about below. later, we will discuss how campaigns are using microsoft and yahoo! to target voters with tailored advertising. >host: good morning and welcome on this tuesday, june 19, 2012. the senate moves forward on the farm bill today. looming deadlines on a stool and loan rate increase and the transportation bill. jamie dimon returns to capitol hill to take questions about jpmorgan chase's to billion dollar loss, this time before a house committee. president obama continues to g- 20 meetings in mexico. the giant search engine google puts out a new study revealing

which governments and companies have asked them to center content. the u.s. tops google's censorship requests. we would like to hear what you think about this. are there times when censorship makes sense to you? what do you think about the numbers we are about to show you? here are the numbers where you can weigh in o-- you can also find us online. and join the conversation on twitter. you can comment on facebook. or email us. let's look at a story in the washington post this morning --

ear something from google's official blog. a senior policy analyst at the company said yesterday two years ago they launched their

interactive transparency report and started disclosing data about the government requests. unfortunately, she writes that what we've seen over the past zero years has been troubling -- here is the wall street journal -- you can see the number of requests in certain countries. we will also talk about how the u.s. fared. kathleen is a democratic caller in massachusetts, good morning.

caller: good morning. i am calling to say all censorship is a really bad thing. there is a first amendment. it's not just google. yesterday on c-span someone called to say that it was in the constitution that the founding fathers told us we had to have 60 votes. for votes. that was not true and there was no correction of information that comes across c-span all the time. not just c-span. our country is completely illiterate when it comes to getting information about the world. we don't know and we don't pay attention to the things we are told. host: thanks for the correction. is there a difference between censorship and misstatements on

the air? caller:no. host: let's hear from jack, and independent caller in texas. good morning. caller: hello, how are you? censorship is a way the government has been getting us to -- host: i think we lost him. let's look some more at the wall street journal and other papers and how they are talking about this. this is in the business section of the washington post --

san diego, california, eric on our republican line. good morning. caller: i know a lot of your viewers don't want fox news, so they don't know the truth. fox news tells you that google cannot be trusted. these communists, they cannot be trusted.

host: rose, democratic caller in nashville, tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. host: we are talking about if there's a time and a place for censorship? caller: it is hard to say. i figure what they are talking about for google is not much different than things you see in congress or state legislatures, talking about women's reproductive rights and then they don't let the women speak. host: you think that is the same situation online? caller: i'm not sure, because i don't all the details of what's going on online. host: do you feel you have been censored online or have free rein to look up what you want and engage in discussions? caller: i do feel that way, but i don't spend a ton of my time on line -- i do feel i have free range. host: 187 removal requests, 42% of those being fully or partially complied with, with

over 6000 items requested to be removed. shreveport, louisiana, joe, independent caller, good morning. caller: hi. your show has the biggest censorship in the news media. host: house so? caller: it is very obvious. rael.y can talk about is r you don't let them talk. you cut them off. you are the biggest. host:w we do have a 30-day window that we ask people not to

call so that we can get many voices on the air. we do watch calls that are offensive, but otherwise we except all viewpoints. thanks for the call. now from new york, joe. an independent scholar. caller: censorship of information is not erasure. 4.3 million government officials have different levels of privacy clearances. censored information is centralized information that falls in the hands of 4.3 million officials and whatever they wish to do with it, they can do. that is a problem with state censorship that a lot of peopl miss out on. we need to worry about private aggregation of our information,

also. sensitive information can be held by private entities. these private entities are contacted by the nsa, the national security agency. they have had 10 contracts as recently as 10 years ago and now they have about a thousand contracts with private companies. these are companies that abrogate our personal information. all the courts have ruled that the information which we surrender is considered public. we have no legitimate expectation to the privacy of our information because the internet is considered a third party, just like a phone company. you type in a phone number to a phone company and you are giving that number out. this is a problem with the internet. we need to learn cryptography. we need to learn how to make

ourselves. anonymous on ourselves. host: we are doing a segment later this morning with the loweslois beckett looking at how political campaigns are taking data about folks using yahoo!, microsoft, and learning about their voting patterns and figuring out how they can target them with specialized ads. that's later this morning at 9:15 eastern. now this tweet -- iowa, susan on our republican line, a good morning. caller: good morning. well, the ine incident =- -- one incident of want to bring up is when president obama was in south america and they had the scandal break on the secret

service and prostitution, but then when i found interesting was that very night at the same time that supposedly occurred there was a news story that broke and i placed it on my facebook and a friend of mine in idaho also placed it on his facebook. and the story was that there had been a bomb that had occurred at the embassy and also at the the place where obama was going to be meeting that morning. we place to those on both of our facebook page is. a few days later they were removed. host: because they were not

correct? caller: they were linked. did the website take it down because the story was incorrect? caller: i did not hear that. my notations that i made on my web site or on my own facebook page. the notations that my friend made war on his page. those were removed as well. host: let's look at a store that talks more about what exactly we are talking about regarding censorship. this is from the wall street journal --

we have asar on our independent line in d.c. caller: i think the u.s. censors more because it has more to hide. hundreds of thousands of bombs were planted and president bush called it the al salvador option. hundreds of thousands were killed by these bombs. they just killed 15 people at a funeral procession. all of these bombs were planted by blackwater. the u.s. is able to hide all of these thruruths. the federal reserve is not federal, get people are able to get this information -- are not able to get this information. host: you can join the conversation on facebook.

fred writes -- and daniel says -- atlanta, georgia, vidal, independent caller, hi. caller: i wanted to say there are a lot of people that believe such outlandish things, like the caller previously. we need censorship. if we look at september 11, many people come with their own conspiracy theories and believe it to be true and persuade others. so we need to stop things that may harm our country and harm the democracy. censorship is necessary, because

we cannot know everything the government does. we cannot know everything the government is thinking. or we would be afraid of our own government. we need protection from ourselves as we need protection from others. we do what we have to do to get our point across and to remain a strong america that we try to impose on others. host: what if someone posted something on the internet about you that is not true? taking it to a personal and a local level, would you want that taken down? caller: of course not. i would not want that censored. host: we will talk more about this as the morning goes on. we're looking at google's information they put out showing censorship requests they get

from around the world from governments as well as companies. here is some information from their web site. as we talked about earlier, the u.s. had 187 content removal requests in the second half of 2011. google received a request to receive 49 -- remove the 1400 youtube videos for alleged harassment and received a request from a different law- enforcement agency to remove five user accounts that allegedly contained threatening or harassing content. we terminated four of those and we removed about 300 videos but

did not remove the remaining 54. we removed 218 search results that a link to allegedly defamatory web sites. we removed a quarter of those results cited in the request. you get a better sense of what they are talking about. san antonio, texas, elizabeth on the democratic line. i'd think we just lost elizabeth. now for massachusetts, just as joining us on independent line -- justin is joining us. caller: yes, personally, my view is that there should be less censorship, mainly because the more we communicate, the better it could be for everybody, for the fact that when people don't talk to each other, and things are kept from each other or if i cannot know what is going on in

libya or anywhere in the world, it is more - it makes more sense to give a talk about things that are going on. if there was something i heard going on, i feel i should be able to do this. or someone to be able to put something on my facebook, i feel it should be left on there for anybody to read. it is a public network. i feel anybody would trust sensor anybody, it is unconstitutional. it takes away freedom of speech. host: what about if someone writes something bad about you or puts information online that you know not to be true that you think is inflammatory? caller: if somebody puts something on facebook about me that i feel is not true, then i can take that person to court for basically slandering my name. host: let's look at daniel's comment on twitter --

let's look and how these breakdown. report --rom google's 36 they took down were related to privacy and security. one of them was an impersonation taste. two or copyright infringement issues. you can also see there was one executive or a police request for a google garrett orr google maps issued related to privacy and security. a couple incidents related to privacy and security on the google places application, as well. you can see youtube, most of the requests were related to privacy and security. 10 related to violence. they were asked to be taken down. fort worth, texas, jacob, republican caller, hi.

caller: yes, i agree with the last caller. we should not have complied with the that censorship. we are the united states and we have the right of free speech in the first amendment. it guarantees the right of free i have the right to define my government. host: does it ever go too far? caller: you know, i think sometimes if lives are at stake. that is reasonable. host: so if someone is being threatened? caller: yes, if there's an imminent threat going to happen, something should be taken. if it's just comments or

something like that is happening, then no. host: monty writes - let's hear from our next caller in lincoln, nebraska, sean on our democrat line. caller: good morning, libby. there's a certain amount of censorship that you want. i don't need to see all kind of training videos. i don't need to see holocaust deniers holocaust deniers hiller. i don't need to see someone have a dissertation against the president of the united states. there are certain amount of censorship things you want. if you don't have censorship, you might as well of wikileaks everywhere. host: pennsylvania, bill, republican caller, hi.

caller: good morning. that last caller gave me a good lead -in. if you want to sensor everything, you don't have free speech. the type of speech that is to be protected is the type of speech people don't want to hear. this is what i think. i know that i cannot get al jazeera on my cable box. that looks like censorship to me. i agree with the previous caller that said if there is anything to call in and talk about either the federal reserve or the way israel looks like it is controlling the u.s. government , there are people who turn that off, they don't want to hear that.

there is a speech that needs to be protected from censorship, these are the type of things people are not comfortable with. if you are not going to protect that part of speech, you don't have a first amendment. host: bill, what about when it comes to personal safety? some of the ones who will agree to take down were because of violence. should i don't think we able to go online and look up a web site that would tell you how to build a nuclear bomb. that would be something that probably should be censored. there is violence. someone stated the fact that the united states was responsible for blackwater bombing a lot of mosques and what not. all of the violence we are on top of in afghanistan and iraq, the u.s. government commits

violence in the world. host: let's hear from randy on our independent line. caller: i don't mind censorship of al qaeda videos and terrorists. i don't want to see that on google. but i don't believe in all censorship issue, because you do get a lot of news that you don't get from the national press. anybody that really does research already knows that. there are a lot of things like threats that are real, but i don't think they should censer oogle. that is like sensory books. -- sensoring books.

host: milwaukee, wisconsin, robert is on the democratic line, hi. caller: i would like to say there are times when google should be censored. remember the picture of osama bin laden sitting in front of his tv with the remote-control? if there is information in reference to our government, not necessarily them, but information that would jeopardize us -- google puts a lot of things on there, just like bomb-making. in a different direction, i would like to say they also have a lot of explicit sexual activity on google, even regarding young girls. there are times when the u.s. government should sensor --

request that google sensor certain things. host: we're talking about google censorship requests that it still from around the world. the article does not talk about places where google is entirely censored. such as china where google was shut down entirely. but they do go through individual cases and what countries specifically have asked them to screen or hide it. here is an example from vietnam. google received a request to remove search results from vietnam on a word that generated content that was not flattering to vietnamese leaders. google refused to take it down. the courts in argentina issued two orders that saw the removal of every search result

mentioning a particular individual's name, an association with the type of content. google not attempt to approximate the number of individual items because it was google says but goo they appealed the orders and are trying to fight it. now, the democratic line in elkins, hi. caller: the fact that we will not speak the truth to americans about any aspect of how this country is developing, the cultural and social quagmires that we are in, that is a form of censorship when we don't speak the truth. the media, fox news, many politicians that don't speak the truth are also offering a form of censorship. we have become disenfranchised by the fact that

we allow this to happen and we don't protest against the fact we're not getting the truth presented. host: let's look at more countries. thailand received a request to dig down 43 pieces of content because they mocked or criticize the king in violation of local violation-- -- google received a request from thailand on that and google complied. in the united kingdom, fraudulent ads related to scams, and google complied. google says they have no recourse in terms of getting twitter ouron viewer says that we have no recourse in getting something taken down in terms of libel. now, david is on the line.

caller: there's a difference between censorship and classification. as far as classification, it would be great if every person that had a conspiracy theory about the u.s. and their operations could somehow get information directly from the government. that type of access is not exist. there's a certain level of withholding information from american citizens that needs to take place, because there's no direct line to that one specific american citizen. censorship has been put in place that it is only because of the level of hate worldwide, the level of irresponsibility as far as misinformation that comes from everyone's mouth and the amount of damage that is done to our young people.

and the level of high school dropouts, it is almost like the government has to step in and say you cannot listen to cannothate music -- cannot listen to this hate music or watched these videos. host: where does that leave us? caller: news corporation's and corporations are failing. we want to have our constitutional rights and have certain information and privileges, but when it comes down to what damage it does to our nation and individuals, that is what needs to be stepped up. as fast as information is communicated these days, the government has to be responsive to potential damage. host: let's hear from lacrosse,

wisconsin, tom on the democratic line, hi. caller: i'm curious about who is making the decisions and when they're making these and why they're making these. is there any place that we can go and find a line by line reason why these decisions are being made by governments to sensor the media? host: you can go to google.com/ transparencyreport. caller: i'm curious about who in the government is doing this? host: let's go to our next caller from michigan, iris on our independent line. caller: you look lovely, libby. host: the censorship have a place? caller: i believe the government is watching all these web sites to get information.

why are they not investigating the source if they are getting information? i see all these people in government, including the president, who cannot live without their devices and they are going all day -- googling all day things that perhaps should be classified because their governments. i thought that speech was the words that come out of people's mouths or maybe even in print or in books, but now you have the internet and people put their thoughts down. it is almost as if their brain is saying you must put it into the internet. if we have all this investigation going on in this country, you think this would be a perfect tool for the ato go and invest -- perfect tool for the government to go and investigate where these googles are coming from and step into

the picture. we have had this story going on for years in this country where no hate but -- n incitement coming from dangerous groups in the u.s. the government takes an oath to protect and defend against those who should hamas both foreign and domestic, then why are they not going after the people they suspect of putting dangerous materials? on materials? it is a perfect fool for them, is it not? i thought we were supposed to look at things in their definition and not just decide that they really mean this or that or for today's times it should mean this or that for our convenience it should mean this. whay can they bring their toys to work?

that should not be allowed. host: now to democratic caller in orange county, california. caller: maybe there's a reason why they sensor stuff like that. maybe the president, maybe the secret service is thinking security towards the president, because they have had incidents before where presidents have gotten killed and there have been threats. they did not look at it as a threat. now as the internet is coming up, the secret service is really now looking at it as a major threat now. host: so you think it could be about safety? caller: yes, because i know the secret service is protective and very secretive about where the president goes and when he goes

places. it is not publicly broadcast anywhere, not even when he travels. host: the press travels with the president when he goes overseas and this and back reports. the president is in mexico right now at a meeting of the g-20. you can see this image from the wall street journal of president obama meeting with russian president vladimir putin. this was yesterday in mexico before the g-20 summit began. it's as -- president barack obama and president vladimir putin called for an end of the escalating violence in syria but offered little evidence the rival powers had forged a workable plan. here are images from an "new

york times showing their meeting. the president discusses syria at the g-20 summit and then the had a photo session together. you can see him there with a little bit of an awkward back and forth going on. the story along side this in the new york times is the the greek vote. the greek election offers no relief, the headline of the washington post. international news, spain's

borrowing costs it sets a record. from the baltimore sun -- some domestic stories, this from the wall street journal --

there's roger clemens reacting happily to the verdict. usa today writes -- it looks at young people and how they're coping with a poor job market and how it's influencing their growth and the people they're going to become. let's get back to the phone calls to hear what you have to say about censorship on line, if you think there's a place for it. steve, independent caller in florida. caller: good morning. about the censorship and all about our rights.

the programs on the internet, they realize al qaeda is not touching base with it, so they take it off. all these countries coming together, if they would pay the debt together at one time, then we would not be in debt. greece with the euro, the single currency, with the marketing and all their businesses and everything like that, i think that there will not go broke. if they would just pay the debt. next ok, let's go to our caller in connecticut, jeffrey, a republican talking about

censorship on line. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. we blur the lines. we don't actually talk about important things. google sensors my comments and i don't put any vulgar comments on. i talk about the election that's happening between mitt romney and president obama. romney and obama basically have the same policies and they don't obey the constitution. mitt romney is a flip-flop for and president obama should be impeached for manslaughter charges, he should be charged. collateral damage is a nice way of saying killing innocent people and children. whenever we kill an innocent child, his father immediately

goes to war against us. it host: he has been censored personally. you can share your stories. in the seattle times -- on the immigration front, a story out of the washington post -- asian-americans by population l

isted. you can see the educational attainment, the percentage in 2010, bachelor degree or higher among 25-year-olds or older. 70% of those coming older of indian people have a bachelor's degree or higher. and in the wall street journal --

and here's a story about preparing for the debates season. john kerry, democrat of massachusetts, plans to play mitt romney. obama will prepare against one of the few people live to have been in a real presidential contest. john carey will be there helping the president prepare for the debate season. the washington post has a headline that says romney is considered now to be one of the guys and is basking in a new enthusiasm from the republican party. mitt romney is still a little says.d at times, it voters are seeing him through a new prism. let's get one more call.

the question is censorship. tony is a democrat in derickson city, missouri, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. this really struck me as odd. i googled a moving company the other day to get a phophone number and i was getting all types of advertisements and things in the mail within 24 hours. you don't have any privacy. business ruins everything in this country, so there's not much you can do about it. i don't believe in censorship. i do think our government needs -- or somebody needs to be watching what's going on on the internet. i won't say any names, but there's a tv news program that was pushing his agenda and the guy was taken off the air.

people are still getting it on the internet. i think that somebody -- i hope that somebody is looking out for us because we don't know what's going on in the world. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: tony talks about being tracked on line. later on this morning and then a cloud 15 eastern we will talk to someone from propublica, a writer and researcher and reporter who has a story about how your information is being used by campaigns, information you have online. before we get to that this morning we will talk to representative sheila jackson lee. she is up next, the democrat from texas. later, congressman louie gohmert, of texas, republican, will join us with his views. we will be right back.

>> next month, an award winning author is our guest on "book tv." his passion for u.s. presidents and baseball has resulted in a dozen books. join us live with your calls, e- mails, and tweets on sunday, july 1 at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> friday, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg talked about the current term the court, including health care case. >> no case has attracted more

attention since citizens united. outside theng line supreme court, in line that formed three days before oral argument commenced. some have described the controversy has unprecedented and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter protests going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside. >> she also spoke about press reports on the decision expected this week or next week. >> although our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and accounts. my favorite among press pieces wisely observed, "at the supreme court, those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know."

>> once the rest of your comments on line at the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative sheila jackson lee, democrat of texas, representing the 18 strict in the houston area. thanks for coming this morning. guest: pleasure to be with you. host: president obama shifts its policy on immigration specifically regarding and people came to the country at a young age trying to pursue education or are in the military. texas faces a lot of immigration issues. how will this play out in your home district? guest: i think a lot of people will be happy. the case work that i see in my office and personally i have dealt with it "dream act" youth. we have embraced each other. i see them on college campuses, they come to my office, i've seen them in high schools.

i have seen them serving in the u.s. military. so there's a large population in western states and many other states that will be impacted positively by the order that the president rendered. it is important. i have served continuously on immigration sub committee and i'm on some homeland security and served as a ranking member for a time and introduce conference of immigration law that included access to citizenship. many people should recognize 6% -- 60% of hispanic people are u.s. citizens. we see an increasing number of asians and irish immigrants. many people are impacted by children that have been here five years and came through no

fault of their own, excelled in school, ready to go to college, and cannot work. if this is a valuable step the president has made. he has made it with the authority than he has. it is not unconstitutional. and congress has had the time to do it. many of us have introduced legislation. this has been 11 years speculating. we almost had success under the bush administration and could not get it through parts of the congress. we almost had the "dream act" passed in the session before. 55 senators. we did not get enough to break the logjam. what are these children to do? and the deportation process is cruel. it separates families. it sends them to countries they have never been. the president made it clear that they changed through no fault of their own. the criteria insist that their record is clear except for the

way it's framed. criminal incidences', those individuals will not be eligible. it's the right thing to do. i have cases in my office as we speak that involve teenagers in high school or college moving toward deportation proceedings. we have saved youngsters who are in college and were destined and ready to. be to now they will be a stayed and they will have the privilege of renewing that. that's a good process. but we would like a permanent process. we would like a permanent process in congress, to develop that. i'm ready to do so if they are. >host: let's look at the administration policy and how it differs from the "dream act." the young people had to come to

the u.s. before the age of 16 and after be 30 or younger and it affects 800,000 immigrants currently, have been in the u.s. at least five years and have graduated from high school or have a ged or military service. and they can have no criminal record. but it's temporary. guest: it is not citizenship or amnesty. you have to get in line right now. what it does do is it allows these individuals to have work study jobs, summer jobs, like a normal american that is a citizen. it is a fair way of not losing this great talent. let me be very clear, because i traveled throughout my high schools. these are young people who are as american as anybody else walking down the streets of d.c. or walks into the u.s. 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 -- i founded the congressional children's caucus -- are their children in america that we should throw away? i don't think so. this executive order says that there are provisions specifically in the homeland security that the president and immigration laws, royal tour process, but he's able to utilize and rely upon. that is what the executive order is based on. senator marco rubio did have legislation, but never introduced it, never showing signs it would move forward in the u.s. congress. host: we are seeing the story from the seattle times that marco rubio plans to drop his immigration plan after the president's announcement on friday. let's listen to senator rubio on

fox news last night, talking about the u.s. immigration policy and our needs to be enforced. [video clip] >> on the one hand we have a significant illegal immigration policy. it has to be confronted and soft. we cannot be the only country in a world that does not enforce its immigration laws. if on the other hand, we have compelling human stories like the case of these and people live in your whole life, they've grown up here, brought here at the young age at no fault of their own. it touches your heart to hear their stories. trying to find a reasonable balance that honors our history as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws is not easy. host: that was senator marco rubio speaking last night, talking about trying to balance enforcing along with having empathy. talk about law enforcement in texas. you deal so much with the border issues. the obama administration has increased the number of deportations. we expect to see 400,000 this

year. is that working out well? guest: even some of those deportations are under the present law and those are hard ship deportations. the separate families. women and mothers separated from their families. husbands and fathers separated from their families. by and large, those immigrants have come across the border in particular, the southern border, they have really come for opportunity. frankly, i think the administration has bhamstrung enforcement. i've been to the california border, the texas border, arizona. i think, since i have been in congress we have seen dramatic improvement of resources of the border patrol, with night goggles, helicopters, equipment, laptops, etc., and we have seen it improve gradually.

the relationship between the border and the united states is huge. it's $12 billion in month in trade that we are doing at the border. so we have to balance the relationship we have had with mexico, central america, and south america over the centuries with where we are today. i think we have gotten somewhat of a handle around the influx of individuals looking for work. those are people who came here for no other reason than to survive participate in the economy of this country. then we have to face the huge violence and drug cartel. that does exist. can we make a mistake by confusing that with people coming over for work? absolutely. human trafficking, we must stop.

we have one of the major trafficking task forces in my region in houston in particular that coordinates with other agencies. drug cartels, violence, absolutely. i support all efforts of the justice department in dealing with stopping that. but let's separate immigration, people wanting opportunities and how we address that. my fellow colleagues in congress, can we get along and try to work this out? host: representative sheila jackson lee, democrat of texas. let's go to otis in houston, a republican. caller: how are you, sheila? guest: good morning. caller: i know we are here at the border. " obama did this without congressional approval. this is the only thing i have

against this whole thing. he had three years of legislation and they did not do anything. also i have heard lots of people saying that this was done behind -- it was going to ask for the reservation and obama did this immigration thing. i see your smiling. and another thing. they have problems of their own . someone needs to be held responsible.

host: we're getting multiple calls crossing over. a tweet. that hearing from mr. otis this is political. guest: i'm so glad he called. happy juneteenth. it is a very emotionally driven holiday recognition in our state and it has to do with the emancipation proclamation by abraham lincoln along the gulf region and did not get the word until 1865 that the slaves were free. we've been commemorating the

landing on galveston island. we had something in houston. and the emancipation park. al edwards established it as a state holiday. we're looking to recognize this commemoration. it is a very special time to recognize to importance of freedom. i wish texas and others a happy juneteenth. to answer the question, i was called early on the president's announcements. if many people will remember, the ice director issued some new guidelines to use discretion to

focus on the hardened, serious criminals over others. in terms of deportation. we've seen the fights in crime. -- spikes in crime. i know a lot of people are sensitive about them taking jobs. the idea of whether or not this is political -- the process of government is a political process. does executive order help? yes, it does. have texas tech students that were picked up because of a traffic infraction and was stopped in the area of his

school and taken in, the oldest of five children and he was in line for deportation. we were able to help him. now this will be a process where students can contribute to society. it is temporary. congress will allow going forward -- a look for to president obama being reelected to be able to fare in this process. america has always been a just nation. this is not taking from anyone. this is correcting an error. none of these children wanted to do harm to the united states of america. host: derrick from minneapolis.

caller: good morning, c-span. this is very interesting. the good thing about our country is that we are based on l aws. that is why we are a republican. we have abortions. we throw torture in a way everyday. it is unconstitutional? of course it is on constitutional -- of course it is un constitutional. i do not understand what you're talking about. it is taking things from our country when people break the law. guest: i support choice and i support planned parenthood's

responsibility in providing access of health care to women. i appreciate your interpretation. there are provisions that allow executive order to be issued. the president has executive order powers. there are discretion tory powers that the secretary of home and security has -- their discretion a totory powers. that is within his authority. and balanced d between enforcement and empathy.

the president has now issued an order for them to use those powers in this manner, which is a discretion of preventing those individuals with this criteria, having been in this country in five years, actively with they ged or high school diploma who have the ability to stay out of deportation. i think that is a fair utilization of existing regulatory powers in the department of all mine security. host: james from corpus christi. caller: i have been watching this morning and watching the proceedings going on. do not have a dictionary? do not understand the dictionary of "legal" and "illegal"?

they come to this country illegally. it is like a bank robber. you cannot call a bank robber somebody getting and on authorized loan. they are criminals. host: who is being held accountable? can you address these concerns? guest: let me give a small historical perspective on immigration. we're politicize this issue of immigration. this is a nation of immigrants and laws. this is juneteenth. i came as an immigrant. my ancestors came as immigrants.

the irish, the italians. many people came to this country. many are polish. i remember working with the polish community on their immigration heissues. what we're saying is that parents who have come over and brought children as to whether they stayed or went with their parents are here innocently. they may be undocumented. to senatoranswer rubio. the president has chosen to use and buffet in circumstances where these individuals can contribute to the growth of america. one quick example.

it might supporting -- impact minorities and other hard-working americans. to bring deals with talented persons. come to mind. a young man who went to work for apple. he went back to india. now he has 01 under million dollar business in india -- now he has up $100 million business in india. these youngsters -- if you're deporting them, you reporting them back to their home country. some of the parents have become status. they fail to get their

youngsters status, for whatever reason. this is an attempt to respond to that. this is not an easy process. this will be reviewed every two years. i hope congress can put in place established immigration reform that was about business industries and help the american workers by creating additional jobs and helping young people who desire to serve in the u.s. military and contributing to the infrastructure of this country. host: representative sheila jackson lee from texas. she serves on the judiciary committee focusing on immigration and policy enforcement. also homeland security. a story here in ""politi"politi"

host: how much faith do you have in attorney general holder right now? you were one of the voices who did speak up for him in the judiciary committee hearing recently. did you feel other democrats were doing the same thing? guest: those who offered him -- those who have heard him believe he has been forthright and is willing to cooperate. chairman issa and the attorney general sitting down in whatever compromise they can engage in. this fast and furious debacle is

under the bush administration. it has been evidenced by the various reports that it started with the office in arizona unbeknownst to leadership in awash in, d.c. -- in washington, d.c. after it was brought to their attention, there was some confusion. there was a letter to congress that was incorrect. every request for him to appear on fast and furious, the general has attended and has been open. this is an open investigation. i have spoken to atf officers who want to come forward and clarify their position. there was a tragedy that

occurred. we give our deepest sympathy to the family of the fallen officer and have no desire to see that happen again. we have to be adults in this process. it was intended to pierce the gun-running and cartels of the border. it did not work. for those who attempted to do this, let me attribute them good intentions. i would not imagine they would organize this and say, we want to do wrong. it did not work out. we understand that now. continuous hearings to probe what happened.

what has happened between the general of the oversight committee has gone to be a very poignant. i do not think you get answers when you are. poignant. decades of public service in federal law enforcement and the work he is doing in the area of civil rights and in a federal crime and in mortgage relief, settlements that he is brought about, and on drugs. the justice department is more us.n just a fast and foresurio

we can get to the bottom of the issue that we're concerned about. host: michael from taxes on the republican line. caller: i went to college for computer software design. we program computers -- it is in the computer operated machines -- like a user like general motors or ford motor. host: where are you going with this? caller: jobs are harder to get. my grandfather died and my father died.

i could not find any work. immigration doesn't affect me. there are no jobs. they are falling off. third-generation immigrant -- no where to go. i'm working for $6 a day. i'm back living like my grandfather lived before may. e. guest: that is unacceptable for any american, an american of third or fourth generation. we have a problem in this country of job creation and it is our responsibility in the congress along with the private sector and states and businesses

to great that economic engine for your talent to be utilized. i think that congress should pass the president's jobs bill. that puts public sector workers back to work. i think the private sector has a responsibility to invest in workers like yourself, to expand the job potential by expanding the products. once you start expanding workers, you expand consumers'. i do not pretend to give you job advice. this might not be easy but i would encourage you to do a national job search to look in other states and other areas that might be more productive for you. my commitment to the american people is that we should fight

for jobs. we have a logjam on the passage of the transportation bill. that would create thousands upon thousands of jobs. we should not how this kind of log jam on a bill that plans to rebuild this country's infrastructure and putting others back to work. we have a crumbling infrastructure. are we all americans working for the betterment of this country? if we are, then congress needs 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 from tennessee, welcome. caller: good morning. i remember you from the municipal courts in houston.

i like to you ran your court there. that is for another time. guest: i have fans on both sides of that. caller: on immigration -- raise your hand if you know everybody knows it water heater block in the middle of the night. first thing you do -- just shut off the water. wait for the plumber to get there. that is not the time to think about putting in a color 12-inch shower and changing of the kitchen faucet. talking about changing all these aspects. you need to fix the problem. i don't have a problem with immigrants coming in.

i never have a problem with work permits. they get worker dues. a cab driver has to pay lea leae on his cab. host: we will leave it there and get a response. guest: we miss you in houston. encourage your member of congress to support the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. all those initiatives that have been introduced -- working with many others in the congress, have been championed, balanced immigration reform that would include a fee structure that

would generate millions and millions of dollars into our coffers. many of the parents of these children pay taxes every day. they pay state taxes, state income taxes, property taxes. the taxes are being paid. it is important that we realize the taxes are paid in many forms. they are purchases of goods and products. the idea of a comprehensive response. the president responded to an emergency. he could hear stories of these young children being in the deportation process. it was in essence taking space

and time from the ice process for those who would be here to do us harm and it is more important to focus on serious offenders. host: our guests, representative sheila jackson terms on thetwo city council before she began her career in congress. you're calling for the investigation of a case in texas. this is a story and you call the case houston's rodney king. you think the attorney general can look into this when he is under so much fire? guest: there are top notch lawyers in the department of justice.

how would complement leadership to general holder is that with had a vigorous civil rights section that have looked at a number of cases dealing with voting in fractions and sell rights violations. let me be clear. record in very strong supporting our law-enforcement across this nation. laws that would protect them with federal law protection. i want to be persistent in making sure the integrity of all law enforcement is upheld. this was a case that showed inappropriate actions by law enforcement officers in the beating of a teenager who was

violating the law and i don't condone those actions. we want this young man to find an opportunity to move forward in his life. many are working with him. the video was so powerful of the beating of a 16-year-old with his hands behind his head. i think this case should be reviewed at the proper time. i think general holder continues to supervise that agency appropriately and the department of justice lawyers will continue review cases and there will make those decisions on the facts. the department of justice is open for business and ready to serve. host: henry is a democrat from michigan. good morning.

caller: good morning. i like to say happy juneteenth. i was born and raised in sunnyside. i would like to clear up a few things. the president tried to pass an immigration reform bill in december. that was blocked and filibustered. i'm tired of hearing these people who talk 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. that took them down a notch and we have some conservative democrats who of blocked the

president as well during the two-year period. eric holder brought this problem to the fore about the fast and furious. now the republicans are grandstanding. they want to block attorney- general holder to make a big tempest in a teapot because he wanted to stop the a voter suppression law. i want to commend you for speaking up. 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. we need to mobilize the people and keep together in unity. i am proud of you. host: let's talk about what is happening in florida.

a battle between rick scott and the administration. allen west was on yesterday. lois becket[video clip] guest: the democratic convention requires people to have a picture identification. what is happening in florida is simple. the states can have integrity of the system. we have 58,000 dead people on the rolls in florida -- bad people on the roles in florida that we're trying to take care of. host: people were being asked for their identifications. guest: let me debunk those

analogies. the congressman is right. there is a responsibility by states to manage their voting rolls and we respect that and under the voting rights act to protect the voting rights of minorities that may be impacted in certain states. florida happens to be one of them because of past discrimination. there should be no quarrel with for moving people that are deceased. the purging which result in millions of voters might be discriminatory. we have the same representation going on in the state of texas where the population of millions

of voters being purged. i am glad the department of justice is looking at each of these voter i.d. laws to determine if there's any impact that would chill the rights of a person to vote. it has gone quite challenging to ensure that you fly, to make sure you have direct identification. the idea of travel and the protection you have -- hitchhike on a truck, drive a car, walk, bicycle. you're not forbidden to go into the next location because you don't have an identification. if voting is taken away because

travel't have i.d., -- gives you other options. if you cannot vote because you are purged, there's no other option for having your vote being counted. if florida can prevail by approving the procedures for doing -- not 20 to one group of voters over another, so be it. realize that this is the responsibility of this administration and the attorney general. attorney-general holder has been looking very closely at various issues. fast and furious -- he was up

front and center. host: congresswoman sheila jackson lee represents texas' 18th district as a democrat. thank you for going in this morning. we continue our discussion on immigration and attorney general eric holder with louie gohmert. how campaigns target voters online with lois beckett of "propublica." in the pit the latest polls put out by "national journal." here is shane goldmacher. good morning nkk for being here. -- good morning and thank you for being here. let's look at the latest polls. tracking -- you looked at the bush era tax cuts and what

americans want to see in terms of having them extended or cut back. guest: americans do not want to see tax cuts extended for the wealthiest americans. we asked if everybody should have their tax cuts extended. the answer was there would prefer to have only the tax cuts extended for those earning less than $250,000. that explains a little of the rhetoric you run the campaign trail. host: tell us about what people thought about letting everything expire. guest: whether there would like to see all the tax cuts go off the books, about one in five votes said that was their preference.

the most popular response was to extend the tax cut for the middle class. host: ok. what congress can do to create jobs, looking at things like tax cuts for small businesses. what ranked high? guest: i do not know if americans have a lot confidence in congress. -- whatident's rhetoric should congress do? the most popular response was to give small businesses tax cuts. fact, almost twice as much support the what the democrats have been pushing to help spur

economic growth. guest: it is another question about whether people want to see higher prices on their goods if they are imported from asia or anywhere else. host: what is keeping family income down? guest: the number-one response said a lot of impact is coming from economic competition involved. there was a sharp division between democrats and republicans.

host: the decline of unions, whether or not that figure is ths in. guest: that is lower than other responses. unions are having a tough time. there is pushed back on unions. half.support cayman halme in host: epa regulation of greenhouse gases. guest: this will be a big issue. the epa is looking at dealing with greenhouse gases and dealing with climate change. should congress let epa deal with this? 55% said the epa should be

allowed to make new rules and to curb greenhouse gas emissions. there is a more detailed issue of how to handle pollution and mercury issues at nuclear power plants. should the congress intervene? we gave them three options. let's half these rules. to put the role into place. the public took the third choice. we to make wartime so that companies can implement the rules without causing blackouts. host: shane goldmacher, thank you so much for talking with us. shane goldmacher is a

congressional correspondent and we appreciate your time. gut: thank you. host: joining us now is louie gohmert. it is texas morning after having representatives sheila jackson lee before you. i want to start with the story from "politico." to expect there to be some kind of agreement and that the content vote should go forward? guest: that depends on what is produced. the would not be a need for contempt. there has been an active contempt. continuing to simply provide some bolstluster and breath.

they could go ahead with a vote. if he turns everything open, then i say there's no need for a vote. host: how political is this? guest: this could be a very political from the attorney general's standpoint. there are political aspects to justice. i spent time as a prosecutor, judge, chief justice. the statute of justice has a blinder on. you don't look at anybody's political persuasion or any of the things -- gender. that is not supposed to matter.

to have the highest ranking just official in this country say that justice has political aspects was so offensive to me. i say there may be political aspects. but for some of us, we do want the country to do what is right. i have a lot of people in my party's leadership that are not always happy with me. i said, anything you want me to say? he said it would not matter. what is important is the country. host: representative louie gohmert of texas is on the

judiciary committee and the natural resources committee. let's talk about the natural immigration policy. the president changed his policy on friday. the headline in "the baltimore sun." will your party suffer because of this? guest: it is when the country is suffering that is important. the justice department started going after states that were simply trying to make sure that those were voting were eligible to vote. and it brings back a line from lyndon johnson when it tells campaign worker -- he tells a story and said, we cannot read what is on the tombstone.

"this man has as much right to vote as anybody in this cemetery." the attorney general goes after states that are trying to clean up their records. the president announces that they would give 800,000 people who are illegally here a chance to go to work in front of african-americans, other americans and others with the highest unemployment rate. why would you do that? politics are involved. that poll is indicative that the president is doing what he things is good for him but not for the country. others say, you must be against immigration. i believe immigration has made

us the greatest country in the world. people come from all over and become americans, which we saw on 9/12. t didn't matter -- we held hands and sang hymns. emigration has to be legal. let's give them work visas if that is what they need. it was said so well this morning in the article. border control is fundamental. to protect americans and american culture that is made this the best nation for more

than a century. we have to have border security. if there are additional incentives, you created a bigger problem. first, control the border. then we can work out the immigration issues. we're going bankrupt and since health care costs are large part of that, you have to show that you would be covered by health insurance to get a visa. if obama wanted to have worker visa, will market fruits and vegetables if you do not do this. that is more the way to approach it and not have the president say, here's another incentive to come in here.

host: there is a survey in the "tribune" newspapers. host: mark rubio was on a fox news program last night -- more rubio and talked of how this was playing now -- marco rubio. [video clip] >> we want a president that will unite this country. immigration is an important issue but not the only issue. people are struggling to make ends meet. they have been hurt badly by unemployment. nothing has gotten better over the last four years.

hispanics are not better off and the president is responsible for that. host: he thinks mitt romney can gain votes in the hispanic community. let's get to the phones. mike is a republican from florida. caller: good morning. i want to correct the record for florida and then subbing for you to correct the record. florida never prevents anybody from voting. we give them a professional ballallot. they thought he was dead and he voted. there is a way to cover everybody in florida that wants to vote. i tried to call an earlier. she stated that president bush

started the fast and furious program. that needs to be corrected for the record. guest: thank you, mike. florida is not preventing people from voting. it allows them to make sure that they were eligible to vote and they did. it is ironic to me. the justice department would not let me and without a federal identification. you have to show a photo i.d. i went to iraq after the general election. they said, "you vote, you die,"

yet turned out in droves. what is wrong with making sure that we have a fair system of voting or people or not allowed to vote do not vote? in florida, they do provide that procedure. in texas, the state legislature did a good job. it is constitutional to make sure that people who cannot afford a few dollars for an i.d. can help you get one. i think that is a bit unfair. fast and furious was not started

by george bush. it was started by this justice department. we can imagine why we would be so restricted in what we are allowed to see. we know that when the testify before the committee last year and was asked, "when did you first learn"? he said, "a few weeks ago." they are concerned and this is not gone on for the last few years. i did not agree with no child left behind. i thought it was a big mistake. host: this is a star from "the

arizona republic." guest: they set up the project and it was not fast and furious. there were going to have a controlled sale. the people were monitoring and getting ready to move thein. somebody made a mistake. a boat took off. they were not able to follow them. fast and furious was intended to be uncontrolled to sell thousands of guns to people. it is a different idea. host: walter from arizona.

caller: good morning, representative. it is a pleasure to speak with you. ok. you're one of my favorites. i watch you all the time. fast and furious -- guest: i certainly hope so. the only way you can have a true democratic country or people -- they control the government is to have a transparent government. i admired some of the speeches that senator obama gave about the transparency it thhis administration would have. that is not what we have seen.

it is high time we got to the transparency of president obama, even if it is only the last five or six months. host: bill from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a question for the representative. i don't know how long you've been in office. miss lee has been enough as forni nine terms. that is the biggest problem. it is all politics and it needs to end. mr. obama, he said he was the only what they could bring this country together. this country has never more divided than it is now. it is race against race and

money against the poor. host: how long would you call for term limits? caller: two terms. three terms at the most. guest: i have the same concerns that bill has. i didn't realize that she'll have been here that long -- i didn't realize that sheila had been here that long. term limits for the elected officials but for those who are willing to run. it is not the elected officials. the regulators around this town make the rules. if they did not like a law, they make rules that are different. this also happened under president bush.

there would make regulations to do otherwise. congress wanted to give airline pilots the chance to carry a gun into the cockpit after 9/11. the faa was against it. there was a bunch of rules. only one place they could go to get their certification to carry a gun. that is one example. i would like to see term limits for bureaucrats and elected officials. "the new summer help is here." they think they run the place. i was asked -- i took a term-

limit pledge when i ran for judge. after three terms -- the day that i left office. i did not take a term of a pledge because i did not want to handicap myself coming to congress unless we could do the same for everybody there. to get thathere passed. host: representative louie gohmert. here's a story in "the new york times" today,.

host: "the wave of deportations have created a mass exodus of mexican parents who are leaving with their american sons and. daughters" how do you feel when you hear stories like that? they are considered citizens and are brought back to mexico where they might not even speak spanish. guest: we have some of those situations in the district and it is a problem. there was a caller into sheila jackson lee who pointed out when you have made flooding problem,

first you cut off the water to the main. we do need to cut off illegal immigration. first we stop the problem from getting any bigger. then we can deal with the issue of the folks that are here, the american citizens that were born here. first you stopped luring people and illegally. and everybody here is looking for jobs or benefits. some are looking to do was harm. first you stop the problem from getting bigger. you'll see more people fleeing voluntarily if these policies continue. the economy will get worse and worse. they will realize this is not going well. i hope that we can create a

problem where people want to come legally and not illegally and stop seeing so many problems like that. host: we have some statistics look net new americans in texas. over 60% of texans are foreign- born. a% are actually texas citizens 87%.th guest: senator rubio is correct. hispanics will see that the republican party is directed in

line with what they believed. i have studied history and was a history major. one thing that made america so great was three basic things. there was a faith of god, devotion to family, and a strong work ethic. when i see the hispanic culture, i generally say faith in god, a devotion to family, and a strong work ethic. they can get us back to embracing the things that have made us great. i want people to be americans and to do with the right way. it doesn't bother me to see increasing numbers percentages

in being hispanic and i think that is great for the country. it has begun illegally. -- it has to be done legally. you mentioned the mexican schools. . .

caller: this started under president bush and our president obama. that's number one lie. i want to tell the american people when bush started his, he did have one of these. he worked with the mexican government. he went there and got permission. then the other thing is, here's elisha cummings on tv lying through his teeth and they don't say anything. sheila jackson on the same subject said, we 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. you know, there's parents called mr. and mrs. perry. they want to know what happened to brian perry. he was a war hero in iraq and shot down like a dirty dog in the dessert. host: how does it relate

host: how does it relate trayvon martin. marcus is weighing in and have a different perspective and give you some pushback to the comment you made about fast and furious not being regulated. he said the guns were monitored by tracking devices. those devices failed but it was not under control. guest: he's gotten different information from what i had. there were not monitoring devices on 2000 guns. he's got different information, like to see it. we've had hearings about it and i looked at classified documents and unclassified documents. maybe marcus has been privy to -- maybe attorney general has given him documents.

as far as comments about brian perry. host: he was an atf agent. guest: weapons sold in fast and furious and he was killed. maybe marcus is thinking, they had all the serial numbers of weapons. they did have the serial numbers of the weapons. that's how they knew the gun brian terry was killed, was one that was sold through that program. gun owners didn't want to make those sales. our atf and justice department forced them to go it. gun oners started recording conversation because they didn't the federal government made him sell those guns. it is 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. didn't even give our friend a heads up, our neighbors. pretty outrageous. that's not the way you make friends and influence people especially your neighbors. that was a very disconcerting. host: let's hear from deborah an independent caller in houston, texas. caller: good morning. first of all, i like to point out that he was a law enforcement agent. he knew the risks. i'm sorry that he was killed. i like to see that investigated. trayvon martin was a teenager killed by a citizen. i like people to remember that. i like to ask the congressman, about the

ided for -- ids for voting. i paid my money and i got a paper. i never got the card. when i called about it, i was told some third party company screwed it up and lost them. i'm not going to pay again. i've got the paper and receipt and it's two years old. how am i going to vote with that? guest: you didn't get your voting card? caller: my texas id. i got a voting card. i've been voting since i was 18. i'm 50 years old. guest: thank you, i appreciate you doing that. why don't you call the operator and ask them for my office. we'll get your information. we'll start making calls to help you make you get your id you were suppose to get and you paid for. that is not how it's suppose to work. that's why you have

elected representatives. the original idea we were suppose to be public servants. if you like my office to help, we'll be glad to do that. you can get your own representative involved. you shouldn't have to go to any more trouble than you already have deborah. thank you. host: let's hear from our next caller. terry is a democrat -- i think we lost our louisiana caller. unfortunately, we will move on to ohio. warren in ohio is up next. al, a republican. good morning al. caller: good morning. how convenient that blaming george bush. as a american person, i'm fed up with it. everybody i talk to say we're retired up it. eric tolder has to go. you know about the black

-- he's in churches talking about the voter id, like the last lady. get your id. no matter what it takes. host: al is breaking up a little bit. he's saying there should be no excuse for getting voter id cards? we heard from elderly people who don't drive. we've heard from the disabled in various states say i don't have a driver's license because i don't drive. guest: like in texas, you can get a ride. you call in, you can get a ride. 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. it can be done and people are not being blocked. let me tell you, we keep

hearing this partnership thing. it is bothersome that partisanship does have a role. what i like to see somebody on the other aisle do what i did. when it came out that the national security letters had been badly abused and been used as fishing competition, i called the president's chief of staff, said, this is indefensible. i like something on the other side of the aisle and be bipartisan. i was concerned about truth and be being responsible for terrible improper action. i didn't care. it was an issue of truth. there's an amendment today in committee. i think john conyerss 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 stand point, reaching out on both sides. which is also why i'm not chairman of subcommittee or committee. you don't get chairmanship if you don't toe the party line. host: one of your committee, natural resources, the bp oil spill, really not door far from where you are in texas. here the is story. texas republicans suggest the feds went easy on bp. it says that you suggested that the obama administration over looked bp safety problems before the gulf oil spill because the company promised to support white house-backed climate changed legislation. tell us more about that. guest: it is incredible

once the deep water horizon occurred, we find out they had about 800 not safety violations by egregious safety vie lages in the world. -- violations in the world. if you looked through the same period companies like exxon and others. you had one egregious violations. here's a company that had nearly 800. it turned out on the very day the deep water horizon blew out. they had bp officials with democrats and the senate about how to have their come out party in support of cap and trade. i used to call it crap and trade but the parliamentarian if i ask and do it a favor and just call it a cap and

trade. anyway, that's what leads me to wonder if that wasn't surely political. why in the world would any company be allowed to function with that many safety violations? is it really egregious. as far as the clean up, 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 seen massive amount of oils from louisiana to alabama, mississippi and to florida. drove all along those beaches. you'd see one tiny drop of oil here and there. things are going strong again. host: congressman gohmert represents texas

first district. let's get back to the phone. you have greg from ft. lauderdale, florida independent line. guest: hi greg. caller: i want to understand a little bit better how my governor here in florida can suddenly decide to start rezoning and redistricting neighborhoods for his benefit. and starting to purge people from the voting polls just by random. he sets up. he's been picking people whomever he decide, it might be somebody might not be able to vote in our state. most of the people they found on this list have been legally able to vote and are citizens of florida and that's why we're so upset down here. our governor does whatever he wants to do.

he privatizes businesses. that's why he had such a low popular -- the people of this state, do not want this guy to make anymore decisions relative to that kind of stuff. it's ridiculous. guest: i'm not familiar with the redistricting he's talking about. the governor can't just redistrict so i'm not familiar with that issue. with regard to purging the voting list of people that are allowed to vote. my understanding the way they were doing that is, picking out names that based on information that were suspicious. perhaps they should be voting. perhaps they shouldn't be and they will do research on those to make those determination. you're able to know some of the people originally listed are eligible to vote, that's what they

were doing. they were going through and finding people that might be suspicious and determining whether or not they were. if they're doing anything improper, that absolutely needs to be dealt with. my understanding is, they simply trying to purge their list of people who are dead or not allowed to vote. 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. that maybe one of those yogi bear things where the restaurant is so popular, nobody goes there anymore. somebody must be likely what he's doing. obviously the caller are familiar with some things i'm not. host: let's hear from democratic caller in washington d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. congressman gohmert. two questions. first you said that it

built on the work ethics. the white house were built with slave ethics. but my question to you is this, the district of columbia is deny -- i'm sure you opposes the district of columbia obtaining state hood. the constitution says congress will have jurisdiction over all federal land. the residence of fort hood, texas can vote for representation. people who live in virginia can vote in the virginia election for representation in the state of virginia. i want you tell me why the residents of the district of columbia shouldn't be allowed in the congress of the united states when you

say it's the people that control the people and not the government controlling the people. guest: that's a good question. i understand what you're talking about. but the people can only vote in virginia election if virginia is their place of residence. texas continue to make my place of residence, the four years i was in georgia. i continue to vote in the texas elections. it is different because those are people that are in the service and they have residences all over the country even though they maybe at fort hood or fort belvore. the district of columbia was set up. but the idea of having an independent area where it was 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 contemplated. it was something they debated. i once aware that anybody proposed the district of columbia being a state. you say i oppose statehood. host: there are effort. guest: that was not the bill that was brought before us. the bill brought before us was to give the district of columbia a full voting representative. the constitution makes very clear, the representatives shall come from the several states. they knew at the time there were going to be a district of columbia. everybody that was pushing for a representative in congress with full voting rights in the late '70s, acknowledged and said publicly said the only way to give district of columbia full voting rights by constitutional amendment. of the things that bothered me when i got

here, the license plate that said taxation without representation, i got to realize, that was wasn't battle cries in the revolution. district of columbia residences 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 and guam, all of those areas that are territory, they don't get a full representative because they are not states. they are not required to pay any federal income tax. they filed a bill that would allow residents of district of columbia never have to pay any federal income tax until they have a full voting representative. i filed another bill the legislative way, to deal

with the tyranny. that is to draw line description around federal buildings, non-resident and then cede everything back to maryland. that happened in 1847 and '48. people in virginia said you're not using everything west the potomac. that's when you see the map of d.c., it's not a perfect square anymore because everything west of potomac was ceded back to virginia. unfortunately i couldn't get norton to support any one of those bill. she wanted to push representative despite what the constitution says. i wanted to do it legislatively. it didn't look like it was going to happen. host: representative louie gohmert joining us this morning. i want to mention one thing. this is from a blog run

by dave. the florida governor, rick scott, has a relatively low approval rating. it's at 31%. he's entering the 2014 governor race. the democratic candidate is ahead of him. guest: he sounds like he's popular than the members of congress. he's doing better than members of congress. certainly a big majority don't like what he's doing. host: let's get a call if from ashville, north carolina a republican. caller: i like to tell the representative how much i appreciate his honesty and integrity. i had a comment about the voter id. i watched the black congressional caucus meeting with the black pastor. i've never heard a more

racist conference. i called several of their offices to ask what the threat was to voters. nobody could tell me in their offices. one office, they told me to call luciana office. i think it's strange that present that point that it's a threat but yet they can't tell you what the threat is. also, when i called back to congresswoman waters office, i got to saying, we got a black congressional caucus, i thought we were suppose to be segregated now. why do we not have a white congressional office if we going back to segregation. guest: it interesting point. i didn't see that conference so i really don't know what i was said there.

representative sheila jackson lee commented about the voting rights act and the ability of the justice department to actually take action against states because of prior discrimination. that is true and it is right and that's why voting rights act was originally passed. 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, so that's so 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 your attorney general in texas didn't raise it, some point somebody will raise equal protection argument before the supreme court that the states cram down the throats of states of avoiding discrimination far less in fact no racial disparity in some places. they forced to abide under this punitive provision. i talked to liberal constitutional law professors, say it is a violation of equal protection but nobody raised it. host: you think there's a need, of the congressional black caucus?

guest: it is divisive. that tend to divide us more than it brings us together. that's very unfortunate. she said maybe ought to be a white congressional caucus because there will never be a white congressional caucus. because there would just be too much fussing and frankly, i don't want a white congressional caucus. bad idea. i don't know, i'm looking -- here's the bottom line. i really and truly looking forward to the day. i think we would not be that far from getting there. i hope this president, even though i didn't vote him and support him, i hope he will get us to the day when we would really be living martin luther king junior's dream. where children are judged

by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. as long as we have organizations that define themselves by color, race anything like that, it's going to continue to be devisive, i'm looking forward to the day the dream is reached. i don't think we're that far. host: touching on the issue of issue as history the final thing. kay bailey hutchison is urging june teeneth of texas a holiday. she like to see it as a juneteenth a hollow --

juneteenth day as a holiday. guest: there are important days. i agree with those speeches he made on the house floor. how can we expect god to keep blessing america when we were putting brothers and sisters in chains and bondage. host: do you support that plan? >> i like senator hutchinson. she's a good friend. i need to look at the bill. i think it is important to observe days. some people say martin luther king junior 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 ensured that as i got older, 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. he didn't just do a favor for black americans. he did a favor for all of us, especially those of us as we consider ourselves christians. host: congressman louie gohmert, republican of texas, representing the first district. thank you so much for coming in and talking to us this morning. guest: great to be with you. i look forward to hope you have me again. host: thank you very much. coming up next, lois beckett propublica join us. how to work with microsoft and yahoo! to better target voters. first this update from c-span radio.

>> the congress department says u.s. builders started working on more single family homes in may and requested most permits to build homes in the past three years. turning to the global economy, a european union official says the terms of greece's bailout will be renegotiated because worsening economic conditions have made the old agreement an illusion. this has leaders attending the g20 meeting plan to boost job creation. they plan to issue a statement later today. president obama also holding a news conference later, c-span will be covering that. more on immigration from the pew center. new study finds for the first time the influx of asians moving to the united states have surpassed that of hispanic. american employers increased their demands for high skilled workers. that's the latest headlines.

next month a world winning author is our guest on book tv's in-depth. his passion for u.s. presidents and great american pastime have resulted in a dozen books. join us live with your calls, e-mails and tweets for david pietrusza on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: lois beckett join us from new york city this morning. she has a story how politicians are selling. tell us about how these companies are working with campaigns to get information? guest: well i'm sure all of you out there have

gotten fliers in the mail and phone calls from different political campaigns targeting you trying to convince you and vote. political campaigns want to reach voters the same way on the internet. while there are public records of your home address and name there are no public records and easy way to find a particular voter on the internet. that's why companies like microsoft pena and -- and yahoo! come in. host: you write in here, the companies working on this, like microsoft, yahoo! and aol. do users realize they can opt out? guest: no users are not opting out because most users don't realize they are being targeted. what happens is political

campaign will come to microsoft or yahoo! with a long list of voters. they can be any kind of demographic that a campaign might want to target. yahoo! is one of the earlier people to do this with the rnc and have worked with both democrats and republicans. you start with a list of voters. maybe registered republicans in a certain state who donated to the campaign recently. so the campaign brings this list of voters to a company like aol, yahoo! or microsoft. now, the key thing that yahoo! and microsoft can add is that they have collected registration information from users when they signed up for services like yahoo! mail or hot mail. when you sign up for these, you give company information like your first and last name and zip codes. certainly when i signed

up for things like this, you don't think a lot about this. especially if your own name and zip code. it turns out microsoft can take those name and zip codes of window live user, and match them against the names and addresses and zip codes on official voter records. behind the scenes microsoft is using a third party big data companies and handing over their list of registered users, names and zip codes. they're actually matching these against each other. this big data company can give back to microsoft or yahoo! list of particular users that the campaign want to target. but these companies then say the second half the process, they are able to put a cookie on a

particular user's browser. that cookie can identify you about your voter history. as you surfrom site to site, not necessarily sites owned by yahoo! or hot mail but a lot of different sites, advertisers can recognize you and show you a particular ad based on your voting history. that's something these companies are not disclosing. yahoo! and microsoft and aol saying they're doing this kind of political targeting. there is all happening behind the scenes. something that's definitely growing. there's no way to tell this is going on. host: lois beckett is a reporter from propublica. if you like to talk to her, republicans can call

202-737-0002 and democrats call 202-737-0001 and independents can call 202-628-0205. caller: it sounds like to me that on one side, there's some data being collected by microsoft and there's some third party companies that is using the data, scrubbing the names and serving ads through cookies. my question for you would be, what type of ads you know, do you foresee that will be served up? as an example, let's take the wisconsin election, the people i know that live in that town was bombarded with all kind of tv ads. will that type of advertisement, do you see

those type of advertisement moving towards the online sector down the line or is this something that the political race is now kind of toying with? guest: it's certainly true that online advertising makes up only a small fraction of campaign budget. 10 or 12% of campaigns will be spent online. you actually right to say this, this is not a big part. people are probably only going to spend more time online and different kinds of mobile devices. what we're thinking is that 2012 is going to be a place for kind of targeted advertising really expand and grows. it's obviously going to get much bigger in the future. this is not just online and web browsing but companies are also interested in targeting mobile advertising,

advertising across multiple devices and even advertising on your cell phone or ipad while you're watching political advertisements on tv so you're getting bombarded by multiple channels. host: let's look at a statement from microsoft. they say we often target advertising services to customers including political campaigns from both parties. we want to be clear we only use data that does not personally identify individual consumers. that's a statement from microsoft. that's incorporated into the story that our guest has in her propublica piece. lois beckett you made a difference having a team attached to someone and having all of their details. take us through a fictional person and how detail and these company and campaigns can go. let's take susie smith

living in new york city. are they able to that she looks at pro-life website? how much information can they aggregate about her? guest: the online advertising industry is really trying to keep the detailed profiles of your browsing history that they are collecting under individual people separate from identifying information like your name and address and e-mail address. that doesn't mean companies like yahoo! and microsoft doesn't have that information. voters have made it clear in the past they're uncomfortable if there's information about what they do online saved under their name. they have found a man in new hampshire, they could tell things about his car, his voting history and something like he likes to play wars every night before he went to bed. combining all that information in one place,

definitely there's a big backlash. company have come to, they will keep profile information about individual people but they're going it keep that underneath anonymous id number. they will keep that in in a separate place. what's interesting about this target voting practice, yes it's true as the microsoft statement isn't particular clear, but basically what they're saying is that they're not going to allow political campaign to say, we want to target susie smith. they can say here's a list of 5 million names. they're not doing it by name individuals instead they're matching names in order to get demographic information about particular users. the real question i think for people is how much protection does this give

you and how separate and private really is this process. what's interesting is that the fact that you can transfer voting demographic information about particular people and connect it back to an anonymous cookie, show that's even though cookies are separate from names it's still possible to link them . these company have chosen to use third party matches in order to keep their hands clean. what's really interesting about voter targeting, it reveals how that privacy policy. it's true, it does get very specific online data tracking companies are looking at every page in which they partnered and they can track you and detailed information about what kinds of things you reading. host: let's hear from jane independent caller in philadelphia, pennsylvania.

you're on. caller: i'm one of those people that different websites. like daily kos and hot air are ideological opposite. i get information from both. it's like watching fox news and msnbc. you can't get all the information anymore from one state or one website. it's impossible. what i'm concerned about is, occasionally i will like a comment to one of the websites. do they have my information as to what i'm writing and what i'm saying exactly so that they know my political view on an issue? is that information available to them specifically? guest: that's a really

good question. that's something i'm trying to research and try to pin down exactly somewhat different data companies are collecting. technologically data companies do the ability look at the comments that you're writing. i don't think those comments will be connected with your name. i don't think in terms of this kind of advertising that microsoft and yahoo! are doing, nothing that i've heard from those companies suggest that kind of comment behavior is being incorporated. think you you're really right to raise that kind of question because the capability exists to look at comments and that maybe something that can be folding into this kind of targeting. i can't tell you right now what companies are doing that. host: let's take a look at the no child left -- new york timeses it's a piece called you for

sale. for example, whether or not you're a college graduate, divorced, whether or not you have allergies, and ethnic code. data giant is mapping and sharing the consumer genome. it knows what you're doing. it peers deeply into the american life. if you're a american and the odds know it knows things about your age, weight, marital status, education level. this is in conway, arkansas. more than 23,000 computers are collecting and analyzing data. marquee names rarely makes the headlines. lois beckett this is a little bit different what you're reporting on, this goes to the issue of generating a profile of

someone based on their purchase habit and based on what they do online. guest: this is actually true. it's not a different topic. axiom is one of the data company that's helps yahoo! do this kind of matching. axiom not only collects huge amounts of information, they able to perform this kind of matching and link online and offline data. it's true that such a huge amount of information out there a that you might not be aware of. they have height and weight information. how is it possible someone can know my height and weight. it turns out dmvs which collect height and weight information. in some states that data is pub and -- public and available for consumers. i actually spoke to a microtargetting consultant who said that

was the kind of data that's out. it might be a little bit creepy to use. it's important to remember start to be aware of the amount of data. some of it sensitive. these companies try to limit the kinds of information they collect are not personal and sensitive but certainly weight loss is a category they might have and certain kind of cold and flus and allergies, family status, marriage and divorce are things collected in. because there's so little transparency in this industry, we really don't know what's being used and not being used. we hope they are making good choices about the kinds of targeting they won't do. a lot of them aren't very forthcoming with the information about what they will or don't do.

we're left in the dark. host: let's hear from kelly here in washington d.c. on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question for ms. beckett is, i realize she has an article that essential is saying, there's a problem with microsoft. but, have you also researched things perhaps with the labor unions? as i understand it, afl with respect to the challenge in wisconsin, they started a program called friend and neighbors and in fact, we're going to ask for your permission to use your facebook contacts as a grassroots campaign. so, i guess my question is, it's really easy i think some times to make a point that microsoft is a problem. the larger corporations but also what do you think is happening on the

liberal, democratic and you know, on that side of the house? so thank you. guest: sure, great question. one thing that's important to note is first, it's not necessarily a problem that microsoft is doing it. some people might be happy they receive targeted political ads. microsoft could disclose a little bit more about its targeting practice and really doesn't. this is not around issue about question whether you like targeting or not. but the question whether transparency is being done is very clear. there's really none. second point, both democrats and republicans are using these kind of targeting tactics online. we know that the obama campaign is one of the ones that worked with microsoft this year to do this kind of targeting. your question was really to more thoughtly, what other kinds of targeting are going on here and what else is using it. yes, there are tool that's allow labor unions

for instance, i've been working with data firm to use this new social organizing tools. they're asking people who want to volunteer to work with them. to log into facebook and they will use the facebook interface to show friend that they might want to contact. it will save the records of those relationships so that political campaigns, unions are trying to start to use your social network as a tool for their campaign. one thing think that's important to note here, there's a difference between doing this kind of targeting behind the scenes and not asking for permission and having volunteer who are interested in reaching out to friends and family and give permission saying i want to log into facebook. when you evaluating these processes, it's important to welcome at transparency and the ability of people to opt in and awareness how their information is

being used. it is true that different campaigns that are using facebook and asking people to log into facebook, that does give campaigns a lot ofs ofs in -- lots of information. i think it's important to realize that targeting can be a really important tactic for campaigns of all kinds. it's potentially that could help smaller campaigns build an audience, sort of build a group of supporters. there are certainly benefits. the question do we know what kind of data is being used or being asked for permission. host: let's go to a comment on twitter. how is congress protecting america? can't this data be abused and where is the privacy

line? guest: the ftc asked congress to start thinking about making more legal boundaries on this kind of online data and data industry. there's the do not track report. asking companies to give you the ability to opt out being tracked online. that's something that's in process. it's unclear if this do not track. if it succeeds how rigorous is it going to be? is it a way for you to opt out of receiving targeted ads. certainly right now we're looking the online advertising industry really doesn't want to be regulated. they trying to make the case they can do self-regulation and that's better. we're in a position where there's really isn't a lot of regulation. even if there is regulation in the commercial sphere, a lot of industry experts think

it's likely that politician will opt political targeting out of these kind of restrictions just the way the, do not call list, you can still get robocalls. host: deborah writes on twitter, social media company companies sell information to advertisers and warn us us to be careful when browsing online. let's hear from fort worth, texan, jake is a republican. caller: i really like what you do. i really like how it can help different campaign, definitely smaller ones instead of going out in the texas sun and knocking on doors. one question i fear is how this could be used for gerrymandering. i live here in fort worth, we have a newly created district, the

33rd. that was made to benefit democrats. no republican can run and win. i fear for abuse. this could be used to just sensor voters -- i see the great benefit. host: let's get a response. guest: that's a really interesting point. actually i was covering redistricting before i moved on to political targeting. it's definitely a big overlap in terms of consumer data. absolutely is being used in terms of redistricting or gerrymandering and drawing these district lines. not only sensor data. even if a district looks like it's strongly democratic or republican now, might suggest where it's going to trend in the future. i'm not sure to the extent i haven't heard

that online tracking advertising is going to be mixed into this particularly. it's certainly true if you think that consumer data is going to be used for gerrymandering, yes, it is being used. host: sasha asked on de witter how much -- on twitter, how much are they making. if you clean out your cookies, does that help avoid tracking? guest: yes. the online advertising industry is a $30 billion industry. this is big money. it's big money using tracking that most users aren't even aware of. yes, it is based on cookies. yes if you clean out your cookies that can help. also all of these companies, the major ones, offer opt out services. if you search that and search opt out, there will be a way for you to opt out. it's worth noting based

on cookies, cookies don't last forever. this is not an all powerful tracking industry. the actual technology is based on -- can be a little problematic sometimes. it's important to keep this in balance and looking a the an industry that's growing a enbecoming stronger . there's definitely technological limitations and keep that perspective in mind. host: let's hear from anna independent caller in maryland. you're on the program. caller: i like to do online surveys. i did one survey that said i was -- i asked a lot of questions. they say you're a conservative. all of sudden, i get conservative information. i'm not conservative. i guess they got it from my answer. all of sudden, i started getting telephone surveys. they do match your telephone with your

online. host: how you felt about that? do you feel like it's too much information about you or do not care? guest: too much information. allergies, i get all kinds of information about allergies and black people and vitamin d deficiencies. it is too much information. host: here's a question from twitter. can this be abused if half the websites are fake? how reliable is the data in reality. lois beckett if someone signs up for a hot mail. does that throw everything off? how does that work? guest: it's absolutely true that a lot of people don't use their real names to sign up. when i talk to people who where experts in this matching, they say any given list of names, you only going to be able to

match 20% or 40% of them that will come out clean matches. that shows a lot of this data is inaccurate. isn't necessarily reflecting who you are. the other point that goes along with that, there is scale. you give so many different companies online information even if one company you given your real name and zip code to, willing to share that information. not necessarily sell it. they just doing this kind of matching that allowed you to be targeted. all it takes is just one time. giving your information to one company who's willing to share it. host: mark, democratic caller in seattle. caller: i'm an independent and not a democrat. we have some non-democrats in seattle. anyway, the last twitter

question, person may have answered my question lois. if were to establish an alias profile that i used any time i went online, they ask for my information, would that protect me from getting tied into where people might know who i am or take advantage of that? i would be willing to invest a couple hundred dollars to set up a corporation so i could have a credit card that didn't have my name on it so i can protect my identity. is that a reasonable strategy? those are two questions i like you to comment on. guest: it depends on companies whether you do shoplift, whether or not they will potentially

give your names and addresses out and verify your credit card. to be honest, i don't know which companies may or may not do that. the second question about setting and separate credit card in order to really protect yourself, i don't know how much that would be worth your time and expense. certainly the question here is how much is your privacy worth to you? there are some tool that's are free that you can use if you're concerned about this kind of tracking. you can look at different websites and see which third party sites are tracking you. this is something that's pretty interesting to use. very easy to set up. you can see how many companies are tracking you. mozilla also have a tool

called collusion. you can see how many third party companies are tracking you. if you're concerned about these things, the first step might be to get a little bit more information about it. maybe use those opt out tools. take that step and sort of get a little bit more information before you think about a pretty proactive step like a credit card. host: steve in savannah, georgia, democrat line. caller: yes ma'am. i wanted to find out first of all, is there any laws in place that prevent companies -- it's funny some time how it happens that when i open an account with a legitimate business, shortly after that i start getting strange calls. it's very scary stuff. i'm wondering is there any laws in place that kind of prevent companies from sharing your

information with third party entities? also before i go, i just wanted to mention, the reason i actually call was because you mentioned about regulations and you had a guest before you that was outraged at bp being allowed to operate without regulation. these are the same people when regulations are put in place, you can control job -- host: we're out of time and let's get lois response to the first part of your question. caller: can you say again the first part? host: the question is whether or not there are laws against companies selling your information to third parties? guest: there are some regulations in place. certainly there's an act that provides much