quorum call: quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 118 and i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination and the motion. ms. klobuchar: i ask consent that on monday, june 6 -- the clerk: nomination, department of justice, donald b.verilli jr. of the district of columbia to be solicitor general of the united states. cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of donald b.verilli jr. of the district of columbia to be solicitor general of the united states. signed by 17 senators as follows. leahy, conrad, kerry,

whitehouse, klobuchar, cardin, bingaman, boxer, merkley, wyden, menendez, shaheen, sanders, lautenberg, reed of rhode island, murray and durbin. ms. klobuchar: i ask consent that on monday, june 6, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 118, that there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the cloture vote. further, that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: i ask consent to resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 56, h.r. 754. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h h.r. 56, h.r. 754,n act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for intelligence and intelligence

related activities by the united states government and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: i ask consent the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 56, h.r. 754, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for intelligence and intelligence related activities of the united states government and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is on the passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 31, s. 627. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 31, s. 627, a bill to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. con. resolution 4 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 4, expressing the sense of congress that an appropriate site on chaplain's

hill in arlington national cemetary should be provided for a memorial marker to honor the memory of the jewish chaplains who died while on active duty in the armed forces of the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent the murray amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask the president for a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the "help" committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 172 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 172, recognizing the importance

of cancer research and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: i ask consent that senator cardin be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 203, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 2 203, recognizing national foster care month and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the

record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 204, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 2 204, designating june 7, 2011, as national hunger awareness day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no spur no intervening action or debate and any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i understand that s. 1125, introduced earlier today by senator leahy, is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1125, a bill to improve national security letters, the authorities under the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978, and for other purposes. ms. klobuchar: i now ask for its

second reading, mr. president, and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that from friday, may 27 through friday, june 3, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two houses, or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that from thursday, may 26, through

friday, june 3, the majority leader, senator klobuchar, and senator webb be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i note the a an absence of a quor. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator minute mifnlt. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. cleb cloab i ask unanimous consent that -- ms. klobuchar: the ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar number 49, -9d 7, 106, 107, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, and nominations placed often the secretary's desk in the air force, army, coast guard, foreign service, marine corps, navy, and public health service

with the exception of kenny p.altamarana, timothy n.anserio, justin r. plot, randy terres, that the nominations be #-bg confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening an or debate, no further motions be in order to any of the mom nations, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on friday, may 27, for a pro forma session only with no business conducted and that when the senate adjourns on friday,

may 27, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, may 31, for a pro forma session only with no business conducted, that when the senate adjourns on tuesday, may 31, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on friday, june 3, for a pro forma session with no business conducted. and that when the senate adjourns on friday, june 3, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 6, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each, finally, that at h-4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to can i have session under the previous order. -- to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: the first roll call vote when we return will be at 5:30 p.m. on monday, june 6.

that vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of donald varelli to be solicitor general of the ewings. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i'm pleased today to mr. paul: i'm pleased today to >> i am pleased today to come to the floor of the senate to talk about the patriot act.hat i am pleased that we have cracked open the door that we will shed some light on theishhe patriot act.oo i wish the door were wider open, the debate broader and moree wil significant but we will talk aci little bit about thepa constitutionality of the patrior act. i was a co-sponsor of senatorouv leahy's amendment and i thinke e would have gone to many greato m steps forward to make sure thatw we have surveillance on what our government does. he would have authorized on it and the inspector general to tht continue to watch over to make sure that government is not invading theur rights of right . citizens and i do support that wholeheartedly. jeffersonly said that, if we haa

government of angels, we wouldn't have to care or theer t concerned about the power that we give to government. unfortunately, sometimes we don't have angels in charge ofel our government. sometimes we can even get a wou government in charge that would use the power of never meant in a malicious or malevolent way to look at the banking records of g people theyre disagree withpoli politically, toll look at the religious practices of people they disagree with.tant so it is very important that we are always vigilant, that we are eternally vigilant of the powerw of government, that they not grow to such an extent that government could be looking into our private affairs for nefarious reasons.ave we have proposed two amendments that we will have votes onrns today. one of them concerns the secondt amendment.hi i i think it is very important that we protect thehe rights ofr gun owners in our country notti only for hunting but for self protection and those in our be

country who own guns should beem saying -- secret. i don't think the government, well-intentioned or notld b well-intentioned, should be sifting through millions of records of gun owners. why? there have been times even our h history when government has invaded your household to take thingsse from you.93 in the 1930s, government came into your household and said give us your gold. gold was confiscated in this country in 1933. could there conceivably be aovem time whent government comes into your house and says we want your gun? people say that is absurd andhat that would never happen.m i hope that day never comes.f i am not accusing anybody ofhat. being worried about a government that is sifting through millions of records without asking, are you a suspect, without asking are you in league with foreignterror terrorists? are you plotting a violent

overthrow of your government? by all m means if you are, let's look at your record. let's put you in jail. let's prosecute you. but let's not sift through hundreds of millions of gun records to find out whether or not you own let's don't leave those dat databanks in thea hands of government where someday those could be abused. what we are asking foroc procedural protections. the constitution gave us those protections. the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. the fourth amendment is equallys important. itou gives you the right to ber. free of unreasonable search. it gives you the right to say that government must g have probable cause. there must be at least someting suspicion that you are committing a crime before they come into your house or before they go into your records are. wherever your records are. say the constitution doesn't say o that you only have protection of records that are in your house. you should have protection of

records that reside in otherr places. just because your visa records reside with the visa company doesn't make it any less p private. if you look at a person's visaan bill you can find out all kindsi of things about themng. if you look at a person's visa bill you can find out what doctors they go to. do they go to a psychiatrist? do they have mentalto illness? what type of medications do they take? if you look at my visa bill you can tell what kind of books irew read, what types of magazines i read.visis one of the provisions of the cld patriot act is called the library provision. they can look at the books you e check out in the library.op people say still a judge has toe sign these warrants, but we changent the standard. the standard of the fourth amendment was probable cause. they had o to argue or at least convince a judge that you are a suspect. they were doing something wrongd now because or the standard has been changed to relevance, so it

could need that you went to a party with someone who was from palestine who gives money totint some group in palestine that may well be a terrorist group orbutt not. is but the thing is, because i went to a party with them, because i know that person, am i now be somehow connected enough to beod relevant? and they would say yourever government would never do that. they would never investigateerol people. the problem is this is all'v secret.e bn so i don't know if i have been investigated.es he my visa bill sometimes has been $5000. is sometimes we pay for them over the phone which is a wire by transfer. have i been investigated by my government? i don't know. it a secret.tectns what i want our protections. i want to capture terrorists, sure. terrorists with machine guns in our country come international terrorist. by all means let's go after thel but you know the worst people, the people we want to lock up forever, the people all of us universally agree, people who

commit murder, people who commit rate. we want to lock them up andal throw awayl the book and i'm al with you but we still have the protections of the fourth amendment. if someone is running around in the streets ofro o washingtonnig tonight at four in the morning and we think they may have murdered someone, we will call a judge and we will get a warrantc just because we believe in procedural protection, just because we believe in the constitution, doesn't mean that we don't want to capture terrorists. we just want to have some rules. i will give you an analogy. bee right now, you have been to the airport. most of america hamos been to te airport at some point in time in the last year or two. millions of people fly every day. but we are taking the shotguns approach. we think everyone is averye terrorist, so everyone is being patted down.ip everyone is beingutting o strip-searched. h wean are putting our hands insie the pants of 6-year-old children. i mean, have we not gone so far? are we so t afraid that we areal

willing to give up all of our liberties in exchange for security?u g franklin said come if you give up your liberty you will havebet neither.or sur you give up their liberty in exchange for security you may ui well wind up with neither. as we take the shotgun approache we take this approach thatal everybody is a potential a terrorist, i think we actually are doing less of a good job in capturing terrorist. because if we spend our time going after those who areaybe committing terrorism, maybe we would spend less time on thosere who are living in this country,w children and otherwise, frequent business travelers who are not a threat to our country instead of wasting time on these people. we could spend more time on those who would attack us.u i will give you an example. the underwear bomber. foepr goodness sakes his dad cal reported him..s his dad called the u.s. embassy and said, my son is a potential threat to your country.he we did nothing. he was on a watchlist.lane we still let them get on a

plane. he has been to nigeria. he had been to yemen twice.e. for goodness sakes, why don't ws take half of the people on the tsa to our patting down ourth children and let's have them look at the international flight manifest of those traveling frod certain countries who could be attacking us. for goodness sakes why don't i target who we are looking at? my other amendment concerns bankingnk records. 8 million banking records have been looked at in our country. not by the government.ed they have empowered your bank to spy on you.u go every time you go into your bank your bank is asked to spy onrann you. than if you make a transaction ofe b more than $5000 the bank is encouraged to reportrt you. if the bank does report you,arge they get a large fine to the tune of $100,000 or more. they could get five years inpr prison.. they are over in courage. the incentive is for the bank to report every one. so once upon a time thespiciousa suspicious activity reports were

maybe 10,001 year. y n they are now over 1 million of the suspicious activityiv reporo do i want to capture terrorists? yes. do i want to capture terrorists were transferring large amounts of money? yes but you know what, when weat are wasting time on 8 millions transactions the vast majoritybi of these transactions being law-abiding u.s. citizens were not targeting the people who would attack us. let's do police work.ups if there are terrorist groups in the middle east and wemi know wv they are, let's investigate them. if they have money in the u.s. i or they are transferring it a between banks, by all means let's investigate them.ave but let's have someal constitutional protections. let's have some protections thak say you must ask a judge for a warrant. some have said how would we get these people?ar t how would recapture those who're transferring weapons? ies we would investigate. we have all kinds of tools and we have been using these tools. others have said well, we havect

captured these peopleur through the patriot act and we never could have n gotten him. the problem with that argument is it is unprovable. you can tell me that youyoca captured people to the patriot act and i can believe you have capturedn him and prosecuted thm but you can prove to me that she would not have y captured them v you not asked for a judge.fo we have a special court. is called the fisa court. the fisa court has been around since the late 1970s. d not warrant was ever turned down before the patriot act. but they say we need more power we need more power given to these agencies and we don't need any constitutional restraint ann more. but my question is, the fourth amendment said you have to have a probable cause. and you had to name the person in the place. we chan how do we change and get rid of probable cause and change it to a standard of relevance? how do we do that and amend the constitution without actuallyre amending the constitution? impta

these are important constitutional questions but when the patriot act came up wea were so frightened by 9/11 that it just slough through here. i there aren't enough copies to be read. there was one copy at the time. no senator read the patriot act. it didn't go through thedd standard procedure and look atla what is happening now, 10 years later. you think the fear and hysteria would have gotten to such a level that we could goat through the committee process. senator leahy's bill went to committee. it was deliberated upon. it was discussed and it was debated. it was passed up with bipartisan support i.ing v you knowot why it is not gettina voteca now? there are people who have been t implying that if i hold the patriot act up and they attackfo us and not that i'm responsible for the attack. therek. are people, good peoples who have impliedt that if somett terrorist gets a gun that i am somehow responsible. t

it is sort of the analogy ofieve saying because i believe you should get a warrant before you go into a potential or alleged murder, that somehow i'm in favor of murder. i am in favor of having protections.of these arose out of hundreds of years of common law. they work codified in our constitution because we werewe w worried. we were incredibly concerned abouter what they king had done. we were concerned about what adi far distant parliament was doing to us without our approval. we a were concerned about what james otis called writs of assistance.wr writs ofit assistance were piecp of paper that were warrants that were writtenha by soldiers. they were telling us we had the house, british soldiers in our house and they were giving m general warrants which meant we were just going to search you willy-nilly and not name the person or place.he we are not going to name thegog crime you are accused of. if a government were comprised e of angels, we wouldn't need the

fourth amendment. what i argue for here now is protections that protect us all should u we get a luck somebody who doesn't have respect for r rights. we should obey rules and laws.ee is this an isolated episode thay we are here talking about the patriot act and there is insufficient time? there is a deadline hurry, hurry we must act. is not an insulated time.ave we have had no debate on the war with libya. we in libya is so we now have a wan in which there has been noo congressional debate and no congressional. vote. jus but they say it is just a littlb war. but you know what? we it is a big principle. is a principle that we as a p country elect people.re is a principle that we are restrained by the constitution that you are protected by the constitution and if i asked the young men and women here todayay to go to war in say we are going

to go to war, they're darn welll should be a debate in this body. we are advocating thoserespsibi responsibilities. we are not debating theot patrit act sufficiently. we are not having an open amendment process. it took me three days of sittint down here filibustering but i'm going to get to amendment does. i am very happy and i'm pleasedd we came together to do that.ishe i wish we would do more. i wish senator leahy's bill were being here voted on the floor. i was there were weeks worth of debate. the thing is we come here to washington expecting these grand debates. i've been here for months but ie expected the important questions of the day would be debated back-and-forth. instead what happensd, so oftens the votes are counted andusly recounted and laboriously counted them and they know theyw can beat me orhe they know they can beat somebody else, then they allow the vote to come to the floor. but some, like senator leahy's bill, i am suspicious that it could be voted on because we may

not be able to beat it.port or they may not be able to beat it. ie d supported.in o so the question is should we have morewe debate in our count. we have important things pressing on us. i've been here for four months and i'm concerned about the future of our country because of the debt ridden, because of this enormous debt we are again relating but are we debating it fully?ul are we talking about ways we cat come together and howome republicans and democrats right, and left can come together t tof figure out a crisis, this crisis of debt? no, i think we are so afraid oft debate.patr particularly with the patriotac act. the thing is with the patriot acts that it is so emotional because anyone who stands upnd like myself and says we need tos have protections for our people, that we shouldn't sit throughamc every gun owner in americaa through their records, lookingg and just rolling throughec records.inst interestingly, we have looked at 28 million electronic records. and the inspector general look28

at this, 28 million electronic l records.oot we looked at 1,600,000 text. if you said to me they asked a judge and they thought these were terrorist, don't have a problem. a judge gives him a warrant and they look at these text messages or electronic records but you want them trolling through yourw facebook? do you want them trolling through youran e-mails?-mai? do you want a government that is unrestrained by law? this ultimately boils down to whether we believe in the rule of law.ce so often we give lipservice to it on our side and the other side and everybody says weule believe in the constitution and the rule of law. when you need to protect the rule of law is when it is most unpopular. when everybody tells t you that you are unpatriotic or for terrorism because you believe in the constitution, that isev when it is most precious. standp that is when it is you need to stand up and say no.an we can fight. we can preserve their freedoms. we are who we are because of our freedoms of our individual up, liberty.

if we give that up we are no ops different from those that we oppose. those who wish to destroy our us country want to see us dissolveo from within. we dissolve from within when we give up our liberties. we need to stand up and be proud of the fact that in our country it is none of your darnedding. business what we are reading. ithe is none of your business wherehe we go to the doctor or what our magazines are.esser it ise nobody's business here in washington what we are doing.ofl if they think it is the business of law enforcement get a warrant. prove to somebody, at least have one step that says that person is doing something suspicious. the thing is the suspicious activity 8 reports, 8 million om them, then filed in the last eight years. the government doesn't have to ask for this. it isav sort of like they have deputized the banks. that banks havef now become sort of like police agencies.ice

that banks are expected to knowa what is in the bank secrecy acte they are expected to know thousands of pages ofecte regulations but do you know what they tell your bank? eve if you don't report everybody, if you don't report theseansacto transactions, we wnsill find you and put you in jail or we wills. put you out of business. that is a problem. it is a real problem that has what has become of this. i think we need to have procedural protections. is at this point there was a que request from the senator ofi w illinois to yield for a questiot over a comment, i would be happy to if it is about the patriot act. okay.e the amendments that i will -- the amendments that i will be proposing will be about two a things and we will have votes on them. tim we have been given the time to debate, which i am glad we fought for. we we will basicallyfo be given a virtually insurmountable hurdle. this will be the first time in i

recent history i remember seeing this but they will move to tablr my motions. in order for me to do pete -- defeat the tabling motion i will have to get 60 votes.ture is similar to the buzz we have them we have to overcome a cloture vote or overcome aeall filibuster. but we really aren't having any code where there is apossil possibility of me winning.ths there is really a foregone conclusion that the votes are counted in advance. i am proud of the fact that ind fought for it though when we got some debate on the floor andrin thatth maybe in bringing this fight, the country will consider and reconsider the patriot act. but we need to have more debate. senator leahy's bill needs to be fully debated and needs to comet out. may be's when there is not a deadline, maybe it will comema forward. maybe we can have somesion discussion. but i guess most of my messageo' ist that we shouldn't be fearfuf we shouldn't be fearful of fea freedom. we shouldn't be fearful of individualof liberty and they at

not mutually exclusive.ou you don't have tor give up your liberty to catch criminals. you can catch criminals and terrorists and protect your liberty at the same time.weid there is a balancing act but what we did in our hysteria kind of balancing act. we just said, come and get it. here is their freedom. , get it.t. we don't care whether there is t review in congress. we don't care whether there is to be an inspector general looking at this.toda one of my colleagues todayed reported, there is no evidence,n the state million bankingre bhe investigationsri are bothering r doing anything to innocentpeop. people. there is a reasonis for this.yo' they are secret.ank has you are not told of your bank has been spying on you. if your bank has put in a suspicious activity report, you are not informed ofnf that. so the bottom line is just because there is no complaintre doesn't h mean there hasn't bees

abuses.hing there something called nationals security letters.e these are written by officers of the law, by fbi agents.w there is no review by judges.00f there've been 200,000 of these. there has been a potion of these national security letters, and we don't know whether they are being abused because they are secret. in fact here is how deep thect secret goes. woriginal when the patriot act wasloweto originally passed we weren'the allowed to tell our lawyer. if the government came to you with an fbi agent's request you could not even tell your lawyer. this i think is very disturbing. theyin finally got around tot changing that, but do you knowa what? at if i have an internet the service, if i'm a server and they come to me with a policeman's requested they say i give usher records, if i tell anyone other than my attorney i can go to jail for five years.e what we have is a veil of secrecy so even if the government is abusing the powers, we will never know.e'rei

madam president can you tell me how we are doing on our times police? >> the senator has eight minutes remaining. >> did the senator from illinois wish to interject? s >> there is time on the othermiu time -- site as well. >> 28 oit minutes. >> are welcome to interject nowr or at another time. >> ilec to speak on the majority side. with the senator yield the floor? >> i will go ahead and finish u, them. as we go forward on these, i would hope that there would the sum deliberation and people wilm think we need to balance theiri freedom with our security. nobody wants what happened on 9/11 to happen again.'teed but i think we don't need to simplify the debate to such an extent that we simply say weiv have to give up our liberties. i for example, i can't tell youom

how many times people have come to me in washington, other elected officials and they say we could have gotten moussaoui, the 19th hijacker hijackers we had the patriot act. the truth of the matter is that we didn't capture moussaouiec because we had for police work. askauseoo yourself, did we fireo anybody after 9/11?pledal we gave people gold medals. we gave the medals of honor for their intelligence work after 9/11. to my knowledge not one persone was fired. do you think we were doing a good job? we have the 19th hijacker in prison or in custody for a month ween had his computer. when they looked at my sally's computer for days after 9/11 or the day after 9/11, theyt connected all the dots and most of the hijackers and the people in pakistan. why did we look at his computer? was it because we didn't have the prerogative? and it eia agent in minnesota

road 70 letters to superior saying ask for a warrant. his superiors did not ask for aa warrant. do you think we should have done something about that after 9/11? we gave everybody in the up the eye and the cia medals. a we gave the leaders medals for meritorious service and no one blinked an eye. what did we do? we passed the patriot actot and said, take our liberties and make us safer. to make a safe we shouldn't give up our rights to protect what we read, to protect what we viewt and to protect where we go in who we associate. we shouldn't w allow governmento control willy-nilly through millions of records. we have heard of warrantless wiretaps. a lot of these things areseet unknown because they are so even secret that nobody knows. evekn even manyow of us don't know the extent of these things but i cat tell youha that there is a great deal of evidence that we are re looking at millions of records a and that millions of innocentd u.s. citizens are having their records look that.mprini

nongw are we doing anything?no,o are wen' imprisoning innocentth. folks? i don't think we are doing that. i think there are good people. i think the people that i've w t with the fbi and in our government want to do the rightt things.ngs. what i am fearful of is that there comes a time when you have given these powers up.rsou you know when you recognize, for example the constitutional discussion over war. if you say will that be is just a small war, we don't care and you say congress has no say ined this, what happens when we get a resident who has decided to send a million troops into war and we simply say, who cares? we let the president do whatever because he has unlimited powers. we fought a war. know, w we thought long and hard to restrict. we wanted an executive that wasd bound by the chains of the constitution. we wanted the presidency in the executive branch that was bound by the checks and balances. that is what our constitution it about. it is about today.

debate is important. amendments are important. bringing forward something from committee that would have reformed the patriot act is incredibly important.th to have those debates on the floor and that is why there's a disappointmentof t to having arrived in washington and s to see the fear of debate over theed constitution and that we these things.mewe we need to have full of minutes. when. any we need -- can there be an excuse why the inspector general should not be reviewing other r agencies of government to find out if your rights are being trampled upon? so i would ask a conclusion thi that, as these amendments come,k forward, that people think about them. think about our constitutional protections but don't go out and say that you know the senatorr from kentucky does not want to capture pterosaur theeo senator from kentucky wants people toe t have gunshi and to attack us. the thing is, we can have b reasonable philosophic debatesue about this but we need to be having an open debate process.

we need to talk about the constitutional protections, the protections that protect us all and we need to be aware of thatn i't tell people you can protect the second amendment if youent. don't amendment. you can't protect the second amendment if you don't believeis in the first amendment. it's all incredibly important hg and i hope as we go forward on this vote and even though i wils likely fail because of the way the rules are set vote, i hopeo as we go forwardss that of the somebody will begin to discuss this. whee somebody will begin to discuss where we should have some constitutional restraints.l senator leahy will have a chance to bring his bill forward and there will be a full and open debate and i hopeha that we hav. cracked the door open that ident have been a. small part of. thank you madam president and these yield back my time.nderan >> madam president? >> the senator from illinois recognize. >> madam president it is my understanding that we have the consent that will allow senatort paul to offer two tournaments and then weac will go to findami authorization on the repatriated

station at. met in person i will oppose the amendment offered byau senator paul and oppose they r reauthorization of the patriot act of i would likeem to explain my remarks why. i voted for the patriot act inrn thehe year 2001. in fact there was only onegainst senator on the floor no longer serves who voted against it.we it was a moment of national crisis.straon we were told t then by the bush administration they needed newad authorities to make certain that america would be safe and nevers attacked again.en i want to salute senator patrick leahy as as well as his counterparts on both sides of the aisle who really work night and day to put together a g bipartisanoo version of this patriot act and had the good sense to include in and a sunset. we knew that we were riding a writing a law with high emotion over what had happened to our country. b we wanted to make sure it was a good loss but we made certain that it would need temporary ina nature for the most part and they would return it and take another look at it.patrt

i cannot vote for an extension, a long-term extension, thes of patriot act without additional n protections included for the constitutional rights of our american citizenry. it is worth taking a moment to p review the history. the patriot act was passed 10 ya years ago, almost 10 years ago while ground zero was still burning. congress responded and passed with overwhelming bipartisan vote. it was a unique moment in our history. but even then we were concerned enough to put a sunset and do our best to review it. cam to determine whether it went too far when it came to our freedoms. tha i voted for it but i soon realized that it gave too much power to government without enough judicial and acongss congressional oversight. two years after the patriot acts becamean law, i joined aucin bipartisan group of senators in introducing the safe act, legislation to reform they patriot act.advoca the safe act was supported by applicants from lefts and right from the aclu to the american conservative. union. t

for conservativehe republicans d democrats came together across the partisan divide, understanding americans can be both safe and free. we wanted to retain expandedprec powers of the patriot act in place reasonable limits to protect the constitutional rights. when he joined the senate in 2005, senator barack obama became a co-sponsor where safe act. here's what he said in a quoteel as ae senator. we don't have to settle for a hv pitcher that the sacrifices our liberties or our safety. we can have one that secures both. i agree with them senator obamas in 2006, the first time congress reauthorize the patriot act some reforms in a safe bet for included in the bill bill and i supported it. however many key protections from the safe act were not p included so there are still significant problems.n the fbi still permitted toy t obtain a john doe roving wiretae that does not identify the person or the phone that will bt wiretapped. in other words the fbi can obtain a wiretap without telling

a courthe who they want to wirep or where they want to wiretap. in garden variety criminal casea sneak and peek searches of the homeho without notifying the homeowner about the search until a later time. we now know that the vast majority of sneak and peekthatot searches take place in cases that don't involve terrorism inn any way.stra national security s or nsl is a form of administrative subpoena issued by the fbi.nd j we often hear nsl compared to grand jury subpoenas but unlike a grandy jury subpoena, nationaa security letter is issued without the approval of a grandn jury or even a prosecutor. recip unlike a grand jury subpoena, the recipient of an nsl isdisc subjected to a gag order at the fbi'son discretion. the patriot act also expanded the fbi's authority to issue.b nsl's are going nsl now allows the fbi to obtain sensitive,

personal information about innocent american citizens gunec includingor library records, medical records, gun records and phone records even when there is no connection whatsoever to a suspected terrorist orro spy. s the justice department's inspecto the standard quote can be easily satisfied. t this could lead expeditions that target innocent people. for years we have been told there's no reason to be concerned about this broad part of the fbi. in 2003 that attorney general ashcroft testified to our- committee that librarians raising concerns about the patriot act patriot act were quote,"h hysterics and i quote e department of justice has neither the staffing come the a time nor the inclination to monitor the reading habits ofm.i americans. but we now know the of ei has in fact issued national security letters to the library records of innocent people. for years we werehi told the ei was not accusing this power but-

in 2007 the justice department's own inspector general concluded the fbi was guilty of quote widespread andou serious misusef authority.co that failed to report these abuses to congress and the white house. the inspector general reported that the number of national security letter requests has increased exponentially from 8500 from before the patriot act to an average of 47,000 per year and even these numbers were significantly understated.ink i madam president they can be safe and free. i think itha is important that t measure that passed the senate judiciary committee judiciary committee should have been on the floor. included an amendment which i offered in other provisionsnder which i think on improvement under the current know before us. i will say one quick word aboutb the amendment i senator paul. i don't believe it is our nations best interest to exempt gun records from terroristdealiw investigations. for goodness sakes, when we are dealing with people, terrorists

using guns, searching the those records to make certain we know the source of those guns andd tt whether not there are any other threats is a reasonable thing to do. these should not be so sacred and sacrosanct that we don't have to hard questions when our nation security is at risk.gh i would agree with him but wecoc have to make certain there is a connection between the request for gun record information and s suspected terrorist or spy but to say these records cannot e.am under the patriot act i think goes to far that is why it posem a minute. madam president isith yield the floor.ch mam >> madam president? >> the senator fromea georgia i, recognized. >> mammon present i rise tous a speak init opposition of senator paul's amendment concerning splitist dishes activity reports or what is referred to as sars. this amendment s would prevent o department of treasury from requiring any financial institution to submit a suspicious activity report.ake

this amendment should become law it will effectively take away one of the government's main weapons in the battle against money laundering and othery financial crimes.et it will also negatively impact our efforts to protect and follow the flow of funds to and from the international terrorist. it is important to remember that stars are essentially tips from your party financial institutions concerning suspicious transactions.tc because law enforcement is not watching the financial transactions of every american on a daily basis, 24/7, they often have no idea that a persot is evening gauged in a financial crime until they receive a suspicious activity notification from a financial institution. in a sense, stars are not much different than the tips that las enforcement often receives from anonymousen sources. these tips or i leads can often form the basis for initiating

investigations that can be used toal neutralize criminal or terrorist activities. the the problem with this amendmentk is it would require the government to look into a crystal ball in order to figure out when they should request a sar. with this logic we should only allow law enforcement to act on an anonymous tip unless they asked for this have to ber reported first. doe't if a law enforcement or intelligence official doesn't give a tip about suspicious kw activity, how when the world are they going to know when it has occurred in the first place? --h the answer here is pretty simple. they will likely never know that it occurred until thecr criminal activity has occurred and maybe even it will go undetected. let's look for an example about the 9/11, hijackers. there were a minimum of 12 to 1c of those individuals who camehe into and out of the united u pid states united states over a period of time. money was transferred to and from those individuals over a

period of time. under the requirements was pre-patriot acts there was no suspicious activity detected but after the enactment of the patriot act, there would be reason now for any financial institution to suspect that thee potential for suspicious activity from those transfers of money. that is exactly why weth did wht what we did in the patriot act and that is one of the reasons why we have not seen a subsequent direct attack on u.se soil from individuals who have been in the united states and have received money through transfers or whatever it may bea and let's don't forget that section 215 business records cannot he obtained in an arbitrary manner. there haso to be first of all a determination that there is some international connection between thioe individual who is account has been deemed suspicious by the financial institution and a

also there has to be some wallow one procedure to determine thatn there is reason for the government to get ahold of thefa financial records of this m individual. in my mind this amendment would put law-enforcement and i'm unra acceptable and unreasonable position. at the same time we are asking them to pursue swindlers and money launderers oressi aggressively. we need to preserve the.o requirement that financial institutions report suspicious activities. we need to to follow up on the sleeves not just from a criminal law enforcement perspective butt from a national security perspective as well. let me just say that since 9/11, i've been involved with the intelligence committee all of those years. we doho expensive oversight of this particular provision in the patriot act as well as other provisions and we have hearings on this from time to time.nduire we require the law enforcementoe

officials to come in and talk to us about what they are doing. and come to my knowledge there has never been one complaint or abuse that has been shown from pr the use of this particular provision. so madam chairman, madamxact president this particular provision is working exactly the way that we intended it to work forit is a valuable tool our lawur enforcement. let me. >> also about amendment number 363 which senator paul's t amendment. simply make it more difficult for national security investigators to prevent an act of terrorism inside the united states. the amendment would prohibit the use of a fisa business records o court order to obtain firearms records in the possession of am, licensed firearms supporter, manufacturer or dealer. instead, national security thr investigators could only obtain such records through a federalgd grand jury subpoena during theea

course of a criminalrrant i investigation or with a search warrant issued by a federal shog magistrate upon a showing of aai reasonable cause to believe that a violation of federal firearms laws has occurred. that might not always be possible. for example, before major nidal hasan began his deadly assaults against military civilian personnel at ft. hood texas in novembernn of 2009 there was nol evidence that he violated any criminal or federal firearms feb laws.n f.i. thus the federal bureau of fedal investigation on tidally team to obtain information about the sans's purchase of a firearm used in the attack. as we have since learnedencenf however, there was likely enough intelligence information to open a preliminary investigation on a hasan because of his contact with a known al qaeda member ini yemen and to seek a section 215 r information about his

gun purchases. i don't understand why we would take the stool away from national security investigators, especially here again where there is then no indication of o any abuse of this authority with respect to firearms or other sensitive records. congress has conducted extensive oversight of the patriot and fisa authorities and their beene no reports of any widespread abuse or misuse and no reports that the government has ever used these authorities to violate second amendment rightsn moreover their protections detailed in section 215 and sure that second amendment rights arr fully fully respected in and they in the gives of this authority. unlike in criminaleder investigations were a federal grand jury may issue a subpoena for firearmsfo records, and a request for records under section 215 must first be approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. as with all other section 215 records, the court must find

that such records are relevant when authorized in national security investigations. this means that the fbi cannot use this authority in a domestic terrorism investigation, nor can the fbi randomly decide to see whether an ordinary citizen are even a vocal advocate of the second amendment owns a firearmt there are two additional oversight safeguards that t are5 built into the section 215 rue process.st f furs, each request for sensitive records by the of the eye can only be approved by one of three high level of aei officials, the director, the deputy director or the executive assistant director for national security.fic second, there are also specific reporting requirements thatsi ao designed to keep congressum informed about the number ofypes orders issued for these types of sensitive records.he one of the big lessons we learned after the 9/11 terrorisl

attacks was simply needed to acs make sure that national security investigators have access toave investigative tools similar to those that have long been available to law enforcement. section 215 of the patriot patriot act addresses that need. it provides an alternative way to obtain business records, includingin firearms records in situations where there may be a national security threat. but the idea of a criminal investigation or aee violation. i've been a long and strongsuppr supporter of the second amendment.th thereat is nobody in this body d that has a better voting record on the second amendment than i do. probably nobody here allen says many guns as i own, but i use them for legal and lawfulth purposes. i work with the national rifle association and any citizen groups group to make sure that d neither this law or any federal law is misused to infringe on second amendment rights of anysr

law-abiding citizen. but this particular amendmentite would harm legitimate national security investigations. madam president i would like to take one minute to readte a leth that i received from chris cox who is the executive director of dear senator chambliss thank you thing about the national right of association table amendment 363 to two the patriot act. the nra takes a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners rights againsters' government abuse.ast over the past three decades, we fought successfully to block unnecessary and intrusive obtsi compilation of firearms related records by several federal agencies and will continue to protect the privacy of our members and all american gun a owners.mendme while well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises that potential problems for gun owners. in that it encourages the cu government to use provisions and

current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause warrant ord. judicial oversight of any kind.n based on.r these concerns and te fact that in our aid is not ordinarilyn take positions on procedural votes, we have no position on a motion to tablet amendment number 363. so madam president for those, mm reasons, i intend to p vote against both of these two amendments and while its appreciate the intent and the emotion with which my friend t senator paul comes to this court to advocate, we need to make sure that we get these immediatelyo place so that we have no gap in the or coverage available to our intelligence community and that we continue to give them the t tools they need to protect america and to protect americans.

in a 5-3 ruling the supreme court today said arizona and other states can revoke the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. the ruling is a defeat for the u.s. chamber of commerce and the obama administration who argue that immigration law is a federal matter. justice elena kagan recused herself and did not take part in the oral argument or decision in this case. here is the hour-long oral argument. >> case 09115, chamber of

commerce v. whiting. mr. phillips. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may it please the court? in 1986th congress converted what had been before that time a merely peripheral concern of immigration policy that is how to regulate authorization and converted it into a core concern of immigration policy by the passage of the immigration reform and control act. this court has characterized the change in legislation as providing a comprehensive scheme for dealing with those issues and that characterization is obviously apt because congress provided for an exhaustive and exclusively federal method of bringing to the attention of federal authorities row bums and worker authorization, the method by which those matter should be investigated, the method by which they should be adjudicated all of which are controlled as a matter of federal exclusive federal activity and indeed the ultimate judicial review. this goes exclusively to the federal courts of appeals.

sanctioning provisions are very explicit and they are very clear and they are very balanced. and for a good reason. congress realized in this context that if you over in force in one direction, that is if you try to deter the hiring of unauthorized workers, you run a very serious risk of causing employers to err on the side of not hiring others who are in fact authorized but authorize but who may fall into protective glasses. so congress very carefully calibrated the penalties on both sides so that the employer essentially would play it straight down the middle and hired the best people for the job under these circumstances while of course complying if at all possible with federal requirements. so it is against that. >> why is that a problem if, as a federal statute requires it and the state statutes require, you have to show an intent to hire an unauthorized worker? isn't that what the state

statutes here require? >> will the state statute has two components in one is knowing and one is intent. but i don't see. >> so why is that a problem for the business? so long as he does not intentionally hire an unauthorized worker. >> well i think part of the problem is that it is never 100% clear precisely who is and who is not unauthorized worker and i think what congress said was i am not going to deal with this problem in the kind of granular way you are looking at its justice scalia which is specifically each of the individual employment decisions. you want to look at the generality of situations and realize that if you put on one side of the scale what arizona has done here which is to say you can essentially have the death penalty and completely eliminate the businesses right to exist in on the other side of the scale, 250-dollar fine, it would be pretty remarkable to say well, i am going to hide behind the intent of knowing

requirements and instead simply avoid if at all possible the risk of arizona's sanctions being in -- impose. >> i think arizona would answer that is the only option the federal government leftist. i will say we might've used reticulated penalties or and force the federal law ourselves. they for bad that but they did allow us to enforce the law, immigration law through licensing so it essentially comes down to the licensing issue. >> it does ultimately come down to the true licensing laws, and that part, the fundamental problem obviously with arizona's scheme here is that this is not a licensing law. this is a worker authorization and sanctioning lop. >> when i picked up this brief and looked at this case i said licensing is a defined term.

i will -- but it really is in. your brief indicates you started with dictionary, fair enough. indicate what federal licensing laws are but i see no limitation with the state can decide is a license. in a jurisprudential principle. >> justice kennedy the better way to try to grapple with the meaning of a licensing law or whether not can be construed broadly to allow the statewide authority to engage in supplemental enforcement in this. we are narrowly in order to say what really ought to happen in this context is if you deal with the situation where the federal government has enacted, i am sorry, it's enforce a provision and an imposed a penalty through the federal scheme, that then as a supplement to that, the state doesn't that have the authority to add something over and above what the federal government has done. but it seems to me quite remarkable to think that congress intended through a

parenthetical licensing laws to allow the state to adopt an entire alternative shadow enforcement mechanism, not administrative decision-making process, a completely state run operation and even at the end, the sanction is not imposed ultimately in effect by any regulating entity. >> only because nobody would think that with this scheme in place the federal government would not enforce it. of course no one would have expected that. but what arizona says has occurred here is that the scheme in place has not been enforced in arizona and other states are in serious trouble and in chile and for other reasons because of unrestrained immigration. and therefore, they have to take this very massive -- agreed to step is massive and one would not expected to occur under this statute, but expectations change when the federal government has

simply not enforce the immigration restrictions. >> justice scalia i understand the point and understand the reason for what arizona did what he did but the problem is the statute was enacted in 1986 and that is when preemption standards were put in place in the notion if you look at the way the structure of the statute in this and responds to justice kennedy's -- first, congress said very specifically the immigration law should be enforced uniformly, which says there shouldn't be 40,000 different localities offering up their view of licensing and the additional 50 states. second of all, and this part i think is particularly telling in terms of the massive state scheme that has been adopted which is that, under section section 1324ab5 which is in 134a of the appendix, congress specifically outlaws the use of

the i-9 form and in some ways this goes to your question justice scalia because he would be inconceivable that the state can in fact enforce knowing and intentional decision-making without having access to the i-9 form. >> could i ask you this question to get back to the issue whether this is a licensing law? licensing is not an unknown term. states and municipalities issue all sorts of licenses. for example, i think you are the district of columbia every business has to have a general business license. isn't that right? if the district of columbia werewhere, after having at it this requirement some years ago, were to pass an ordinance saying, and if you knowingly hire an illegal alien your general business license can be forfeited, would that ceased to be a licensing law? >> well, i think the answer to that specific hypothetical is

that is still not a licensing law because it doesn't tie the grant of a license to the replication powers. i think congress, think congress means for the state to adopt something more specific than that although i do think. >> the same question, why is it suddenly not a license, because the state imposes an additional condition where it was a license before? >> i think the question is whether it is a licensing law whether the meaning of congress intended. the reality is justice alito, there is no common definition of license and various state's. >> actually there is. it seems to me when i read this is how does a little familiar and i think whoever wrote it in arizona copied out of the administration proceeded back. you read the definition of license and they administrative procedure act this is awfully close. >> i understand and the problem is the federal law doesn't talk

about actions with respect to license. it talks about licensing laws. >> that's right. at might've meant something different. congress might have but i read the seiu and we thought that was pretty interesting. is that something you adopt? i mean what do you think congress did mean and what evidence is there if they didn't mean the apa definition what evidence is there for that? >> the seiu brief does a good job of explaining the particular focus of congress obviously on agricultural workers protection act and in particular, which has tremendous significance in terms of narrowing the state's authority because obviously in their conforming amendments --. >> he it could have named that if it is all that men. could've named that particular license and scheme is if that is all it meant that it did not name it. is said licensing in general. what did intend to add to that?

barrooms licenses? beauticians licenses? how does this have anything to do with immigration laws? >> i think what congress actually had in mind and what is the most natural reading of the licensing laws a fairly common situation where somebody violates federal law usually on the criminal side in the state licensing entity finds out about it, a conviction that of a federal crime and says wait a second, we don't want people have licenses under the circumstances and therefore. >> that is exactly what they are saying. i think it is very common to talk about authority to do business within a state. as a license. a license to do business in so many states. is a common expression. now, maybe you will persuade me otherwise but i have no doubt that insofar as this law limits the authority to do business within the state, it is a licensing law.

it is a little harder extending licensing to formation of a corporation, but when you issue a corporation chart, you really do two things. you create the corporation and enable the limitation of liability that creates and secondly, you authorize that new creature to do business within your state. so at least half of that corporation law is licensing it seems to me. now, if that is what i think. >> justice scalia think actually if you just received the articles of incorporation that doesn't actually in all states necessarily give you the opportunity to do business. it just simply gives you the right to exist and you may very well need to get a separate document in order to actually set up a business. >> but you did not need the type of document an out-of-state corporation meets. >> that's true. that's true but the reality is nobody i think in common use of

the term thinks of articles of incorporation of a charter, partnership or any of those as documents as licensing which it just --. >> could i, could i just focus on questioning because we keep talking about whether the apa type this is what congress intended or not. ..

the revoke the right to do business. what you're talking about is a conflict in the adjudication of that issue. so, you know, how they define license or not is irrelevant to me. walk me through what expressly preempt that education for what preempt state agitation right. for me that is what the center of the question is. >> there are three pieces of evidence that respond. first is congress in section 115

of the statute specifically says enforcement should be uniform which suggests this ought to be exclusively a federal investigation and at adjudication process. the point i was making earlier about the i-9 for those cannot be used -- >> what does that mean -- >> i'm sorry? >> what does that mean, enforcement -- >> the enforcement of the law should be uniform, stated that as a overarching principle. >> what is the assumed situation with respect to all federal? >> i think it depends on the circumstance. i can't imagine this -- remember we are talking about immigration policy and immigration law and in general you would expect that to be pretty much uniform but it's decided there are some elements that were not in congress and simply reinforcing the basic notion that

enforcement of to be uniform. estimate does it mean this isn't going to be completely uniform? but one jurisdiction may take the position that a restaurant that employees be legal aliens may lose its restaurant license to operate and another may take a different position so it's not going to be the same. >> i think that's why it's terribly important to narrow as much as possible and it is consistent with the congressional intent to get full sanctions by the federal government is an add-on in the licensing site is an antiyour regime. >> but this isn't the uniformity of sanctions as the court permitted the licensing. >> let's go back to my question of agitation. what you are saying is what is specifically pre-empted is the right to add to dictate whether someone has hired undocumented aliens, correct?

>> yes, justice sotomayor. and the conforming amendments with respect to the agricultural workers protection act is a situation where the department of labour which used to engage in the end to the kitchen as well was divested in that authority. it's quite unlikely congressman to give that authority to the states and take it -- >> the problem and the adverse and adjudication let me open the federal question presented if a company claimed that it was deprived of the ability to do business because of a mistaken interpretation and the federal law that the person it hired was not an unauthorized person. >> skilling it has an independent state law basis for the actions that it takes so that would not arise under federal law. >> dozen the basis refer to the federal law? >> it attracts it but it doesn't

incorporate it. it's the same standard but it's a matter of state law. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, chief justice. nearly a quarter-century ago congress have sanctions central not peripheral to the policy immigration law, congress broadly swept away state and local law pre-empting any sanction on those who employ an unauthorized aliens with the exception being a mere parenthetical for licensing and similar law. >> we had a little discussion about what licensing laws our but we haven't talked at all about the last two, the similar law. it seems to me that whatever legal room or ambiguity day year

may be saying this is a license or not conagra's said not just licensing law that licensing and similar. >> let me tell you this, chief justice what we think a licensing law is and then deal with a similar question we think a licensing law as congress defined was the traditional licensing laws that were in place in 1986. those were largely farm labor contract laws. they were aimed to do business and they had a few essential characteristics in those laws. islamic business since had to have licensing laws across the board, right? you couldn't set up electrical contracting business if you were not licensed to do business or met the requirements for a lot electrician -- it wasn't agricultural. >> absolutely but i think that this licensing while that looks different from the ones you're referring to were the farm labor contract once for a number of reasons. the first is licensing walls

issue licenses genuinely about the issuance of license is not simply ones and which licenses are revoked. second, once in which the issuance of the license the criteria for the issuance is the same as the criteria for the replication because -- >> are you saying and i think of the petitioners here may have been saying this as well that if you have a licensing law that permits the revocation of the license it is not a licensing law. >> if you do this your license will be revoked does that remain a licensing law? >> the licensing laws share a number of characteristics and we can debate whether subtracting one or another of those characteristics -- >> therefore if you can revoke a license -- >> because congress wanted to preserve the state's traditional

power which were about to do business and we're arizona -- >> once you are in you can do whatever you like. you can pass it on their fitness when you issue the license but once it's issued they can do whatever they like. >> that is a criteria. for issuance and revocation -- >> so that raises the question why does it make any difference if the revocation provision is contained in the marrow licensing law or if there's a general state law that says all licenses that are issued may be revoked. >> what congress is trying to do is preserve the state look devotees traditional power for fitness to do business and for the business to do business is not the issue in the particular wall is that they will let businesses operate. they will license them without any care whatsoever as to history is violating the particular provision. >> so arizona should just amend all its licensing walls to

require with the amount required when the license is issued and to see in each specific licensing will that it can be revoked on the same ground? >> even if the city you have to renew your license every year or every six months? >> that is correct. that is itself a don't think is relevant to whether the licensing law -- the other hallmarks are the of discretionary education and it's not mandatory that is it is genuinely aimed at the qualifications to do business. >> you don't disagree with or not a company hires illegal workers is related to the lesser ability to do business or qualifications? >> a state can certainly make that part of its business law. berzon hasn't done that and we know that because the criteria for issuance of the license are entirely divorced from the

criteria or the revocation meant if arizonan really believes mr. chief justice what you're saying which is that it's relevant to the violation as relevant to whether they can do business or not, they allow every single one of these entities to get the license. >> your argument sounds to me like look at the law and see what its purpose is. if the purpose is to regulate undocumented aliens, then it struck down. if it happens to put a provision in its licensing law then it's okay. >> justice sotomayor i'm saying look at the face of the statute and c. -- >> only about if you hire undocumented aliens your license is revoked. >> that looks like a punishment statute. there are two boxes -- >> the savings clause six that's okay, criminal or civil sanctions other than through

licensing and similar law. >> this is not a licensing law. there are two boxes in 1986. one is the traditional business law and the other -- >> if we disagree with you, could you answer the question i posed to your adversary which is what makes the at adjudication of the status preemptive? >> absolutely. the federal lead to vacation, state and to the kitchen of a federal violation is expressly pre-empted as well as for three reasons. the first is that congress in developing a comprehensive scheme set out a series of procedures, federal and adjudication, all sorts of different regulations and what arizona does is what 40,000 different localities can do if this law is -- >> at this time the statute was

passed there were many state laws that ed adjudicated revocation of licenses. perhaps not many had addressed the issue of high gearing undocumented aliens. but many state laws existed the independently at adjudicated revocations. what in the legislative history or in the words of the statute should the congress intended in any way to limit the said adjudications. >> without the parenthetical savings clause that arizonan like laws would be swept away in the sanctions these are sanctions imposed so the question is whether the licensing law saves that come and i think the state education the answer to that is no because to read the statute that way is to permit all of those states to have their own a small and it's undoubtedly the case conagra's wanted to sweep away the state statutes that were in place that

imposed sanctions on employers. estimate to make sure we understand your approach you're seeing in arizona had a law saying you had to have a license to do business and then it became aware of a problem it wasn't aware of before. if found out a lot of employers were employing child labor and they did know they would do that and they say we can revoke your license if you're determined to have employed child labor but that would not be okay? and you can't employ child labor. >> the answer depends what congress is trying to get at and we know what congress is trying to get out with state enforcement of the immigration law that broadly slipped away and they said fer i-9 provision which president ronald reagan described as the keystone of the act, the documents can't be used in any procedure to

>> why isn't that still licensing? >> if it has had adjudication it is swept away by the first part of the h-2 statute which say the provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing similar -- >> in the child labor example why isn't that an addition to a regulatory licensing scheme? >> defender stand, i may not understand the hypothetical but the word provisions refers to the entire statute including federal enforcement of the immigration law few years to mchugh tried earlier to talk about the two boxes and said something would be pre-empted by the first clause.

anything, civil and criminal sanctions are allowed if they are imposed through licensing. there are not to boxes to rid the state can do what is in the first part so long as it doesn't treat licensing or similar law. >> our position is this is not a licensing law because it doesn't bear any of the licensing law. >> is it similar to a licensing law? >> i don't think so, congress had when they used similar to sidestep the semantic with something is a certificate as some of the farm labor contract statute's use or a license. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may i please the court. for the power states traditionally have the authority to regulate the conduct of an employer is within their jurisdiction to determine what

conduct warrants issuance of a state license and would conduct justifies suspending or revoking such a license and also conagra's pre-empted some of our traditional authorities in 1986 it preserves significant state authority through the savings clause that permits a state to impose sanctions through licensing and similar law. >> how do you add to the anomaly of the arizona cannot impose a fine even in a modest amount but it can revoke someone's license to do business? >> your honor we think looking said the savings we don't view it as an anomaly. the structure established is one that the state authorities determined by the nature of the sanctions we choose to impose. we don't have the authority --

the preserved our authority to impose the sanctions. >> underlining the question is why would congress want to do that >> i think it makes sense, your honor because in terms of licensing it provides some accountability because we are the entities that established policy for our licensees and we are the ones accountable for whether that business remains in business or whether we are taking it away from them that the states would have to resort to such massive measures. and it probably wouldn't have if it hadn't been uniformly enforced. you didn't have any notion of building this sort of thing in 1986, did you? >> certainly -- >> maybe congress wasn't worried about it because it seemed unlikely anything like that

would occur. >> but i think also congress is recognizing what this court recognized was that unauthorized employment has significant local consequences so they did not want to fully pre-empts state law. they wanted to preserve -- >> anomaly seems to me to be vested in the federal lacked as was the first point the chambermaid that it's a fairly careful balance. there's a group of people in arizona they may look as if they come from mexico or speak with a hispanic accent and you're not certain whether the in fact re illegal or legal. think of that category. congress passed a statute that gives the employer just as much incentive to verify so there is no discrimination has to dismiss so there's no illegal hiring. it's absolutely balanced. a thousand dollar fine for the one and for the other.

arizona comes along and says if you discriminate to know what happens? nothing. but if you on your an illegal immigrant your business is dead. that's just one thing they do. how can you reconcile to prevent discrimination against people because of their appearance or accent how do you reconcile that with arizona law? if you're a businessman and every senator under that law is to call close questions against hiring this person under the federal law every incentive is to look at it carefully. >> your honor, a couple of points. how vlore works, we do have a prohibition against investigating any complaints based solely on race so if we get a complaint that says those people look mexican or hispanic that isn't investigated of the arizona law. we also have criminal penalties of frivolous complaints. beyond that, we have the added

protection for employers to prevent the hiring of unauthorized aliens so if they use e-verify and are in good faith with compliance through the process they have no risk of exposure under the arizona law and this is true under the federal law. >> when the federal law says that the i9 can be used for no purpose other of and the federal lead adjudication of whether a violation has occurred or not doesn't it frustrate that flaw to have the state's rate is believed to -- raise the defense that forces someone to disclose something the federal law protects? this is a vicious circle. federal law says you can't do -- you can't use it for any purpose other than the federal land adjudication. now you are creating a defense that says you have to supply

something that the federal law otherwise protected from disclosure. >> we don't think that the federal law prohibits the use, and employers use of the i-9 in a state proceeding but these can be used under the federal or in the state but beyond that if at some point in an actual enforcement action the was determined federal law did have that impact they would still have the defense available to them they would just have to prove it. >> doesn't it frustrate federal law when the federal law says that i-9 can be used for no purpose other than the federal and adjudication of the status of the employees? >> it may not be used for enforcement of the chapter, and we believe that a state enforcement action under the authority for preserving sanctions to licensing and

similar law would fall within that so we think they should be able to use that. >> is there a difference between saying it may not be used for any purpose other than enforcement of the chapter and other provisions of federal law on the one hand and on the other hand it may not be used for any purpose other than in a federal proceeding? the enforcement could certainly be used in a federal proceeding by the employer. would that then be used for the enforcement of the federal law? i wouldn't think so. >> that's true, your honor. >> to i fought under the federal law that if the employee says here's my social security card, here's the driver's license, the employer looks at that and is home free. is that right? but under your law, under arizona law he is not home free,

and moreover he's not home free he still could be prosecuted is that right or not? >> that's not right. >> if he shows the driver's license under the arizona law, if it shows a driver's license and social security card or the employer looks at it he cannot be prosecuted. yes or no? >> we would need the evidence that the person knowingly employed the unauthorized -- does it create some kind of presumption that he's not home free? >> the requirements and there is on a law and federal law are the same imposing the new obligations. >> in his humphrey? >> i'm trying to understand media it's not enough time to explain it but i felt the federal law required the kerlikowske business, whatever that review is. and i was worried about the e3 view because it seemed to me in 20% of the cases where the

notice is this guy is not authorized we don't have a record that he's offered by some 20% are wrong and he is authorized to work so the impleader who follows that is really going to fire 20% of the people who will be absolutely entitled to work. so i would like you to address those. >> let me walk through how it works to see if this addresses the concerns. arizona doesn't change anything in terms of the use of the i-9. we've retain the same defense in the federal law for which the compliance with the i-9. we require using the e-verify of the we don't impose a sanction on the employer if they don't use -- >> you claim that e-verify because this is a federal resources and the federal government has said we want this to be voluntary.

how can arizonan take a federal resource which the federal government says is voluntary acceptance certain circumstances and turn it into something that's mandatory to make it is answered by looking at the conflict preemption analysts is that congress didn't address the goal of the states with regard to e-verified. >> arizona wants to use a federal resource, the fed makes it available and can use it voluntarily but not mandatory how can arizona said the rules on the use of the federal resource? >> your honor, as long as it's not a burden to the objective of conagra's we think that we can

require employers in our jurisdiction to use e-verify. >> do you make it mandatory? >> eberstadt it says you shall use e-verify. we don't impose a penalty against employers who fail to use it but the consequences -- >> you don't get the safe harbor. >> you don't get the safe harbor under the e-verify. we did after the lawsuit was fired some additional requirements similar to what they have in the federal system where you can't get state contracts -- >> about the mechanism that the congress said would be a pilot program that is optional and you're making it mandatory. it seems to me that is almost a classic example of a state doing something that is inconsistent with the federal requirement. >> we look at the test for the conflict preemption in terms of does it make it impossible to comply with federal law now and our interfering with congress, the federal government ability

to achieve its goals, and the goal in developing the e-verify is to have a more effective verification system. >> if they fail to do it and they cannot receive any quote, grand loan or performance hundreds. that's what the law says isn't it? the answer to justice scalia's's question is yes, there is that penalty. it isn't simply authority. >> there is no penalty in terms of -- >> any grant loaned or performance based incentive, is the right? >> that's true under the current law. >> as the lawsuit challenged that? >> it does not, your honor. >> the only sanction is you lose the safe harbor if that is the sanction. >> in the interest of justice breyer's earlier question that in fact relying on the i-9 does not provide a safe harbor

because under the e-verify system you can't just rely on the forms and statutes to rely on the e-verify. >> your honor, we have the same model none of the federal law so federal law has a defense for employers who in good faith all the i-9 so does the state law to make the seem to be the scene on this point but i don't understand how these two provisions fit together when e-verified used. suppose an employer -- first thing he does is received the forms from the employee for the process and the reason as reasonably seem to be authentic so that employer has good faith provided under by the process under both federal law and state law. but under both federal and state law the employer either must or may also use the e verification system. the impleader gets back in the notice of the non-authorization.

but that is supposedly the rebel presumption under both systems that the employee is not authorized to work. how does that fit to get there if you have a complete defense for having used the i-9 process in good faith, the whole e verification process seems to be irrelevant under both federal law and state law to understand how they fit together. >> justice alito we haven't referenced that in the practical replication, and i'm not aware of them reaching that point under the federal system either but because it does seem at some point if the system should work that if you have used the i-9 and then on confirmation in to that employee is not authorized and it seems like it should carry great weight, but on the applied basis i'm not sure how that plays out in an actual enforcement action.

>> i wasn't quite sure what she meant for the emphasis that this statute was being evaluated on its face and that as applied particular challenges might arise. how would that work if we determine this is not pre-empted? on its face how would it as a plight challenge come about. >> i think, your honor, if we perhaps in terms of for the outer limits of our definition of license and they are saying that we are outside of the definition of licensing and similar law in a particular case that would be as a plight type of challenge i think some of the i-9 concerns are perhaps more appropriately resolved in a murder case where that has arisen on and as a point basis and concern about some of the

implementation questions on the legal challenge. but for the most part i think the general framework of our statute is appropriate for this challenge. >> you think after this case we can look forward to the case one by one or all the various types of licenses? and they wouldn't have been resolved by this case? really wasting our time here aren't we? [laughter] >> my hope is we get sufficient -- >> wouldn't it be easier of that justice scalia's concern to take the journal's position that if you're adjudicating good faith or intent differently he in any way from the federal government that its pre-empted? isn't that what waiting for the as applied challenge means, whether or not you are putting the different requirements on proving good faith?

>> no, your honor, and because i was trying to give some of examples of the kind of things that may come up as a practical matter but i think we can get the guidance from this and i hope we can proceed. >> will then let me ask a question directly. if there is on us system does not permit an employer to rely on non-suspect documents with the i-9 documents that are permitted employers to rely on the arizonan systems is no, you can't rely on those is that preemptive or not? you can't rely on online where the arizonan system says the documents or the arizonan system says you can't hire someone who hasn't been approved under the e verification system.

is that preemptive? >> i think those will be problems. we need to be consistent with the structure and obligations. >> are you conceding that any verification from the federal standards for criminal and civil liability is automatically precluded? as i read the exception it's an exception for state licensing and similar all and it doesn't say so long as the licensing and similar law go no further than what the federal government has done we often allow states to impose regulatory requirements that go beyond the regulatory requirements with the federal government has imposed and that is not automatically considered to be pre-empted. so why are you conceding that arizonan cannot go with the

federal government says. >> i think what congress preserved was our ability to impose sanctions including the suspension or revocation of the update law but i do think that they establish a uniform national standard. i don't think for example establish a strict liability offense in arizona because we have to have a requirement as the have and federal law. >> what i was looking at specifically is the federal law says if you look at the driver's license and social security card, those are on nine documents, then the employer has established an affirmative defense and has not violated the law. that's what it says in the oversight, okay? that's the federal law. arizona law that i was reading, maybe there's another place i should read, says on determining whether it is an unauthorized the courts consider the federal government determination it creates a rebuttable presumption that means it might be rebutted

so i see a difference there and the reason that that's relevant is because my first question if you are an employer would prior to your all its 5050. i'd better verified because if i am discriminating and it's not that hard to just look the driver's license and i'm home free and the social security card, and if i hire an illegal immigrant the same both ways. your law, employers, look at that driver's license and social security, you are not home free. employer, if it turns out that you've been hiring of illegal immigrant and who is not an american, your business is finished. what happens if i discriminate under our law? nothing. now, that is the original point they made. that's why i brought up the question of different standards and i want to be absolutely

clear what you're in answer to that is. >> i'm hoping i'm being clear justice breyer. we have the same standard in federal law, the same defense. >> where is it in the statute because what i read were the words rebuttable presumption and i might be reading the wrong words so tell me where it is. >> let me get to it and explain the presumption law while i find the specific statutory sites. >> what is the appendix -- it is complied in good faith with requirements of 1834 establishment of the affirmative defense etc. so that's the provision that provides the defense. the rebuttable presumption issue and this is how that comes into play, we have to in bringing the enforcement action rely to the states making a case, rely on information from the federal government regarding whether

someone is authorized or unauthorized. we bring the action in the state court if we of the verifications' on the federal government that person is unauthorized we have additional information that we've was published the requirements and we bring an action said the employer has an opportunity to rebut the evidence that we've presented in the state court proceeding. it may be that person doesn't work for us and some other type of evidence of that is the rule of that presumption, your honor. >> thank you. >> certainly. >> in the prior year after vacation. >> so you know i interpret your e answer as confirming the implication of justice breyer's question that there's a very substantial difference in federal and state law on this point. you told about what lawsuits are about if you are home free

driver's license social security under federal law it or not under state law that is a difference. >> and the standards are the same and in the subsection that we of the affirmative defense. >> so you think that you are in the state will? >> to the extent that you should be home free and have the benefit of that good faith -- >> it's an affirmative defense under both. >> yes, your honor. >> deneen point -- i will check that. i think maybe i was mistaken perhaps looking at the other section but then we are still stuck with this enormous discrepancy. i'm characterizing it as an enormous, but it seems like it's even on discrimination versus under the federal law it's not even your business out to lunch gone. >> i think, your honor, that is the natural consequence of the savings clause that congress --

>> i did look at the legislative history, and when you look at that paragraph on page 39 of the red green it seems to me that that paragraph says that what it means this is precisely what it is. it says the first thing it says is look if you are found to have violated this supposed somebody's been found to have violated the sanctions provision in the federal legislation it's been found by the federal government than with the state does it can revoke his license. okay, that's one thing. the second thing it says it doesn't want to preempt fitness to do business law. such as the state farm contract law is or forestry laws in other words it's some precise set of licenses and that's why this licensing was there and the very

next part of this federal law are conforming amendments and those conforming amendments apply the department of government concerned with maintaining state, farm, labor contract law. now i grant you have to go beyond the text like some of us do because we get enlightenment coming and going beyond that text, it seems to me we should follow with the house report says. what is your response to that? >> of course we would focus on the text where the congress could have -- >> they said i got a broad licensing but let's deal with the part where you look at their explanation as to why they put those words there. >> first of farm labour contractor is an example of the type of licensing provisions that existed at this time that address that. so that is not an all inclusive universe of sanctions of the

licensing law that might be subject to this. they also don't specifically say there has to be a education at the voice has been determined without specifying who is making that determination in this specifically refers to state and local process these that provide for the revocation of states licenses the board and then there's the following sentence that says further we don't disrupt all such as these forestry and other fitness to do business. we are this is a state standard if you engage in misconduct that knowingly employing and authorize aliens we are going to have the ability to take the action against of the license we had given you to do business in our jurisdiction so it fits within that last sentence of the

continuum. >> if you have documents of social security, driver's license. >> you also require the e-verify, the e-verify modification i-9, how do those -- >> the work of our system, your honor as they do under the federal law and you get a rebuttal presumption in your favor a few use e-verify, the affirmative defense if you use i-9 and others that caution in good faith use of the i-9 system we have examples, for example if an employer is terminated because they are authorized and show up with a different name and different papers two weeks later he won't be able to establish your good faith, so you're home free but subject to the good faith limitation.

but we do incorporate the same obligations that exist under federal law. i wanted to address the movement we think that we are doing in those amendments is simply dividing responsibility at the federal level but in the department of labor and their process that preexisting and what they were establishing and said we are not going to have these determinations with the farm labour contractor has and played an alien through the process we are going to instead use the established process, but importantly with the congress did not change in the agricultural worker regulation was the provision that addresses the state law. this is before and after that those laws, the federal law only supplement the authority of the state's and that means that they preserved all the state authority they had in the area of the farm labor contractors

and that i think is reinforced by the legislative history that begins and reinforces and preserves. >> this is an area that has been included in the mainstream of the state police power. we acknowledge congress has the authority to preempt in terms of our ability to impose sanctions and licensing and similar law and we are doing so by establishing this provides the revocation of the state licenses. it's an important part of the balance that the congress struck when it enacted by addressing what the state authority would exist after the congressional enactment. >> we think the court properly determined the scope of that provision and unless there are further questions i think you for your attention this morning.

>> thank you, counsel. mr. lipscomb you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may i please the court. i want to begin where justice sotomayor pointed me through before and that is the question of whether or not there is a basis for allowing the states to independently investigate and independently and to keep these matters, and what is the evidence the congress did not intend that such as justice breyer quoted from the house report recognizing not as freddie accept that but it seems to articulate a very common sense limitation that says you have to have a federal end to vacation in the first instance and once you've got that in the state is allowed to add that sanction. that principle seems to me is reinforced by the limitation on what you can use the i-9 four. it seems to me quite clear what the congress envisioned in 1986 when it adopted this is an

exclusively federal enforcement scheme including the adjudicatory process and it is only in that context that you are allowed to use the i-9 and the notion that the state could adopt a standard of intentional or knowingly not being able to have the materials available will be flatly at odds with each other and therefore it can't be the congress intended men of those circumstances to allow these matters to be and adjudicated in that particular fashion. >> what can the state do that will be complementary rather than conflicting? >> it seems to me the easiest and another is what arizona does but the easiest is if an employer's convicted of violating in a criminal sanction and she happens to be a barber and the state licensing law says if you're convicted of a federal crime to you lose your license is available to the state and

under those circumstances is the what congress had in mind to issue to show cause why that particular person shouldn't have the license revoked and then go -- >> by a federal government that hasn't gone after many convictions. >> i don't think preemption can be a moving target. you have to decide on the basis of congress have in front of it in 1986 it would remember congress was balancing three at least very difficult problems. minimizing burdens on the employers, minimizing the discrimination of people who are permitted to be hired and affording hiring people who are not permitted to do so and how you properly reconcile that is very difficult but one thing that seems to be clear is that was a twin s. con. res. 70 mentally to itself and the federal government to sort out and not to give the states the opportunity to come in with the did and one last word about

e-verify -- >> you're just kind of plinking over the savings cause. that's not the real reservation by congress the power to itself. islamic if you interpret the savings clause as i do it truly is a supplement to federal and adjudication it's a very narrow limitation on that basis because at that point you already invoke the entirety of the federal scheme and it doesn't modify the balance on those issues, your honor. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted.

the president's nominee for u.s. ambassador to china today promised to privatize the human rights intellectual property, currency and security issues if confirmed by the senate. commerce secretary gary locke would be the first chinese-american to serve as the top u.s. diplomat in beijing. previously, he served two terms as the governor of washington state. she testified at a senate foreign relations committee confirmation hearing for about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversations]

>> of a hearing will come to order. we are really delighted today to welcome our secretary of commerce, former governor state of washington and a very good friend, gary locke, who has been nominated by the president to be our ambassador to the people's republic of china and welcome mr. secretary. we are happy to have you and excited about this appointment and delighted also to welcome the secretaries family, just let madeleine who's 14-years-old sitting behind him there and dillinger is 12 and emily who is six who told me where she's going to school and that she is much happier if the hearing were over and her dad could just leave right now. gary's terrific partner in life and in this effort mona. we are happy to have you here.

this nomination is a very important nomination. all of our ambassadors of a great respect for the service of every body but it is without doubt the relationship of the people's republic of china stand as one of the most important relationships for the country today and much of what we are able to collaborate on with china would help to shape this century in terms of conflict as well as economic opportunities and relationships. if confirmed by the senate which i fully expect secretary locke will join the group of distinguished statesmen from former president george h. w. bush through stapleton roy and others who served in this position i think that it is

obvious to all but nevertheless worth pointing out, yet again, that secretary locke's story is quintessentially american. it's the american story become a descendant of hard-working immigrants. secretary locke's personal integrity intelligence strong work ethic with him to college in new haven university and then on to boston university law school. plater as governor of washington, he reached out to china and helped strengthen trade ties between his state and china, and it's clear that that relationship really is a microcosm of the larger relationship that we need to develop and work on today. he doubled the state's exports at that time to over $5 billion per year and the department of

commerce, secretary locke led the administration's deciphers cabinet level trade mission to china, clean energy mentioned coming and he served as the co-chair of the u.s.-china joint commission on commerce trade. the president's latest assignment for secretaries locke may well be his most challenging the relationship between the united states and china is absolutely vital to get right. we need to avoid falling into the trap of the zeros some competition. we need to forge a mutually beneficial relationship based on common interest. i think it's safe to say that the recent visit of the presidents of china and the united states here in washington advanced that effort, but there is still a lot of work to be done. i'm not going to speak at length about the long list of issues that we have to work on, but let me mention particularly that

advancing human rights, ensuring peace and stability across the taiwan strait, managing trade disputes, protecting the environment, most importantly cooperating at jointly to help lead the world conflicts in other areas joint leadership can have a huge impact of the course of events i want to make just to overarching points. first with its economic clout, china in our judgment needs to do better than simply abide by international norms although that's important. we are hoping that china will contribute to strengthening the international system that has helped it prosper. beijing we believe can step up and can shoulder more of the responsibility that comes with its growing power.

we welcome the opportunity to share the exercise of that responsibility. together with other nations that care to step up. in the area of non-proliferation flexible we need china to not only enforce u.n. sanctions and abide by nuclear suppliers group guidelines but we want china to be a full partner in the efforts to secure a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapons threats and posed by iran and north korea. it is our judgment that all of our interests are put at risk by their current outflow efforts in some degree. convincing china that its own interest will be served by taking on more responsibility for strengthening the international system will be one of sick trees locke's tasks as ambassador, and obviously, it won't be easy. even though china may have some of the hallmarks of a great

power, some of its leaders have still remained focused more on meeting their own domestic challenges rather than taking on a new international obligation. this brings me to my second point. even though china has one of the longest history is on the planet and one of the richest histories on the planet. and even though it has vast global trading networks today and it's the world's second-largest economy it still lags behind many states, many nations and its respect for basic human rights. in recent months, a's government has intensified efforts to control access to information to restrict freedom of speech and assembly and interfere in the peaceful practice of religion. this crack down in our judgment, and we have been clear about

this at all times in our history represents a violation of universal rights. rights specifically guaranteed under chinese law. and it's ultimately country to the best interest in our judgment of any government as we are seeing in the middle east and elsewhere today. this premier pointed out himself last october and i quote him, the people's wishes and the need for democracy and freedom are irresistible. some say that china is not ready for more democracy and freedom but he had his own head rejoinder to that. he said the freedom of speech is indispensable for any country. a country in the course of development and that has become strong. the premier in our judgment is absolutely correct about this. but it is clear that some in china see things differently. a greater tolerance for dissent

within our judge michel china produce better results across a range of government and private sector activities. .. >> we want a partnership with china. there are some even in our country who often talk about

choices that would actually push china into a different relationship. there are some who even want china labeled as something other than a partner or a possible friend. i believe, personally, and i think others here do, that would not serve our interests and that is not necessary. all of these relationships take work. countries always organize around and react to their needs. that's been true all through history. it's not going to change over night. the art is to try to meld those needs into a common effort and to try to find ways to cooperate wherever possible in the greater interest and good of the larger global community even as we meet our own needs at home. mr. secretary, i believe that the president has made a good

choice and wise choice in nominating you. i certainly look forward to the testimony today and confirming you, and most importantly, we look forward to work, you in the important task. senator lugar. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming secretary locke and his distinguished family. the post for which he is nominated is one the most difficult and complex in the entire federal government. i appreciate this opportunity to express views about the priorities of the united states chinese relationship and to learn about the nominees vision. china's global leverage has increased as the position itself as the leading creditor nation. with more than 18% of the worlds current account balance surplus, according to recent data, china is the united states' government largest foreign creditor, holding approximately 25% of the almost $4.5 trillion we owe to other countries.

greater thought must be given to how we work with china to establish a more sensible global balance that depends on chinese credit. china remains an extremely important market. for example, the american soybean association cites china as the largest export market for soybean in 2010 with nearly $11 billion in sales. the united states continues to have a severe trade deficit with china and the benefits have not reached their full potential for american businesses and workers in part because of impediments to fair competition in china. we continue to hear complaints about inscient applications of rules, requirements, or indigenous innovation, end of quote.

nontariff barriers, and lack of enforcement to intellectual property rights. civil society within china continues to face the immense challenges in promoting the rule of law and human rights reform. and in addition to economic issues, the next ambassador to china will also have to focus on a wide array of security problems. these include obtaining greater chinese cooperation on issues related to north korea, to iran, pakistan, bedroom -- burma, and other nations, as well as maintaining the security of taiwan. the ambassador must confront the chinese government on stopping cyberattacks on the u.s. government, on american companies, and on individual american that originated in china. more broadly, the government must work for a better understanding of the interaction between china's military and civilian leaders. earlier, during the visit between the senate leadership,

then president wu, his role and relationship were among the points raised by senators. this topic underscores the need for a closer communication between the united states and chinese defense establishments. which has been frequently endorsed by secretary gates. the ambassador must have a deep understanding of china's integration strategy for the southeast asia neighbors. china also is dedicated massive financial resources to securing and developing natural resources in many parts of the globe, including latin america and africa. another specific area of concern that is received too little attention is the incongruent reality of the public diplomacy in china. the foreign relations committee minority staff report reveal that while china has more than 70 confucian centers, only 5

exist in china. the united states must press this point of equity for the establishment of american information outpost within china. finally, the american ambassador and government must give consistent attention to human rights deficiencies in china. unfortunately, political and religious freedoms in china continue to deteriorate. this committee needs a firm commitment toking a knowledge he will work and advance the law. he must press chinese leaders regarding the growing campaign, retention, and disappearances. i look forward very much to today's hearing to learn more about secretary locke and the strategy for approaching the chinese in ways that will effectively enhance the economic prosperity of americans and the national security of our country. i thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. mr. secretary, your full

statement will be placed in the record as if read in full. i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator kerry, and senator lugar, and senator webb. it is a pleasure in front of this committee. i'm very humbled to come before you as president obama nominee to be the next united states ambassador of the people republican of china. it's the sign of the importance of the bilateral relationship between the two great nation that is they have nominated a current member of his cabinet to serve in the new capacity. i want to thank president obama and look forward to his confidence in my. i'm proud to be joined by my family, wife mona, and three children. no matter public service have taken us from the other washington to this washington and the if the senate confirms me on to beijing.

they, especially mona, has been the con stance providing much love and much support. if my father jimmy, he passed away in january, he would be proud if i am confirmed to see his son become the first chinese-american ambassador. my father came to the united states as a young boy. he joined the u.s. army before the outbreak of world war ii. he was part of the normandy and some of the fiercest battles in france. he returned to china where he met and married my mom, he brought her back to seattle where they started a family. china is a nation they would hardly recognize from their childhoods. it's a country filled with ultramodern cities where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. the administration welcomes a strong prosperous and successful china. but this new status comes with important responsibilities. this administration seeks to

engage china on regional and global affairs to advance international peace and stability. in ways consistent with prevailing international norms, rules, and institutions. as vice president biden say recently, how the united states and china cooperate will define how we deal with the challenges the world faces in the 21st century. if confirmed by the senate, i pledge to help build the positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship that our two nations should aspire to. for more than a decade, opening markets in china has been a focus of mine. as governor of state of washington, attorney in private practice, and now has commerce secretary. if confirmed, helps more companies do business in china will be a big part of what i will do every day. increasing experts to china will help create jobs and economic

growth here at home. but it will also improve the quality of life of the chinese people by providing more access to american made products and services, the best in the world, and help china's leaders reach their goals of modernization. at the same time as ambassador, i will also work to expand bilateral cooperation on a host of critical international issues from stopping nuclear proliferation to rebalancing the global economy, to combating climate change. we've made significant progress on a number of those concerns, even as channels remain. our work together on north korea and iran, though we continue to encourage china to do it even more is an important sign that we can cooperate to address sensitive issues in the u.s.-china relationship. while there are many areas of collaboration, there are also areas of vigorous disagreement. that includes human rights where we have very significant concerns about china's actions in recent months, especially the

crackdown on journalist, lawyers, bloggers, artists, and religious groups. the protection and the promotion of liberty and freedom are fundamental tenants of u.s. policy. if confirmed, i will clearly and firmly advocate for upholding universal rights in china. as much as the job of ambassador is to communication our position to china's leaders, i also pledge to reach out to the people of china. my goal will be to directly convey and express the values that america stands for and the desire for ever closer bonds of friendship between our two peoples. let me close by saying should i be confirmed, i pledge to work closely with this community, this committee, i hope to host each you and your staff in china. we have an outstanding team of career professionals at the embassy and in china. if granted the privilege of serving, i will do my best to honor their work, as they pursue

and promote american interests and objectives in china. we have chairman carrie, senator lugar, senator webb, thank you for this opportunity to address you. i welcome your questions and your comments. >> thank you very, very much, mr. secretary. i neglected in my openings to point out, but i think it's more appropriate that you do anyway your status as the first american of chinese dissent. i think it is really an amazing part of the story. and i'm confident it gives you a very special level of creditability and capacity to validate a whole bunch of issues. i think we're well served in that regard. i'd like to ask you, i mean there's so many, there are a lot of issues. i want to get your sense of --

how we manage the economic component at this point in time. there's a degree of anxiety within the congress with the respect to the currency issues and the trade practices, some of the procurement practices, et, we've had these meetings with chinese. we've discussed these things, some americans would suggest that this discussion has been going on for quite a while without the kind of results that impact their perception of the unfairness of the playing field, whether it's intellectual property or other things. and the progress seems slow to a lot of folks. i wonder if you would comment on whether that's just the way it's going to be, does that represent a difference of opinion over it, does it represent the imbalance

of the negotiating leverage? what's your take on why it is taking so long to open up a greater level of both transparency and accountability with respect to those issues? >> well, thank you very much. >> and accomplishment. i think. progress. >> i think we would all agree that progress has been slow. but, in fact, we are making progress. i think progress has been accelerating in just the last few years. obviously, both china and the united states and the g-20 nations have talked about rebalancing of the world economy. and part of that rebalancing includes american consumers being less in debt, we as a country have to get the fiscal house in order. the president has very ambitious goals and as evidenced by the budget he's proposed over the next several years that will freeze domestic spending. there's a lot of discussion now on reducing our debt and our deficit. but also china recognizes that

it must export less and must focus more on domestic consumption. we in the united states must also export more. these are opportunities of win/win before us. that can actually have the united states companies exporting more to china and certainly meeting the needs of both the chinese leaders and the people of china. there's a great hunger and demand for thing that is are made and produced in america from services to products to agriculture. just in the last year alone, u.s. exports to china, goods rose by 32% whereas across the united states exports to other countries grow -- grew on average by 17%. our exports to china are growing at a fastest rate, by roughly 50% than elsewhere to the rest of the world. and we are seeing movement on the currency. china has recognized it needs to allow it's currency to float

more freely. we, of course, think it should float more and faster. when you also combine the infected inflation by 10%. obviously, we still want more. we have a variety of strategic and economic dialogue as well as the joint commission on commerce and trade where we address the very specific, as well as global issues. we've made progress. we got to make sure we monitor the progress of china, make sure that they adhere to their commitments, whether it's on intellectual property, the chinese have a campaign right now that's supervised by the state council, that campaign has been extended to really ensure that the government agencies and state-owned enterprises purchase software. we have to monitor that to make sure the chinese follow through. still, it's a very important relationship. and certainly one in which -- we

need to convey to the chinese it is in their mutual self-interest to engage in free and fair trade. and to also as you indicated earlier, not just abide by international norms and institutions, but be a world player and help lead and solve some of the many issues facing the world. >> let me come to that for a minute. obviously, everybody understands that the chinese leadership and chinese people are smart. very analytical, very capable of defining what they see as their interests. and i wonder given the fact that you constantly hear from them the refrain about notwithstanding their wealth that has been created on one side of the ledger, they still have 400, 500 million people. perhaps twice the size of the

united states even to try to bring in to our -- a more urban/industrial kind of standard of living out of the agrarian. that's the constant challenge, there's a unique focus, as you are well aware on the chinese leadership on the internal challenges. we talk about their interests. you know, we want to persuade their interests? we're going to have the ability to convince then, specifically on the internal struggle. >> well, their interest, and respect to some of the internal challenges, focus, for instance, on food. feeding the growing population. shortages of food. insufficient energy, and recent days you've seen reports of limitations or reductions in

electricity available for factories and even households to the health and welfare of the citizens. and there's a great desire given the contact with the west, given the ability of the people of china to either visit and see what other developing countries are enjoying, or even seeing american life on television shows, there's a hunger for greater prosperity and a higher standard of living. and the chinese government is very concerned about making sure that there's -- that there's stability within the country and these are the areas in which the united states companies and the united states government can help meet those needs of both the chinese leaders and the aspirations of the chinese people that can, for instance, help reduce and sell more of the goods and services, including agriculture to china to meet the objectives of the chinese people and leaders. we need to convince and inform

both the leaders of china and the people of china that america stands willing to help and it can result in a mutually beneficial relationship. >> let me just ask one last question with respect to hone in on the interest. when we met with president hu here, i raised -- i think some other people raised their questions with their efforts with respect to north korea. they tell us that they don't want a nuclear north korea. north korea's current activities are contrary to china's interest. and they voted with us, obviously, in the u.n. to impose sanctions, but, despite those or the of public affirmations of being with us in terms of our goals, the methods and even the enforcement often takes a very different track.

recent u.n. report faulted china for not adequately enforcing the sanctions on north korea. we know north korean leader kim jong il is in beijing, right now, as we are here, focusing on the economic ties between the two countries. how do we get china to exert what we believe is greater leverage with respect to north korea's behavior, particularly the aggressive behavior towards the south and some of the dangerous moments that have been created as a last few years as a consequence of that. you'd think there was a greater ability. are we misjudging their capacity, or are they judging their interest differently? >> i don't think we're misjudging the capacity. in fact, china will be a vital partner in the six-party talks. china has a very unique role given it's influence and ties with north korea. we obviously urge china to do more to influence north korea's

behavior. i think the recent provocations by north korea and the reaction by the south is giving china pause. and causing china to realize that it has to step up to diffuse the situation to make sure that no further provocations occur, which could then result in retaliatory actions by south korea. which would simply destabilize the entire region. i think there's a greater urgency and understanding of how delicate the situation is, and how north korea must be brought back to six-party talks and how simply they must abandon their nuclear -- their nuclear aims and objectives. i think that china understands that. >> do you think china could do more? >> china could definitely and must do more. >> thank you. senator lugar. >> secretary locke, as i mention in my opening statement, i remained concerns, as do many

americans with the 70 confucianist centers in the united states, which we welcome, but only five american centers in china. i want to focus for just a moment to get your views on public diplomacy. in addition to this problem of the senators, recently in the budget prioritization of our country, we are likely to see the voice of america ending as much jammed short radio broadcast. but with the refocus on the internet. i'm pleased the broadcasting board of governors received an additional $10 million to help circumvent what's known as the great fire wall. administration efforts it get more american students to china through the $100,000 strong program. is it laudabl, but remains understand resourced. meanwhile the largest state run media opened in times square

just last week. these are just fragments of the problem. how do you perceive american diplomacy being pushed so that we are able to get an audience for the chinese people in addition to the leaders is a leader conversation that we've been having. >> i think it's very important that we engage with the chinese people directly. it's not enough just to talk to the chinese leaders. because the appetite for more freedom and democracy among the chinese people rest with the people themselves. the more exposure that we can give them to american falls, freedoms, democracies, the more interaction that is we have, whether it's american tourist, or china tourist and business people coming to the united states will i think promote those democratic reforms. and the appetite for a greater liberties and freedom. obviously, the state department would welcome more funding for many of these programs of diplomacy. but i think we also need to be

aware of the new methods by which people communicate with each other over the internet. we will continue what ambassador huntsman did in terms of blogging and messages over the internet to the chinese people. but i also believe that as i have experienced as governor, we want to continue reaching out to the chinese people using radio and television shows and their versions of almost like oprah. and which reach hundreds of millions of people which are repeated over and over and over again. so those are the types of mechanisms and media strategies that we would like to deploy. clearly we need to -- i believe there's a growing interest among america's young people to study in china. and that with -- we need to encourage more exchange programs by american colleges, universities, and just encouraging more semesters and years aboard. that's how we can help fill the

president's goal of having at least 100,000 american students studying in china. >> well, obviously, as you become our ambassador and you have boots on the ground over there, i hope you'll stay in touch with our committee and with those of us that are deeply interested in this, because as you say, there are going to be budget problems. these are problems that congress must face as well as our chinese embassy. and beijing. and i'm just hopeful this will be a major focus of yours as you have outlined this morning. i would hope also that you will be a champion for intellectual property rights. these are challenge that face so many american companies in china, as well as american individuals. what new lessons do you believe you've learned at improving the property rights situation during your time as secretary of commerce because these issues

have become before you in that form, and how do you think we might make progress if you are in china? >> i think we certainly need to interact with not just the leaders of china, but also the businesses of china and especially the young people of china and the students in our colleges -- in the colleges and universities there. because as they begin to innovate, as they begin to engage in cutting edge research, they also need to understand that without intellectual property rights protection, their discoveries, their hard-earned work could for not. i believe we must convey the message it is the economic self-interest of the chinese people and the chinese government to have strong intellectual property rights. without strong ipr, innovation will occur elsewhere or not at all within china. and with state-owned enterprises with or government support of

r&d, if there's not a strong intellectual property rights regime. those investments can be stolen and appropriated by others. that's not self-interest of chinese entrepreneurs or companies or government. we're already beginning to see some increase enforcement in strengthening intellectual property rights. we have many exchanges through commerce department, justice department, and even the american bar association groups traveling to china to help develop a rule of law. but we must continue to push these issues as we have in the strategic and economic dialogue and even in the joint commission on commerce and trade by the commerce secretary and ambassador kirk. i can tell you in the most recent jcct meeting, the chinese agreed to extent their campaign on legitimate thoughts there among government agencies,

national and at the subregional level. we need to hold their feet to the fire, make sure there are audits we can all depend on. and, in fact, the chinese president hu jintao reiterated that support in his visit to the united states this past january. it is a very important, high priority topic for the u.s. government as a whole. it has been for me as commerce secretary and will continue to be a top priority as the ambassador to china. >> let me just ask one further question without speculation is undue. but many believe that inflation in china is picking up steam, many chinese leaders seem to indicate that, that, in fact, so-called double might form in the chinese economy which has many greater dangers than bubbles forming elsewhere because of the inforty and the