detainee policies, policies th that, i might add, were a contributing factor to the elimination of bin laden and many other terrorists through this past decade. i'm curious to know if they've appointed anyone to key posts in the department of justice who's ever prosecuted a terrorist. i'd like to know that. maybe they have. surely somebody has. but it looks odd to me that so many of those who've been on the other side have been given top appointments. and i'm very disappointed in another subject with this administration's abdication of its duty to defend congressionally enacted laws. specifically, the defense of marriage act. the attorney general has stated that the president decided -- attorney general holder -- that the president had decided that he would no longer defend this law. review the -- after reviewing the attorney general's recommendation that doma falls under the exception in which -- quote -- "the department of justice cannot offer a reasonable argument in defense of the statute's constitutionality." well, it's been defended and upheld by a number of courts. how do we just waltz in now and decide we're not going to defend a congressionally enacted statute signed into law by president clinton because they don't like it? that's what it appears to me. the administration apparently came to this conclusion after unilaterally deciding that -- quote -- "classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny." in the face of precedent from 11 circuit courts of appeals holding that such classifications should be reviewed under the much lower normal rational basis standard. there's a very big difference between refusing to defend the law that the administration regards as unconstitutional and refusing to defend a law that the administration opposes on policy grounds. the presiding officer: 15 minutes. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask for one additional -- ask unanimous consent to speak for one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the department of justice is a great department and they have some very, very fine people there. i know mr. cole has some good qualities. i supported mr. holder for attorney general. but i'm very uneasy about the direction the department is taking on a large number of issues, and i believe one of the reasons this is happening is because they've surrounded themselves with a group of leftist lawyers, activist lawyers who don't operate according to the more traditional views of law and justice in america. that's my view. other senators may disagree. that's my view. and i would just say that i'm not able to support mr. cole for that and the reasons i've stated and i hope in the future that the administration will appoint more nominees that have proven records of independence, effective prosecution and commitment to law. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. a senator: mr. president, i greatly respect my friend from alabama, senator sessions, and i simply have come to a different conclusion with regard to jim cole. i worked with jim cole. i was part of a legislative committee in the house of representatives that had to do some very difficult work on an ethics issue involving a former speaker of the house of representatives. mr. cardin: it was a tough decision to bring together six members of the house, three democrats, three republicans, and to do it in a way that would maintain the nonpartisan requirements of an ethics investigation. the atmosphere was very partisanly charged around the work that we were doing. i know this sounds familiar because people in maryland and connecticut and around the nation understand that we're working in a very partisan environment here and they expect the people that are charged with the department of justice to work in a nonpartisan manner. this is not a partisan position, the deputy attorney general. this is a person who is working with the attorney general as the nation's lawyer. and we want somebody who has the experience, someone who has th the -- the character and commitment to carry out this very important position. as i said, i've known jim cole. he has 13 years experience within the department of justice as a public interest attorney. that's been the largest part of his professional career has been the service of public interest. and he's always followed policy, not politics. he has a very distinguished career in law and he's the type of person that we would like to see within the department of justice. as i pointed out, i worked with jim cole when i was in the house of representatives. we worked on a very difficult investigation involving the former speaker of the house of representatives who at the time was speaker. the ranking republican, actually the chairman of the committee, was porter goss, a republican from florida. porter goss's observations of jim cole was that he was a brilliant prosecutor, extraordinarily talented. and then mr. goss goes on to say that over time he brought our committee to a bipartisan cooperation, which was desperately needed in order to successfully complete that matter. at the end of the day, the six of us came together in a unanimous recommendation. that's the type of person that jim cole is. he was professional and put policy ahead of politics. senator -- former senator john danforth evidence is at jim cole's confirmation hearing. a former republican member of the united states senate. he called jim cole a lawyer's lawyer. jim cole has support from democrats and republicans, former high officials within the department of justice have all recommended -- we have former deputy attorney generals appointed by both republicans and democrats supporting jim cole's nomination for deputy attorney general. let me just quote one other person i'd hope would be greatly respected on both sides of the aisle and that's fred fielding, the white house counsel for george -- for former president george w. bush. he said that mr. cole combines all the qualities you want in a citizen public servant. he understands both sides of the street and is smart and tenacious and is a person of unquestioned honor and integri integrity. that's what fred fielding, the former white house counsel to president bush, said about jim cole. jim cole is supported by former r.n.c. officials and d.n.c. officials because he's not partisan. he's a nonpartisan person who's put public interest law as his top priority. i was listening to senator sessions talk about terrorism. we've had a spirited political debate that's taking place in this country over the best way to bring terrorists to justice. mr. cole, however, will always put principle over politics and he is committed to evaluating each case and manner that comes before him based on the facts and the law. that's what you'd want from the department of justice. they're the values and the character that we want in our nation's department of justice. and jim cole will bring that to the department of justice, already brought it to the department of justice. the bottom line about mr. cole's approach on fighting terrorists is one i believe we all believe in. we're a nation at war with al qaeda and taliban and their associated forces. we need a tough, aggressive and flexible policies that recognize the paramount importance of providing the president with the ability to use all of the lawful tools, all of the lawful tools of our national power to protect american people and bring terrorists to justice. jim cole believes in that. he's committed to working with the congress, so that we use all available tools, we make the judgment in each individual case as to where it's the most effective way to bring a terrorist or criminal to justice. he not only has expertise in handling terrorists and bringing them to justice, he's had very important positions in the department of justice supervising the criminal prosecution of white-collar crimes. he understands the full breadth of the department of justice, and it i is a very valuable plan making sure the department of justice follows in the fine tradition of that agency. i just urge my colleagues to vote to move forward. at least vote to allow that this nomination get an up-or-down vote. this is a very important position, the department attorney general. we talk about we were sent here to washington to make tough votes. okay. i don't think this is a tough voavment i think jim cole is the best person for this critically important job, and i don't think he is at all a partisan person. i know him well. i know him to be a career-type individual who is interested in doing the right policy. but this is not a nominee where you should be using a filibuster to prevent an up-or-down vote. this is a very important position for our country. the di dignity of the senate and the department of justice and the deancy of jim cole, i urge my colleagues to allow us to go forward with an up-or-down vote on his confirmation, and i urge my colleagues to support this confirmation to be deputy attorney general of the united states. we have 11 farmers' market and we're three state and one of the questions we always get our about the prices of the food at our markets, why the prices are higher than the supermarket or wide to the farmers charge what they charge. our farmers are not subsidized in any way. my response has always been they charge what they need to charge in order to be viable businesses. i have seen a lot of growth in those businesses but it seems to me that -- it is a very frustrating area of if you think farm income is a national security issue, it is so i will see a little growth in terms of new farmers and new young people starting to farm, but most americans don't want to farm because they can't make enough money farming. i look at it from the producer point of view. the question is how do we deal with the issue of price versus value? at actual productivity, capacity to produce food? [talking over each other] >> locally in the united states, we are all trying to encourage more local agriculture and more -- i will give you an example. massachusetts, one thing that has helped our local farmers what can be used to purchase items at farmers' markets. we are doing this thing in worse there were we are comparing health care doctors for rental food prescriptions that can be used in farmers' markets. basically the more people who buy the more you control the price. i want more local farmers to be successful in the united states. but i think to the extent we can make it more affordable for people through the programs are just mentioned the more you will be able to address the economic security of those farmers. one of my challenges is you go to a supermarket to try to find what is grown locally, you can't always get the answer for the person who works the supermarket there's a tendency to want to support local farmers. they don't know how to do it because there's another challenge. these small farmers par not the farmers that are receiving these big subsidies and the ones we are relying on. >> they are in the community bringing the farmers' markets, washington -- but also in this spectrum, representing more farmers, all the way off of spectrum companies and the issue with smaller bonet, family-owned. they only control 20% of the grain exports of south america. they control all the chicken production -- coming up on a possibility, for me it is amazing to see how we make those producers sustainable. that they have prices that not only meet -- some people making big bucks so we have small farmers that some producers out source. the lower segment can afford it and this is a big issue. on a national security issue we saw what happened with the bank industry. we saw a few banks put as very much on the edge of an economic meltdown. i have no clue what happened. >> i am american now. very important, talking about national security. we don't have to regulate everything. target is very successful under investors but also big companies like this controlled sources on the other side which is food for thought. i would never allow such a company to grow so big because now you are happy feeding your children. i don't know what it is. but sooner or later we are going to see that having food production in the hands of the very few is not good business for america and it won't be good business for the world. that is food for thought issue we need to be talking about. >> we are going to have to wrap things up. i would like to thank our panel for joining us. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span2 and look at the role of the effectiveness of the congressional research service. then vice president joe biden, hillary clinton and treasury secretary timothy geithner give remarks at the opening session of the u.s.-china strategic economic dialogue. later oral arguments before the ninth circuit appeals court on whether teacher's first amendment free-speech rights were violated when the school board made san diego a high school math teacher bradley johnson takedown classroom banners which included such phrases as in god we trust and god bless america. several live events to tongue you about. officials from the justice department and federal trade commission testified on capitol hill about protecting privacy of smart phones and other mobile technology. witnesses will include representatives of google and apple. that is on c-span at 10:00 eastern. also at 10:00 eastern on c-span3 admiral robert papp talk about the coast guard budget request for the next year. he is before the senate appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. later on c-span3 at 3:30 p.m. eastern president obama will be in el paso. the texas talking about immigration, the economy and security. next a discussion of the state of the congressional research service. crs is a nonpartisan government agency that is part of the library of congress that provides policy and legal analysis to members of congress on a range of issues. panelists examined the expertise of the crs analysts and accuracy and relevancy of its report and prospects for improving public access to non confidential public education -- applications. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to a discussion of the future of the congressional research service. and with the sunlight foundation and director of the committee and transparency which helped organize today's event. by way of background, looking at you in the audience many of you are aware of crs's operations. crs is $100 million a year think tank with 700 employees. it is an administrative unit of the library of congress which has played a public role which includes policing legislative summaries, updating@treaties of the constitution of the united states and analysis and contribution and as conan and exchanging details with scholars and other interested parties and we look for writing reports that become publicly available. bribery of congress is one of several legislative agencies which includes the government accountability office, government printing office. crs product help frame public debate on important issues. the last two years alone major newspapers cited crs reports 700 times including 70 mentioned the washington post and 55 in the new york times. federal courts have made use of crs analyses in the last decade. federal courts, 130 times. the supreme court since the founding of crs has cited crs report several times. april 2nd saw the retirement of longtime crs director daniel mulholland after 20 years and his departure has brought questions about the future of crs and many concerns beneath the surface that seems to be coming to a boil. today's events are posted by the advisory committee on transparency which is an 18 member association of organizations that shared members of the congressional transparency pockets and educate policymakers on transparency related issues. the advisory committee is organized as a product of the sun life foundation and more information is available at transparencycaucus.org. i would like to thank the cochairs of the caucus, representative beryl eisa --d y --daryl issa helping these conversations take place. we are going to have a very brief history of crs and by brief i mean quite brief. i will introduce our speakers, follow up with one or two questions that are interesting to me since i always get to ask the first question and all of you have the opportunity to ask questions and engage in conversation. there are a number of open questions to address today. the crs meeting the needs of congress, has a analytical expertise eroded over time, are crs products and report as relevant, accurate and understandable as they need to be? should crs reports be available for the general public and to some extent they are but should they be available to the general public and my organization has called for public access to crs general distribution reports and finally, what does the twenty-first century congressional research service look like? what do we expect crs to do? when they go to cornell to look at the constitution annotated, when they search youtube for changes in federal law and links to crs reports? so with that i will engage in a very brief history of crs. as we come up almost on its 100th birth day was organized for but the appropriation in 1914 but received permanent status in 1946. in legislative organization act of that time it wasn't crs. it was the legislative reference service and focused on providing reference services to members of congress though it did analytical work at that time. it wasn't until 1970 and the legislative reorganization act that crs emerged. almost simultaneous with the reorganization were concerns raised. one concern was ties between crs and the larger knowledge community research and judgment community and also there are not subject to peer review but when we talk about that your assistance, also changing views on the roles of senior specialists that did crs work over history. there was a -- between 1977 to 1993 with particular crs directors. in response to criticism they took some steps. they supported crs staff reaching out to members of the knowledge community and the press. they encourage staff attendance at conferences to engage with their peers. they may crs reports and products available to interested parties outside of crs. in 1980 the research and service review was launched. with a publication for a decade that contained the original analytical articles, summaries relating to crs research projects and more. this was a product that was available to the public. in 1990 for the most recent and recently departed director of crs, daniel left by his own decision. and engaged in a number of decisions with crs. i will paraphrase them. he limited staff ability to speak out side of crs. he interpreted the statutory requirement provided by congress with no partisan bias to also require staff to be neutral and the hope we will discuss what that change means. he worked to limit public distribution products, create a more -- bureaucratic structure and eliminated a number of departments. with that very brief, hopefully very brief overview of crs, i am pleased to have a distinguished body joining me today. these experts on congress and crs. i will start -- i should have organized this better. i will start with nye stevens, government director from 2000 to 2006. he previously served as director of federal management and workforce issues at gao from 1982 to 2,000 and was director of special projects of omb from 1977 to 1982. did not yet his youthful appearance to see if you. he has seen different congressional agency's work. to my right is mike stern of the house of representatives from 1996 to 2004. he served