn't, where she stated that president bush started the fast and furious program. and i think that needs to be, needs to be corrected for the record. thank you for your comments. >> guest: okay. thank you, mike, and for your first be comment, of course, florida's not preventing people who can legally vote from voting. in fact, they've made a procedure that will allow people who can illegally vote, but then it allows them to check and make sure that they were actually eligible to vote when they did.

you know, it's ironic to me, mike, last time i went to the justice department they would not let me in without a photo id. so it's interesting even to get to see the people that are suing florida, you have to show a photo id. and, you know, when i've been to -- i was in iraq right after their first election, and those folks, i didn't see it in the national or international media, but there were 8x11 flyers all over the country of iraq saying in their language you vote, you die. and yet they turned out in droves to vote and then stuck their finger in permanent ink so that al-qaeda would know that they voted. and that would last for two or three weeks. i mean, what's wrong with making sure that we have a fair system of voting where people who are not allowed to vote don't vote? and like you say, in florida they do provide that procedure. in texas when we passed the law, our state legislature did a good

job, and they followed the pattern that the supreme court had already said is constitutional, and that is to make sure that people who can't afford a few bucks for an id can still get one. there are groups in texas that will help you get to where you need to to get your photo id. so i this think that is a bit unfair. and then as far as and furious, absolutely that was not started by president bush. it was started by this justice department with eric holder at the top of it. and we can't imagine why he would be so restrictive in what he allows us to see unless he has a fear that it's going to tie him to his top people and possibly himself. so we know that when he testified before our committee last year and was asked when did you first learn, he said a few weeks ago. and then it turned out before our next hearing we had evidence

he had learned of it months before. and he basically said, ah, a few weeks, a few months, what's the difference? you know, this is our justice official. so they're concerned, they're trying to lay off on bush it's been going on for the last three-and-a-half years. i was furious at president bush over t.a.r.p.. it did not agree with no child left behind. i thought it was a big mistake. but for heavens sake, quit blaming him for things this administration created. >> host: this is a story looking at what the bush administration had done. they had a prior project, a prior program that was similar to fast and furious. >> guest: yeah. and, libby, it's important to note when they set up that project -- and it's not fast and furious, a whole different idea -- but they were going to have a controlled sale, meaning controlled like as a judge we had many controlled sales of drugs testified about where there are people monitoring, watching, getting ready to move in. it was supposed to be controlled.

somebody made a mistake, the bad guy cans got scared -- guys got scared, they took off, and so they weren't able to follow them. but that was intended to be controlled. fast and furious from the beginning was intended to be completely uncontrolled, sell thousands of guns to people who are criminals who could not have 'em -- who should not have 'em and then see what happens. that's uncontrolled, completely different idea. >> host: let's hear from walter, an independent caller in benson, arizona. >> guest: hey, walter. >> caller: good morning, representative gohmert. it's a pleasure -- >> guest: you can call me louie, walter, it's fine with me. >> caller: okay, louie, your one of -- you're one of my favorites. watch you all the time. >> guest: bless your heart. >> caller: it's going to happen, fast and furious can that be parsed out? >> caller: i certainly hope so. the only way you can have a true

democratic country where people don't have the government controlling them, that they control the government the way it was intended is to have a transparent government. and, truthfully, i really admired some of the speeches that senator obama had about the transparency his administration would have. everything would be transparent, and yet, walter, that's not what we've seen, and it is high time we got to the transparency the president promised from his administration, even if it's only the last five or six months. >> host: washington, pennsylvania. bill, democrats line. good morning. >> caller: hey, good morning, cell c-span, and thank you for everything you do. i have a question for the representative. >> guest: sure, bill. >> caller: first of all, i don't know how long the representative's been in office, but as ms. lee said earlier, she's been in office for nine

terms. first of all, that's the biggest problem in america. we need term limits. all these people in congress and the senate's been there too long. they don't have the best interests of america at happened. it's all politics, and it needs to end. people better get smart. second of all, mr. obama when he ran promised to bring this country together. he said he was the only one that could bring it together. he's done nothing but divide this country. this country's never been more divided than it is now. it's race against race, it's money against the poor. that's all it is. >> host: so how long would you call for term limits, how long is too long to serve in congress? >> guest: two terms, three terms at the most. >> host: okay, let's get a response. >> guest: well, i've had the same concerns bill had. i've been in seven and a half years, four terms. i haven't been in nine, i didn't realize my friend sheila had been here that long, and i would

support term limits, but what i have seen and what i would want is not only, bill, to have term limits for the elected officials, but also for those that really are running this place. you get to washington you find out, it's not the elected officials. the regulators run this town. as we've seen they don't like a law, they just -- congress would pass a law, and the regulators would say that we don't like that, they'd make regulations. an example under bush was congress after 9/11 wanted to give airline pilots, most of whom served honorably in the service, the chance to carry a gun into the cockpit if they wanted to. well, we passed it, the faa was totally against it, and so they passed a bunch of rules. pilots were telling me making it incredibly difficult, only one place they can go in order to

get their certification to carry a gun. they made it so difficult most, as i understand it, still haven't been able to do it. just one example. so i would like to see not only term limits for elected officials, but also for bureaucrats, that you can't stay in one position over that same length of time that elected officials can because as the old quote from one bureaucrat up here was, well, the new summer help was here. they think they run the place and, truth of the matter is, they often do on some of these issues. so i like your idea, bill. i was asked to -- i took a term limit pledge when i ran for judge because i knew that whoever replaced me as a judge after three terms would have all the power that i had the day that i left office. but i didn't take a term limit pledge because i didn't want to handicap myself coming into congress unless we could do the same for everybody there.

the only way we'll ever get term limits is to have enough of us that are willing to do it, stay around long enough to get that passed. but i really appreciate bill's thoughtfulness on that. unfortunately, he's right. >> host: representative louie gohmert, republican of texas. here's a story in "the new york times" today, american children now struggling to adjust to to life in mexico. jeffrey sat near the door of his fifth grade classroom staring outside through designer glasses that, like his nike sneakers and backpack, signaled a life lived almost entirely in the u.s. his parents are at home in mexico, jeffrey is not. it says never before has mexico seen so many jeffreys, jennifers and aidans it classrooms. tougher state laws and persistent unemployment have all created a mass exodus of mexican parents who are leaving with their american sons and daughters. what do you -- how do you feel

when you hear stories like that? either because these children were born in america so they are considered citizens, or perhaps experienced time here in their youth and then are brought back to mexico where they may not even speak spanish. >> guest: yeah. and we have some of those situations in my district. and it is a problem. but, and there was a caller in to sheila jackson lee before i came on who pointed out when you have a flooding problem, first, you cut off the water coming in. we don't need to cut off all immigration, but we do need to cut off illegal immigration. so first we stop the problem from getting any bigger, and then we can deal with the issue of the folks that are here, the american citizens that have been born here. but first you stop luring people in illegally, and you have border control. because not everybody coming in here is looking for jobs or benefits. some are looking to do us harm. we know that.

so, first, you stop the problem from getting bigger, and then you deal with this. and you're going to end up actually seeing more people fleeing voluntarily if this administration's policies continue. the economy's going to get worse and worse, and they're going to realize this is not going well in america. they're going broke, and i need to get somewhere, somewhere else. so i hope that we can create a problem where people want to come legally and not illegally, and you'd stop seeing so many problems like that. >> host: here are some statistics from immigrationpolicy.org looking at new americans in texas, your state. it says that over 16% of texans, rather, are foreign-born, 41.5% of texass are latino or asian. 32% of immigrants in the state are eligible to vote, and then we come down here and see that

87% of texas' children with immigrant parents are actually u.s. citizens. and then 75% of children with immigrant parents are english proficient. so making up a big voting bloc in your state. >> guest: yeah. and actually, you know, i think senator rubio is correct. i do think eventually hispanics are going to see that the republican party, what it's supposed to be not some of the stuff we're doing, but what it's supposed to be is directly in line with what they believe. you know, this is my belief, but i've studied history with a history major, keep studying history. i think one of the things that made america the greatest country in history was three things; a faith in god, devotion to family and a strong work ethic. and i think we've largely lost those three things. and so when i see the hispanic culture, i think it's a generalization, but i think it's very fair. i generally see a faith in god,

a devotion to family and a hard work ethic. i really see the hispanic culture as being able to get us back to embracing the things that made us great. i want more of the hispanic culture. but i want people to be americans, to do it legally, do it the right way. and so it doesn't bother me at all to see increasing numbers, percentages being hispanic. i think it's great for the country and in the end it'll be good. but it's got to be done legally. that's the bottom line. and you mentioned the jeffreys in mexican schools, but i think you would see a whole lot more hispanic names if you, when you go into american schools in texas. i guess i have, i think it's great. i think it's helping get america back where we needed to be if we don't corrupt the hispanic culture from what they've been and what makes them so great.

>> host: let's hear from a caller in tempe, arizona. jan, republican. >> guest: hi, jan. item oh, hi, congressman. i am thrilled to talk to you. nice to talk to someone telling the truth. i have two things i want to say and then ask you a question. i was watching morning joe this morning, i know elijiah cummings is on that same hearing with darrell issa, and he said to the morning joe people, oh, you know, this all started under this fast and furious. this started under president bush. and our president, obama, has put a stop to it. that's the number one lie. i want to tell the american people when bush started his, he did have one of these, but he worked with the mexican government. he went there and got permission. do you remember that, congressman? >> guest: yep, theart. >> caller: and then the other thing is, i mean, so here's elijiah cummings on tv just lying through his teeth, and they don't even say anything. but then sue sheila jackson on

the same subject said, well, you know, we've just got to take this carefully. this is the same sheila jackson that went on air and said trayvon martin and i could be trayvon martin, the president said, his father. there's parents called mr. and mrs. terry. they want to know what happened to brian terry. he was a war hero in iraq, comes home and then shot down like a dirty dog in the desert. >> host: how does the agent relate to trayvon martin? >> caller: because they would like to know the facts. isn't it funny the attorney general can scream about trayvon martin, but they don't want to be involved with brian terry? i think the american people, the media hasn't talked hardly anything about brian terry. >> host: okay. we'll get a response from our guest. let me show you also marcus' wing, and it has a different perspective to the comment you made about fast and furious not being so regulated or overseen as -- at all, he says the guns

were monitored by tracking devices, but it was not "uncontrolled." >> guest: well, he's got different information than what i had. there were not devices, monitoring devices on 2,000 guns. if he's got different information, i'd like to see it. we've had hearings about it, i've looked at classified documents and unclassified documents, and maybe marcus has been privy to, in fact, maybe the attorney general's given him documents that he hasn't been willing to give us. but as far as the comments about brian terry -- and tell us more about him. he's the atf agent -- >> guest: yes, who was killed, and it was a weapon that was sold in fast and furious that was there at the scene where he was killed. now, it may be that marcus is thinking about they had all the serial numbers of the weapons. maybe that's what he's thinking about. they did have the serial numbers of the weapons, and that's how

they knew the gun at the scene where brian terry was killed was one that was sold through that program. gun owners didn't even want to make those sales. our atf, our justice department forced them to do it. that's why one of the gun owners, gun store owners actually started recording conversations, because he couldn't believe, didn't think anybody else would believe, the federal government made him sell those guns. so it is a sensitive issue, it is shocking that there was no heads-up to mexico even though the people involved in the program knew that the guns were going to end up probably down in mexico. and didn't even give our friend a heads-up, our neighbor? pretty outrageous. that's not the way you make friends and influence people, especially your neighbors. so that was very disconcerting. >> host: let's hear from deborah who's an independent caller in houston, texas. good morning. >> guest: hi, deborah.

>> caller: good morning, representative, and thank you, c-span. first of all, i'd like to point out that the agent that was killed, god bless him, he was a law enforcement agent, and i think he knew the risks. and i'm sorry that he was killed, and i'd like to see that investigated. but trayvon martin was a teenager, you know, killed by a citizen. so i'd like people to remember that. and what i'd like to ask the congressman is i'm disabled, i'm a cancer patient and -- [inaudible] id for voting. and i paid my money for my new id, and i got a paper of receipt, and i never got the card, and when i called about it, i was told some third party company called maximus screwed it up and lost them, and i'm not going to pay again. i've got the paper receipt, and it's two years old now. it's good until 2013. so how am i going to vote with that, that's my question.

>> guest: you didn't get your voting card? >> host: my id. i've got a voting card, i've got it. i've been voting since i was 18, i'm 50 years old. >> guest: well, thank you, and i really appreciate your doing that. and why don't you, you can call the capitol hill operator and ask 'em for my office. we'll get your information, and we'll start making calls to try to help you make sure you get your id that you were supposed to get and that you paid for. that is not how it's supposed to work, and that's why you have elected representatives. the original idea is that we were supposed to be public servants, the word "servant" meaning servant. so if, you know, if you'd like for my office to help, we'll be glad to do that, get your own representative involved, we'll do that because you shouldn't have to go to any more trouble than you already have, deborah, and it'd be an honor to help you. thank you. >> host: let's hear from our next caller. terry is a democrat joining us -- oh, i think we lost her,

louisiana caller, unfortunately. warren, ohio, is up next. al, republican. good morning, al. >> guest: hey, al. >> caller: good morning. hey, you know, isn't it really convenient that they keep blaming george bush? as an american person i'm just fed up with it. everybody i talk to around the water cooler, we're tired of it. we know this eric holder has to go. and, obviously, we know when he's going to go, you know? it won't be long. but, you know, something about this black clubs and some of the voting booths, you know, in churches talking about this voter id being racist. like the last lady, get your id. no matter what it takes. you know, it's just -- >> host: al's breaking up a little bit. he's saying there should be no excuse for getting a voter id card. >> guest: yeah. he's right. >> host: we've heard from some elderly people who don't drive, we've heard from the disabled who in various states said,

well, i don't have a driver's license because i don't drive, and so they're concerned about not having -- >> guest: but, libby, like in texas you can get a ride. you call in, you can get a ride. and also you don't have to pay even what little deborah had to pay. if you show that you cannot afford to make those payments. so it can be done, and can people are not being blocked. but let me tell you, you know, we keep hearing this partisanship theme. and it is bothersome that partisanship does have such a role in some things. and what i would like to see is somebody on the other side of the aisle do what in this attorney general what i did about one of bush's attorney generals. when it came out that the national security letters had been badly abused and been used as fishing expeditions, i called

the president's chief of staff and said, look, this is indefensible. he's got to go. i would like somebody on the other side of the aisle to be bipartisan enough as i was -- i was more concerned about truth and people being responsible for terribly improper actions, and i'm not seeing that kind of bipartisanship that i had because i didn't care. i really didn't consider it bipartisan. it was an issue of truth. there's an amendment today in committee, and i think john conyers has a good amendment. it's not my party's amendment. i would like to see democrats independently think and do the same thing from their standpoint reaching both sides. which is also why i'm not chairman of a subcommittee or committee. you don't get chairmanships if you don't tow the party line. it's something else that needs to be fixed. >> host: let's look at an issue

that's come before one of your committee, natural resources, the bp oil spill that happened really not too far from where you are in texas. here's a story on fuel fix. quid pro quo? be texas republicans suggest the feds went easy on bp. it says that you've suggested that the obama administration overlooked bp's safety problems before the gulf oil spill because the company promised to support white house-backed climate change legislation and the 2010 health care law. >> guest: yeah. >> host: tell us about how things are going post-bill. >> guest: libby, it is incredible once the blowout deepwater horizon occurred, then we find out they had about 800 not safety violations, but egregious, classified egregious safety violations. you wonder how in the world was any oil company allowed to work in our gulf, in our precious waters without being more safety conscious? if you looked through the same period companies like exxon and others, you know, you had one

egregious violation, two egregious violations. here was a company that had nearly 800. and it turned out on the very day the deepwater horizon blew out, they had bp officials visiting with democrats in the senate about how to have their coming-out party in support of cap and trade. i used to call it crap and trade, but the parliamentarian asked me if i'd do him a favor and just call it cap and trade. we'd get calls saying does your boss know it's really cap and trade? yes, he knew. anyway, that leads me to wonder if that wasn't purely political. why in the world would any company be allowed to function with that many safety violations? it's really egregious. and as far as the cleanup, it looks like nature did a better job of cleaning up than anybody else. i went along being on natural resources and have jurisdiction

over these issues. i drove along the coast and got out and filmed -- i kept thinking i'd see massive amounts of oil all the way along from louisiana to alabama, mississippi, alabama and to florida, drove along those beaches, some of my favorite in the world, and, you know, you'd see one tiny drop of oil here and there, but things are going strong again, very strong again. >> host: congressman gohmert represents texas' first district, that includes tyler, longview and marshall. let's get back to the phones and hear what greg has to say from ft. lauderdale, florida. independent line. >> guest: hi, greg. >> caller: hey, how you doing? >> guest: i think okay. >> caller: i guess florida understands a little bit better how my governor near florida can suddenly decide to start rezoning and redistricting neighborhoods for his benefit without getting the public concerned and starting to purge

people from the voting polls, just i read -- and he doesn't have any criteria he sets up. he's been just deciding to just randomly pick people, whoever he decides that might be somebody who might not be legally able to vote in our state. most of those people they found on this list have been legally able to vote and are citizens of florida, and can that's why we're so upset down here. our governor does whatever the hell he wants to do down here, and he gets away -- he privatizes businesses, he's tried to do our prison system, he tried to do that. that's why he has such a low -- the people of this state just do not want this guy to make any more decisions relative to that kind of stuff. just ridiculous. >> host: we'll leave it there, greg, and get a response. >> guest: yeah. for me with redistricting he's talking about, because the governor can't just redistrict,

so i'm not really familiar with that issue. but with regard to urging the voting lists of people that are allowed to vote, it's my understanding the way they were doing that is picking out names that based on information they had were suspicious, perhaps, they should be voting, perhaps they shouldn't be, and then they would do research on those to make that determination. and my understanding is the fact that you're able to know that some of the people that were originally listed were eligible to vote is that that's what they were doing. they were going through and finding people that might be suspicious and then determining whether or not they were. if they're doing anything improper, that absolutely needs to be taken care of. my understand is they're simply trying to purge their list of people who are dead or not allowed to vote, and there's nothing wrong with that. i'm not familiar with his popularity polls saying people

don't want him there, they don't want him to do anything else. i think there may be some, that may be one of those yogi berra deals where he said that restaurant's so popular, nobody goes there anymore. somebody must be liking what he's doing. but, obviously, the caller's familiar with some things i'm not. >> host: let's hear from a democratic caller in washington d.c. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: congressman gohmert -- >> guest: yeah, just louie, but thank you. >> caller: okay, two questions. first you said the country was built on the work ethic, but the capitol, the washington monument were built with slave labor. i don't know where work ethic comes in when you talk about slaves doing that. but my question to you is this, the district of columbia is denied, i'm sure you oppose the district of columbia obtaining statehood, and yet article i,

section 8 of the constitution provides congress will have that jurisdiction over all federal lands. but the residents of fort hood, texas, can vote in state elections there, they can vote for representation in the congress of the united states. the people who live at forth bellville, virginia, can vote in the virginia elections for representation in the state of virginia. so i want you to tell me why the residents of the district of columbia shouldn't be a state and be allowed to have representation in the congress of the united states when you say that the people should control the government, not the government controlling the people. >> guest: and that's a good question. having spent four years at fort benning, georgia, i understand exactly what you're talking about. but the people at fort bell forcan only vote in the virginia length if virginia is their place of residence. texas continues to be my place of residence the four years i was in georgia, so i continued to vote in the texas elections.

it is different because those are people that are in the service x they have rez -- and they have residences all over the country even though they may be at fort hood. the district of columbia was set up, and it wasn't called the district of columbia in the constitution, but the idea of having an independent area where it was of not part of a state, it was separate, and it would be controlled by congress, and everyone here would have an interest in making sure it was a good city well run was something they con contemplated. it was something they debated. now, i wasn't aware that anybody proposed the district of columbia being a state. he said i opposed statehood. i wasn't aware of anybody proposing d.c. be a state. okay, but that was not the bill that was brought before us previously. the bill that was brought before us was just to give the district of columbia a representative, a

full-voting representative. in and the constitution makes very clear the representatives. the only way to give the district of columbia a representative with full voting rights is by constitutional amendment. that is absolutely right. now, one of the things that bothered me when i first got here with the license plate that said taxation without representation, and then i got to realizing, wait a minute, that was one of the battle cries in the revolution. and the district of columbia residents do not have full voting rights in the congress and, therefore, it's not fair that they should have to pay a federal income tax. i found out that puerto rico, guam, you know, mariana islands,

all of those areas that are territories, they don't get a full-voting representative because they're not states. but as a result to avoid tyranny they're not required to pay any federal income tax. libby, i actually filed a bill that would allow residents of the district of columbia never to have to file any federal income tax or pay any income tax if they're residents here until such time as they have a full voting representative. i filed another bill that would be a legislative way to constitutionally deal with the tyranny, and that is to draw line description around all federal buildings, nonresident, and then cede everything else back to maryland. that happened in 1847, people said you're not using everything west of the potomac, let us be part of virginia, which we really are. that's why when you see the map of d.c., it's not a perfect square because everything west

of the potomac was ceded back to virginia. so why not do that to make it fair for the residents of the district of column ya? unfortunately, i could not get eleanor holmes norton to support either one of those bills. she wanted to push for a representative despite what the constitution says. i want to do it legislatively since it didn't look like it was going to happen as a constitutional amendment. >> host: representative louie gohmert joining us this morning. wanted to mention one thing, this is from slate, the weigel blog, it's reported that the florida governor, rick scott, has a relatively low approval rating, it's at 31%. that's not the lowest it's been at this point, and he's entering the 2014 governor's race, still a ways off, the first declared democratic candidate is ahead of him in polling at this early stage. >> guest: it sounds like he's three or four more times popular than congress. [laughter]

obviously, if he's at 31%, the caller -- he's not right in saying nobody supports him, but it's certainly a big majority doesn't like what he's doing. >> host: let's get a call in from asheville, north carolina. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i'd just like to tell the representative how much i appreciate his honesty and integrity. and i had a comment about the voter id. i watched the black congressional caucus meeting with the black pastors, and i've never heard a more racist conference. and i called several of their offices to ask what the threat was to voters, and nobody could tell me in their offices. and even one office they told me to call louisiana office. i called them, they took my name and number, said somebody would call me back, but be nobody's ever called. i think it's strange that they present that point that it's a threat, but yet they can't tell you what the threat is.

and also i asked when i called back to congresswoman waters' office i said, hey, we have a black congressional caucus, i thought we were supposed to be segregated now, and why do we not have a black congressional caucus if we've gone back to segregation? >> guest: well, it's an interesting point, and i didn't want see that concern, and so i really -- that conference, and so i really don't know what was said there. but representative sheila jackson lee had commented about the voting rights act and the ability of the justice department to actually take actions against states because of prior discrimination. and that is true, and it is right, and that's why the voting act, voting right act was originally passed. but i truly believe that because

this last 25-year extension was passed by a majority of states -- some of which have districts with far more racial disparity in their voting than areas which have cleaned up their problem but under the vra it's set up so that you constantly refer back to the original discrimination, it makes it almost impossible to ever get beyond having the justice department run our elections. i believe that -- and our attorney general in texas didn't raise it -- that states cram down the throat of states, some of which are doing a far better job racially in avoiding segregation, avoiding discrimination, far less, in

fact, no racial disparity in some places. and they are forced to abide under this punitive provision that some states with a bigger problem don't have to comply with. and i think -- and i've talked to, you know, i am conservative, but i've talked to liberal constitutional law professors who say, yeah, it is a violation of equal protection, but nobody's raised it. >> host: do you think there's a need, a usefulness for the congressional black caucus, and what do you think about our caller's comments that she sees that as divisive? >> guest: well, it is divisive if a group is promoting race as more important than anything else. that tends to divide us more than it brings us together. i think that's very unfortunate. and be, of course, i think she's being tongue in cheek when she says maybe there ought to be a white congressional caucus because there'll never be a white congressional caucus because there would just be too much fussing and, frankly, i

don't want a white congressional caucus. it's a bad idea. so i don't know, i'm looking -- libby, here's the bottom line. i really and truly am looking forward to the day, and i think we would not be that far from getting it. i hope this president, even though i didn't want vote for im, didn't support him, i hoped that he would get us to the day when we would really be living martin luther king jr.'s dream where children are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. and as wrong -- as long as we have organizations that define themselves by color, race, anything like that, it's going to continue to be divisive. and i'm looking forward to the day the dream is reached. i don't think we're that far if we would just have leaders quit using divisiveness to get

elected. >> host: touching on the issue of history as a final thing, kay bailey hutchison, senator of your state of texas, is urging juneteenth, the holiday -- texas is often recognized as the first state to officially recognize it. she'd like to see it as the juneteenth independence day recognizing this day reading an order that officially freed the slaves in texas, a state that had resisted the emancipation proclamation two years earlier. so looking back in history in 1865. >> guest: well, they are important be days, and i so admire john quincy adams who believed after he was president that god was calling him to bring an end to slavery in america the way william wilbur was doing in england. i agree with those hell fire and brimstone speeches he made on the house floor, that how can we expect god to keep blessing america when we were putting brothers and sisters in chains

and bondage? i think it is a blight on our history -- >> host: so do you support that plan, senator hutchison's idea? >> guest: she's a good friend, i just need to look at the bill. i don't commit to anything before i read it. but i think it is important to observe days. you know, in fact, some people say, you know, martin luther king jr. actually did a great thing for african-americans when -- they're missing the point. for little white children like me as a christian, he did a great thing for me. he insured that as i got older i didn't i didn't have to do like past generations of christians. i could treat people of color as my brothers and sisters as they are. so he didn't just do a favor for black americans, he did a favor for all of us, especially those of us as he was, considered ourselves christians. treat people the way we were taught to treat them by jesus himself.

>> host: congressman louie gohmert, republican of texas representing the first district. thank you so much for coming in and talking with us. >> guest: thank you, libby. it's great, great to be with you. i haven't been on with you before. hope you'll have me again. >> host: we'd love to have you again. thank you very much. >> the senate is in recess now to allow members to attend their weekly party meetings. when they return, in about ten minutes from now, they'll begin on voting on up to 73 amendment toss the farm bill. live coverage of the senate continues here on c-span2 at 2:15 eastern. elsewhere on capitol hill today the senate health education labor and pensions committee held a hearing to recognize the 40th anniversary of title ix. the 1972 law requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding. the hearing focused on the impact title ix has on equal opportunity for women. from engineering and mathematics studies, to athletics. here's part of that hearing with

former ten misplayer billie jean king. >> um, dr. jamison, in your answer to senator hagan's question you kind of immediately went to teachers, to s.t.e.m. teachers. and i think s.t.e.m. teachers are really important. um, you know, if you're a s.t.e.m. teacher and a really good one, your value on the marketplace if you have those s.t.e.m. skills is probably -- might be higher than, you know, the great english teacher who teaches moby dick, but if you have science and technology and engineering and mathematic skills and can talent -- and talent, your value on the open market is higher. so i put a piece of legislation called the s.t.e.m. master

teacher core which is, basically, to support master, or to support excellent s.t.e.m. teachers. and the to give them a little bit of an elevated salary, but also to give them a responsibility to mentor newer or less accomplished s.t.e.m. teachers. so that we retain them. i mean, we're spending money to recruit them, let's retain s.t.e.m. teachers. in our junior highs and in our high schools. what do you think of that approach? >> i think the approach of having master s.t.e.m. teachers is very important. yes, it's important in high school, but i'm going to hearken back and go back to elementary school because it's elementary school where kids still are fascinated by science.

and they haven't learned that they're not supposed to be. it's in the middle school where they start to fall out. >> right. >> and so unless they have the really effective science education early on, it won't make a difference. and i should add that most of the, most of the s.t.e.m. education, most of the science, mathematics education in element ri school is done by general teachers, right? in first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade. rarely do you have a teacher who specializes in s.t.e.m.. so i would add on to that that master teachers should be available to help proctor, mentor, augment, provide professional development for elementary school teachers because that's where we really have to take advantage and exploit that incredible capacity that students have for learning. it's right there where you can capture them. and then they get through eighth grade and puberty and hormones and everything, okay, and then they're able to go on through high school and maintain that same enthusiasm. and then your master teachers

there can also help to change the way teachers teach in if high school. >> i want to throw open -- thank you for that answer, and i agree with you. i think that's, that's a great function for these s.t.e.m. master teachers, is to go down or to be there for elementary school teachers. this, i'll throw this open to everyone. i once read that the number one determinant of whether a kid graduates from high school is whether he or she identifies with her school. and so this can be through an athletic program, it can be through a dance program, it could be through the chess team, it can be through anything. but it seems like we have put this emphasis on testing and testing and testing in this a

very narrow way and not enough on those kind of extracurriculars that are associated with the school to keep, for those students who maybe their identity, their feeling of identity with their own school comes through something else. does anyone have any comment on that? and, again, this is about high school, not about college -- >> so identifying with the school? >> yeah. in other words -- >> well, i went to long beach poly, and i absolutely lovedded it because every morning i looked up to my left and saw the home of scholars and champions, scholars first, champions and we mean champions in life as well as everything, and then as i would enter the school it said enter to learn, go forth to serve. every single day i went to school, which is almost every day -- [laughter] i absolutely embraced those two

things. absolutely embraced them. we had great scholars at our school, and we had great athletes. in fact, we've probably had more nfl players and baseball and other sports than any other -- the girls, that was a different situation when i attended. now it's, obviously, much better. but to add, can i just add, can i just ask something about the order that math is taught? because i've talked to dr. sally ride who you've mentioned, and she said that most countries do the math in different progression, that physics comes first and then -- but i know i had algebra first, and i would love to understand, does that make a difference? that was a big discussion i've been involved -- i mean, i love science and math. i'm not any good, but we know we have to be strong in that area in this country. >> some people teach physics before they teach biology because they think physics is actually much simpler to learn, but you do need thal algebra and

other things to underpin the physics, so you need th algebra and geometry. so in seventh and eighth grade students are capable of taking algebra and geometry, so i think some of the -- we do have to go back and really review our curriculum and whether or not some of the ideas that we held before are really -- >> because i keep hearing that other countries teach physics almost first because it's in everything. and i don't -- listen, i don't know, that's why i'm asking you, you're the pro. >> ms. king, i'm asking the questions here. [laughter] >> sorry. sorry, senator. i thought -- >> go ahead. >> well, i don't understand -- to your point. >> whether are you competitive in some way? [laughter] >> what? no, i identify with the the school thing. i just have this math question that drives me crazy. sorry. you guys started it. >> no, it's fascinating. yes. >> senator hagan, senator

franken, you started this teacher thing and the s.t.e.m. things. got me crazy. >> senator, as a recipient of young high school graduates into the coast guard academy, i can attest that they are thirsting for identity in a world filled with more and more choices, an innumerable number of choices and not always the direction that we would like to see them get with those kind of targeted instructors, teachers when they're in elementary school to develop them early on without necessarily the sense of core values and character that we need to see in them when they come to us. they are thirsting for identity, they are thirsting to be part of something bigger than themselves. >> and i would just, i would just echo that the engagement makes a difference, that as you have students engaged in part of what they're doing, it makes a difference. i put together a program called the earth we share. we have 12-16-year-olds. i like to play with that hard age group. and they solve problems in teams. and fundamentally they

appreciate the fact that we're asking them to solve problems and asking them to give their answers in front of everyone because that means that they're engaged, and it makes a difference that they, that individual, was a part of the process. they couldn't have been anyone else and come with that same answer, and i think that that's part of the identity that we see both with recognizing high schools, what high schools you went to as well as whether or not you belong to some group that's doing good. >> i saw that you had a comment. >> yeah. i hate to be a killjoy here, but let me point to two different research studies. one, the same research i was quoting before, that looked at athletics, and she compared it with other after school activities, so yearbook, debate team and found that sports uniquely provided this bump in education that other activities did not. so i don't know if it's gender identity -- not gender identity, i don't know if it's, you know, an identity with the school. and then one more interesting study that was done by professor

clotmeyer out of duke university that looked at, um, men who attend schools with successful football and basketball programs and when the school is in season, that they actually do worse in school and do not make it up later on in their academic career. so it has this negative bump that only effects males. a successful team does not effect -- >> you can see all of this at our web site, c-span.org. we're returning live to the senate now where members will begin voting on up to 73 amendments to the farm bill. ane stabenow-roberts amendment 2389 is agreed to. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first i ask unanimous consent we have two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the first akaka vote, 2440. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: i rise to speak in favor of amendment number 2440 to the farm bill. this amendment would improve implementation of an existing program at usda which provides loans to purchasers of highly fractionated indian lands. one unfortunate legacy of the policies of the late 1800's is many indian lands are highly fractionated. this means one parcel of land might have hundreds or thousands of owners. highly fractionated parsles makes putting the indian lands to viable use virtually impossible. this goes against any well-established federal indian policies. encouraging the productive use of indian lands. as chairman of the committee on indian affairs i have worked with the usda and stakeholders

to craft an amendment to improve agricultural land use for tribal governments and individual indians. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: this is a typical amendment. i rise in support of it and i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator inouye. mr. akaka: i call up my amendment and speak in favor of amendment 2696, a bipartisan amendment that senator thune and i are offering to the farm bill. ms. stabenow: mr. president?

if i might take a moment, i believe we want to first dispose of the akaka amendment 2440. our ranking member has indicated no opposition, and so at this point i would ask that we proceed unless there is a reason reason -- okay. on behalf of senator akaka i call up amendment 2440 and ask that we proceed with a voice vote. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from hawaii, mr. akaka, proposes amendment numbered 2440. ms. stabenow: i ask that we proceed with a voice vote, mr. president. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: i rise today to speak in favor of amendment 2396, a bipartisan amendment that

senator thune and i are offering to the farm bill. this amendment would make permanent the office of tribal relations at the usda. this office was created to ensure the usda downholds federal indian policy and maintains its government-to-government relationship with tribes. permanently establishing this office will ensure that tribal governments can develop their programs in parity with their neighbors in rural america. it will ensure that the usda consults with tribal governments and that tribes can participate in programs related to agricultural infrastructure and economic development opportunities. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to the farm bill. mahalo, thank you and i yield back my time. i call up amendment 2396.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from hawaii, mr. akaka, proposes amendment numbered 2396. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. who yields time in opposition? the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: this amendment makes permanent the current office of tribal relations at the department of can agriculture and that's an important outreach to native american farmers and ranchers and we have no objection. i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to sprivment the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i would like to call up ayotte amendment 2192. and this, mr. president, this amendment seeks to reform --. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: ms. ayotte proposes amendment numbered 2192.

the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. ms. ayotte: my amendment seeks to reform the value added grant program. the usda has awarded $240 million in grantsdz over the lifetime of this program but the usda has not been transparent, has failed to adequately account for the grants and how they are awarded. the last assessment of this program was in 2006, and indicated that more than 40% of the grant recipients went out of business just three years after having completed their grant project. my amendment would allow the program to go forward but it would reform this program to be more accountable to taxpayers. the program has awarded 62 grants totaling $12.1 million to ethanol facilities and it does eliminate grants to ethanol facilities, we should not be wasting further taxpayer dollars to give to ethanol producers when we have already given them so many taxpayer opportunities here.

at least 105 wine industry groups and wineries have received $10.5 million --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. ayotte: this is a good amendment for taxpayers to make this program accountable. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. it cuts in half funding for a program that helps food entrepreneurs, folks that are out there, small businesses, farmers that want to create new kinds of products and be able to commercialize them, get them to marketplace. this is really what we're trying to do is leverage more dollars in this bill, not only to support the farmer on the farmer but to be able to move into commercialization, to create new food products and jobs. in fact, we have created hundreds of jobs at wineries, we've done all across this country, created jobs by helping small businesses and

entrepreneurs to be able to take a great idea and to be able to move it to commercialization and add value to their product. i would strongly urge a no vote and i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. all time has expired. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 38, the nays are 61. the amendment is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: for the benefit of all senators, if i could have the attention of the senate. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, we have before us what -- why we're here. this was very difficult to get to the point we are now where we have a very important bill. we do these every five years. and senators stabenow and roberts have worked very, very hard to get us to this point. i congratulate them both. but we have a long, long ways to go. and first of all, everyone

understand, all the next votes are going to be 10-minute votes. that means at the end of 15 minutes we're going to cut off the vote. doesn't matter if democrats are missing or republicans missing. it doesn't matter. if it's really a close vote we always are careful with that and we understand but let's understand when the time's up we're going to turn in the vote. and secondly, i've instructed all of the presiders we're going to have one-minute speeches, one minute for democrat, one minute for republicans and when that time is up, the time is going to end. everyone will be treated the same. we have 73 amendments we have to work through. we have a lot to do the rest of this week. but this is an important thing we're working on now. number one, we're going to keep the vote -- and i've instructed my staff, i have an important meeting at 4:00, if i'm not here, i won't be counted. that's the way we have do it. if you have important meetings, you might have to miss a vote or two.

secondly, i will reveto --, repeat. two minutes equally divided before each vote and it will be two minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i call up amendment 2429. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, for mr. baucus and himself proposes amendment numbered 2429. mr. tester: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. two minutes equally divided. mr. tester: i urge my colleagues to support the baucus-tester amendment numbered 2429. the amendment fixes a problem in the livestock forage program to make sure ranchers who suffer losses in their herds because of drought are able to get the help that they need. if you're in grass-based agriculture, folks, those are the ranchers, it's the heartbeat of your operation. if you don't have it, you can't survive. we saw how critical this last year when record droughts tbast devastatessed the southwest,,

wildfires burned more than two million acres in texas. this program has moved into title one of the farm bill. this amendment fixes a problem we've seen in one of those programs and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: it's my understanding we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment. mr. roberts: mr. president, i know of no objection. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on amendment 2429. all those in favor say aye. all those those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, the amendment is agreed to. ms. stabenow: mr. president? ask the members of senator

bingaman's office be given floor privileges, regina woods, james anderson, aurora trujilla, and carl slater. the presiding officer: without objection. recall the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent that usda detailee patty lawrence be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: it's my understanding we are ready with senator snowe's amendment and i ask unanimous consent she be the next amendment in order. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from maine. ms. snowe: i call up amendment number 2190. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. snowe, proposes amendment numbered 2190. ms. snowe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent amendment 2190 be modified by the changes i'm sending to the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. there are now two minutes for debate, equally divided. the senator from maine. ms. snowe: mr. president, --. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. snowe: i rise in strong support of this amendment that i've offered along with senator gillibrand of new york on a bipartisan basis. i thank the chair and the ranking member for working with us on the modifications in support of this amendment. the underlying bill establishes a margin insurance program that helps very large dairy producers but provides little assistance to small, family-owned dairy

producers who do not produce the surplus amount of milk. without this amendment these small dairy farmers face possible extinction due to price volatility. the prices in europe affect the price our farmers receive. this will solve the inequity by providing the department of agriculture on the effects of each milk marketing order and how best to update the current system of federal orders which is now 12 years old. so i would hope that we would adopt this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i support this amendment and yield back time on our side. it's my understanding we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on amendment 2190 as 34506d. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. ms. snowe: i would ask for a record roll call. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, it is -- i'm sorry. there are 66 ayes and 33 nays. the amendment, as modified, is adopted. mr. bingaman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. president, let me --

the presiding officer: without -- without objection. now the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. president, could we have order -- ms. stabenow: mr. president, could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. president, let me speak for a moment with regard to amendment number 2364 that senator hutchison and i had intended to offer. we have been in consultation with the managers of the legislation. they've agreed to some changes in the report language that accommodate our concern. our concern is about water conservation and ensuring that water conservation, particularly in the area of the west, but in any part of the country where there are underground aquifers -- the presiding officer: please, order. the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: -- water conservation, where ever there is depletion of water supplies that is going to make farming and agricultural activities

impossible in the future. they've agreed to some changes in the report language that accommodate our keynes. they've agreed to a colloquy that accommodates our concerns. accordingly, we will not proceed with the amendment. before i withdraw the amendment, could i ask senator hutchison to make any comments she would like to make. mrs. hutchison: i appreciate the sponsors of the bill working with us. because just as an example, the oaogallala aquifer has gone dong 100 feet since water has been allowed from this source. it is a source of water for san antonio and other cities around new mexico and texas. that's just one amendment, it's happening all over our country. so conservation has to be a part of keeping our farms and ranches alive, and that is the purpose of the amendment. we appreciate the sponsors working with us and hope that we can go forward and highlight the

importance of conservation to keep our water resources for our farmers and ranchers. thank you. mr. bingaman: mr. president, in light of the comments that were just made, we will not call the amendment up, and the managers can go to the next amendment. the presiding officer: thank you. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: let me take a moment to thank senator hutchison and senator bingaman. we're lucky to have them and we're looking forward to working with them to make sure that the issues they've raised are addressed. i also just for those following along in order, we'll just indicate that senator collins in light of the passage of the snowe amendment will not be proceeding with her amendment, just for the information of the senate. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from eye would. mr. grassley: i call up my

marketing loan amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. grassley: 2167. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2167. mr. grassley: i ask the reading thus far constitute the reading in whole. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this amendment i tried in the 2008 farm bill; got 57 votes for it, but it was under a 60-vote rule so obviously it didn't get adopted. this amendment -- the presiding officer: please. mr. grassley: this amendment -- this amendment would cap payments that one farmer can get on marketing loans and loan deficiency payments. we can't have 70% of the farm payments going to 10% of the largest farmers. i think this will help add

integrity to the program. we should have caps on title 1 commodity programs. this will add defensiveability to this bill along with a payment limit reform that we were able to put in, or in the committee before the bill was voted on. opponents will argue, i'm sure you'll hear this argument, that this would increase forfeitures of crops, but i believe that they're overstating the issue especially given current prices. and even if a farmer did forfeit -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. grassley: mr. president, this is a commonsense amendment. i hope you'll vote for it. mr. chambliss: mr. president? i rise in opposition to this amendment eliminating l.g.p.'s is disruptive because usda lacks -- the presiding officer: we tkphot have order. order, please.

mr. chambliss: consequently, a producer may exceed his loan limit under this amendment and usda have no idea that he's exceeded his loan limit. so he's going to have to come back later on and obviously repay that in very difficult times. most farming operations secure financing for annual production costs as well as incur their long-term debt for equipment and land. introducing limits on marketing loan benefits makes financing more difficult to obtain and more difficult to administer from a farmer standpoint as well as a banking standpoint. so i urge opposition to the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 75, the nays are 24. the amendment is adopted. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i call up my amendment brown 2445. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2445. a senator: i ask the reading be dispensed with, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate equally divided. let's have order for the debates, please. mr. brown: mr. president, congress is providing an average of $400 million the farm bill to the rural development title, the bill we're considering today, considers no development at all. my amendment funds fiscal development programs, a portion of the backlog of waste water infrastructure projects and will help bring a new generation of the farmers into agriculture. the presiding officer: order, please. mr. brown: mr. president, as a member of the agriculture committee, i know how important it is that this amendment maintains our committee's commitment to save at least $23 billion in the farm bill. i yield the rest of my time to chairwoman stabenow. ms. stabenow: mr. president, let me just add my strong support for the amendment. we have reformed this title on

rural development. we have eliminated 16 different authorizations, tightened it up. the amendment stays within our parameters of $23 billion in deficit reduction. it affects every small town and community across america who count on rural development. i would strongly support this amendment. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i oppose this amendment. i do so reluctantly with my colleague on the committee, but the committee bill contains no mandatory funding in the rural development title. this amendment would take savings achieved in the bill from 23.4 -- it used to be 26.3. now we're down to 23.4. that would take it down to 23.2 and redirect $150 million mandatory spending into a few rural development programs. nothing against them, but if we're going to achieve savings in this bill, we've got to hold the line. i reluctantly oppose the bill. i don't reluctantly oppose the

bill. heck, i oppose it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 55, the nays are 44. the amendment carries.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. there will be order. mr. sessions: i would call up amendment numbered 2174. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

alabama, mr. sessions, proposes amendment numbered 2174. mr. sessions: mr. president, food stamp spending has quadrupled, gone up four times since 2001, increasing twice the rate that the other major poverty program, medicaid, has increased. it's now the second largest of nearly 80 federal welfare programs and -- an individual on food stamps with all other government programs they may be eligible for can receive as much as $25,000 a year. under this bill, food stamps will average $80 billion a year for ten years, whereas the agriculture farm programs will average $20 billion a year. it's by far the dominant factor in this piece of legislation. so number 2174 deals with a problem through a system known as categorical eligibility, 43

states now provide benefits to individuals whose incomes exceed the statutory limit, incomes and assets. only 11 states did that in 2007. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: mr. president, i ask we be able to fix this problem and urge our colleagues to -- to vote aye. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. i strongly urge a no vote. we actually rejected this amendment last fall. i ask that we do it again. it's true that food assistance help has gone up as the economy has had a rough time, as unemployment goes up, food costs go up. unemployment is coming down and in this bill we reflect savings as the economy is getting better, food help goes down. it's no different than crop insurance helping the farmer in a disaster, this helps families in a disaster. unfortunately, this amendment would completely change the structure of food help, it

would dramatically affect children and families, it, for example, would affect someone's ability to get to work because the value of their car would somehow be reflected in a way that would require them to possibly give up their car when they're trying to get to work in order to put food help on the table for their families. it makes no sense at all. this bill has commonsense reforms to make sure that it goes where it should. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. sessions: i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, on this vote,

sessions amendment number 2124 -- 2174, the yeas are 43, the nays are 56. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i call up amendment number 2370. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. can we will proposes amendment numbered 2370. ms. cantwell: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. officer without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. thank you, madam president. i rise in support of this amendment with my colleague, senator murray, and others to include in the school lunch program a pilot program dealing with dry beans, peas, lentils and chickpeas. my amendment works to improve the nutritional value of school meals across america at a very economical price, with a level of school obesity for children between 2 and 19, this is very

important that we have this program included. and i'd like to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from south dakota. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from south dakota. a senator: north dakota? mr. hoeven: i cosponsored the legislation. it would provide that peas, beans, and lentils are used in the school program they are a high source of proteins very cost-effective, and it is a growing -- no pun intended -- crop in our country. thank you. mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i am supportive of this amendment, but i have been noticed that a recorded vote has been requested and so i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll.

vote vote: vote vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 58. the nays are 41. the amendment is agreed to. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: madam president, i rise to call up my amendment number 2243. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mr. nelson, proposes amendment number 2243. mr. nelson: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: i rise to call up this amendment today addressing federal performance payments that states receive to make sure that americans in tough times who need supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits receive them and those who don't, don't get them. it's a commonsense good-government amendment that builds on a 2002 bipartisan agreement between the states, the previous bush administration and congress. in my view, congress shouldn't eliminate incentives to improve efficiency in their snap programs, as some are proposing. congress should, though, better target these federal performance bonus funds so states can use them only -- and let me emphasize only -- to improve their snap programs. my amendment ensures that

incentive payments go at activities that improve efficiency, effectiveness and program integrity in snap. these efforts have results. since these incentives were put in place, snapper ror rates -- snap error rates have fallen. spoeup the time of the senator has -- the presiding officer: the time of the senator has expired. who yields time in opposition? mr. roberts: madam president, i yield back the time. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed? is there a sufficient second?

all in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i appreciate my good friend's amendment. i don't think it deals with the problem completely and appropriately. i've offered amendment 2172 that would end the bonus payments for

increasing registration on the food stamp programs. states currently receive bonuses for increasing enrollment in the food stamp program. this amendment would end that policy and would save a modest $480 million, if you call that modest, out of $800 billion being spent on the program over ten years according to the c.b.o. colleagues, one of the problems we have with the food stamp program, if you just think about it, is all the money comes from the federal government but all the administration comes from the states. they have no incentive to manage the program in a way to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. it really helps their economy if more money comes in from out of state. and so for the federal government to have a program that rewards states on top of their natural incentive to --

the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: would be wrong. so i urge support of my amendment. the presiding officer: does the senator wish to call up his amendment? mr. sessions: i do ask for the yeas and nays. i call up amendment numbered 2172. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, proposes amendment numbered 2172. mr. sessions: and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. sessions: i thank the chair. the presiding officer: there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will -- who yields time? ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: madam president, i would strongly oppose this amendment. we are talking about improvements in managing errors, reducing errors in the nutrition program, and the senator's amendment will eliminate the error reduction bonuses that go to state governments. we have seen a 43% drop in payment errors as a result of

the program that senator nelson has now strengthened with his amendment. in his amendment, he would ensure that all of the additional funds that go to states are used only to carry out improvements in snap, to lower the error rates. those savings to taxpayers dwarf the cost of this incentive to states to improve their processes. it's working well. in addition to that, in this bill, we eliminate any lottery winners, students living at home with their parents from receiving assistance. we crack down further on trafficking and retail establishments. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. ms. stabenow: i would urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 41, the nays are 58, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i call up my amendment number 2238. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. casey, proposes amendment numbered 2238. mr. casey: i ask further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president, i'm calling up this amendment --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. casey: madam president, this amendment is very simple. it's about two things. first of all, it would increase the frequency of reporting, so-called dairy price reporting that goes on already, the department of agriculture does this reporting on a rather frequent basis. we're just going to suggest that

they -- we codify or make a law what the usda is already doing. so first it would increase the frequency of reporting from -- quote -- "no less than once a month" to -- quote --"more than once a month." it really puts into law what's already the practice. secondly, this amendment would require the usda to study -- only to study -- the feasibility of having two classes of milk as opposed to four. this would be -- would help clarify whether or not folks would want to do that, it requires that study but in particular on the first part of the amendment we need to make sure our farmers have as much information about pricing. it win help the farmers themselves, dairy buyers, dairy suppliers, it will help market --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. casey: i would iewrnlg a -- urge a yes vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time?

the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, madam president. a recorded vote has been requested, so i seek the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: