u.s. senate is about to gavel in following the week's break for spring. they will offer speeches until five and then work on a bill to combat the threat of corporate trade secrets with a final vote expected at 5:30 live eastern. now we take you to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2:

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 4, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable bill cassidy, a senator from the state of louisiana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed, orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell:: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to

welcome our colleagues back from their state work periods. the senate has gotten a lot done under e new majority and will continue -- we'll continue our work today. but first i want to remember the daily sacrifice of our capitol police in light of the incident last monday. incidents like these remind us of the sacrifices officers make on our behalf each and every day. these brave men and women protect all who work here. they protect the countless visitors from across our nation and across the world. they defend this symbol of our democracy. and that means putting themselves in harm's way day in and day out. and again, we thank them for it. we also welcome capitol police chief matthew verderoosa. the chief comes to us with more than three decades of law enforcement experience and that's a good thing given that this incident occurred just days into his new position.

the chief inherits an able, brave team who work hard every day to keep us safe. we look forward to continuing our close working relationship with the capitol police under his leadership. now, on a different matter. today the senate will vote on the defend trade secrets act. this bipartisan legislation can help promote growth of the economy, help spur the increase in retention of american jobs and help protect american innovation in the global economy. it aims to do so by providing tools for american companies both small and large to effectively protect some of their most valuable assets in today's international economy. american companies spend billions every year in research and development and in the creation of products we use every day. but some thieves would rather not go through the trouble of developing products themselves. they would rather just steal the

fruits of other's creativity and innovation. that's more than just wrong, it puts american jobs and the american economy at risk. american businesses find themselves increasingly under attack from a sophisticated effort to steal the very things that give them a competitive edge in the 21st century economy. things like codes, formulas and confidential manufacturing processes. while it's never been easier for these thieves to launch attacks on innovation, sometimes armed with little more than a jump drive, many american businesses now find themselves less able to protect their important assets under current law. senator hatch knew we had to do something about this. he knew it was time to modernize our trade secret laws to keep pace with rapid advances in technology and in criminal techniques. he knew it was time to streamline and simplify the process for u.s. companies to effectively defend american jo

jobs, american growth and the american innovation that's increasingly at the heart of our modern economy. so senator hatch worked across the aisle with senator coons to develop the defend trade secrets act. this bipartisan legislation eventually gained the cosponsorship of a majority of the senate. this bipartisan legislation also passed the judiciary committee unanimously. that's impressive and it wouldn't have happened without the able leadership of the chairman of that committee, senator grassley from iowa. since the new majority took office, senator grassley's been a highly effective legislator as chairman of the judiciary committee. from comprehensive legislation to address america's opioid epidemic to protecting the victims of modern slavery to today's effort to support american innovation, he's received widespread praise from both sides of the aisle for leading a very productive committee. senator grassley's a hard worker and he's again winning kudos on

this bill. the organization that represents america's tech sector said that the committee's process has been very open and thoughtful. a broad cross-section of american businesses wrote that the approach to the bill has been consensus oriented. this, they said, led to a broad and enthusiastic support from a wide range of american organizations and companies representing the technology, medical device, agriculture, biotech, pharmaceutical, automobile, clean energy, consumer products and manufacturing sectors. so here's what i say. today's trade secret theft is high-tech. it's fast moving and it threatens america's economy, america's jobs and america's innovation. so i would ask colleagues to join me this evening in voting to fight back on behalf of the american people. i would ask them to join me in supporting the bipartisan defend trade secrets act.

on one final matter, in recent weeks we've again been reminded of the pervasive threat posed by islamic terrorists to the world. we've seen ghastly images in places as diverse as brussels, yemen and lahor. attacks seem to be coming nearly weekly now. it feels like we hear of a new one almost every time we flip on the news. over the weekend, the chairman of the intelligence committee delivered an address focused on the threat facing us and what we can do ultimately to overcome it. senator burr noted that he could not remember a time when the u.s. and its allies faced a greater array of threats across the world, which is why, as he put it, we cannot simply focus our efforts on how to best respond to attacks once they've already happened. senator burr spoke on the significance of working with our allies to target threats at every level. he talked about the importance

of ensuring law enforcement has the tools and authorities needed to keep americans safe. he also underlined the need for president obama to do more in directly taking on isil and made clear that doing so would require leadership that reached beyond the administration's current containmently strategy. -- containment strategy. it's clear that dweeghtd isil -- defeating isil, al qaeda and its affiliates will require concerted efforts by the intelligence committee and international partners around the world. that's why we continue to press the administration for a serious plan to defeat these terrorist groups and not simply attempt to contain them. in addition to the ongoing air campaign, the predent has lauded deploying special operations forces to target and pursue isil. it's a positive step but a credible ground force will be needed to defeat isil. as senator burr put it, we're beyond containment and must more

decisively and with purpose move to eliminate the islamic state. the president, he continued, has accurately stated that isil poses a threat to the entire civilized world. now is the time for a strategy to match that threat. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to h.r. 636, the vehicle we will use for f.a.a. reauthorization. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 55, h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 198 to permanently ex-- 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i understand why, in my remarks i'll make that very clear in a few minutes, why my friend, the republican leader is doing everything he can to throw a good light on the judiciary committee. it's kind of hard to do with what's going on today. and this bill that we're going to vote on at 5:30, we don't -- this would have passed unanimous consent. everybody knows that. we don't need to take up time of the senate on a bill that would pass just like that. doing that because it focuses less attention on the inadequacy of the judiciary committee.

the defend trade secrets act was reported out of the committee easily. no problem. it was a bill that everybody agreed on. so the there may be some reasons that i don't see today why the judiciary committee should be given a few pats on the back. the problem is, mr. president, that the committee does not deserve any pats on the back at this stage. as united states senators, we have a constitutional obligation to consider nominees to important positions. it's one of our constitutional responsibilities. judges play an essential role in our society and we should give qualified nominees their fair shot they deserve. sadly, the republican senate has refused to do its job. they have a new standard. unless the judge-to-be passes a test of the national rifle association, as stated by the republican leader on national

tv, can't vote for him. now, the judiciary committee has been hammered -- and that's an understatement -- day after day in the state of iowa, the home state of the chairman of the committee. headline -- "grassley leads slowdown of judicial confirmations." largest newspaper in the state, the "des moines register." here's what this headline is all about. the republican-controlled senate judiciary committee and its chairman have fallen far behind the incomparable senate in confirming judicial nominations. reading directly from the "des moines register" article -- i quote -- "even before the current controversy over consideration of theupreme court justice, action on federal court nominations has slowed markedly since u.s. senator chuck grassley took control of the senate judiciary committee." the article goes on, "since

republicans want a senate majority in 2014, the number of president obama's nominees winning confirmation to the bench has fallen compared with previous years and long-term averages as have the number advancing out of grassley's judiciary committee, according to data from the congressional research service and the federal judiciary." the article also quotes professor sheldon goldman, an expert on judicial confirmations at the university of massachusetts. here's what he said -- and i quote -- "with republicans taking over the senate, the strategy's been to obstruct, delay and slowwalk these nominations at every stage of the process." statistics from the nonpartisan congressional research service confirm professor goldman's assertion. under chairman grassley's leadership, the judiciary committee is grinding the nomination to a halt. the number of judicial nominations confirmed this congress is the worst. to date, this republica republican-controlled senate has

confirmed but 16 judicial nominations. that's one a month. contrast that with the last years of george w. bush's presidency when we had a democrat senate, we had a republican president. then democratic chair leahy and his senate colleagues confirmed 40 judges. 40 confirmations to 16 under grassley. the numbers speak for themselves. but to better understand the dysfunction of senator grassley's committee, we have to consider the slow pace at which he and the republicans are reporting judicial nominations. we have to go back more than six decades to find a senate judiciary committee that was less productive than chairman grassley's committee is today. republicans will doubtless claim that their committee has stopped working because it is the last year of obama's presidency. that's nonsense. in 1988, the senate judiciary

committee reported circuit and district court nominations as late as october. the senate considered president reagan, president clinton, president george w. bush's judicial nominations in thage year of their terms -- in the eighth year of their terms, and many other presidents were treated the same way. the republican leader is on record advocating for the confirmation of judicial nominees in a president's last year in office. this is what the republican leader said in july of 2008: "even with lame-duck presidents, there's an historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees." end ever quote. -- end of quote. those are the republican leader's own words. yet now he refuses to. why republicans changing the rules? -- for president obama's nominees? given that the chairman of the judiciary committee refused to attend the judiciary committee,

especially the judiciary, how is the committee spending its time? we know chairman grassley's committee is refusing to consider president obama's supreme court nominee, judge garland. we know that chairman grassley's committee is refusing to adequately report district and circuit court nominees also. this much is clear: the republican judiciary committee is not doing its job. instead, the senior senator from iowa has taken his marching orders from the republican leader blocking judicial nominees at every level. this once proud, powerful judiciary committee set up hundreds of years ago has become a mere shadow of its former self. he has turned the once-powerful and independent committee into an extension of the republican leader's office. this is the same gridlock the republican leader has imposed upon the senate for the last eight years. since his party assumed the

majority in the senate last january, the republican leader has carefully orchestrated obstruction of judicial nominations has accelerated to historical levels and judicial emergencies have tripled. my friend and i served in the senate for decades and come to the floor all the time talking about the success of the senate. no matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false. leader mcconnell wants to regard himself the proud guardian of gridlock. senator grassley has become his most willing disciple. it is disappointmenting that the senior senator from iowa has surrendered committee to the republican leader. take for example the nomination of wavily grinshaw who was recommended by senators adetectioadleksander --

senators alexander and corker. frees a well manufacture renowned law firm 234 nashville where he became the first african-american partner in 1990. the senator from tennessee, the senior senator from tennessee said that mr. crenshaw would be "an excellent federal district judge." i agree. he was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously in july of 2015. almost ten months ago. the vacancy in the tennessee district is the judicial emergency. meaning there are more cases than the court can handle. the junior senator from tennessee said, "i know there's a tremendous load of work in the national office that -- nashville office that needs to get done. we've talk add great deal with the other judges there and know this position needs to be confirmed." last month the senator from maryland asked to bring the crenshaw nomination to a vote

but the assistant leader objects. both senators have brought this forward. the objection was the same. the senior senator from tennessee said it would lead to -- quote -- "chaos" -- close quote -- to schedule a vote on crenshaw. chaos is exactly what the republicans are bringing to the judiciary. from the supreme court to the circuit courts to the district courts, our entire judicial branch of government is under siege by this republican senate. after they've crippled the judiciary, the republican leader and chairman grassley want to hand it over to donald trump. that would be disastrous. that's not what the american people want. they want republicans to do their constitutional duty and give these judges due consideration. that's not asking too much. so i say to the chairman of the judiciary committee, stop blocking these nominees. do what other judiciary chairs have done for 200 years and move the process forward. these nominations are important.

to put it sumly, do your -- to put it simply, do jury job. because of this historic slowdown, i. not what people of iowa sent you here to do, as indicated by "the des moines register." grassley leads slowdown of judicial confirmations." mr. chair, i see no one here wanting to speak. would you announce the impis. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i ask that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: yesterday, dr. joseph medicine crow passed away at the age of 1026789 he leaves a legacy as the crow tribe's storyteller, a decorated world war ii veteran aned first member of the crow tribe to ever attain a mast degree. medicine crow lived a life filled with numerous accomplishments. he enlisted in the u.s. army and joined the 103rd infantry division as a proud member of crow tribe, he never went into battle without his war paint beneath his uniform and a sacred eagle feather beneath his helmet. during world war ii, he achieved the war deeds to be declared chief. in 2006 his personal memoir was

by national geograsping. the white house identified him as both a warrior and a living legend. he is considered one of the most celebrated native american soldiers due to his selfless service in world war ii. medicine crow's spirit, his humility and life achievements leave a lasting imprint on montana's history and i personally will never forget the time i got to shake his hand and greet him and thank him for his service to our country. and i want to express my deepest condolences with dr. joseph medicine crow's family and all of the crow nation. on a separate matter, i'd like to talk about russ ritter. this past week longtime hellen in a mayor and dedicated public servant passed away at the age

of 83. russ was one of those grise that really made a notable difference in montanaen, especially in our state capital of hellen in a. he was a true inspiration for montanans seeking public office and was the first person to inspire others to run for mayor, including our current mayor jim smith. russ was instrumental in the construction of the ten-mile water treatment plant. that was a big-ticket expenditure on the part of the city. and all bond are now paid off and the plant is off an running. i might suggest, washington, d.c., could take a few lessons from russ ritter. during russ' time in hellena, it was transform ago solid waste system and he also helped auto mate the system. he provided true management of the city and improved it for enjn reagan administrations to come by creating a healthier city. he also had a soft spot in his heart for the u.s.s.helena, the

nuclear-powered submarine. he spent nine days on it. another great story was reported recently in the helena independent record. "russ met president ronald reagan in billings in august 1, 1928. but this meeting one for which their father had planned and prepared their remarks, the children said, did not go as envisioned. russ greeted the president by saying, hello, mr. mayor. i'm the president of helena. to which reagan responded, "no, is think you've got that wrong, mike said. this left their father a bit flustered, adding that russ made his living talking to people and always knew the right thing to say. well, on behalf of montanans and the people of helena, we thank russ ritter for his selfless service and will never forget his legacy and the history of our state. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. daines: made in montana energy means jobs that on average pay two to three times more than the state average. montana's ability to create more good-paying energy jobs is immense. our state leads the nation, number-one in croferrable coal -- recoverable coal deposits, the nation's fifth largest producer of hydropower with 23 hydro electric dams across our stage. montana provides our nation a template of a true all the above energy portfolio. we have coal, we have natural gas, we have oil as well as renewables such as hydro, wind, biomass and solar opportunities. but what makes our state most valuable are the people who make our energy systems work. towns like colstrip, montana that build communities around

livelihoods reliant on good-paying jobs. that is the good news. but here's the bad news. montana energy jobs are under assault. over the past two weeks i've heard from thousands of montanans about the future and the importance of made in montana energy and made in montana good-paying jobs. during my week-long tour across our state, i saw once again our vast natural resources and our true energy potential. whether it was touring a wind farm near baker montana on the far eastern side of our state to seeing the hydropower facility at helena's howser dam, i was hearing directly from the community about the devastating impacts that president obama's anti-coal regulations will have on hardworking montanans. my statewide energy tour culminated this past week at montana energy 2016, where over

600 people gathered in billings, montana, for a montana family conversation about our state's energy future. during that two and a half day summit, we heard a consistent and a powerful message about the need to maximize our opportunity for growth and expand made in montana energy and the good-paying job it supports. montanans are leading american energy innovation. for example, montanans who helped drill the deepest well in the gulf of mexico. or ryan lance, a montana native who is leading one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. or ashley dennehy from colstrip, montana, highlighting how boilermakers, operators and other hardworking labor groups in her community are working hard to keep lights on in the face of adversity.

we must continue investing in our two-year colleges that provide training and trades like welding, like heavy machine operations, so we can keep our kids in montana with good, high-paying energy jobs. in fact, business insider released a map that shows how hard these times are for millennials, highlighting their median income across the united states. you know what? montana ranked 50th. we're dead last at a median income of $18,000 a year for millennials. and we can't forget that montana coal provides tax revenues of $145 million a year which supports our teachers and our schools. montana should lead the world in developing clean coal technology and we must continue to develop renewable technologies that can store the power created by wind. the bottom line is we should not

allow washington, d.c. and the obama administration to dictate and regulate coal and gas out of existence. we need more made in montana energy, not more made in the middle east energy. and make no mistake, president obama's environmental protection agency and their regulations are killing montana energy. but our country's future is very bright if we can unleash the power of innovation and rein in the overregulation of washington, d.c. and i've got to say i couldn't agree more with what chairman darrin okye, the chairman of the crow tribe said in his keynote address at montana energy 2016 in billings last thursday. he said this -- and i quote -- "all of montana citizens need to work together for a better tomorrow. we renewable energy, fossil energy, conventional energy, indian or non-indian, regardless of political affiliation, whether we are democrats,

republicans or independents. montanans can find better solutions than washington, d.c. bureaucrats." mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. president plaintiff the senator from iowa. a senator: i ask that the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection grass i ask permission to speak -- mr. grassley: i ask permission

to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this body was last if session during sunshine week but the principle of government transparency is one that does not expire. so i'd like to take a few minutes now to reiterate my support for that timeless principle of government transparency. open government is good government. and americans have a right to a government that is accountable to the people. in 1978 following the lessons learned from the watergate scandal, the congress created inspectors generals or i.g.'s we call them to be the eyes and ears within the executive branch. these independent watchdogs are designed to keep congress and the public informed about waste, fraud and abuse within our government. but they also help agency

leaders identify problems and inefficiencies that they may not be aware of. so i.g.'s are critical to good governance and to the rule of law, but in order for these watchdogs to do their job, i.g.'s need access to agency records. that's why the law authorizes i.g.'s to access all -- i want to emphasize that word, all records of the agencieses that they're charged with overseeing. however, since 2010, more and more agencies have refused to comply with this legal obligation that they're entitled to all records. this obstruction has slowed down far too many important investigations ranging from sexual assault in the peace corps to the f.b.i.'s exercise

of antiterrorism authority under the patriot act. last july the justice department office of legal counsel aided and abetted the obstruction by issuing a memo defending that inspector generals aren't necessarily entitled to all records. that memo has given cover then to other agencies to follow the f.b.i.'s lead and withhold records from their inspector general. according to the office of legal counsel's 66-page opinion, congress really didn't mean to give i.g.'s access to all record, even though that is literally what we spelled out in that law. now think about that for a

second. one unelected bureaucrat in the justice department thinks he can overturn the will of 535 elected officials in congress and the president who signed the bill into law. this is unacceptable, and americans are tired of these stunts, stunts like this that undermine democracy and the rule of law and actually make a mockery of government transparency. the public deserves robust scrutiny of the federal government, so since september, a bipartisan group of senators and i have been working to overturn the office of legal counsel opinion through a bill number s. 579 called the

inspector general empowerment act. among other things, this bill include tion further -- includes further clarification that congress intended i.g.'s to access all agency records, notwithstanding any other provision of law unless other laws specifically state that i.g.'s are not to receive such access. we attempted to pass this bill by unanimous consect in september. -- consent in september. since then the cosponsors and i have worked hard in good faith to accommodate the concerns of any and all senators willing to work with us. as a result, this bill now has a total of 17 cosponsors including seven of my esteemed democratic colleague, senators mccaskill,

carper,. ms.ms. mikulski: i ask, wyden, baldwin, man dtion chin and peters. i want to thank each and every one of them for standing up with me for the inspector general and for the principles of good governance. in december we attempted to pass this bipartisan bill by unanimous consent. the bill cleared the republican side with no objection, but the bill was objected to on the democratic side. so let's do the math. none of the 54 republican senators objected. there are seven democrat cosponsors. that's at least 61 votes, at least. if this bill came up for a vote, it would certainly pass easily. it was developed hand in hand over many months with both democrat and republicans in the house of representatives when is

ready to move an identical bill as soon as we act here in the united states senate. so on december 15, senator mccaskill, senator johnson and i attempted to pass this bill by a process known as live unanimous consent. our goal was to pass the bill right then and there, and we could have had a -- and we could have if a senator had not objected. however, the minority leader rs senator reid -- leader, senator reid, stood up and objected. the. a senator: leader obstructed a bill sponsored by seven senators of his own party. senator reid refused to give any reason for obstructing this bipartisan bill both at that time and later when questioned by reporters. all he would say publicly was

that a senator on his side of the aisle had concerns. apparently senator reid is now telling the press that his concerns relate to provisions of the bill that give i.g.'s the power to subpoena testimony from former fortunately employees -- federal employees. in a moment i will explain why this authority is absolutely vital to the ability of i.g.'s to conduct effective investigations, but before i do that, i want to make one thing crystal clear, my bipartisan cosponsors and i have been working in good faith to address these concerns for five months since november 2015. in those five months we have offered at least half a dozen accommodations that would limit subpoena authority in question. so we have offered reasonable

compromises but the one or two senators who object to this provision appear to be demanding that this provision be removed from the bill entirely. so let me tell you why we cannot do that. when employees of the u.s. government are acuesed of wrongdoing -- accused of wrongdoing or misconduct, i.g.'s should be able to conduct a fuel and thorough investigation of those allegations. getting to the bottom of these allegations is necessary to restoring public trust. unfortunately employees who have violated that trust are often allowed to evade the inspector general's inquiry by simply retiring from their job with the federal government. so the bill empowers inspectors general to obtain testimony from

employees who have retired. similarly, the bill helps i.g.'s better expose waste, fraud and abuse by those who receive federal funds. it enables the inspector general to require testimony from government contractors, subcontractors, grantees and subgrantees. opportunitily most i.g.'s can temperature documents from the entities from outside their agency. however, most cannot subpoena testimony, although a few can. i'll give you some examples. the inspector general for the department of defense and the department of health and human services already have this authority. the ability to require witnesses outside the agency to talk to the i.g. can be critical in creaging out -- in carrying out an inspector general's statutory

duties and reaferg wasted -- recovering wasted federal funds. but, mr. president, i want to be clear. the bill also imposed limitations on the authority of i.g.'s to require testimony. there are several procedural protections in place to ensure that this authority is exercised wisely. an example, the subpoena must first be approved by a majority of the designated panel of three other i.g.'s. it is then referred to the attorney general. for those i.g.'s that can already southbound witness testimony -- already subpoena witness testimony, i am not aware of any instance in which it has been misused. in fact, the inspector general for the department of defense has established a policy that spells out additional procedures and safeguards to ensure that

subjects of subpoenas are treated fairly. i'm confident that the rest of the i.g. community will be just as scrupulous in providing appropriate protections for the use of this authority as well. you see, we all win when inspectors general can do their jobs. and most importantly, the public is better served when i.g.'s are able to shine light in the government operations and stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. this is, of course, common sense. it's a common sense bipartisan bill that should have passed by unanimous consent. it overturns that office of legal counsel opinion that has been roundly criticized by nearly everyone who has read it. for example, "the new york

times" editorial recently urged us to pass this bill so that we can allow i.g.'s to do their job. but senator reid is standing in the way of the senate doing its job. "the washington post" editorial board and the project for government oversight have also called for us to fix this i.g. access problem. at a judiciary committee hearing in august, senator leahy said that this access problem is -- quote -- "blocking what was once a free flow of information," end of quote. senator leahy also called for a permanent legislative solution. even the justice department witness at that hearing disagreed with the results of the office of legal counsel opinion and supported legislative action to solve the

problem. but to all that senator reid said no. so make no mistake, by blocking this bipartisan good government bill, senator reid is muzzling watchdogs and the public is being robbed of their right to an accountable government. what is it about independent inspector general and the oversight that comes with the office that the minority leader's afraid of? remember the public is better served when i.g.'s are able to shine light into the government operations and the stewardship of taxpayers' dollars, and the public is beginning to take notice of senator reid's obstruction. just last week the las vegas review journal which is the largest circulation daily newspaper in the majority leader's home state published an

article discussing this obstruction. so let me just take a moment to read a quote from that article. quote -- "the united states democratic leader, harry reid of nevada, received a government watchdog group dubious honor for blocking a bill to back inspectors general in their battle against waste, fraud, and abuse and mismanagement and refusing to provide a full explanation on why he did so." unquote. then, just over this weekend, the editorial board of the same newspaper wrote an opinion piece entitled -- quote -- "let the sunshine in" -- end of quote. let me just read an excerpt from that article. "because senator grassley's bill has atracted bipartisan support and buse republicans and democrats jointly have objected to efforts to thwart i.g.'s from

doing their jobs, we're confident that compromise is possible. we urge senator reid and grassley to work together to pass this important legislation as quickly as possible." end of quote. as i mentioned earlier, the bipartisan group of cosponsors and i have already offered a half a dozen accommodations to address the concerns related to the subpoena authority provision. all of those offers are still on the table, and we stand ready to work with senator reid and the other senator to get this bill done and do it in a way that improves inspector general being access to both documents and witness testimony. remember, the inspector general act was passed in 1978,

following one of the worst political scandals in american history. today at least 61 senators, the las vegas review journal, "the new york times," "the washington post," and good governance groups like the project on government accountability and citizens against government waste all support restoring the intent of that act through s. 579. this bill would redeem the free flow of information that senator leahy advocated in august. and every day that goes by without overturning that office of legal counsel opinion is another day that watchdogs across the country can be stonewalled. i ask for 30 more seconds, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: let me be clear

then in closing. only one senator is publicly standing in the way of fixing this problem. who is the obstructionist here? who's not doing their jobs? we need to find a way to get this bill done, especially now. we need to focus on things that we can agree on. but p when there is something -- but when there is something with this much -- when there is something with this much bipartisan support, it should be a no-brainer. one or two senators should not be allowed to stand in the way of good governance. so i urge my colleagues to work with me to get s. 379 passed---- s. 579 passed so that i.g.'s can resume doing their work that we asked them to do way back in 1978. i yield the floor and -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president,

i rise today to speak in support of the defend trades secrets act, which is before us today. i want to thank senators hatch and coons for their important work on this bill, and chairman grassley and rank member leahy for their leadership as well. mr. president, stolen trade secrets cost american companies and, thus, their works billions of dollars each year and threaten our ability to innovate and compete globally. this bill will help protect vital intellectual property, and i'm pleased to be a cosponsor. trade secrets are the lifeblood of so many businesses in america. stealing ideas can wipe out years of research by employees and development and cost millions of dollars in losses because of competitors, those that steal the secrets, reap the benefits of innovation without putting in any of the work. although measuring the total cost of trade secret theft is

difficult, one study using multiple approaches estimates the yearly cost at 1% to 3% of u.s. gross domestic product. today, as much as 80% of companies' assets are intangbling. the -- are intangible. the majority of them are in the form of trade secrets. this includes everything from financial, scientific, economic, and engineering information to formulas, designs, processes, proarks and computer -- procedure, and computer code. trade theft poses a particular risk for that i home state of minnesota, which has a strong tradition of innovation and bringing technological advances to the marketplace. our companies have brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the post-it note. protecting their intellectual property is critical to economic success, critical to our businesses, and most importantly

critical to the workers and employees that make their living in american businesses. here's some examples of what we're talking about and the cost when trade secret theft occurs. in 2011, a former theft of the minnesota agriculture company cargill stole trade secrets of cargill and dow chemical regarding a product and gave them the chinese university. the two companies suffered combined losses of over $7 million. fortunately, the ex-employee was caught, convicted, and received 87 months in prison, the strongest sentence possible. but look at the loss that he 0 kurd. -- that occurred. $7 million. that same year an employee of a minnesota paint company, valspar tried to steal $20 million worth of formula to give to a chinese company for exchange for a

high-ranking job. that really happened. the authorities caught him before he completed his theft, and he received a sentence of 15 months in jail. but too many thefts go unprosecuted. and the costs go beyond simply dollars and cents. medical device makers boston scientific and medtronnic hope to bring advanced care to patients in china and these companies would like to do even more but fear they won't be able to protect sensitive, proprietary technology and that holds them back. stronger protection of trade secrets will benefit consumers across the world as well as trade secret owners. in 1996, congress enacted the economic espionage act, which made economic espionage and trade secret theft a federal crime. nearly 20 years later the threat of trade secret theft has grown.

thumbdives and the cloud have replaced file cabinets for storing information making steal ago trade secret as easily as clicking a button or touching a screen. trade secret theft threatens not just businesses, but jobs and certainly unknow vaismghts -- innovation. protecting the intellectual property of american businesses needs 21st century solutions. the trade adjustment assistance secrets act demonstrates our commitment at the federal level to protect all forms of a business' intellectual property. this gives companies two more tools to effectively protect their trade secrets. first, a party can seek an ex parte court order to seize stolen trade secrets to prevent their destruction or dissemination. to prevent abuse, the requirements to obtain an order with rigorous. access to the seized material is limited and it is only available

in what are considered extraordinary circumstances. second, the bill creates a federal-private right of action for trade theft. companies will be able to rely on a national standard to efficiently protect their intellectual property. securing the trade secrets of american businesses and their employees is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, and i urge my colleagues to support the defend trade secrets act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president, later this evening the senate will vote on the defend trade secrets act, a bill that will enable u.s. businesses to protect their trade secrets until federal court. senator chris coons and i have been working on this legislation in a bipartisan way for nearly two years, so it is really satisfying to see the senate poised to vote on this important bill. to date the legislation has 65 bipartisan cosponsors, including the distinguished senate judiciary committee chairman, chuck grassley, and ranking

member the distinguished senator pat leahy. i appreciate their support for this bill. i also commend our house colleagues, representatives collins and nader and others over there as well. they have been invaluable in this legislation. working under the capable leadership of my dear friend, house judiciary committee bob goodlatte, we've come together to right an inequity facing u.s. businesses by creating a civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. trade secret such as customer lists, formula, algorithms, unique designs and manufacturing processes are an essential form of intellectual property. other forms of intellectual property such as patents, copy rights and trademarks are covered by federal civil law.

trade secrets, by contrast, are the only form of u.s. intellectual property where the owner does not have access to a federal civil remedy for misuse or misappropriation. as a result, billions of dollars each year are lost to trade secret theft which stifles innovation by deterring companies from investing in research and development. currently the only federal vehicle for trade secret protection is the 1996 economic espionage act which makes trade secret theft by foreign nationals a criminal offense. with this remedy criminalizes only a small subset of trade secret theft and relies on the thinly stretched resumes of the p department of justice to investigate and prosecute such offenses. one practitioner told me that

the justice department only considers prosecuting cases with more than $100 thousand in damages. this is because trade secret investigations and prosecutions are more resource intensive and complex than most other federal crimes requiring a deep technological and scientific background. given these constraints, the justice department and the f.b.i. are reluctant to commit scarce resources to investigate and prosecu a single matter, especially when the same effort could result in the prosecution and conviction of other federal crimes. therefore, it is not surprising that in the 20 years since the economic espionage act became law, federal prosecutors charged only about 300 defendants for economic espionage or trade secret theft. and because these cases frequently involve multiple defendants, this equates to an average of about ten prosecutions annually.

clearly current federal law is inadequate in resolving the many challenges our businesses face in today's innovation economy. state laws have proven inadequate to protect victims of trade secret theft since most businesses today operate across one or more state lines, having a uniform set of standards that defines legal protections for trade secrets is crucial. that was the rationale behind creating the uniform trade secrets act which sought to achieve nationwide uniformity in trade secret law. but over time most states have adopted their own trade secret laws. in fact, state laws today are perhaps even more variable in their treatment of trade secrets than they were at the time the uniform trade secrets act was proposed in 1979. this mixed bag of differing legal regimes forces victims of trade secret theft to wade through a quagmire of procedural

hurdles in order to recover their losses. for example, if an attorney needs testimony from a witness in another state, she must first apply to have her local court asking that it request the other state to issue its own subpoena for the document or deposition. this process can take weeks, which is an eternity in a trade secrets case. under a uniform federal standard, the process would be far more efficient. that's because all federal case. all federal courts apply the federal rules of civil procedure allowing attorneys to obtain documents and testimony from a witness in another state without having to apply to that state's court system. essentially enabling businesses to protect their trade secrets in federal court removes an unnecessary and time-consuming layer of bureaucracy.

streamlining access to remedies is critical in trade secret cases, where an expedited judicial process may be necessary to deal with thieves who pose a flight risk. unfortunately, once a company's intellectual property is leaked and the information is made public, the trade secret loses legal protection. put simply, state laws designed for intra state litigation and others -- and offers limited practical recourse to victims of interstate trade secret theft, the contrast between intrastate and interstate. maintaining the status quo is woefully insufficient to safeguard against misappropriation. u.s. companies must be able to protect their trade secrets in federal court. the defend trade secrets act will do precisely that by

providing trade secret owners access to both a uniform national law and an ability to make their case in federal courts. likewise, the bill allows victims of trade secret theft to obtain a seizure order in extraordinary circumstances. this type of order would allow misappropriated property to be seized so that it isn't abused during the pendency of litigation. to ensure that companies do not use the seizure authority for anticompetitive purpos, this legislation requires those seeking redress to make a rigorous showing that they own the trade secret, that the trade secret was stolen, and the third parties will not be harmed if an ex parte order were granted. the bill also allows for employees to move from one job to another without fear of being wrongfully charged with trade secret theft. mr. president, in addition to the overwhelming bipartisan

support among my senate colleagues, more than 50 companies and associations have endorsed the defend trade secrets act. leaders in the technology, life sciences, manufacturing, energy, automotive, agricultural and telecommunications sectors support this bill among others. many letters and opinion pieces have been written in support of the bill. let me just briefly share some of the comments from our nation's business leaders. in an op-ed published in "the hill," arte newhouse from the national association of manufacturers states -- quote -- "-- orrick newhouse from the national soaks -- association of manufacturers states the act encourages investment in cutting-edge research and development and will have an immediate positive impact on our

innovative sector ultimately creating jobs and opportunity in manufacturing in the united states. unquote. in a piece published by "the washington times," david hirschman from the u.s. chamber of commerce writes -- quote -- "the defend trade secrets act creates a federal civil cause of action that currently does not exist. creating a new federal civil cause of action will help industry help itself." unquote. in an op-ed in the washington examiner, mark larouche on the intellectual property owners association writes -- quote -- "every day without this law, our companies are losing millions of dollars to trade secret theft." victoria espenell writes it would help usher in an arm niezed system -- harmonized

system to help our entire american economy. guy blayloff writes in the salt lake tribune -- quote -- "enacting the bill will have an need positive impact on innovative companies that create jobs in this country." in a joint op-ed published in the salt lake tribune, rich nelson, the head of the utah technology council and lane beatty from the salt lake chamber of commerce write the defend trade secrets act -- quote -- "equips business owners with the tools they need to combat trade secret theft." eli lilly's michael harrington wrote in forbes, this thoughtful and carefully considered legislation will adapt america's trade secret regime to adopt 21st century realities and strengthen this political form."

i ask consent the op-eds i quoted be placed in the "congressional record" following my remarks. mr. president, throughout my 40 years of service i've been a part of almost every significant intellectual property initiative that has come before the senate from the digital my lenl compromise act -- millennial compromise act to the american invents act which overhauled our patent system to help ensure american innovators property rights are adequately protected in the 21st century. ledges is slating in the area of intellectual property requires patience and perseverance. the bill we're voting on was two yiers in -- years in the making. it had little support. it took much effort not only to identify the precise nature of the problem, a problem that

amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses for u.s. companies annually, but also to develop a solution that could garner the support of virtually all stakeholders. this required soliciting input from a broad range of interests and working closely with dozens of trade associations, affected businesses and policy-makers on both sides of the aisle. the final version of the legislation that the senate will pass later this evening reflects input and additions from a broad coalition of interested parties. it also reflects a number of instances where a careful balance had to be struck between competing interests. as has been true of several recent intellectual property efforts, the interest of the technology sector and the pharmaceutical industry are not always aligned. the same was true when it came to trade secrets. yet we will worked hard to develop a solution that could meet the needs of both. this balance is perhaps best

exemplified by the joint op-ed i mentioned a moment ago coauthored by the general council of one of america's leading pharmaceutical companies and senior executive from one of america's prominent tech companies. as chairman of the senate republican high-tech task force and coauthor of the hatch-waxman act, i know how critical it is to strike the right balance such that both the high tech and life sciences industries can support a l bill. we've struck that balance with the defend trade secrets act. not only will we succeed in defending partisan -- defending trade secrets of american businesses, i hope it will serve as a spring board of other areas of intellectual property including patent litigation reforms. i commend in particular house judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte for his steadfast work in this regard. and i stand ready to do everything in my power to help

him in this endeavor. tonight's passage of fundamental trade secret law reform would be a significant achievement at any time, let alone in the challenging partisan environment we face today. indeed, today's senate vote is not only a watershed moment through the intellectual property and business communities, it is also an example of what congress can accomplish when we put our party politics aside and focus on areas of agreement. throughout my senate service, i've always sought whenever possible to seek common ground in order to advance public policy priorities that will benefit the american people and the american economy. with this bill we have done just that. i want to thank senate jorm mitch mcconnell -- majority leader mitch mcconnell for leading the senate in such a way to make constructive bipartisan

legislating possible. i appreciate his support for this legislation and his willingness to devote valuable floor time to help ensure its passage. tonight we will add the defend trade secrets abt to a long list of legislation the senate passed in the last 15 months since the senior senator from kentucky assumed leadership of the united states senate. this is yet another example that the senate is back to work for the american people. i also want to take this moment to thank the many staff members who have been instrumental in getting us to this point. let me start by thanking my senior judiciary counsel matt sandren whose relentless determination helped make tonight a reality. my chief of staff rob porter for his unmatchable leadership in shepherding this bill forward. together matt and rob have been an invincible team working hand in glove throughout this process. i personally appreciate their excellent work. i also recognize my superb press

team for their efforts. j.p.freyer, matt whit look and sam wyman. i'm also appreciative of my dedicated law clerk ryan carr and jacqueline esposito. also senator's staff. there are also several staff on the senate judiciary committee who have been instrumental in helping with this key intellectual property bill. rita, jonathan mahabi, alexander gibbons, eric hansen, may holmes, gary bar net, -- gary barnett, aretha aaronson, chad rhodes and sam simon. i also want to acknowledge the following house staff for their hard work and commitment to this

bill -- brandon richie, jennifer chudrie, sally larson, david greengrass. finally i want to thank the many staff members for majority leader mitch mcconnell and minority leader harry reid who helped make this bill's passage a military, especially lauren dove, sharon soderstrom, john ap eg, trish chegg. enacting reform in the midst of a presidential election is something to celebrate. in very real ways, this bill will help strengthen our economy and allow businesses to grow and create additional jobs for hardworking americans. i hope my colleagues will join me in safeguarding american ingenuity by voting for the defend trade secrets act. they won't be sorry about doing that.

now, i understand senator coons is here. i want to recognize him and all the work he's done with me on this bill as a wonderful partner on the judiciary committee, and i personally appreciate him very, very much. with that, i yield the floor. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i'd like to begin my remarks today by thanking my colleague, my good friend, the leader in this effort to pass the senate today, the defend trade secrets act the president pro tempore of the senate, senator orrin hatch. in his four decades of service in this body, senator hatch has become well known for his ability and willingness to work across the aisle to be a genuine leader in intellectual property matters and to fight tirelessly for america's inventors and inventions, and i'm grateful for the small role that i have been able to play in partnering with senator hatch to bring forward, to bring through the judiciary committee, to bring to the floor today this important piece of

legislation. mr. president, our country has long been the unquestioned world leader in the creation and production of innovative ideas. simply put, for over two centuries, we have understood the critical connection between preserving intellectual property rights and creating sustained economic growth, and as a result we're second to none when it comes to innovation. yet a critical form of i.p., of intellectual property, has somehow slipped through the cracks of federal protection. i'm talking of course about trade secrets. trade secrets such as the secret formula for coca-cola or kentucky fried chicken, customer lists, pricing strategies or key stages in a vital manufacturing process are the lifeblood of great companies that can lead to the creation of products that make a company unique and uniquely profitable. it should come as no surprise they are a major contributor to our economy and by some estimates are worth $5 trillion to publicly listed american companies alone.

despite the importance of trade secrets to our economy and our innovation ecosystem, trade secrets remain the only form of intellectual property not protected from theft under federal civil law. more specifically, a misuse of trade secrets doesn't provide the owner with a federal private right of action to seek redress. this means companies have to rely today on state courts or on federal prosecutors to protect their rights, and the multistate procedural and jurisdictional issues, the hurdles you have to clear that arise in such cases are often time intensive, costly and complicated. meanwhile, the department of justice currently empowered to protect trade secrets on the federal level lacks the resources to prosecute many of the cases that arise. by the time the existing protections catch up with bad actors who have taken off with the customer list of formula or recipe, it's often too late.

unlike physical goods, you simply can't take back trade secrets once they have been shared with the public. once a trade secret is no longer secret, it loses its legal protection. this glaring oversight in our federal legal system has become increasingly problematic in recent years as technology has made it easier and easier to steal trade secrets. today a foreign competitor can steal a vital trade secret from an american manufacturer with just a few keystrokes through a cyber attack. this hasn't gone unnoticed. the rate of cyber trade secret theft is at an all-time high and our foreign competitors are stealing american innovation with woefully inadequate repercussions. this steady rise in americans affected is affecting businesses large and small across our country and today the misappropriation of trade secrets is estimated to cost american companies between $160 billion and $480 billion annually. that money would be so much better spent investing in new products and growing businesses and creating jobs. my home state of delaware, for example, has felt the impact of

trade secret theft. many are familiar with dupont's signature product kevlar, an extraordinarily strong and lightweight synthetic fiber that is best known for its use in life-saving body armor worn by dedicated police officers or the brave men and women in our armed forces. it has saved literally thousands of lives, including more than 3,000 law enforcement officers across this country. well, about ten years ago, dupont developed a next generation of kevlar which was even lighter and even better able to withstand penetrating trauma from a wide range of rifle rounds or i.e.d.-generated shrapnel. this technology represented a real breakthrough in safety but it cost millions upon millions to develop. you see, chemically, the spun fibers that make up kevlar are not that complicated, but the fabrication, the production method that gives the fibers strength and flexibility is incredibly difficult to develop and then execute. one day about, i think, six years ago, just four years after dupont had developed this next

generation protective technology, a rogue employee took the trade secrets, the knowhow behind manufacturing this new product and went and gave it to a rival manufacturing company in korea, using dupont's trade secrets. the potential loss to dupont from this one instance of trade secret theft -- roughly a billion dollars. so not only does trade secret theft cost american businesses revenue, which puts american jobs at risk, but it also discourages businesses from investing in critical research and development and of all the sectors in the american economy trade secrets are most central for manufacturing and for manufacturing in advanced materials. so if you know an plea can steal your company's trade secret with the potential also of up to a billion dollars, that trade secret that was the product of years of research and development as was the case for dupont in next generation kevlar, it becomes harder and harder to justify investing

substantial sums in the r&d needed to produce technological breakthroughs and manufacturing here in the united states. so this trade secret effect can have a devastating long-term impact on our country's ability to innovate and to compete. it's also of particular concern in my home state of delaware where r&d is critical to our economy and to sustaining our manufacturing sector. these protections in today's defend trade secrets act will only grow in importance as our country continues to cultivate advanced manufacturing. delaware has a proud legacy of encouraging cutting edge science for home to hundreds of baste inventors who have tinkered and designed inventions. some have become known internationally such as kevlar but others are not as well known but are critical to our economy. mr. president, that's why i introduced along with, of course, my friend and senior colleague senator hatch the defend trade secrets act. this defends the private right of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. it uses the economic espionage

act to define trade secrets, and it draws heavily from the existing uniform trade secrets act which has been enacted by many states to define misappropriation. simply put, our bill will harmonize u.s. law. each state has a slightly different trade secret law and they vary in many different ways. not all of these differences are major but they affect the definition of what a trade secret is or what an owner must do to keep a secret a secret or what constitutes misappropriation or what damages and remedies are available. so our defend trade secrets act creates a single national baseline or minimum level of protection and gives trade secret owners access to both a uniform national law and to the reach of federal courts which provide nationwide service of process and execution of judgments. it's important to know, however, that this bill does not preempt state law because states are, of course, free to continue to add further protections. in my view, this bill is a commonsense solution to a very serious problem. mr. president, senator hatch and

i first introduced this bill in april of 2014, and we re-introduced it last july with just four original cosponsors. the bill before us today now has 65 bipartisan cosponsors here in the senate, and an identical version in the house introduced by congressman doug collins of georgia and jerry nadler of new york now has 128 cosponsors. congressmen collins and nadler have been great partners in this effort. congressman john conyers has also provided invaluable support. in addition to the broad partisan support that we've collected here on this bill from our colleagues, we've gained endorsements from dozens and dozens of companies as diverse as boeing and corning, microsoft and dupont. it's also a testament, i believe, to the hard work and esteem in which senator hatch is held by his colleagues that senator hatch, who has long been a leader on intellectual property, has been able to lead such a successful, open and collaborative process that's allowed us to move the bill to this point today. many of our colleagues, republicans and democrats, had

suggestions for ways to improve the original draft, and i'm proud that many of the senators who originally raised concerns or questions have now become cosponsors of the bill as a result of senator hatch's leadership and our collaboration. in today's political climate, it's easy to forget that to get things done, we don't have to agree on everything. we just have to agree on one thing. and in this case, we've all agreed that losing hundreds of billions of dollars annually to trade secret theft and misappropriation has been hurting american businesses and our economy. this bill is truly bipartisan. it has hnida industry -- it has united industry, practitioners and members of this body in a way that frankly we don't see often enough today. i rarely have an opportunity to work closely with the heritage foundation, the national association of manufacturers, the intellectual property owners on the same bill, but good policy can make for unique partnerships. with the bill before us today, the good policy is a commonsense proposal that creates a clear national standard and

facilitates businesses' protection of their trade secrets in federal court. i want to thank all of my colleagues here who have cosponsored and supported this bill. it's been a pleasure to work with them as we work to ensure that this final bill is bipartisan and achieves our goal of protecting american trade secrets. the formula for how we together got to this point is simple. senator hatch and i saw a problem, we found a coalition that wanted to fix it and we came together to find a solution. i'd like to thank former senator cole with whom i first discussed this issue when i came to the senate. i would like to thank him for his early interest and involvement in trade secret protections. i of course am particularly thankful to senator hatch for his championship of this bill and his leadership in finding consensus. i'd like to join him in thanking chairman gravel and ranking member leahy for their critical support and to commend my colleagues for their focus on this issue and to specifically thank senators whitehouse, feinstein, graham and flake for their contributions to this bill

that have strengthened it. i would be remiss, of course, if i didn't recognize and thank the tremendous efforts that our staff contributed together to getting this bill to where it is today. senator hatch has thanked many of the floor staff, the leadership staff, staff of the house, and i'd like to add to his thanks my thanks to matt sangrin in senator hatch's office and to my tireless and dedicated and recently departed from my office chief counsel ted schrader as well as jonathan staller, andrew crawford and erica songer on my staff. this major achievement is the product of many contributions, and that's how the senate is supposed to work. given the wide support this bill enjoys today in the senate and the fact that there is already an identical house version with bipartisan support, i am hopeful that the house will act and pass this bill without delay and i was pleased to learn earlier today that the administration has issued a statement of administration policy urging the passage of this bill and its rapid enactment into law. the sooner this bill becomes law, the sooner american

businesses and companies can get back to creating jobs and producing new life-changing products and services. our country's legacy of innovation depends on it. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and thank my colleague, senator hatch. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i rise to honor the life of tennian justin shultz and his wife stephanie who were among those killed in terror attacks in brussels, belgium, on the morning of march 22. i want to thank our senior senator lamar alexander for joining me here this afternoon and for the way he serves our state. we are heart broken by this tragedy which once once again hit which he to home. senator alexander and i came before this body to mourn the loss of five american heroes we lost in a terror attack in my hometown of chattanooga. we're here today preart broken that for more outstanding individuals were taken by evil.

and we are reminded that terrorism knows no borders or boundaries. justin schultz attended gattlanburg pittman high school where he was value deduc valedif his class. he received a degree from vanderbilt university before attending the graduate school of management where he met stephanie a native of lexington, kentucky. justin and stephanie's journey is inspiring. to young people from small towns. they set out on a journey toax more the world and to -- to explore the world and broaden their horizons. they moved to brussels in 2014. justin worked for a franklin, tennessee manufacturing company and stephanie works for mars. they had a bright future ahead of them, a future that was stolen by terror. to their family members and to all who love them, we offer our

prayers and deepest sympathies as we mourn their passing. we also extend condolences to all of the families who lost loved ones and to the people of belgium. i also want to thank the many individuals and organizations that were intra plnl in help -- instrumental in helping justin and stephanie's families in the aftermath of the attack. the state department, the f.b.i., the consulate in brussels, delta airlines, justin and stephanie's companies clair corp. and mars. from shat knew ga to paris, san bernardino, brussels and beyond, we have seen unimaginable events unfold before our eyes. it is clear that the fight against evil will be a long-term struggle to protect our citizens we must deepen our partnership with europe and other allies to defeat isis and other terror

groups so that no more families will have to deal with the heartbreak justin and stephani stephanie's families face today. mr. president, we mourn their passing. we honor their lives. and we renew our commitment to fight against this evil. and with that i yelled the floor to our distinguished. a senator: lamar alexander. a senator: mr. president, i join senator corker next pressing to the feamtion of just continue and steph -- to the families of justin and stephanie our deepest sympathy and horror of what happened in brus hims to -- brussels to them. i want to thank senator corker as well. because of his ps as chairman of the foreign relations committee, he was able to do some things that all of us would like to have been able to do. he was able to help the family be a liaison with them and the state department. these are things he wouldn't say about himself but i like to say them. he and his staff worked to help get expedited passports.

they stayed? touch with the family. i hope that the families of justin and stephanie will know that when senator corker and his staff are in touch with them, that they're in touch with them for all of us in the united states senate. and all of us who are citizens of tennessee. mr. alexander: there's so much on division today that is horrible and violent and terroristic that we become immune to it. it's almost as if it were an unreality. we don't want to believe that any of it is true. until it hits home, until it homes in gat tennessee, to a brt young man who everyone in the community seems to have known, one of those young men who everybody looks at and says he's going to amount to someone, we'll watch him. to a young woman in lexington, kentucky who met this wowng man at the graduate school of management and not just in

tennessee and lexington where so many people knew these promising young americans but also in the vanderbilt community. this is the third young promising life taken from the vanderbilt owens school family. taylor forest, a student there was killed on a class visit to israel a few weeks ago. and any time that's a horrifying terrible thought but this is a generation of young americans who have grown up with the idea of being -- of living in the whole world, of making a contribution to the entire world. that's what justin and stephanie were doing when they went to brussels with their companies. and now their lives are cut short by an evil act. so our hearts go out to their families and to the communities from which they come in gatt lanberg, lexington and my personal thanks to senator

corker for doing what all of us want to do as well as we can which is to be helpful to their families and express to them our appreciation for the lives of their children and our sorrow at what has happened to them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator would with hod. morning business is -- withhold. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of s. 1890 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 355, s. 1890, a bill to amend chapter 90 of title 18 united states code to provide federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of ee date equally -- debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from delaware. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that daniel pedraza be

granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i made longer remarks earlier this afternoon along with senator hatch. i just wanted to briefly reiterate my thanks to the many staff who worked tirelessly to make it possible for the defend trade secrets act to move forward today. i greatly aappreciate the leadership and the hard work of the chairman of the judiciary committee and the ranking member, senators grassley and leahy, for their hard work and their staffs' work and i wanted to specifically and personally thank ted schrader, my chief counsel for many years for his tear rirve work and the dozens of staff here in the senate, in the house, and outside groups that have come together to make it possible for this strong bipartisan bill to move forward today. with that, i'd like to yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today the senate

is poised to pass the defend trade secrets act, a bill that offers practical and necessary solutions to a growing problem. i've recently had the opportunity to speak about a number of bipartisan bills that have passed out of the judiciary committee and that have been taken up here on the senate floor. that is a testament to the fact that the judiciary committee is working hard through an open process to find thoughtful solutions to problems facing our country. in fact, we processed 24 bills out of the judiciary committee, all of them bipartisan. of these, 16 have passed the senate and six have been signed into you a by the president. while any member of this body can tell you that isn't always ease sigh to find legislative agreement, the american people deserve hardworking representatives in washington who strive to get things accomplished.

and the record of the judiciary committee shows that we have chosen to overcome gridlock and dysfunction to pass legislation that addresses problems that face the american people. a few examples: last month the senate over-wellcomeingly passed the bipartisan -- overwhelmingly bipartisan cara act by a vote of 94-1. in the face of growing and deadly epidemic of heroin and opioid painkillers, this bill addresses this crisis and does it comprehensively. supporting prevention, education, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement. in the past few weeks, the senate also passed the freedom of information improvement act, foia for short, a bill authored by senators cornyn and leahy. that i worked to move through the committee process t codifies

a presumption of openness for government agencies to follow when they respond to requests for government records via the freedom of of information act in passing the foia improvement arctic the senate is helping to change the culture in government through openness and transparency. in february, the judiciary committee reported out the bipartisan justice against sponsors of terrorism act by a vote of 19-0. the bill, which has now been signed into law, holds sponsors of terrorism accountable by preventing them from invoking sovereign immunity in cases involving attacks within the united states. it also allows civil suits to be filed against foreign entities that have aided or abetted terrorists. the committee has worked to protect children and families by passing bills such as the amy

and vickie no child left behind pornography victims restitution improvement act and the adoptive family relief act. the amy and vickie child pornography victim restitution improvement act reverses a supreme court decision that limited the restitution that victims of child pornography can seek from any single perpetrator, ensuring then that victims can be fully compensated for these heinous crimes. and can focus their attention on healing. the adoptive family relief act was signed into law october 2015, after passing the judiciary and aims to help families facing challenges with international adoptions. and once again today, mr. president, we're set to approve -- approve another judiciary committee bill that is supported by folks across the whole of the political spectrum.

the support behind the defend trade secret act makes clear that the senate and judiciary committee is working to find thoughtful solutions to problems facing our country. this bipartisan legislation is authored by senators hatch and coons. it brings needed uniformity to trade secret litigation so creators and owners of trade secrets can move effectively and to effectively address the growing problems of trade secret theft. it's estimated that the american economy lose loses 2.1 million s every year because of the trade secret theft. further, according to a recent report of the commission on the theft of american intellectual property, annual losses owing to trade secret theft are likely comparable to the current annual level of u.s. exports to asia.

in other words, about $300 billion. back in iowa, my state, we've seen this firsthand as innovative companies like monsanto and dupont pioneer have become targets for trade secret theft. in a well-publicized case, a naturalized citizen was indicted and convicted for engaging in a scheme with foreign nationals to steal proprietary test seeds from iowa fields to benefit foreign countries. contrasted with other areas of intellectual property, trade secrets are mainly protected as a matter of state law. 47 states have enacted some variation of the uniform trade secrets act. yet, as we've learned through our hearings in our judiciary committee, and from companies who have experienced trade secret thefts, the increasing

use of technology by criminals and their ability to quickly travel across state lines means at times these laws are inadequate. the existing patchwork of state laws has become a difficult procedural hurdle for victims who must seek immediate relief before their valuable intellectual property is lost forever. as the pace of trade secret theft has soared, the f.b.i. reports that their caseload for economic espionage and trade secret theft cases has also increased more than 60% between 2009 and 2013. so this bill we're going to vote on will create a uniform federal civil cause of action without presumption of state law to provide clear rules of

predictability for trade secret cases. victims of trade secret theft will now have another weapon in their arsenal to combat trade secret theft aside from criminal enforcement. this bill provides certainty of the rules, standards and practices to stop trade secrets from being decimated and losing their value and will allow victims to move quickly to federal court to stop their trade secrets from being decimated. by improving trade secret protection, this bill will also help incentivize future innovation. importantly, this bill codifies protections for whistle-blowers. an amendment that i offered with ranking member leahy which was included in committee would

create expressed protections for whistle-blowers who disclose trade secrets confidentiality to the government to report a violation of this law. there is long-standing and compelling public interest in safeguarding the ability of whistle-blowers to lawfully and appropriately disclose waste, fraud and abuse that would otherwise never be brought to light. as chairman and one of the founding members of the senate whistle-blower protection caucus, i've seen how whistle-blowers help hold wrongdoers accountable and allow the government to recoup taxpayers' money that might otherwise be lost to fraud and otherwise unlawful activities. the inclusion of this whistle-blower protection in the defend trade secrets act allows us to help make sure that those who are best in a position to

report illegal conduct can come forward. passing legislation to help americans deal with a growing problem like trade secret theft in a bipartisan fashion is an important accomplishment. i'm proud of the way the judiciary committee committee continues to get thingdz -- things done. i ask unanimous consent that a full statement be included in the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be included in the record. the senator from tennessee. alexander alexander mr. president, i have one -- mr. alexander: mr. president, i have one unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent that this request be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: time is yielded back. under the previous order, the committee reported substitute is agreed to. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 355, s. 1890, a bill to amend chapter 90 united states code to provide federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the question is on passage of the bill as amended. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wish to change therapy vote in on this vote it's 87

yeas, zero nays. bill as amended is passed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: motion to proceed to h.r. 636. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators when accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 55, h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 411 submitted earlier

today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report clerk senate resolution 411 expressing support for the goals and ideals of the buy enyal u.s. science and engineering festival in washington, d.c. and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 412 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 412, honoring the life and legacy of the honorable martin olaf sabo and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no enter screening action or de--

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business did it adjourn till 10 a.m. tuesday, april 5 following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceeding being approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved no their use lead later in the day. following remarks the senate proceed to h.r. 363, finally the senate recess from 12:30 till 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands

>> >> as far as television inverses internet is concerned the internet is the future. >> yes. we are making plans now with the gigabit fiber overlay over the entire system they could take years and cost millions of dollars but that is mitt future lies is a television ecosystem seems

to be so distorted it is on the autopilot course to be unaffordable. not by be met by the consumer. >> host: what does that mean for consumers who want to have cable tv? >> i think the closest -- the crisis of affordability has become a nationwide. as it is more expensive to provide this service. but to dallas to handle acidulous but it is difficult for people in smaller companies to afford cable television.

we need to solve it consumers will follow the to be a they will stop subscribing to those networks and rely more and more on a combination of broadcast television and supplement that what they want to with the internet. >> host: you talk about your cost. what makes up that cost? the cost of buying television from lifetime or another channel or the aloha -- local station in? >> the program content is about 55 or $57 per customer per month as a cbination with broadcast alien satellite networks. the bulk of the dollars are for the satellite networks broadcast television a smaller dollar amount but

growing faster because they started at the lowest with the curve go we up board so the toughest is the three regional sports landed short order they will be $10 per customer per month that is the largest cost. >> host: how much of that is because ohio state proximity? >> i guess in terms of rates but the indians have a channel a big ted has a channel their all owned by fox probably the most problematic because they're expensive channels but come together in one company. >> host: you referenced that hca of the american cable association and had just had your key will

begin. fifth call dash eight you will be big what did you hear? >> a typical story 800 covers across the country all 50 states with many territories as well. we have half members that have 1,000 customers or fewer. 80% have 5,000 or fewer made up like bob to is the chairman of the organization or a telephone company providers we have the spectrum to provide communications all across the country which is why we have been telling your story 23 years. >> defaces save issues of the american cable association? >> we do. >> do you agree? >> there is a lot of

agreement we do work closely but his family has been involved for many years committee members founded cable out of necessity. so we are very involved and invested in the cable industry but what we have learned washington fits on a one size fits all regulations across the board in our smaller markets there is a difference because in many cases it involves others you get down to 20 homes per mile that is homes. not customers than with competition arabia 5412 or 10 where costs the same amount to provide it over a much smaller area with a longer reach of returns we have said regulation provided disproportional the

tour members that is why we need to fight but what is at stake is the customer's broadband future that is why we're here to tell the story to washington. >> host: was discussed at this past conference was the skinny bundles alex hart issues to you in favor to allow them to pick and choose. >> absolutely. i have been for years. i don't believe a la cart would never work but like turner that owns eight different channels to have a difficult fight to force them to break up their own bundle. i think that would be very difficult but i don't see any reason why we couldn't have a process call a bundle that the consumer wants one or more of the turner

channels they have to buy all of them that is set by turner and the same with disney and viacom and so forth. >> if they did not want sports channels? with the cost down? >> it is very complicated consumers think i have 80 channels and it cost $80 and must me $1 a channel and that will not work the what really complicates is the requirements established by the networks that do not allow us to break up a bundle. for example, fox with their networks required to beat this to become the most basic level of service and we end up with the bundle of bundles that everybody has to take as an operator of

above to sell that to people as they wish. concourse of most consumers recognize if that happens the price of the individual channels for the bundle it will skyrocket because those companies have to meet their targets for revenue or they can pay for the content. everybody uses espn as the example $6 per month but if he made it available a la cart and half of the people took it is $12 a month or $24 that is just the way it will work. cad is the problem with advertising revenue fewer potential eyeballs means higher rates and more expenses.

>> we believe choice is important consumers want choice we see that they're using the iphones and the cell phone and the ipad and the tablet they are enjoying a choice coming to us to say give us more choice on cable i think the desire for consumers to want more choice will move towards greater choice may be even a la cart because consumers will demand it there used to read they will watch the programs when they want to watch on their device and force us to think about how we can make a difference which is why the ff -- the sec has noticed increased programming issues is vitally important to us that for the first time is asking questions our these programs kerry? hour they bundled? what other requirements operators have to deal with?

and we are happy to be a part of that discussion. >> should have said this up front but consumer choice and a the request to purchase what you want and pay for what you ask is the number one consumer comment or question about television. i cannot afford to pay this much at all watched most of these channels why can't i buy what i wanted pay for what i want and take the rest away? as cable operators and local operators are concerned about our consumers we are fine to deliver the but we simply cannot because of the restrictive contracts required by the content providers. >> if we said we cannot

afford that anymore that i would say then the others can't so i will not worry about you. >> there are cases already with they have dropped bundles of programming they have not had the subscriber loss because as consumers get it right now because of these restrictions of they have to buy a big bundle of programming they want smaller bundles and greater choice and greater flexibility why you have members today trying to launch skinny bundles but at the same time the largest programming companies that they're trying to give to consumers so it is a huge issue and it comes back to

what we're trying to do is give the customers what we want -- what they want we have launched for many years many are part of the large conglomerate but we have always given them what they want but today they say the bundle is too big and too expensive we want more choice we're trying to give it to them. >> host: a couple of months ago on this program talking about the set top box he said his members would love to get rid of the set top box it is a big frustration do you agree with that? >> yes. >> yes. >> there has been a great deal of discussion about the set top box because of the fcc proceedings that comes with the basic

misunderstanding what is included not just to let a $50 minicomputer putting in someone's home but a user interface cost and then comes the service element. a call center that will answer the calls and explain how to use your remote control and technicians coming to your home to plug into though wall all that cost adds up so fast that after five and six years you can replace that so those charges that we have now cover the cost of the box but it is entirely profitable part of the business and it is very complex consumers don't want to learn how to use it so they call us some of a constant turn of phone calls

to support that if it was the easy consumer interface that consumers like and enjoy we don't have to make the millions and millions of dollars of capital investment. >> host: the sec with the recent vote said it is to increase competition. >> we are in complete agreement with the industry to say that this is a problem in search of a solution. [laughter] or a solution in search of a problem. [laughter] the chairman talked about this rulemaking as of locking the box because the rule making is so vague to create a standard about what

gateway device or what reconfiguration or what types of mandates are imposed on cable operators that we have no idea of the capital cost we have imposed on companies that will take away broadband investment that the fcc is some of the most important things they want to the members to reduce no region not believe it is sensible rulemaking and frankly when i looked at the impact of the members will have disproportionate on smaller providers that is why we say it is not a good idea. >> why not they can? >> they do if you go to ride around quarter they have a nice display or exhibit of four or five different commercially available set top boxes that run that apps

game consoles, a smart tv, netflix, a comcast all of those represent a new way to watch television on connected devices. but there isn't a government mandated standard by which to do that. that is the part that becomes difficult for us there wasn't one intel last year rang congress said it isn't working in now to say let's have a government mandated technology platform that consumers have already choose an -- chosen not to purchase we agree with the commissioner of consumers who said they don't even want a box our members are providing choice through competitive boxes or apps or

giving choices about which box coming back to the customer to be a part of the relationship of what they want most in the fact is if this rulemaking does go forward we will spend years and hundreds of millions of not billions of dollars how much it will invest in the old cable cars at two years ago congress said get rid of it because it has not worked were created that creep -- competitive market congress basically said get rid of it you want to do a study going forward is fine but it didn't tell them to start a new rule making but even so we as an industry have come to the commission and said we have other proposals we like you to consider in

addition however that is not part of the rulemaking with gateway devices and the standards to impose hundreds of millions of dollars and we think it is time for the chairman to embrace the issues that we are bringing together where he said i hope i can have industry collaboration if the sec would simply listen. >> to assure competition? >> today the television market or direct tv, a dish network, a little bit time warner. as well as at&t with the good portion of my service area also centurylink and send year as internet and phone competitors and at&t also fits into that.

>> we have larger backbone providers for a big pipe internet. >> what about the netflix and apple to be? are they competition? >> now they are complementary. i and the broadband company i want to make great product that consumers know they can acquire to make a careful distinction between television and video with the old-fashioned that works that people have known traditionally but then there is video a more robust than dynamic concept i want consumers to know that my bride period is the best infrastructure on which they can choose if somebody says

i like broadcast tv from you or netflix from other content more power to them. we would love to work with netflix and with the set top box or with other consumer devices. >> host: are all of those companies regulated in the same fashion? >> for the most part with internet service provider issues the sec -- the fcc is here again we have members to their own desire the government did it need to tell them to provide broad band that puts you at risk for billions of dollars of capital we have companies across the country today launching gigabit service so

yes with those issues that matter for the future to give consumers the capacity is that they want we are in sync together with the membership. >>. >> the comcast and netflix? >> i will let you decide that. >> it does not address the entire network. and many have been fooled into thinking that work neutrality applies to go whole network but it does not. think of the internet i am

one of them. i am c i sp. people come to me to reach the internet at the end is another gate that lets content onto the internet that gateway is controlled by the virtuous providers. with netflix or viacom ora google and so forth. my gait is regulated by a network neutrality. is totally unregulated to read direct for that paid prior jersey sinn. it is a tilted playing field and my concern is able start to have said stabilization by the internet that was coined by a "new york times"

reporter that when they come to the isp the end demand payment otherwise the content will be unavailable and that has already happened. it has happened in exchange for cash and as a leverage for negotiation. i am afraid what a provider gets ahold of that concept that they can add dollars to every single internet subscriber and for content for which they have no interest. >> talk about issues with the fcc and washington what about the state of ohio? >> with my franchise we have two dozen local franchises. no problem. 165 local employees.

the family has been involved 175 years so we focus on those communities and to attach any issues. but the state of ohio is only a handful of in the country that has a statewide franchise so the state of ohio is our franchising authority. but because of the abundance of competition with addition at&t they assume that competition will dictate the winners and losers so they don't need to be intimately involved in what we do want a day to day basis. with the franchise fees to the local communities that the selection of the programming services with the service policies is up

to the local company. >> host: we have one minute left with is another major issue that was discussed? gimmickry transmission consent. the ability under law for broadcasters to demand payment or consideration in return for allowing us to carry the broadcast signal. issue since 1982 that has continually increasingly harm to consumers there is a historic about the plot -- blackouts were broadcasters have blacked out because they cannot reach an agreement with the historic amount of blackouts. the sec to its credit has undertaken of rulemaking to bring greater balance so consumers are not part by the prime -- the blackouts by broadcasters we should see something over the next couple months that prohibits the on line blocking and

online content as a result of free transmission consent or pulling it right before a big event like the oscars or the super bowl or march madness and other sensible ideas to create balance to get consumers out of the middle. we have talked about that and will continue until we get the problem fixed. >> does that keep you up at night? >> yes. because there is absolutely no leverage when it comes to the broadcast television network. >> we pretend to negotiate. we go back and forth a few times but they say "this is it" take-it-or-leave-it. it does keep me at night not because of the negotiations but the impact it will have on my customers when they wake up january 1st and a

television station is missing and i have no option to negotiate with another station of the same network because of what has been created by the broadcast network. >> host: is there a day when television is simply the isp? >> i am proud to say third generation and leadership my daughter joined us a couple years ago that is a problem she will have to deal with but i don't think that will happen during my tenure or my lifetime. >> host: president from cable communications president and from the american cable associations. this is "the communicators".

>> this is a story of the presidential power and it puts the central theme that they can do things that may

not be expected. >> the chief justice the case has come to be accepted by the culture. it it isolated the u.s. of 195 for any reason. >> but it has not settled the issue.

>> the argument next case. >> mr. chief justice of that may please the court this presents a fundamental question one-person one-vote rule for eligible voters in a reasonable protection it

must be after this court's decision and a consequence to state a claim. >> the district at issue had deviations as measured by eligible voters approaching 50 percent for any metric of eligible voters. nobody has sustained that magnitude to the one-person one-vote continuing the court's decision since then. >> what about the time this of equal representation? the population is the standard.

so we have this states overwhelmingly using the population but now you say they cannot do that anymore? >> i will answer in three different ways first equal representation that originated in westbury but it continues and therefore for us to hold within the state's though legislatures to draw the al live in such a way to give voters a greater voice to be unconstitutional. every time they use is that phrase it is within the same sentence with the protection of voters. we see asking the question not answering. with that population without distinguishing but had we

confirm that and here we are today. >> i thought burns says they proved a deviation? but they took great pains to say they could do that it seems to be the only case that you have but there was a tremendous military population. >> i believe not choose one way or the other but use that census to draw the district's the survey says you can protect eligible voters. and to talk about tradition if it were a rule that would come out the other way. so the court said so it

doesn't trumpet those individual rights to be protected. we know from standing and that that is predicated on the right of the voter and it is unusual to say my one-person one-vote has been violated. >> what you are forgetting is the voting interest but also a representation issue and that has less to except the total population base because states have to have some discretion to figure out who should be having a representational voice. we were referring to the state because we had a

legitimate reason the burns was in the 1960's as a perfect legitimate way as a representational need. they have to be able to say as the federal government the legislature is in protecting words but citizens. >> so it is a really a representational interest there is 31 senate districts the nonvoter will have one representative it is an access claim. it is it really the access claim. that is how far from voting is on the a decided we have districts header over

populated to have diminishing access we don't deny that is an interest along with other interest with the deviation of 50% stake it is true when reapportioning house members to use the total population as the metric but why isn't the case that would require something to one apportionment with respect to another? >> apportionment is fundamentally different and

there was a concern but what the court held in reynolds that compromise was not justified in alabama came to the port every county gets one and representative and the precise formula. >> but with reynolds they caved it also required to inoculation that they deviated from narrowed constitution so was sent by federal law but by state law.

but to use the total population is in the neck case total populations but with the tennessee house of touche and but there is no problem with the tennessee constitution and. but that is the best place to show that. there will be one of governor that is what establishes a you cannot marry at that representation of the interest that doesn't make sense we also know that

misery could district at the congressional level so i don't think it would be fair to say the use is of the words population. >> i'm sorry but you think the house apportionment rule is not clear? >> at the federal level is of the state level. not only is apportioned required the my point is a 1969 that is an issue but it is completely open. to make it for eligible voters.

to braying of claim or that is injured. >> in all the years it was wrong for the state's they're not eligible voters. >> there was a an issue to the franchise but that court did more than one thing at once. >> was your interpretation for determining the of representation. >> of the equal protection clause it said

disenfranchisement could have been brought as was minority representation but it was accomplishing several things better pass to matter as a non citizen would not have the ability one-person one-vote. >> so it seems everyone is arguing equal protection and added to deal in those instances in which those voters were malapportioned. >> but if you step back to their other parts of the constitution may be a

republican form of government about what kind of democracy those words say with the republican form of government that what we actually want is the kind of democracy whether they choose to vote or not is going to receive their proportion representation income. if they take that as a constitutional principle principle, that shows an objective and did you have to retreat from the idea as interpreted in this case.

. . >> i'm not making it. she did not quote the guaranty clause. maybe i should not have done that in. >> reynolds does speak to this. that exact theory would be the one that sustained the model that alabama brought to the court. that does take account of these issues. and even if you are correct, that does not solve the case. texas could have done much more to manage both representational equality and building equality. to say and proof he did not

come in. >> we're thought the motion to dismiss stage. our allegation has to be taken as true. the reason is fundamental. we don't want the court or ourselves to write this map of taxes. we want the texas legislature to do his job. texas was precluded. >> this practical possibility plan to this discussion? the acs which you positive is the way you can fine-tune eligible voters has been almost decisively proven as being inadequate. it only measure cities with populations were places where populations are over 65,000. just on that ground alone there will be districts that cannot rely upon it.

it is flawed on many levels. take my assumption that it is flawed. does that practicality have any play in our decision? >> i willi will take the assumption and try to argue against it if you will allow me. practicality, if the court were to hold two different questions, has the court explained, it is our burden to bring in evidence showing total population did not protect individual rights. we have alleged it is true. iftrue. if we can prove it and we have failed to me our burden. it would be a different question of the court held yes. but not sufficient to draw new map. then the court is in a place where the answer is go back to baker. you have a violation the no judicially manageable way to

solve it. if i can get back to the fundamental premise which is acs data, your honor was talking about the one-year data, but states use the five-year data. going down less than 4,000 people. the only group that doesn't his individual block group data. moreover, we know the data is good because it is used in section two every day. to bring as successful section to claim you have to show you have a majority of the citizen voting age population in your district to get to the 1st factor. that means if there is 50.1 percent minority eligible voters you can proceed. if it is 49.9 percent you cannot. this data determines that question.

if it can do that, it can bring a deviation ofa deviation of 47 percent to somewhere between ten and 20. look at the supplemental appendix, turn to page five and there is a column thata column that lists all of the numbers for every texas senator district. texas asked for these numbers to draw this map. if you pull those numbers and look at district one, 557,000. right next to that is the plus or minus with numbers. that is the margin of error, so if you took all of those margins of error and use them against our position at every turn, underpopulated districts up, assuming every turn against us and run the numbers your move the

deviation from 47 percent 45 pe. this is not an issue of margin of error, not an issue about the availability. this is used to draw statewide districts at every turn. >> can i go back to the question raised, the guaranty clause? the 14th amendment, the framers of the 14th amendment explicitly considered this issue. and they made a decision. senator howard talks about these deliberations and says the committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis and that is the principal upon which the constitution itself was originally framed.

this is the theory of the constitution. this is a very what it meant to have equal representation with respect to that area and how you go from not being mandated to it being prohibited of something i still can't quite work myself around. >> a good person. quex's. >> 's position was rejected and reynolds. that exact argument was brought forth. modeled and apportionment

and mirrored it exactly. concerned with many other things as she was suffrage command issue with qualifications. a complex federalism -based sovereignty compromise. >> it does not apply. i can understand. i might not agree but i can understand the position that says the requirement might not apply, but you are suggesting we go beyond that >> we take our q1 that. all falls from the right. wewe start with the proposition that one person can be given to votes other neighbor be given one.

you can do it by calling it waiting. and the 3rd step was, you can't accomplish the same by drawing lines. if you accept that is true i can be given five votes in my neighbor given one. if it causes that injury i have a claim. to say that i don't because of different constitutional provision projects a different light in a different way, we find that not a satisfactory response p.m. which reynolds itself rejects the argument. and turning back to section two for a moment, congress agreed with our position, relied on reynolds not only in the report that has been so widely used in those cases but in this court's opinion as well. the court has held, added

emboldened saying reynolds is a powerful delusion. the same argument can be made about section two only counting eligible voters. no one argues that we are discriminating. if the court were to proceed we would have one will, the benefit under section two. there's a fundamental disconnect. >> and the states would have a choice between the citizen voting age population or they could use the registered voters? >> not the method by which you distribute legislators accounts but the distribution of legislators. therefore the state can

truly use any metric that adequately and fairly distributes legislators. we think it is not ordinarily the right one for two reasons. those who hold the one person one vote right of those who meet the basic qualifications. burns essentially double down on the argument by saying it depends upon political activity. we should not make right depend upon who decides to enter the fray. ordinarily going to be the 1st and most accurate. that is what the legislature decides. in the texas legislature, it is important to keep in mind they did everything that we are asking to be done, took all the data, the

citizenship dated athe registered voter data and put it all into a computer and drew their districts and you started to draw districts in this map. they used it to comply with section two and then close their eyes and did not want to look. all we are asking the legislature to do is open its eyes. >> purposefully. >> under one person one vote the deviation over 10 percent. >> they intentionally decided to have deviations. >> they were handcuffed by state law. the attorney general interpretation that precluded texas. it is arbitrary. >> that goes back to my point. they want to make this a representational matter. so they were precluded intentionally.

>> under the rule deviation exceeding 10 percent he can have deviations greater than 10 percent. the great representational need that justice kagan was talking about, adequate. >> we think it is. areyou not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. we are asking for nothing more than the bring it within the ten to 20 percent range. >> ten to 20 percent is okay. >> the court has held up the 16.5 percent.

>> children. they are not voters. so if you take children out of it. >> children are represented at the polls by the parents. if their parents have been disenfranchised it was by the state, states like california and new york. >> they become eligible voters. they are not counted for section two. >> thank you, counsel. gen. keller. >> color. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the only question the court has to resolve is whether the equal protection clause requires every state to

change its current practice and use voter population to reapportion. the answer is no. text is used federal census data. the framers accepted total population has a permissible apportionment base has justice kagan said earlier. >> one of the use that under section two? >> in section two of the voting rights, section two protects voters, and our position unlike the united states position is that it's only under the voting rights act. in considering whether there is an opportunity to elect a candidate of one's choice only voters would count for that inquiry. the one person one vote.

>> it does, but there are multiple legitimate bases on which a state camry district. electrode quality is one. if i can back out comeau we are dealing with is the general equal protection clause which guards against invidious discrimination. the court noted before. and so really the claimant is being alleged so by using total population as states have done for decades and the state today use voter population, does not invidious the target groups to cancel out voting power or reduce their ability to elect representatives of their choice. rather the mid- legitimate choice to use representational equality which is a legitimate interest. what the state cannot do is

submerge the population principle. we cannot base apportionment on geography. they have to take account the population. there is no allegation that 8.04 percent would not satisfy the courts one person one vote. >> it is one person one vote whatwhat counts is giving each person a equal chance of affecting the outcome of the election. that's one possible argument and what the senses measures another argument is that

representational equality is the real basis and therefore why you use the population. >> i don't believe we are making either of those arguments. total population is not permissible because it tracks voter population. at the same time representational equality is not the only basis on which a state camry district. we could choose a reliable measure without running afoul of the equal protection clauses guarantee >> the two interests are not always consistent. they can be a great conflict. you can have a situation where you cause great inequality in the chances of voters effecting the outcome of the election. if you choose eligible voters only thing you may

have a situation where every person within two district does not have an equal representation defined in some way in the legislature. i don't think you can say we serve both. >> i believe with this court said is you allow the states to choose the theory of representation. because part of what the sports doctrine is recognized his states neatly why and part of the dignity of state sovereignty is to structure elections. other representational or equality, that is not no legitimate basis upon which to reapportion. >> voter population is permissible basis under the constitution i assume that is because there is an

ethical, good government, liberty interest in protecting voters that is valid. well, if in a case like like this where there is a 45 percent deviation then why is it that taxes required at that point to recognize that these interests that are legitimate under the constitution which are voter based should not be accommodated and so that you should at least give some consideration to the disparity you have among voters. >> first off, upheld total population. the 29 percent deviation. it was quite sure that it had not been made out.

the equal protection clause does not mandate that either must take precedence over the other. of course it would be legitimate for the state to look at the data. at the same time that we have federal census data, it is not invidious for texas to use that enumeration. all we have is total population data. >> that is one of the justices question is important. there is a table on page nine. just looking by inspection i don't know whether this is true or false, but i thought the major difference between the two here is probably that some areas, a lot of people who are working and have children, it can't all

be explained on the basis of illegal immigration. it just can't be. and if we accept the principle that it is voter equality we are saying that the family had a certain age has a children or whatever, getting no no representation for those other people were human beings and if we accept the opposite we have to put up with inequalities of power voters. you have to say the one or the other. you can take your position. it is up to the state. that seems to me to be what is behind the numbers that are being quoted, but i am not sure. >> i believe there is a difference between diminishing access to representatives and having representation. the united states has said that if taxes are another state reapportion on the

basis of voter population that nonvoters would be invisible to the system. they were still be represented. the issue is does a state have to have the same amount of constituents per representative? and estate can do so. >> fifty or something, the british parliament said don't worry, america, you are represented by the people in england because they represent everyone in the british empire. being represented through somebody else as possible but tough. >> a child in my congressional district was still be represented by that member of congress. the issue is diminishing access to the representative. while that is legitimate basis there is no equal protection principle that

would elevate that as a rule of constitutional law that would say the state of texas invidious they discriminated >> why is one option more explosive than the other? what can you have both? especially when you have indicated that a voter based apportionment is valid and here it is being very substantially disregarded. >> there has been no demonstrative plan submitted to the texas legislature or to the district court that both of these could have been equalized within 10 percent. they are demographer not specify the extent. they simply said the deviation can be reduced. if the court were to go down the road of requiring states to equalize, total and voter

population states would inevitably have to disregard many other traditional redistricting factors like keeping communities together which would be the opposite of what the court has said the states have in this context which is the only way to structure their election as part of the core function of their sovereignty. >> that sounds highly probable. >> i don't believe so. we are also not aware that this would be practically feasible. if they had a plausible allegation that this was possible whothat would have expected to see a demonstrative map. >> do you have any idea how often this is a problem? is a case of people used total population. it seems to me there would be a lot of areas where it will make a difference. >> i believe new york's amicus brief suggests in

places such as california, alaska, possibly new york issue will absolutely come up. >> only in those particular helpful? >> a few more examples. examples. by no means for this necessarily be a problem everywhere. if there were a rule that a state had to consider voter population that would change the nature of redistricting. >> what if you had the same de minimis deviation allowed there, in other words, if you are within the deviation under 10%, does that take care of many of the areas? >> well, for the reasons i just suggested i believe that would be quite an onerous burden and for change the nature of redistricting. could there possibly be a situation in which a plan my a plan my be able to get within a 10 percent deviation of total population and a 10 percent

deviation? maybe. i am not aware. to back out to 1st principles, i don't believe i will be the minimus discrimination. the court had never fashioned to determine whether someone's voting power is being penciled out. >> explained why acs is fine. why would it be inappropriate to use it in deciding the impact on an equal footing analysis? >> our position is not if the acs data is reliable enough to hold the state liable it would also be reliable enough to use apportionment. there could be issues about

the granularity. we do get at census block level, the smaller you get for district levels pending on if you are city as opposed to our state senate plan, they're may be issues where you could not use the data to get within the 10 percent deviation from above and larger districts you could use the five-year data and you could do it to get within the 10 percent deviation. of course we are not constitutionally compelled because as the court recognized, that is recognized, that is up to the states in choosing a legitimate population basis. >> if i could briefly address the us argument comeau we disagree. section two does not protect nonvoters. and earlier we discussed section two i would like to return to cite the amicus

brief because i believe this cuts against the court's theory. if minority group has low rates of citizenship and the redistricting plan is not to blame for rather there lack of sufficient voters, so the suggestion that there could be packing or cracking claims of communities that have nothing to do with packing or cracking voting blocs that is an incorrect interpretation and would render section two unconstitutional with the right to vote that is being protected. if the court has no further questions. >> thank you. >> mr. chiefmr. chief justice, and may it please the court.

redistricting indicates the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people. we thus agree that texas was not required to redistrict on the basis of some as yet undefined basis. but we disagree that the course you go on to the side in the future. there are at least four reasons why voter population cannot be required. we think it will be an odd interpretation. second is the long history of states redistricting on a basis other than voter population. at the time of the framing of the 14th amendment because the vast majority redistricting in the wake of

the 14th amendment congress required districting on the basis of inhabitants. over the last 50 years states have unanimously redistricted on the basis of total population. .. stewart >> second, it does not measure what the plaintiff suggests is required. it is not a measure of voter eligibility. it doesn't include felons, oversea visitors or the mentally ill. that data doesn't exist. and picking up on justice

sotomayor's point the data doesn't suggest the need to be predistricted. it doesn't appear at the block level, it is not issued in a timely bases. the census data comes out in april 2021. >> that is ought often used for section two. >> it is used for a different purpose. it is used in sector two as one factor along with many like population data, voting data, turnoutdate tu tu turnout data and other measures. i would like to pick up on justice kennedy's question.

>> who has standard to bring the reynold's claim? anybody who is accountable? >> that is a question this court has never had to resolve in the context of west berry which was the same rule. let me explain why we don't think it is redeposited. >> are you going to tell me who is standing? >> yes, your honor. we think the better understanding is that a non-voter would have standing but here is why i don't think it matters. you can view our position as through either lens. a representational lens in which what is happening is that the reynold'sdition is a way to ensure all people covered by the equal protection clause still have a voice. >> that includes everybody who is counted in the census.

>> yes. >> it includes aliens, prisoners, undocumented. does it include members of all of those groups? >> we think it might but we don't think we have to agree with that to rule in our way. we do think the right at reynold is viewed, as we said on page 14, as a voter right. the way to think about this as reyno reynolds did was to say that when you have twice the representatives in twice the inhabitants in a district you get half the votes. reynolds said of course it would violate the constitution to count somebody's vote as two or five times. but the next sentence said the affect of state legislature district schemes that give the same number of representatives to unequal number of constituents is identical.

that is the point we are making here. if i could pick up on the chief justice's point about why can't you do beth. we agree with general keller. the problem with doing both is it eliminates the state's flexibility to do the traditional taxes. you are forced to take a population in one part of the state that has high citizenship rates and pair it with a situation with populations that have low citizenship rates in another part of the state. or taking an example from the amicus brief. 9% children and then 30% on the other side. you are tearing people from part of manhattan and pairing them with voters in brooklyn. what ends up happening is if you vote at the level of 10% it limits the state's ability to to take into account political subdivisions and compactness and

other things this court said is critical in re-districting. for the question about whether this is would have a large practical affect i assume it is a big deal as to whether it will have a large practical affect. thousands of local jurisdictions, none of whom use voter population as a definition for redistricting. the amicus brief slows this isn't just states being affected whether there are differences between citizens and non-citizens but the children are a critical part. manhattan is 9% and brooklyn is 30% children. in texas the amicus brief was raised from 9% in some counties to 35% in others. rural and urban is 20% versus 30% children in another. this is an issue that is going

to affect states and local j jurisdictions throughout the country. local jurisdictions don't have the data at the level this court is now requiring as a constitutional law. i would like to pick up on another point the plaintiff raised. we think this is a fundamental misreading of west burry. it said a portion of allocating representatives to the states had to be the same for aliga aligate -- allocating within the state. that was the reason the great compromise had to be reflected into redistricting. that principle was exactly the principle the court adopted in reynolds. what the court said in reynolds with was west berry that

established the equal representation for equal numbers of people without regard to race, economic status or place of residents within the state. it is precisely that same principle from wesberry that looked at the framing and looked at the discussion of calculation of representatives and looked at the drafting of the 14th amendment and took that history and translated it. >> voters are irrelevant? >> i don't think our argument is vitters are irrelevant. there are a couple points. the question here is when texas has chosen to use total population is that admissible and we think it is. we don't think voters are irrelevant because of what we said. reyno reynolds used population to vindicate the voter's right. when you have twice the inhabitants you have half the voice of representatives.

>> your time is going to expire. in extreme cases, maybe this wouldn't come up, but suppose you have a rural district and the total number of the population for a district is fairly small, you have a rural district with a huge prison and few or other inhabitants and a neighboring district with no prison. so in one district 10% of the population is eligible voters and the other district is 90% of the population is eligible. that would be okay? >> two responses. this court recognized and we don't dispute census data is not the sole data. a state can adjust census data to capture actually residents in the state. we think that is what is happening in hawaii and in the

state of virginia where they counted all of the ports as home residents and the port said you have to take an adjustment to that. thank you, your honor. >> mr. council, you have four minutes remaining. >> to your question about representation of children. if that were the principle of reynolds in a state-wide election the state could give five votes to a family of five and one vote to an individual. >> i would-like to know before knowing if nis is mandatory. i would like to happen who these people are who have been represented on the representation theory and who are not represented on the votes. i don't know who they are in the briefs. >> the data shows that is the mix of non-citizens and children. all of the categories. it is a mix. there are children involved, of course.

but our point is more fundamental. the state has chosen not to allow the vote. the state could solve this problem. the states come here to say we don't want them to vote. we want them to count for districting, though. that should be rejected by this court. secondly, for most states, the disenfranchised a deputy that way. i am not suggesting we should chose for the state who they allow to vote. they should be able to make the choice that is their right.

if the right to vote is taken all other rights are violated. the authors of that sentence would be surprised to learn the one-person one-vote rule has nothing to do with that. you could have a system that crowds 31 districts, all eligible voters of each other person their own district. that plan would be sustainable absence evidence of racial segregation. the state comes in saying we know we will never do it but we will try. the state by state law forced themselves to not try this. they were told by the court they could do both. they would go back to the drawing board and dry. we suspect when we have a ledge that must be taken as true they must do it.

there will not be traditional interest or county lines or anything like that could be level one. it is political and racial jerry mandering they want to do and our rule, especially the rule of balancing the vote, stops it. the deviations in arizona, a hypothetical case. on page 26 of their own jurisdictional statement they con seed it is 54%. in district 8, the trict at mostly issue is underpopulated at 22%. if arizona had to go back to the drawing board and accommodate both there would be opportunity to engage in the political and racial issues that dominate the problem and they should be solved legislatively. section two doesn't work without this understanding as justice scalia pointed out in his

decent. how do you know if minority measuring occurs if there is no baseline? >> thank you, counsel. your case is submitted. >> primary voters go to the polls in wisconsin and we have live road to the white house coverage tonight. tonight, donald trump talks to supporters in milwaukee and that is live on c-span2 at 8:00. and senator ted cruz will hold a campaign rally in waukesha, wisconsin at 8 eastern also and that is live on c-span. >> today's white house briefing include the transfer of two guantanamo bay detainees and the

north carolina transgender law. here as a portion of the briefing with josh earnest while we wait for the campaign to begin. >> the number there is lowered and how much longer does the white house plan to wait till you give congress time before you plan to use executive action? >> well, jeff, let's get to the news first is that this department did announce the department of two detainees to the department of sin gall. there are 89 detiny -- detainees remaining now. let me express thanks for this humanitarian gesture. the united states aprecates the

help from the government as we continue to try to close the facility at guantanamo bay. this is part of a strategy that the president initiated when we he first arrived in the white house. the discussion to transfer these two detainees reflects the careful analysis of a review board that was establish said to consider the individual cases of detainees. there review board's role was to determine if there are locations to which individuals would be safely transferred to senegal and we appreciate the help they have given us.

this helps our about to make the case to congress we can close down the facility at guantanamo bay and we can do that consistent with national security priorities and we will continue to make that case. >> so, even though there is a current plan and are you expecting commerce to reverse ports that allow that? >> justice, yes, this administration is going to continue to do your job and congress should do their job in fulfilling their responsibility to look out for the national security interest of the american people. we have applied that label when it comes to the supreme court but also to arrange national security considerations as well. it is not just this president that made the case that closing the president at guantanamo bay is clearly in your national security interest.

this is a case that has been supported by national security experts in both parties including president george wshg bush and a range of officials who served in his administration. this is a strategy that is strongly supported by the secretary of defense. so our national security desires are clear and we would welcome congress stopping there, you know, efforts to obstruct the closing of the prison at guantanamo bay and actually work effectively with the administration to get that done. >> any explanation about the documents in panama? it was said that there was a main target of the briefs. do you have reason to be that is

the case or what else might have been behind this document? >> obviously in the sense of reporting you have seen what has been done on these linked documents. i don't have a comment on the specific allegations including in the documents. but i can tell you the united states continues to be a leading advocate for increased transparency in the international financial system and in working against elicit financial transaction corruption. there has been a lot of talk over the portion of the last year about how effective u.s. sanctions imposed by the treasury department can be effecive in advanceing the national security of the united states. that is true if we are isolated russians because of their violation of the territorial integr integrity of the sovereign nation of ukraine or increasingly isolating and pressuring the north korea regime to give up their pursuit

of nuclear weapons or in targeting isil's financial operations. that is why the united states is the leading advocate of greater transparency. it allows us to fight out corruption. we will continue to be ad kate -- advocates for that transparency and there will be large groups of national security at the national security and national justice that will be focused on this. >> in north carolina we have seen companies limit the traveling it is doing to that state and boycotting the state over this law they enacted over transgender people. is there any consideration as

far as the federal government not having federal employees travel there when they can avoid it try not to promote what has been done there? >> i am not aware of such a policy but there is policy and legal questions raised by the passage of this law and a number of government agencies are sifting through the questions and looking at what impact it may have. i can just say that more generally this administration is committed to defending and even promoting the equal rights of all americans including lgbt americans. our commitment to that principle that people shouldn't be discriminated because of who they love is a fight this administration and president will continue to speak out in support of those equal rights because it is partly partial of what it means to live in the greatest country in the world.

>> can you talk about things you are considering and effects from that in >> there are a range of individual agencies taking a look at this. it is obviously something you can ask them if they reached any determinations about how this particular law would have an impact on their interaction with the state of north carolina. i will say it is not surprising to me there are a number of significant business entities that came out to express their concern about this law. the state of north carolina has an economy that is built significantly from what officials in that state probably describe as a hospitality business environment. passage of laws like this don't create a hospitalable business environment particularly if businesses are concerned their customers or employees will be singled out by the state. i am not surprised to hear

government officials in north carolina are feeling pressure on this right now. >> the democratic governor of colorado said he opposes having former guantanamo bay detainees in his state. and i am wondering if the white house talked to the governor about this and how the opposition might affect the president's closing of the facility. >> i don't have any specific white house conversations to tell you about. but what the white house would be committed to is ensuring we work with state and local officials effectively in impleme implementing a strategy successfully. but lking about individual states is out of the game because right now congress is focused on preventing the transfer of those detainees to any states in the united states. of course congress' position is ironic because there are already dozens of convicted terrorist

that are currently serving prison time in the united states, on u.s. soil, in u.s. prisons. the administration has made the case that the ability of our criminal justice system to prosecute those individuals and hold them accountable for their crimes in a way that is consistent with our value doesn't hurt our national security. what hurts the security is detaining those individuals in prison where they cannot pose a future threat to national security. -- doesn't hurt. we found a mechanisms to handle the cases responsibebly. particularly when we know that continuing to detain these individuals at the prison of guantanamo bay is inconsistent with our values and does give

extremist organizations the kind of propaganda and recruiting tool that they have already used effe effectively and why we would continue to provide that to them makes no sense. >> it was said the u.s. is behind training because of the fighting. i am wondering if you can talk more about that. >> let me start by saying we welcome the valuable contribution nato has made in afghanistan. much of the progress we made in afghanistan would not have been possible without their

significant contributions. it is part -- it is that effective part that allows the united states to succeed in decemb decimating the core al-qaeda in the afghanistan region. we have make progress helping the afghan government on the ground there. that ultimately is the key to our success. that has been a long road. we have got substantial journey ahead of us before we can see the kind of resolution in afghanistan that we would like to see. but there is no denying we made important progress. the united states and our military personal in afghanistan

are going to continue to build on their commission of counterterrorism and training afghan security forces. nato has an important role in supporting those missions particularly the second one. we have seen performance by the afghan security forces on the battlefield and they have been tested. there is no denying that. we will continue to stand with them as they counter the threats from extremist. >> two questions. going back to josh's question on north carolina. you know pointing to the agencies and they might have the details but my question is is there administration comfortable whatever the agencies decide the white house is willing to stand by that decision? for example, shutting off all federal funding for schools or housing in north carolina?

if that was what the agencies decided would the white house say go ahead and do that or do you guys have a position on how far you are willing to go in this? and do you have thoughts on the court's ruling today? >> on the decision, i am not aware any of the agencies are considering going quite that far. i am not sure the law would allow it. let alone, the broader policy implications of making a decision that is that far-reaching. officials will take a close look at what impact this particular law will have on the legal and policy questions that are raised. >> will you weigh in on supporting whatever action is taken? >> the white house is in regular communication with these individual agencies but the work being done is at the agency level and i would not rule out

the white house needing to be involved in that effort at some point. but it is the agency's officials taking a close look at what needs to be done. your second question is on the supreme court ruling today. i think you saw from the supreme court justice they were pleased with the ruling. many were made before the decision was incorporated into the decision reached. it is consistent with the arguments the government has made in the most fair and effective way for american citizens to elect a representative in government at all levels. sarah? >> back to the so-called -- [inaudible question]

how concerned is the president that several allies are showing [inaudible question] ? >> i am not going to be able to consider the individual claims that are made based n some information included in the documents. based on the reports there are some 11 million documents released so my guess is it will take even the most astute analyst to analyze everything in there. this large volume of documents doesn't change the u.s.' position which is there should be greater transparency in financial transactions and there is a host of regions for that. we continue to advocate for that transparency on the international scale.

i can tell you even inspite of everything there are determined experts who can examine these transactions or who are regularly examining transactions on the international markets to determine their consistency with sanctionss that are imposed or even laws on the books in the united states. >> despite the white house campaign for senate democrats there hasn't been much shift in the republican's desire to hold a conformation hearing or a vote. why do you think that is? >> you will call in the hours