director possess unflagging commitment to the constitution and the rule of law and that we be allowed to vote yes or no. in times of a filibuster, you're voting maybe. we ought some vote yes or no. i believe james comey is the right man to lead the f.b.i.. he's had a long outstanding career in law enforcement. he worked for years as a front and line prosecutor on a range of cases involving terrorism, white-collar fraud, all at the core of the f.b.i.'s mission. he also serves as the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. and he served as deputy attorney general under president george w. bush. in fact, madam president, many of us remember when he was deputy attorney general, dramatic hospital bedside confrontation james comey had

with senior white house officials who tried to prod an ailing john ashcroft to reauthorize an n.s.a. surveillance program, a program the justice department concluded was illegal in his white house staff over there trying at the hospital bed to get the attorney general to agree to it. the deputy attorney general stepped into his role as acting a.t. showed courage and independence. he stood firm against his attempt to circumvent the rule of law and i believe he'll continue to show the same strength of character and principled leadership if confirmed as director. during his confirmation hearing before the judiciary committee, james comey proved his reputation for unwaiver integrity and professionalism is well deserved. the only area of concern for me was mr. comey's approval of a

2005 legal memo that authorized aouz of various -- use of various methods of torture including waterboarding. i wanted to make sure james comey would never resort to waterboarding a prisoner, where we have done that from other countries. he answered my questions, stated directly, unequivocally that waterboarding was not only personally object hornet but was -- abhorrent but was torture legal. he said he would not permit the use of illegal techniques against prisoners including sleep deprivation and cramped confinement. mr. comey and i do not agree on all matters. i do not agree with him that the authorization for the use of military force permits the government to detain indefinitely an american citizen, captured on american

soil in military custody without charge or trial. and i'll continue to oppose effort to codify such interpretation of the law. i was glad james comey committed to adhering to the current administration policy of not detaining indefinitely americans in such circumstances. but when he testified before us, i saw a man of integrity and honesty, competence and background. and so once he's confirmed -- and i trust he will be -- once this filibuster is ended, i trust he'll be confirmed, i will continue to press him on the scope and legality of electronic surveillance conducted by the government pursuant to the patriot act and other authorities under the foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa. i know during his confirmation hearing because the f.b.i. has the ability to collect huge

amounts of data doesn't mean that it should be collecting huge amounts of data. as the head of our premier law enforcement agency, the f.b.i. director bears a special responsibility to ensure that domestic government surveillance does not unduly infringe upon our freedoms. i've long said that protecting our national security and protecting americans' fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. we can and must do both. i fully expect that james comey will work to achieve both goals. after director mueller's distinguished tenure at the bureau, james comey has big shoes to fill. the next director must face the growing challenge in the f.b.i.'s increased focus on counterterrorism but at the same time upholding the f.b.i.'s commitment to its historic law enforcement functions. it's going to be particularly

difficult to protect this country and protect our law enforcement functions because of the sequestration and other fiscal constraints. but i think the f.b.i. has to continue to play a key role in combatting the crimes that affect everyday americans. and violent crimes corruption cases. we learned nothing since september september 11 we need strong, principled and ethical leaders who steadfastly adhere to the law. i'm confident that james comey is such a leader. i'm urging senators on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting to overcome this filibuster and vote to confirm him to be the next director of the federal bureau of

investigation. as i said before and i'll put into the record, how long it's taken through nomination to confirmation. twice as long as president bush's f.b.i. nomination. more than twice as long as president reagan's f.b.i. nomination. twice as long as president nixon's f.b.i. nomination. every one of those cases, no democrat filibustered president bush or president reagan or president nixon. we all worked to get the f.b.i. director in there. this filibuster from my friends on the other side of the aisle is unprecedented. he wish they -- i wish they woud treat president obama the same way we were willing to treat president bush and president reagan and president nixon. don't make president obama to be

somehow treatment and interfere with law enforcement. i'd consent to put into the record a chart showing how long it took the previous presidents. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i see my friend from iowa on the floor, and i will place in the record in just a moment my concern in these kind of obstructions is unprecedented. i've been here 38 years. this has never been here before. it is an unprecedented obstruction of an f.b.i. nominee, but it's similar to what a small minority of senators on the other side are objecting to moving forward to the budget conference. they have given great speeches about how we have to have a budget. we had a budget. i remember being here at 5:00 in the morning finally finishing

the last vote on the budget. since then we tried 17 times to go to a bipartisan budget conference, actually more republicans on the house side and democrats on this side. and 17 times republicans have blocked us. so what they're saying is we can't go forward with appropriations bills because we don't have a budget bill. by the way, we did pass a budget but we're not going to allow you to go to conference. but then we don't have appropriations. and you wonder why everybody looks at this kind of foolishness and why the congress is held in such low esteem. but also why hundreds of thousands of jobs that might have been created and are not being created because we play these silly games.

passed a budget, let's go to conference. let's pass our appropriations bills. we're prepared to. a tiny minority keeps trying to block it on the other side. everybody is out looking for jobs that don't exist. i'd ask that they're all getting paid. why are they blocking others from being paid? with that, i put my full statement in the record and yield the floor. . mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. leahy: shortly the senate will be voting to invoke cloture on the nomination of james b. comey to become the next director of the f.b.i.. i will vote to invoke cloture, and i expect that many of my colleagues will do the same. the confirmation of a new f.b.i. director is a serious decision for this chamber to consider.

as a large federal law enforcement agency, the f.b.i. has numerous responsibilities and of course tremendous power. only with quality leadership and proper congressional oversight will the f.b.i. be best equipped to fight crime, terrorism, and espionage. i feel that the president has made a fine choice in selecting mr. comey as the next leader of the f.b.i., and i plan to explain my support for him as we approach his confirmation vote later on this week. i recognize that there is a level of concern associated with this nomination regarding the use of drones by the f.b.i.. i have been at the forefront of this issue raising it last year with the attorney general. the attorney general gave me an

incomplete answer as to the f.b.i.'s use of drones. accordingly after there was a disclosure that the f.b.i. was using drones on u.s. soil for surveillance, i questioned mr. comey about the extent of that policy. this needs to be addressed by the new director, and phreuf comey's -- and i have mr. comey's assurance that he will review the policy. i will be monitoring this situation closely, but we need a director in place and we need to confirm this nomination this week. excellent leadership is only one ingredient in the recipe for success of any federal agency. another critical element is proper congressional oversight, and it is this component that i fear too many of my colleagues have forgotten. today too many seem to believe

that advice and consent really means just rubber-stamping and just turning a blind eye. the american people deserve better than this approach to confirmations. over the last few months i have observed an alarming pattern. too often this administration submits subpar nominees while simultaneously obstructing any legitimate oversight by the congress. sadly, many of my colleagues appear to be choosing to ignore any efforts to correct it. and i'll cite just a few examples. we saw how mr. perez, an assistant attorney general, brokered a deal that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. my colleagues on the other side largely ignored the shady deal. mr. perez tried to cover his tracks but got caught leaving a voice mail that was recorded.

even then my colleagues dismissed it. and when he was caught concealing evidence of the deal on his personal e-mail accounts, he defied a lawful issued congressional subpoena and refused to turn over the documentation. incredibly his defiance was ignored. worse yet, for all of this rotten behavior the senate rewarded him with a profession by confirming him as secretary of labor. we see the same thing occurring with the nomination of mr. majorkas, the nominee for the number two position at the department of homeland security. he's the target of an open investigation by the inspector general of that department of homeland security. the i.g. is investigating allegations that this nominee procured a visa as a political favor even though the visa was

properly rejected throughout the initial and appellate process. incredibly the senate committee pressed on with a hearing despite unanimous objection from the minority for moving forward in the midst of an open investigation. this is incredible to me. a senate committee would move forward with a nominee who has an open investigation into the nominee's conduct. i wish this were a unique occurrence. but based on recent experience in the judiciary committee, it isn't an isolated event. this is exactly what happened recently in the senate judiciary committee with respect to mr. b. todd jones, the nominee to be director of the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms. earlier this year i learned that the office of special counsel was investigating mr. jones in a

complaint that he had retaliated against a whistle-blower in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of minnesota. in the judiciary committee, it has been the committee's practice that when a nominee is subject to an open investigation, the committee generally does not move forward until the issues are resolved. because of because of this practice i objected to holding his hearing last month and requested the hearing be postponed allowing the investigation to finish. my request was denied. then i objected to putting him on the committee agenda until the nonpartisan investigation was complete. again my request was rejected. and now, despite the fact there remains an open complaint of whistle-blowers retaliation against mr. jones before the office of special counsel, his office will soon be considered

by the full senate. so i want all of my colleagues to know what happened because i'm quite concerned by the direction it has taken, especially in light of this practice seeming to spread into other senate committees as well. over the past few months, there has been correspondence between my office and the office of special counsel regarding the status of the proceedings. i had previously received a copy of an anonymous letter to the office of special counsel making various allegations against mr. jones. i sent a letter to the office of special counsel on april 8 asking for an update on those allegations. on april 12, the office of special counsel responded that there were two pending matters involving the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota where the u.s. -- or where mr. jones is the u.s. attorney. the first matter was a prohibited personnel practice,

a complaint alleging reprisal for whistle blowing and other protected activity. the seconds matter was a whistle-blower disclosure alleging gross mismanagement and abuse of authority. the complaint filed by an assistant u.s. attorney in the office alleged that personnel actions, including a suspension and lowered performance appraisal, were taken in retaliation for protected whistle blowing or other protected activity. on june 5, the office of special counsel provided the committee with an update to the two pending cases. it reported that the whistle-blower disclosure case had closed based on its determination that the information provided was unsieve to determine with substantial likelihood that gross mismanagement and abuse of authority or a violation of law, rule or regulation had in fact occurred.

according to the office of special counsel, accordingly, then, that office closed that case file. the office of special counsel action to close the whistle-blower disclosure case was not based on any investigation by that office. that action was a mere determination based on a technical review of the complaint document itself. it was not a finding on the merits of the case. now, with regard to the other issue before the office of special counsel, the prohibited personnel practice, i was informed that the complaint was referred for -- referred for investigation. subsequently, the complainant and justice department grate mediation. i was told if mediation was unsuccessful, the case would return to the office of special counsel's investigation and prosecution division for further

investigation. my colleagues now should understand that of all the complaints received by the office of special counsel, only 10% of them are merits for such an investigation. this case was one of them. why did the career nonpartisan staff at the office of special counsel forward the case for investigation? presumably because they thought it needed to be investigated. that says something about the likely merits of the case. before the hearing, there was disagreement regarding the status of the special counsel's investigation. accordingly, i contacted the special counsel, inquiring as to the status of the complaints. the special counsel confirmed --. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: with my friend's permission, i would ask -- i

would suggest the absence of a quorum because i need to talk to him about something that deals with the consent agreement i have here. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i know that my intend has the floor. here's a brief unanimous consent request. and i'm going to proceed as follows, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture on calendar number 208 be

withdrawn, the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination at 5:30. how much long -- we'll vote at 5:35. that will give my friend time to finish his statement. the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table -- the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table be considered made and laid on table, no intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each,with further that the vote on cloture on calendar number 223 occur on tuesday, july 30, 2013 following leader remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: i ask that my statement not be interrupted by what's in the record for this

u.c. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before the hearing, there was disagreement regarding the status of the special counsel's investigation. accordingly, i contacted the special counsel, inquiring as to the status of the complaints. the special counsel confirmed for the second time that the investigation remains open. she stated -- quote -- "the reasiement of the case for mediation -- reassignment of the case for mediation did not result in it be closed." despite my objection ons june 11, the committee went forward with a hearing on jones' nomination. we were told mr. jones' hearing needed to be held in order for him to have an opportunity to respond to the office of special counsel complaints. i would note that a similar rationale was used to justify the mallorcas hearing, to publicly address the allegations against the nominee. in mr. jones' case, in advance of the hearing, the department

of justice sent a letter to me stating -- quote -- "mr. jones looks forward to answering your questions about these matters during his nomination hearing" -- end of quote. well, good news. we finally get answers to our questions. but not so. additionally, mr. jones who was even quoted in the star tribune as saying -- quote -- "i'm looking forward to meeting with the committee and answering all of their questions" -- end of quotened, of course, that's good news. but it didn't work out that way. because as i expected, the hearing provided no information to the committee with regard to the open special counsel investigation. at the hearing, mr. jones said that he would not talk about the complaint. of course, this negated the whole reason why the hearing had even been scheduled. at his hearing my first question to mr. jones was about the investigation. this is his reply. "because those complaints are

confidential as a matter of law, i have not seen the substance of the complaint nor can i comment on them. i have learned more from your statement today than i knew before i came here this morning about the nature and substance of the complaints"-- unquote of mr. jones' reply to my question. a few minutes later i inquired of mr. jones -- quote -- "will you answer the complaint about the assistant u.s. attorney because that is why you are here today" -- end of quote. he replied -- quote -- ,"well, quite, frankly, senator i'm at a disadvantage with the facts. there is a process in place. i have not seen the o.s.c. complaint. i do know that our office working with the executive office of the u.s. attorneys is in the process of responding to the issues that you have talked about this morning, but -- and i want to emphasize this -- i have not had the opportunity to either be interviewed or have any greater knowledge about what

the o.s.c. complaint is" -- end of quote. so there we were. left with an open investigation of serious allegations of whistle-blower retaliation. we were told the hearing was an opportunity for us to question the nominee and get these questions answered, but the nominee couldn't even talk about them at all. this put the committee in the position of either allowing time for the office of special counsel to do its job or looking into the matter for ourselves before proceeding. now, strangely, and very unconventionally, late in the day before the hearing, the majority offered to conduct some interviews the friday following the hearing. now, that was quite perplexing to me. we were going to begin the investigation after the hearing had concluded instead of normally get all this stuff out

of the way before the hearing. i could not remember when the committee had ever conducted an investigation after a nominee hearing. the day after the hearing, the chairman's staff indicated to the media that we were conducting a bipartisan probe. the media reported that the majority staff had offered to conducts a bipartisan inquiry into the matters before the office of special counsel. however, i'm disappointed to report there was no genuine effort to gather all the facts. the majority only agreed to jointly interview one witness, the whistle-blower himself. however, the majority referred to look into the substance of the claim. even more troubling it quickly turned into an inquiry of the whistle-blower rather than an alleged retaliatory action done by the nominee. the majority reached its own oan conclusion that it wasn't a whistle-blower matter at all but

a personnel matter where management imposed discipline on a disruptive or insubordinate employee. however, there was never a factual record before the committee to support that conclusion. the majority determined today the whistle-blower is an uncooperative witness for being -- quote -- "unwilling to provide documents under of -- quote --"meaning his personnel file. the whistle-blower in this instance is an instant u.s. attorney with 30 years of federal service, 24 years of which she served in the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota. he has extensive leadership experience and in 2012 received the assistant attorney general's distinguished achievement award. it should be quite alarming to us all that a staff investigation of whistle-blowers' complaints would be twisted around into an apparent attempt to investigate the whistle-blower. i've worked with many federal government whistle-blowers over the years and this is exactly the type of treatment that whistle-blowers fear.

it's one of the main reasons they're agrade to come forward. this type of treatment raises serious concerns. unfortunately, i've come to expect this out of government agencies attacking whistle-blowers rather than investigating the underlying problem. i've seen it over and over again. but this sort of inquiry shouldn't be the way that the senate deals with whistle-blowers or others who come forward to testify. the senate cannot conduct itself this way. we cannot ignore ongoing investigations. in my opinion, we're neglecting a constitutional obligation. eventually, one of these situations will embarrass the senate, the gentleman the -- damage the reputation of the federal government and ultimately provide -- probably cost the taxpayers, our constituents, dollars that they can't afford. so i urge all of my colleagues

to oppose taking further action at this time on the nomination of b. todd jones for director of a.t.f. and other -- another nominee with an open investigation. i will vote no on cloture and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. this is about protecting the advice and consent function of the congress. the senate should wait until the office of special counsel has concluded its investigation. and we know the truth about his retaliatory conduct against a protected whistle-blower. there will be time to debate the other substantive concerns regarding this nomination. there may be additional reasons why my colleagues should oppose mr. jones' nomination. other senators may vote to confirm the nominee, but as a starting point, we should be all in agreement that it is imprudent and unwise for the senate to give final consideration to any nominee where there is an open

investigation into the nominee's conduct. the senate cannot abdicate its duties to advise and consent on these nominees and simply rubber stamp them, and yet i've been able to give you three examples very recently where the senate seems to be -- well, in one instance has moved forward and in other other -- the in the other instance attempting to move forward. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. leahy: i ask the chair report the nominee. madam president, i ask all the time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the comey nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 1. two senators responded present. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is

considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

estestestestestest.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask knack notwithstanding the -- unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 167. the clerk: reaffirming the strong support of the united states for the peaceful resolution of territorial sovereignty and jurisdictional disputes in the asia pacific maritime domains. the the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure. without objection. mr. reid: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the feinstein amendment to the preamble at the desk be agreed to, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 153. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 1 153, recognizing the 200th anniversary of the battle of lake erie. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i understand there's a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2218, an acted to amend subtitle-d of the solid waste disposal act to encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading and in order to pla plae the bill on the calendar but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous i asks consent the when the completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 306789 the final for the leaders be reserved for later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar

number 223, kent harazawa nomination. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

and some of the promises come has been turned on the head largely due to commercial pressures that change the course of the internet dramatically. and unless we address the pressures and redirect the internet, the future is not going to be as glorious as we thought it would be. "future of the internet" tonight on ""the communicators" on c-span2. the first lady reflects the -- in the united states -- we're supposed to be first mate. to navigate that if the president is supposed to be head of state, and head of government, is the first lady

supposed to be, you know, the ideal fashionist? is she supposed to be mom and chief. is se supposed to be first help mate? but at the same time if she's going to be first help mate she's got understand what is going on in the administration. she's got to understand what is going on in the country. and she's got to country her husband's political agenda. so you can't really separate, i think, how the first lady presents herself, and the conflicting expectations that the country still has for working wives and working mothers. as we continue our conversation on first ladies, historians alytta black talk about the role of the first lady and the tradition home and family to activism on important issues and transitioning from public to private life. tonight at 9:00 eastern on

c-span. on our next "washington journal" we'll talk to the former head of the federal insurance corporation about monitoring financial industry. she chair the systemic risk counsel. former administrator for medicaid and medicare services talk about the eligibility requirement and costs of the u.s. medicare program. and later, bill allison of the sunlight foundation discuss the tracking of congressional fundraising. plus your phone call, e-mail, and tweet. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the next a look what ahead this week in congress before member adjourn on friday for the august recession. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. back at the table this morning is gail, washington political editor for the "christian science monitor" thank you for being here.

>> guest: thank you. >> host: she's here to talk all things congress. it's the final week before the august break. the question for our guest is what does want to or need to accomplish this week? what is the generally mood on the hill head together break? >> guest: they are already thinking about 2014 elections in a big way. they want to leave this week with a strong message to take back to their constituents and, i think, that is really dominating everything we're looking at. >> host: what are the messages from each side that are being crafted at that point? >> guest: the republicans have an interesting problem. what they agree on is that health care reform, the affordable care act, obamacare is going to destroy the economy. it needs to be repealed now. that's why next week they're having another vote to repeal it. i think it will be their 40th. beyond that, you're seeing very

dramatic lists in the party between the tea party and increasingly the libertarian wing. and the so-called establishment republicans john mccain would be surprised to see himself included among the establishment republican. that's where it is. i think you'll see that risk this week and at home. >> host: how about on the democratic side? >> guest: on the democratic side i think there's more unity. they have a strong feel, with they think. if they can push the republicans to a full act, which would be something like a government shut down in september, it changes the score board for the elections. right now with the conventional wisdom is that it would be impossible for house republicans to lose their majority. jerry has been so fine an art and there are so many districts that you have 70, 80, 90% in

some of them. it is hard to break that. however, if some galvanizing event happen, so offensive to women, to the minority, to independent voters, a government shutdown would be added to the list. you could see something like dramatic turnout shift or dramatic voter registration moves. at the last nant might actually change that house outcome. that is the 500-pound gore roll will in the room. >> host: our guest will be with us for 40 minute to talk about congress as it heads to the august recess. and it comes back in september. our numberses are on the bottom of the screen for our guests. gail russell chattic washington political editor for "christian science monitor ." the president making a visit to the hill. why? who is he going talk to? what is the significance. >> guest: it's an important messages moment.

he's last week in a effect set up the complain team for the next cycle. which is jobs in the middle class and kind of -- but putting some weight behind it. at the time when republicans are going to look like they're not willing to comprise on a lot of issues. the fact he's making a visittic, sends a signal that he at least is -- i think that's an important message for him to send. especially at the time when his own approval ratings are so difficult. they're now below 50%. traditionally that's a big indicater for elections. >> host: before we get to calls, i want to show a brief piece of tape from congressman jim mcder month. his dismissed report that the court house chief of staff was working with democrats on implementing the affordable care

act, and added that the white house has been inefficient in promoting this bill. here it is in his own words. >> we sitting in room i wouldn't know him. maybe he's been someplace, i'm on the ways & means committee. i'm the ranking member on the hill subcommittee that implementing the bill. i've never seen him. >> host: is that a problem? >> guest: it says that they make a good talk aunt what they're going do. the white house has been inefficient in dealing with the bill. it was a referendum on it. they sat quietly and we lost the house after we had gone to bat for this bill. we then lost the house. and so you to ask yourself when is the white house going actually get up and go? we have been prodding and talking and trying everything we can. but they have -- we're going have problems between here and the beginning that is going happen.

it's in law. and the supreme court said it's the law of the land. it's going to be implemented. >> host: gail? >> guest: you heard it right there. democrats are still smarting from the defeat they took in 2010. that was when health care was just a promise. we have now had several years 0 see what it's beginning to look like. initially things like being able to put children -- young adults up to the age of 26 on to the family insurance policy, that was an immediate sweetener. that helped a lot of people. but we have begun to see more what happened to the insurance. have you been to be keep it? have your rates gone up? i think when the white house pulls back implementation on the corporate side, a year, that was very important signal too. because a lot of people were beginning to say, look, t a bill that imposes heavy requirements on businesses that on the

full-time workers. they ratcheted it down full-time worker isn't 40, it's not 35, it's 30. and even then it looked as if a lot of company were not hiring full-time workers because of the provision. when you have now two years of experience, and you can say it might not be good for the economy. it might not be good for the under employed workers. it makes it even tougher. >> host: how does the country feel? cbs did a poll recently about congress and the affordable care act. some have called obamacare. repeal 39% feel repeal. 36% expand it or keep it. pretty evenly split. our guest mentioned as we go to phones, a bill this week, congressman tom price, republican of georgia, has a bill on the floor hr2009 it would prohibit the tissue i are -- treasury department from enforcing the law. you can watch it here on c-span. eric is from georgia is the

first call on the democratic line. hi? >> caller: you know, you are asking about -- [inaudible] if republicans really have no -- [inaudible] that cut is not an economical policy. [inaudible] there are things that president obama need to do. you know, the -- [inaudible] he's trying to get immigration reform for, you know, the hispanics and people who are illegal. [inaudible] like to see the program but urban area -- [inaudible] and we need some direct -- [inaudible] we voted for president obama. it is time that president obama look to the black community and help. do you agree with that? >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: the polls certainly agree with it. i was stunned with the latest "the wall street journal" nbc poll that showed for the first time an erosion and support for

the president among his strongest supporters especially african-american voters. i think precisely the caller's point. after all of this time, with, you know, the first black president, i think the idea was at some point there would be something clear an improvement. i think especially the verdict we saw in the trayvon martin killing was another indication of you know what did this actually produce? the jobs aren't better. racial conditions in the country and the polling on that is also startling. the number of people who feel that since 2008, race relations has gotten worse. ..

they do not want to and implement obamacare within their ranks. think that is very telling. while the administration is out there trying to boost obamacare, the celebrities and sports teams. thank you. >> you know, they were not concerned about the affordable

care iraq from the start because of some of the trade-offs that were made, especially toward so-called health care plans. made enormous sacrifices. instead of wages they have developed for themselves strong health care plans. and read them the affordable care act -- something to seeing anything new. as you point out, this really important moment, i think there were doubts about this from the start, making points publicly. >> the commerce from 2000 until last year. become the washington political editor. more time for your calls and treats. some of the pushed back on health care mesa of clued this week. want to talk to you about the house republicans who sent a letter to the speaker not to

bring any legislation funding, what they call obamacare to the floor. the same time 12 senate republicans sent a letter thursday to majority leader reid saying that there would not even support a government-funded bill unless it is limited funds for health care. a lot of pressure. >> estimates it is. and it is pressure on a speaker who came in with -- he wanted said let the house work its will. we have seen under the of nancy pelosi pretty strong that messes from the top. and the speaker consistently refuses to say worry stands on issues beyond imposing the rule of his predecessor. in don't bring a bill to a floor loss of as the ability to support the caucus. i would not be surprised if there is all kinds of means on

this front just as it did last week. a remarkable bill by arguably his biggest opponent in the house. what the nsa can do. this is a bill that the speaker did not personally support. he even came out against it. he did alone to the floor. you're going to have to see something similar here. he cannot crush the libertarian party purity has to give them both. you will see behind the scenes as he did with the national security bill, a lot of scrambling to make sure. >> it is not locked in the speaker actually makes a floor speech. a lot of attention. the allies in the. >> the president wants to help, he ought to of prove the keystone pipeline has bipartisan

support here in the house. he ought to work with us in a bipartisan majority to deliver health care bill to give the american people their families and individuals the same break he wants to give the big businesses. they have to stop threatening to shut down the government allows raise taxes. >> and a bit about what the speaker wants. and for our guest. possible that republicans will not raise the debt ceiling. a lot going on. government funding, health care, debt ceiling. explain how they all might come together. in the coming months. >> in nine glorious days in september. the congress is here for another week. then they go out for one month. then they come back. that second week in september. they're here for two weeks. in the house goes out. then back for a day. then everything happens that once. key features of the affordable care act taken. the fiscal year ends.

that means government is no longer funded unless they can agree on something. and then sometime after that, sometime between the first of october and the end of the year spending cuts, but not to level the was agreed to in the law -- the fiscal cleft white -- crisis in 2011. they agree to do things. tax on spending. and we will have a sequester which is about $100 billion in cuts split between defense and domestic spending. and so what you're going to see in september is a real fight over that. democrats in the budget have presented. we don't respect.

are going to have a grand bargain in september. republicans said we already have a grand bargain. that would be enough to make it difficult, but then you have libertarian, republican party. pass spending bills unless obamacare is defunded another dime goes to funding it. that is huge. that is another one. you're going to seek abortion arguments. so this is -- it's going to be a dramatic nine days. it is a congress that has not functioned well for some people would say even at all, but my own sense is that republicans are leading loud and clear. if they shut down the government again it is going to be something like what happened to newt gingrich in 1995. republicans have newly taken over the house.

it provoked a crisis with president clinton and the government shut down twice. and in the and republicans are blamed. the next election. republicans would actually -- let think there will do everything possible to avoid a shutdown. your not going to hear a word until the last possible moment. >> host: back to your calls. nick, democrat, thank you for waiting. hello. >> caller: hello. am i on? >> host: i am not -- you are on. >> caller: would like to ask a question about the increase in health care, especially in my case. the 69-year-old and i'm retired. my wife is only 62 pc will be 63 in october. here is my problem. i have to pay for her health-insurance. i received new rates starting in september, $1,502.

so how is that health care plan helping me? i am only making a low over $60,000 a year. to pay $18,000 for one year for health care seems insane. that is my question. >> you have said very concisely what the problem as for democrats who have supported this bill. that is why congressman mcdermott sounded so urgent. we want the president out there using all of his eloquence to support that bill. and convince people like you that, yes, it may be going up right now. however in a locker room this is good for the country. all the people not currently covered will be covered, and that will be good for the country, but it is a case that -- as you say, it is not obvious when you look at the bill. and it is going to be a tough one for democrats. i think they have the business

side that individuals are currently covered and will have to start buying premiums including an people. maybe they don't have good jobs. maybe they're not working to their full capacity. it is going to be a hit. a lot of people are going into the voting booth in november wondering about these. >> we heard from the speaker a moment ago. here is a little bit from the president from earlier this week. >> i am laying out my ideas to give the middle class a better shot. and if the republicans don't agree i want them to lay out their ideas. if they have a better plan to create jobs or rebuild the infrastructure and make sure that we have great ports all along the gulf, come on. let me know what your ideas are. and listening. they have better ideas to make sure every american knows the

security of affordable health care, share it with the country. repealing obamacare and slashing our budgets in education and research and infrastructure, that is not an economic plan. there is no economist would look at that and say, that is the way we're going to help middle-class families. we will grow doing that. shutting down the government just because i am for keeping an open is not an economic plan. threatening that he won't pay the bills in this country when we have already racked them up, that is now an economic plan. you know, that is just being a deadbeat. >> host: push back their from the president's speech to what you just heard is kind of campaign. you have heard it. republicans have the different boilerplate, but that is the back-and-forth that has been going on for six years now.

will republicans say in response is what will get the economy back is business, creating jobs. why are we creating jobs? there is too much. so this week on the house floor, ten bills will be presented that will try to get less regulation and protect the americans from excessive government. some of the concern about the address some months ago preventing groups from getting tax-free status if they are too conservative. so there will be a lot of talk a lot of the downside a big government. if only business is listed in the building of the affordable care act, there will create more jobs. the argument you will hear a lot

has to do with part-time work. no, there is a lot of statistical battles going on. but the unemployment numbers mean. new jobs, the market, full-time, part-time. and i think the americans who are underemployed want full-time work and cannot get it. there will be targeting. republicans will say when you have a health care law that penalizes companies for full-time work, are you surprised that part-time work, if that, is available? that is what the debate will sound like. >> jacksonville's florida. the christian science monitor. >> caller: good morning. your speaker said earlier about the advancing age for being able to keep young people on insurance until they're 26 years old. the only thing about that is the appearance of the ones that paying for it.

there is no government subsidy or anything. if you -- the 69 year-old caller, as premiums are going a. everyone's premiums have gone up since obamacare was enacted. then new american dream now well you have to 30 or a weak jobs the commis working 60 hours because there will get you back. and then you're going to have to pay fair health-insurance. so i don't see where obamacare, you know -- everyone has health care due to the unfunded law that was passed years ago. you have to be treated when you go to the emergency room at no cost or some cost. if you have insurance when you go to the emergency room, they charge you three times more. >> host: let's get a response. >> guest: i think if you go back to win a health care was first on the floor, there was a

big argument made for advantages , people who are not covered. millions of people currently not covered will be brought into the system. and there's a difference between getting regular care, you know, pregnancy, turner care, and going to the emergency room when something desperate is happening . the president made an eloquent case at that time that it would be good to try to do this. the last couple of callers of said now those are numbers to look at. not hearing so much from people that are not covered. the people who have had coverage to feel. they have it in black-and-white. what it will mean to them financially. so it is a much more intense issue, especially in the midterm election when not many people typically show up to vote anyway. the people show up by the people that are angry, the people

expect something get from this bill may not be angry about it. may not be the voters should decide who controls the congress in november. >> fifteen minutes left with our guest. florida republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question, just -- it is actually like your guests opinion. i am -- i call myself a disillusion republican. the reason is it is sort of like we have people in congress who have passed laws. and including the affordable care act. then they sent themselves from those laws. and we are not talking about just some. talk to about whether their democratic or republican. government and people who pay into the government, some vested interest, is exempt.

and state levels all across the country. we don't care if it's a democrat or republican. if you're living in this country and you pass along, you ought to be subject to that law. we don't have aristocrats. that is what has become. would like to hear your opinion on that. >> specifics about that. it was one of the big themes when republicans took back the house in the 1994 election. one of the systems they did, they try to ensure that members of congress abide by the same rules that everybody else does. a lot of perks were taken away at that time. they're is a lot of rumors out there about special benefits that members of congress it.

when you run them down, they don't get. if they ever did it does not happen anymore. we really need to go through this on a point by point basis. but it is more complicated. if you send me an e-mail to my would really believe -- be glad to give you the research i've done on some of those points and exactly what the ones i the you're concerned about. it's an interesting question. >> host: other legislative matters. one of the viewers on twitter ask this, tax reform and food stamps. >> guest: well, food stamps were thrown off the bus when house republicans tried to of pass the farm bill. this has been lingering for a long time. over the years with the farm bill has become is, yes, subsidies for farmers, but increasingly. that house republicans just could not keep their own caucus together on the cost of a farm

bill. at think about 80 percent of it is now the food support peace instead of the far support piece. so they just jettisoned it cannot pass the farm bill that focused just on the farmers and left the others for another date. but all of those programs, all of those discretionary domestic programs are now part of a dramatically shrinking pot, the kind of limits that were put on spending in 2011 with the deal over the fiscal cliff, that is going to be constraining all of those programs for the the future. republicans will be committed, especially tea party republicans , libertarian republicans, committed to of shrinking governments dramatically. i think that is going to be a constant for some time now.

>> john allen georgia, democratic caller, what do you have to say? >> caller: yes. talking about the democratic party. emma democrat. that democrats, what he said, when it comes to health care. >> host: are you still there? >> caller: democrat. >> guest: he's breaking up. keep going. >> caller: trying to exploit in the bills. and why did they do that? >> host: i think we got what he said. >> guest: well, that is a really good point. i don't think you would find a stronger supporter of the president's, nancy pelosi when she was speaker. and even subsequently trying to support his agenda and program. but it is a very difficult bill, complicated, and if you are-show up to this point you ever people

calling in and talking about the impact that they can see in their own life. that kind of tough sell is when people want and expect the president to make, especially when he is now have to face voters again. it is his legacy, his agenda. he should not be taking vacations. he should be out there making a powerful case and working with congress. we ought to see him on the hill, not just for fun opportunities. see his people on the hill working those issues assiduously >> host: britney immigration into the conversation. political. one of the papers to talk to paul ryan. actually did a town hall meeting about immigration and other issues. says that this series of bills is coming. maybe not until october. why october? what is the approach going to be?

why is it going to be piecemeal? >> house republicans first of all would be reluctant to take any senate bill, embrace it warmly and pass it. looking at what has happened to their own bills when they landed in the senate which is mainly die. and so they want to develop their own approach. they especially to know what to do anything that looks like a path to citizenship until the security pieces rock-solid. and they think that the best way to do this is to force people to take votes won by one on elements of this bill. at the very end to deal with path to citizenships. i think the only to the we have seen in the house republican thinking, and it is a very interesting one, the increasing interest. senator durbin pushing for a very long time. set aside anything you think about immigration and just focus

on people came here as children. and now trying to get into college, trying to make a life. they don't have a country they remember. and i think it is a very interesting truth in politics. focus. who are these people? there are neighbors, friends, you know, what does it mean to them of their losing -- second-class citizens. and then both cases d.c. public opinion shift. congressional action. that is what republicans concede. they are pushed -- going to push immigration as far as they can come but as you see public opinion shifting as it is on things like what happens to the kids, in congress, but in the short run the house republicans

will take this bill on their own time one by one. >> host: of ohio, and dependent caller. you are wrong with our guest. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. >> host: short. >> caller: i would like to understand how reform the immigration law, the legal immigrants that are here, if you make them legal, how does that help the economy? they keep telling us that that making these people legal will help boost the economy. but the rate of employment right now is through the roof. and the americans that are here now, are searching for jobs and cannot find them. i just don't see how their grants will come over and boost the economy unless they can add

to -- do something to get this for an oil, you know, -- >> host: it is a big one. >> guest: immigration is one of those deals that covers everything. if i can take to pieces of it, the supporters of the immigration, first of all, let's take the john dingell. if we increase access to this country to parleys kill foreigners, kids that come to this country to become engineers and then go back to start businesses in india, let's give them here and make it easy for them to come, expand the number of age one be visas. that will help the economy. software engineers are saying, look, age discrimination. thrown out of work at the age of 40. still very good. having to train our replacements and that is not fair.

that is one piece of the debate. the other piece is some at the bottom. the so-called jobs that americans won't do. a lot of americans are saying, we would do those jobs if they paid more. why did they pay so little? because people with no bargaining rights, no legal status of doing those jobs. and democrats who care about the issues you're talking about sake if we make those people legal we give them bargaining rights and things would get better. back to health care. what actually happens. the bill that was -- the path to citizenship was supposed to end illegal immigration but didn't. increased. we look today, explaining how everyone of black surely be legalized. and even those that are, well that encourage more illegal

immigration? the dynamic continues. people keeping down wages. >> host: the pc just mentioned. exclude millions. the president's, the immigration laws and providing a path the citizens of, failing to do so he told the spanish-language station would mean 11 million people permanently reside still lower status. but if legislation became law tomorrow more than one in for illegal immigrants would remain an undocumented and outside the system according to federal estimates. how come the think? >> guest: well, you know, we actually get down to deciding who will count, how long they have to be here and what kind of records they will need to demonstrate it, there are people that are not going to be able to meet the standards, let alone follow the path all the way to citizenship. and then i think you have the

flip side of that argument. you going to encourage more people to come here illegally? most people on not coming here by leaping over a fence and saying a tunnel. they're coming here legally and just overstaying vises. so part of the debate as well as how much money are you willing to invest a really track people who are here to make sure. and if you do that are you creating an even more powerful state? and that can the plugs into the libertarian argument about the government listening to your phone calls and looking at your e-mails. what are you willing to pay to have a secure immigration system? and added to what you're willing to pay to have a secure anti-terrorist system and you have a real change in the big government relationships to individuals. a lot of people are concerned about this. >> host: time for at least one

more call. good morning. i was going to ask about -- talk about the affordable health care now, americans have a short memory because of four the bill and the price of health care was going up, it is going to continue to go up until something was done about it. am i right? i mean, the insurance companies were charging more and more every year. that is what people were complaining about. now, they also, the legal people over here, when they get here, there will be treated in the emergency room. everyone is paying for that. so affordable health care is supposed to take care of that.

it has not started to be implemented until the year 2014, and my right? >> you're right. >> so why can't you explain that to people? because -- and then the republicans are fighting against funding it. now, that is going to slow it down, too. am i right? >> that would slow to a halt. but i think in the process it would slow congress to waltz. you're right. you know, you raise a very interesting point. we started out with this discussion for couple of reasons . one, the people don't have health insurance. two, health costs of driving the growth in government spending. something has to be done to reduce. the government can individuals. and that part of it never made it into the bill. as directly as the sponsors hope. we have not really gotten the

cost-containment yet. that is another thing that is down the road. and you're right. if the country is to make a transition like this it is going to take a long view. it is difficult to take that when you are seeing all of the stumbles and higher bills. someone has to take the point you have made, explain it, make it compelling. >> host: let's squeeze in one last call. >> caller: good morning and thank you for your time. i have two issues. the health care bill. that is, i believe that corporations, york corporation, and i am a corporation, you should be responsible to employees and provide an insurance because the idea, we get our money together.

it developed -- the organizations should be required to add. we cannot continue to roll. if we do, and it needs to be completely on the books because multiple people -- of the people i know don't do it. >> host: just about out of time. >> guest: a quick comment. look up in the video archives the exchange between the apple computer executives and carl levin which will go down as one of a great exchanges between a member of congress to up to that point. going forward, bette davis put

it very well. it will be a bumpy ride or a bumpy night. i'm not sure what she said. more so than any other. we have seen a lot of them. what could they possibly do? the one thing that i think is going, republicans really do believe that if they shut down government they could lose the house. i think that is the reality. a lot of deals between now and october 1st. >> host: russell chadic washington political editor for the christian science monitor. thank you for coming back to the table. we appreciate your time and site >> my thesis is that the internet began with extraordinary promise for democratizing society in making the world a far better place. some of the promise, much of it has been turned on its head or largely due to commercial pressures that have changed the course dramatically. and alas we arrest those pressures and redirect the

internet the future is not necessarily going to be as glorious as we once thought it would be. >> the feature of the internet with digital disconnect author tonight on the the communicator's at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> earlier today civil rights leaders met with president obama and attorney general eric holder about the voting rights act. after the meeting a spoke with reporters outside of the white house for about half an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> we had a very candid and very significant meeting with the president and the attorney general around voting rights. this is a broad coalition of civil-rights and voting rights organizational heads as well as attorneys and legal groups.

our concern was to protect the right of all americans to vote given the decision of the supreme court in terms of section four. it was a certain amount of alarm around the country for those of us. state legislators. and we have been assured by the president and the attorney general that they will continue to aggressively fight to protect their rights of all americans to vote. they are open to many of us on the ground to continue to use the voting rights act. it is not dead. ted bring the information of any violation of voting rights directly to the justice department. we have been greatly encouraged by that. there is a wound in the voting rights act, but it is far from dead.

it is not even critical. we intend to use that information that we have today to assure our constituents that we intend to aggressively fight them to protect those rights in all communities. or represented in this meeting today. as we head toward the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, as many of you know, we are having a commemoration and continuation march. we are under assault in many areas. august 24. we will inform the president and attorney general that. i think the collective, though wide breadth of those involved and the multiracial, multiethnic

and the expertise demonstrated was something the president noted and i think it was very important. i think mayor read. >> well was very clear from the conversation with the president and the attorney general is that this had ministrations commitment to making sure that every american has fair access to the polls and the right to vote, it is absolute. and that is really what the conversation centered around. one, all of the historic organizations that are assembled in front of you are prepared to go to work. we will be doing more education than ever because the bottom line, while there are a number of adverse tactics being used to undermine the right to vote, if we do our job we will be able to make sure that people maintain access to the ballot and that

the conversation centered around what is going to need to be done. you also have a partnership with the mayors across the united states. part air in a fashion that they have not done with the incredible organization. more resources are going to be required in order to set the record for the kind of discrimination that we believe is afoot in the united states of america, and we cannot rely on these organizations to respond without being well sourced. >> as you can see, there is a broad commitment, an inclusive coalition that is supporting the voting rights act. employees with the constructive meeting led by the president and with the attorney general and the new secretary of labor who has been the assistant attorney general for civil rights. so there is a broad commitment to support the voting rights

act. i just want to know that one in three latinos live in areas covered by the voting rights act. we have invested in this and have worked very closely across this coalition to support the voting rights act, and i in turn have seen broad support by this coalition to work together on other issues like education reform. we marched in alabama together. against voter suppression and against the anti-immigration laws. and i just think the strength of this coalition represents the strong unity and commitment that everyone must have the right to vote. we are you working together very committed to see that through. >> i am the executive director of the financing system. as to the coalition. we are about advancing the right to vote for all americans. does not matter if you have been here five generations are five years. the right to vote for every

american is what being an american is about. and so the asian american community is proud and honored. it is a part of our ownership and i stand with my coalition partners to say that this is a fight by americans for americans for all americans right to vote. >> thank you very much. last week it was our annual conference in philadelphia that attorney general eric holder announce that he was taking action against the state of texas. in today's meeting there were a number of things that i think are important to emphasize. one, the president and the attorney general's reaffirmation of the viability of the voting rights act, the supreme court struck down one provision, not the entire act. the president and the attorney general know that, understand that, and reaffirmed their commitment to enforce the act.

secondly, the president and the attorneys general reaffirmed the federal their rents overriding responsibility to protect democracy and the right to vote for all americans. and our discussion was in the context of that. thirdly, as a coalition here, as a coalition here we recognize that there is important work to do. but i have had the upper edge into the to participate in the 2006 reauthorization and actually it was the capitals' -- capitol hill staffer reauthorize in 1982. in both of those instances and if you go back to the 75 reauthorization in the 1955 reauthorization there was broad bipartisan support. 1982, i remember senator bob dole playing in imports and will. in 2006 president bush signed

the bill on the lawn of the white house with members of congress from all -- both parties in large numbers. we reaffirm our commitment to build that same type of coalition for the necessary legislative response to the supreme court action. we reaffirm our commitment to do that today. >> i am worried henderson with tech conference on civil rights. i want to a knowledge some of the leaders or year today who joined in this really important and constructive meeting with the president. president director counsel of the naacp, legal defense and educational fund, executive director and president of the lawyers committee, the civil rights under law which by the way is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year having been founded by president kennedy in response to violence against those who sought to register voters in the past.

president of the mexican american legal defense, and educational fund, more lawsuits and the area of voting rights than almost any other latino organization. particularly focused in texas right now. laura murphy who represents the american civil a resilient, washington national office, bringing over 300 voting rights cases currently. rosalynn who has -- i'm sorry, chairperson of the naacp, the nation's oldest and largest civil and human rights organization. state legislature. margaret fung, the asian american legal defense and education fund. we have state legislators from texas, alabama, georgia, florida i mean, this is really a broad and diverse group.

the national coalition of black civic participation. want to just step back for one moment and something about the importance of bipartisanship. the president himself alluded to that. we recognize that the voting rights act in the past has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. we are counting on that bipartisan support to continue the great tradition of insuring that every person, every american citizen has the right to vote. this was such an important meeting because the president underscored the right. all americans believe. secondly, he emphasized the role of the federal government in ensuring that the right to vote for all the -- be adequately protected. enforcement efforts that were announced last week by attorney general holder was important, but it is also important that we educate the public and that we localize our constituencies to lift their voices.

that is why the 50th anniversary, commemoratives is so important. and so with that let me invite barbara to give us a closing remark. >> yes. i thought the meeting was really excellent. it was great to have that only the president's presence, but the attorney general and mr. perez. it was important to we had a real conversation. it was correct -- quite constructive. the president knowledge and making sure that every american is going to be able to have the right to vote. was also very impressed that the department of justice has been giving thought to how to use those old are re of voting rights laws including the national voter registration act

to make sure that there are rights accorded to everyone. but also importantly alluded again to his commission on long lines and awaiting the report. i think that report also will be informative to this effort to reauthorize the voting rights act. thank you. go, and i should mention that the lawyers committee also is very happy that we would be working very closely with all of the groups your to help congress develop the record that is needed. we look for work to do in the litigation that is necessary to protect. >> let me mention our last three speakers, a state representative . >> hello. i am the president of the naacp

legal defense fund. part of the team of lawyers to litigate this of the county kayseven argued in the supreme court. says the decision in that case our client and americans all of the country have been deeply concerned about whether we are going backwards on the right to vote. this meeting was important to have the president of the united states, the attorney general of the united states affirmed that we are not going backwards and reaffirm the commitment of protecting the right to vote. 150 years ago the supreme court of the united states said the right to vote is preservative of all rights. and they're for this moment we are and as it relates to voting rights is not a moment about african-american, latinos, native americans, or asian american chief of asian-americans. america and democracy, we stand for, whether we're willing to protect the thing that defines us as citizens in this country. with the president of the united states, he will stand behind it. he will do everything in his power to ensure that all americans have access to the

right to vote. we all share the same view. we don't believe that in this country in 2013 we should be fighting to ensure that people have access to the polls and access to voting. we believe that this country should be looking for ways to make it easier for people to vote to broaden the franchise and insure greater civic participation and encourage have people to participate in the political process. and frankly we have to engage in this kind of work. and yet we take up the challenge . this state of texas' using one of the remaining to make sure that minority voters are protected. so excited by this broad coalition of individuals from so many different groups recognizes as a watershed issue. we are looking for to of march 24th and will have an opportunity for america to seek

how much these individual groups and millions of americans from all over the country feel about this right that this preservative of all our other rights. we are continuing to engage in litigation to protect the right to vote to route this country. we are talking with community small and large about voting discrimination that is happening and we're not going to let up the fight to ensure that all voters have equal access to participate in the political process. it was tremendously encouraging. happy of the president and attorney general were willing to me with all of us to reassure us about their commitment. >> good afternoon. president and general counsel. one of the organizations that is currently litigating in texas and around texas redistricting perry from 2011 we present an immediate opportunity to use one of -- 1965 and again in sure

that the jurisdiction with the longstanding and continuing history of discrimination in voting is subjected to appropriate review of any changes that are anticipated in the voting processes. that immediate occasion makes this meeting with the president particularly opportune, and i would just reiterate the breath of the coalition that now with the president, how critically important the issue is. the geographical line, the community line, the experience line to ensure that that very precious right to vote blocks all of us and is vigorously defended and vigorously asserted on behalf of every citizen in this country. at the end of the day we know that the supreme court decision no matter how wrongheaded it may become a supreme court decision can deny that most precious of rights to every citizen in this

country who has earned it. >> state representative tree martinez from taxes. >> thank you again i chaired the mexican-american caucus, the oldest and largest latino caucus is in the country. we have been the lead plaintiffs in the texas redistricting litigation. i think it is refreshing to hear from the presidents of the united states that republicans and democrats fight for americans in order to vote. america wins. we know that sometimes that does not happen overnight. unless and until we hear from the congress may have to make sure that this coalition that has been doing for many years to miss several decades will work day in and day out to put its back on the ground and ensure that every american has the right to vote and every american has a place to go when they see shenanigans at the polling place

-- polling place. the department of justice will retool and re prioritized in the wake of the shelby county decision. refreshen to learn the section to entry of the voting rights act will be strictly and vigorously applied. texas will probably be around zero because the litigation is happening right now. a lot of pleadings, section to the implications as well as section three to give america an opportunity to see firsthand how in the reason why it is so important that not only we have the right to vote but no doubt that we will fight to protect the right. as a coalition. i am glad to see everybody here in washington come together and put our arms around this very difficult issue. i'm encouraged by the work of the president, inspired high in the attorney general in the senior team at the white house that there will not let one election without having vigilance.

>> inky. >> thank you. thanks to all who have joined in this meeting today. a couple of questions. we are happy to have my colleagues. >> ground zero. part of this battle. fifty years ago there were marches, a lot of activity on the ground. what is this like today in texas and also in those critical states? can you name some? >> i will just say in texas their is a lawsuit that is bending right now. so the timing and sequence of events we have an opportunity to display system aboard the voting rights act is and how important it is to have section two and three. why we fight in the core with the laws of we have left we demonstrate the importance and the need for the congress to give us the voting rights act as applied to all americans. >> also please to have representatives from both georgia and florida who are here , both of those states have been in case activity to -- those who are here have been working to preserve the vote.

>> state representative calvin. the national black caucus state legislature. the legislatures in 42 states. a lot of action as it relates to the voting rights act. in georgia law we just have a situation where the voters approved a partisan election. city elections, but yet because of pre clearance and the supreme court ruling the legislature has changed it to -- so i think what is important about today's meeting is that we have to watch the trickle-down theory. those of us at the state level now have to look out for those of the local school board level, the municipality levels in those areas where the voting rights acts can bring serious repercussions. so we at the state legislature not only look at the state level and the fed as well, but look at

the local municipalities. >> we also have state representative alan williams from florida. >> you know, today was an opportunity to not only hear from the attorney general but also from the president had to have a full broad coalition supporting a critical fundamental building block of our democracy, the voting rights act. we know that the folks want to know that they have a fundamental right to vote. they want to know that the right is protected and what the department of justice is doing in taxes is critical to ensuring that right. we know in florida that governor scott has led. now because of the decision and is now starting to begin the purge. so we have to make sure that we stand strong with our citizens throughout all 67 counties to make sure that is something that is not violated. and it is not lost upon me there

shall be decision and the zimmerman verdict, we know that next year would have been the first year that martin would have had the opportunity to vote. and we know that is sacred. it is not lost on us. and so we want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity. we want to continue. >> the new voting rights mapping data want to hear from the naacp. what are you guys looking for for this new voting rights to ' would it look like? what would you want congress the draw from this new map? >> candidly, it is too early to it's about the stock and bought at the -- >> what the legislative response is going to be. there are some very smart lawyers, experienced of voting rights litigators working with

the justice department and outside of the justice department and on capitol hill in order to do what is necessary to respond. so i think it is too early and i think also that speculation would not be helpful to the ultimate goal. the ultimate goal which is on how bipartisan basis to task legislative response. in the interim the attorney general, we affirmed it. we saw him section three to bring taxes into n.m. -- up three clarence enforcement regime. monitoring opportunities. there are resources that are being shifted to section two. there are other tools from the justice department to protect their right to vote. what i would encourage you to do is to keep a close eye on action

at the state legislative levels. the state legislatures in the last 24 to 36 months there have been a long list of bills introduced in states across the nation, particularly in the south, but not exclusively in the south that fall into the category of voter suppression. only those which actually pass or those which were challenged guard public attention because there were efforts inside of these legislatures to stop and thwart many of these. i think that this is one of the places where attention on the states, attention on the state no longer can wait, particularly for the old state to pass whenever they wanted to pass and then they would have to submit it to the justice department for

pre approval. we really need people to understand that this is not an isolated law or an isolated law. this has been a concerted effort , particularly in the last 24 to 36 months to pass new types of voter suppression legislation and new discriminatory voting methods in many of these states. and last comment -- >> excuse me. last comment. >> i want to respond. i agree that it is too early. the public strategy. the n.a.a.c.p. is going about educating our members across the country, town hall meeting, campaigns, summer heat. endangering our. it's happening. 2014 is a critical time in this nation. we were so pleased that the president called this meeting along with attorney general

holder. this broad coalition. we are committed that we shall not be moved in our pursuit to ensure the unfettered access to the right to vote for all americans in this country. you know, we see that courage will last if this generation, but the right to vote will also not skip this generation and will continue to work with coalition partners across this country and we will also mobilize 50,000 voters, new voters to vote in the midterm election next year. we know that the power structure in this nation happens at the polling place. and so we want to ensure that everyone who has a desire to vote and to be a part of the civic process in this nation has an opportunity to do that because too many of our sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers have died for this franchise. ..

>> we are with the communications professor at illinois university at champlain he has been president