fact authorized but may fall into a protected class is. congress very carefully calibrated the penalties on both sides so that the employer would play it straight down the middle and hire the best people for the job under these circumstances all complying if possible with the federal requirements. it is against that -- >> why is it a problem if, as the federal statute requires and the state statutes require, you have to show an intent to hire an unauthorized workers? isn't that what the state statutes here require? >> the state statute has two components. one is knowing and one is intent. >> why is that a problem for the business? so long as he does not intentionally higher and on authorized worker -- higher unauthorized workers. >> it is not always clear

precisely who is and is not an authorized worker. congress -- i am not going to do with this problem in the granulated way are looking at it, which is each of the individual employment decisions. you look at the generality of the situations and realize that if you put -- on one side of the scale, what arizona has done here, which is to say you can essentially have a death penalty for a business, eliminate the business is right to exist. on the other side of the scale, a $250 fine. it would be remarkable to say i am going to hide behind the intent and the knowing requirements and instead avoid if possible the risk of arizonas sanctions. >> i think the result would -- i think arizona would answer this is the only option the federal government left us. you might use reticulated penalties or enforce the federal

law ourselves. but they did allow us to enforce the law, the immigration law. it essentially comes down to the licensing issue. >> it does come down through licensing laws. the fundamental problem, obviously, with the arizona scheme, is that this is not a licensing law. this is a worker authorization sanctioning law. >> when i picked up this brief and looked at this case, i thought licensing was a defined term. but it really is not. your brief indicates -- you indicate what federal licensing laws are. but i see no limitation on what the state can decide if the license. that is not in any jurisprudential area you cited.

>> to grasp the meaning of licensing law and whether we construe it broadly to allow the state authority to engage in supplemental enforcement -- ordinarily, in order to say what ought to have been in this context, if you deal with a situation where the federal government has enforced a provision and posed a penalty through the federal scheme, as a supplement to that, the state does have the authority over and above what the federal government has done. but it seems to me quite remarkable to think that congress intended to parent that local licensing laws to allow the state to adopt a shadow enforcement mechanism, a non- administrative decisionmaking process, a state-run operation, and even in the and the sanction is not imposed ultimately by any

regulating entity. >> that is possible only because nobody would think that with this scheme in place the federal government would not enforce it. of course no one would have expected that. but what arizona says has occurred here is that the scheme in place has not been enforced in arizona and other states are in financial straits because of extreme immigration. therefore, they had to take this massive -- i agree this step is massive. one would not have expected it to occur under this statute. but expectations change when the federal government has simply not enforced restrictions. >> i understand the point and the motivation for why arizona did what it did. the problem is the statute was enacted in 1986. that is when the pre-emption standpoint were put in place. if you look at the structure of

this passage -- it is not a self defining concept. at first, congress said very specifically that the immigration law should be enforced uniformly, which says there should not be 40,000 different localities offering up their view of licenses. this part is particularly telling in terms of t massive state scheme and has been adopted. under a section of the appendix, congress specifically outlaws the use of the i-nine form. this goes to your question. it would be inconceivable that the state can enforce knowing and intentional decision making without having access to thei-9 form./ >> to get back to the issue of whether this is a licensing law,

licensing is not an unknown term. i think here in the district of columbia, every business has to have the general of business license. is that not right? >> that is true. >> if the district of columbia were, having enacted this requirement some years ago saying if you knowingly hire an illegal alien, your general

>> why is it suddenly not a license because the state imposes an additional condition? >> the condition is whether it within thsing law meaning of what congress intended. the reality is there is no common definition of license. >> actually, there is. it seemed to me when i read this, it sounded a little bit familiar, and whoever wrote it, but it out of the administrative procedure act. this is awfully close. >> i understand it, and i agree with that, but the problem is that the federal law does not talk about actions with respect to license. it talks about licensing laws. >> that is right. it might have meant something different, but i read the seiu brief, and i thought that was interesting. what did that mean?

and if it did not mean the apa definition, what did it mean? >> it does a good job explaining the particular focus of congress on the agricultural workers protection act. in particular, it has tremendous significance in terms of narrowing the authority of the state. obviously, in the conforming amendments -- >> it could have named that particular licensing scheme if that is all it meant, but it did not name it. it said licensing generally. what did it intend to add to that? barber's licenses? pediatricians licenses? i do not think it has anything to do with the immigration laws. >> i think what congress actually had in mind and what is the most natural reading is the fairly common situation where somebody violates federal law -- usually on the criminal side -- and a state licensing entity finds out about a conviction of a federal crime and says, "wait

a second -- we do not want people to have licenses under these circumstances." >> that is exactly what they are saying. it is common to talk about authority to do business within a state, as a license. it is a common expression. maybe you will persuade me otherwise, but i have no doubt that insofar as this law limits the authority to do business within the state, it is a licensing law. it is a little harder extending licensing to formation of a corporation, but when you issue a corp. charter, you really do two things -- you create the corporation and enable the limitation of liability that creates, and secondly, you authorize that new creature to do business with in your state.

so at least half of that corporation l is licensing, it seems to me. if that is what i think -- >> i think actually, if you just received the articles of incorporation, that does not in all states necessarily give you the opportunity to do business. it just gives you the right to exist. you may well need a separate document. >> you do not need the kind of a document that an out-of-state corporation needs. >> that is true. but the reality is that nobody, i think in common use of the turn things of articles of incorporation or charter or any such documents as licensing. >> could i just spoke is the questioning? and because we keep talking about whether the apa definition of licensing is what congress

intended or not, but you do not disagree that congress at least intended that if someone violated the federal law and hired undocumented aliens and was found to have violated it, the they can revoke their license to do business, correct? so it really does not matter whether they are revoking their right to do business in the state, and they can only revoke their charter or articles of incorporation if they were filed in that state. they would not have power to revoke to delaware. stopping them from doing business. really, the only conflict we are talking about is not the power to stop them from doing business because you accept that he gives them the power to do that, to revoke the right to do business. what your talking about is a

conflict in the adjudication of that issue. so how they define license or not is irrelevant to me. walk me through what they're what expressly preempt that adjudication might or what exclusively creance that adjudication might -- that is, for me, what the center of the question is. >> there are three pieces of evidence to respond to. first is congress in section 115 of the statute specifically says enforcement should be uniform, which suggests to me that this ought to be exclusively a federal investigation and adjudication process. any point i was making earlier about the i-nine form -- >> let me depart from that. what does that mean? what does that mean,

"enforcement shall be uniform"? >> enforcement of the laws shall be uniform. congress stated that as an overarching principle. >> what is the assumed situation with respect to all federal laws? are they applied uniformly? >> i think it depends on the circumstance. remember, we are talking about immigration policy and immigration law here. in general, you would expect that to be pretty much uniform, but declined had decided there were some elements, and congress was simply reinforcing the basic notion that enforcement of it ought to be uniform. >> does the exception for licensing mean this is not going to be completely uniform? one jurisdiction may take the position that a restaurant that employees, illegal aliens may lose its restaurant, its license to operate, and another may take a different position.

>> i think that is why it is important to narrow as much as possible, and it is fully consistent with congressional intent. it needs to get a full sanction on by the federal government, and just an add-on on the licensing side. >> but the uniformity of sanctions, let's go back to my question of adjudication. you are saying what is specifically pre-empted is the right to adjudicate whether someone has hired undocumented aliens, correct? >> yes, justice. the only thing i would say is with respect to conforming amendments with respect to the agricultural i with respect to the department of labor, which used to engage in adjudication as well, it seems quite unlikely to give that authority to the states and take it from the department. >> i do not seek the problem in reverse the adjudication.

was there not a federal question presented? if a company claimed that it was deprived of the ability to do business because of a mistake in interpretation of federal law, that the person have higher was not an authorized person. >> arizona does not purport to be enforcing federal law. it has an independent state law basis for the actions that it takes. >> does the state law basis not refer to the federal law? >> it tracks it, but it does not incorporate it. it does not purport to be applying it. it is the same standards, but it is still a matter of state law. >> thank you, counsel.

>> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. nearly a quarter of a century ago, congress declared sanctions central to immigration law. congress broadly swept away state and local laws granting any sanctions on those who employ unauthorized aliens with the sole exception being in your parenthetical for licensing and similar law. >> just because we have had a little discussion about what licensing laws are, we have not talked at all about the last two and similar laws. it seems to me that whatever legal room for ambiguity saying -- there may be saying whether this is a license at all, congress swept pretty broadly. not just licensing laws, but licensing and similar laws. >> let me talk about what we think a licensing law is. we think a licensing law is the traditional licensing laws that were not in place in 1986. those were largely farm labor contractor lost that were aimed

at fitness to do business. they had a few essential characteristics in those laws. >> businesses had to have licensing laws pretty much across the board, right? you could not set up a electrical contracting business if you did not want a license to do business or meet the requirements for an electrician? it was not just agriculture. >> absolutely, but i think this licensing law looks very different from the ones you are referring to. or the farm labor contractor once for a number of reasons. the first is licensing laws issue licenses. they are generally about the issue of licenses, not simply ones in which licenses are revoked. second, they are ones in which the issuance -- the criteria for issuance is the same as the criteria for revocation. >> excuse me, are you saying -- and i think the petitioner may have been saying as well -- that

if you have a licensing law that permits the revocation of the license, the revocation does not permit the licensing law -- suppose i have a licensing law that says if you did this your license will be revoked -- does that remain a licensing law? >> in general, licensing laws share and number of characteristics. we can debate about this letter to tracking one or another. >> licensing laws, because congress wanted to reserve the state's traditional licensing laws. >> you think that is what congressman, that you can pass up on their fitness when you issue the license, but once it is issued, they can do whatever they like? >> i think that the criteria would be the same. >> ok, so that raises the question -- why does it make any

difference? if the revocation provision is contained, or if there's a general state law, which says all licenses may be revoked first -- >> what congress was trying to do is preserve the states and localities traditional power to do business, and for business to business is not a -- that is not at issue is that they will let businesses operate. they will license them without any fear whatsoever as to whether they distort history. >> arizona should just amend all its licensing laws to require what they now require when the license is issued and to say in each specific licensing law that it can be revoked on the same ground. >> even if they said you had to renew your licensing lot every year or every six months?

>> we have discretionary adjudication by an expert body, but it is not mandatory, that is genuinely aimed at qualifications to do business. >> you do not disagree that whether or not somebody hires illegal workers is related to ability to do business or qualification? >> a state could certainly make that part of its judge did business. hear, arizona has not done that, and we know that because the criteria for issuance of the license areely divorced from the criteria for revocation of the license, and arizona really believes what you are saying, which is that it is relevant -- evaluation is relevant to whether they can do business or not, if they allow every one of these entities to get the license -- >> your argument sounds to me like, "look at the law and see what its purpose is.

if the purpose is to regulate undocumented aliens, then it is struck down. if it happens to put its revocation provisions in its licensing law, then it is ok. does not make much sense. >> i'm not talking about purpose. i'm saying look at the face of the statute. >> the face of the statute talks only about if you hire undocumented aliens, your license is revoked. >> right. that looks like a punishment statute. >> the saving clause says that is okay. civil or criminal sanctions. >> this is not a licensing law. congress essentially had two boxes in 1986. >> if we disagree with you, could you answer the question i posed to your adversary, which is -- what makes the adjudication of status pre-

empted? >> absolutely. the federal adjudication -- the state education is expressly pre-empted as well as implied for three reasons. the first is that congress, set out a series of procedures, all sorts of different regulations, and what arizona does here is what 40,000 different localities can do. >> the time the statute was passed, there were many state laws that adjudicated revocation of licenses. perhaps not many had addressed the issue of hiring undocumented aliens, but many state laws existed that independently adjudicated revocations. what in the legislative history or the words of the statute

shows that congress had intended any way to limit those adjudications? >> it is undoubtedly the case that without the current federal savings clause that arizona-like laws would be swept away if these were sanctions imposed, so the question is whether the licensing law phrase stays that, and i think it stays federal and state adjudication, and the answer is no because to read the statute that way is to permit all of those states to have their own laws, and it is undoubtedly the case that congress wanted to sweep away the state statutes that were in place that imposed sanctions. >> just so i make sure i understand the approach, you are saying arizona had a law saying that you have to have a license to do business, and it became aware of a problem it was not aware of before and found out that a lot of employers were employing child labor. and they say they can revoke your license if you are

determined to employ child labor, that would not be okay, but it would be ok if in the original licensing thing, they said you could employ child labor? >> we know what congress was trying to get back with regard to state enforcement of the immigration laws. they said for the i-9 provision, which president reagan described as the keystone of the act, that those documents cannot be used for any procedures besides -- >> can the chief justice insists on an answer? >> answer to his own question. it seems to me the question is why is that not still a licensing. >> if it has independent adjudication, it is swept away by the first parts of the h-2 statute, which say the provisions of the section

preempt any state or local law from opposing -- >> in the child labor example, why is that not an addition to a regulatory licensing scheme so that it is a licensing law? >> as i understand -- i may not understand the hypothetical, but the word "provisions" refers to the entire statute, and there are things within the procedures that follow the federal enforcement of the immigration law. >> you tried earlier to talk about the two boxes, and you said something would be pre- empted by the first clause. anything, civil and criminal sanctions are allowed if they are imposed through licensing and similar laws. the state can do what is in the first part so long as it does not the licensing or similar laws. >> our position is this is not a licensing law because it does not bear any of the indicia of a traditional licensing law.

bamut is it similar to a licensing law? >> i do not think so. congress had, when they used similar methods to sidestep the semantic debate about whether something is a similar certificate, whether the contractors used that licensing terms for a license. >> thank you, counsel. >> ms. o'grady? >> thank you. mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, state's traditionally have the authority to regulate the conduct of powers to determine what were a state license and to determine what conduct justifies suspending or revoking such a license. although congress pre-empted some of our traditional authority in 1986, it preserved significant state authority through the savings clause that permits a state to impose sanctions through licensing and

similar laws. >> having lived through the anomaly that arizona cannot impose a fine, even in a modest amount, but it can revoke someone's license to do business. >> your honor, looking at the savings clause, we do not view it as an anomaly. the structure congress established is one that the state's authority is determined by the nature of the sanction that we choose to impose. we do not have the authority -- they took away our authority to impose civil monetary and criminal sanctions but preserve our authority to impose sanctions -- >> but why would congress want to do that? >> i think it makes sense, your honor, because in terms of licensing, it provides some accountability because we are the entities that establish

policy for our licensees, and we are the ones accountable for whether that business remains on business -- >> perhaps congress never expected that the states would have to resort to such massive measures, and they probably would not have if the law had been uniformly enforced and vigorously enforced, right? you did not have any notion of doing this sort of thing in 1986, did you? or maybe congress was not worried about it because it seemed very unlikely anything like that would occur. >> perhaps, but i think also converse was recognizing what this court was recognizing, which is that unauthorized employment has significant local consequences, so they did not want to fully preempt state law. >> the main anomalies seemed to me to be this -- that in the federal act, as was the first point that the chambermaid, that it is a fairly careful balance.

they are a group of people that in arizona -- they may look as if they come from mexico or speak with a hispanic accent, and you are not certain whether they in fact are illegals or that they are legal. think of that category. congress has passed a statute that gives an employer just as much incentive to verify, so there is no discrimination as to dismiss so there is no illegal hiring. it is absolutely valid. $1,000 fine for the one. $1,000 fine for the other. arizona comes along and says if you discriminate, you know what happens? nothing. but if you hire an illegal immigrant, your business is dead. that is just one thing they do. how can you reconcile that intent to prevent discrimination against people because of their appearance -- how do you reconcile that with arizona's

law? if you are a businessman, every incentive under that law is to call close questions against hiring this person. under the federal law, every incentive is to look at it carefully. >> a couple of points -- first in terms of how our law works, we do have a prohibition against investigating a complaint based solely on race, so if we get a plate that's it -- a complaint that says those people look mexican or hispanic, that does not get investigated. we also have criminal penalties if frivolous complaints are filed. verified, which is an addedto be protection for employers to prevent the hiring of unauthorized aliens. if they are in good faith compliance with the process, they have no risk of exposure under arizona law, just as is true under federal -- >> does it not frustrate the

federal intend that it could be used for no purpose other than the federal adjudication of whether a violation has occurred or not -- does it not frustrate that law to have the states raise a defense that depends on forcing someone to disclose something that that the federal law protects? this is a vicious circle. federal law says you cannot use this for any purpose other than the federal adjudication. now, you are creating a defense that says you have to supply us with something that federal law on that -- otherwise protect from disclosure. >> we do not think that the federal law prohibits the use of the i-nine, an employers' use of the i-9 in a state prison proceedings. that this could be used under federal proceeding or state, but beyond that, in an actual

enforcement action, it was determined federal law did have that impact, they would still have the defense available to them. >> does it not frustrate federal law when the federal law says that i-9 can be used for no purpose other than the federal adjudication of the status of employees? >> here is what the law says -- it may not be used for purposes other than enforcement of this chapter, and we believe that a state enforcement action under the authority for preserving sanctions through licensing and similar laws would fall within that, so we think they should be able to use that. >> is there not a difference between saying it may not be used for any purpose other than for enforcement of this chapter and other provisions of federal law on the one hand and saying on the other hand, it may not be used for any other purpose other than in a federal proceedings?

the enforcement -- thei-9 certainly could be -- the i-9 certainly could be used in federal proceeding of the employer. would that be an enforcement of the federal law? i do not think so. >> that is true, your honor. >> i thought under federal law that the employer is not certain, the employee says, "here is my social security card. here is t driver's license," and the employer looks at that, he is home free. under arizona law, he is not home free. he still could be prosecuted. is that right or not? >> no, that is not right. >> if he shows a driver's license, under arizona law, if he shows a driver's license and social security card, the employer looks at it, the employer cannot be prosecuted -- yes or no? >> we would need the evidence

that the person knowingly employed the unauthorized alien -- >> i thought, when reading it, that it creates some kind of presumption that he is not home free. under federal law, he is home free. bamut is substantive requirements under arizona and federal laws are the same. >> so then he is home free? i'm trying to understand. maybe not enough time to explain it, but i thought federal law required thoughte-9 business, and i was -- required this e-9 business. 20% of those are wrong, and the person is authorized to work, so the employer who follows that is going to fire 20% of the people who will be absolutely entitled to work. i would just like you to address those. >> let me walk you through how

our law works. arizona does not change anything. we would retain the same defense that is in the federal law and good faith compliance. it requires verification, although we do not impose a sanction on the employer -- >> can you explain that? because this is the federal resource, and the federal govern said, "we want this to be voluntary." how can arizona take federal resource, which the federal government says it is voluntary , and turn it into something that is mandatory? >> we think that question is answered by looking at the conflict pre-emption analysis. congress did not address the role of the state's.

>> we do not get into any pre- emption or not. arizona wants to use a federal resourced. the fed makes it available. how can arizona set the rules on the use of a federal resource? >> your honor, as long as it is not a burden to the objective of congress, we think we can require employees within our jurisdiction to verify -- >> do you make it mandatory? >> our statute says we shall there 5. we do not impose a penalty against employers who fail to use it. >> you just do not get the safe harbor. >> that is right. you do not get the safe harbor. we did add after this lawsuit

was filed some additional requirements similar to what they have under the federal system where you cannot get state contracts. >> but you are assisting the mechanism that congress said would be optional and you are making it mandatory. it seems to me that is almost a classic example of a state doing something that is inconsistent with federal requirements. >> again, we look at the test for conflict pre-emption. it is really a question of are we interfering with the federal government's ability to achieve its goals? and the goal is to have a more effective verification system. >> if they fail to do it, and they cannot receive any grants, loans, or performance-based incentives from the state, -- that is what the law says, isn't it? so the answer to the question is yes, there is that penalty.

>> there is no penalty in terms of -- >> what you do is you lose any grant, loan, or performance- based incentives. >> does this lawsuit challenge that? >> it does not. >> you are under the old law, and the only sanction is you lose the safe harbor. >> that is right. >> so it answers justice breyer's earlier question that relying on the i-9 does not provide safe harbor because you cannot just provide those forms and that is what you have to rely on the e-verify. >> it is modeled after the federal law. just as federal law has a defense for of lawyers who in good faith follow i-9, so does the state law. >> is seen to be exactly the

same on this point, but i do not understand how they fit together. suppose -- the first thing an employer does is receive the forms from an employee, looks at the forms. the reasonably seem to be authentic, so that employer now has the good faith status provided by the i-9 process under both federal and state law, but under both fedeand state law, the employer either must or may also use e- verification system. employer gets back and notices a non-authorization. and that is supposedly a rebuttable presumption under both systems, that the employee is not authorized to work. how does that fit together? if you have a complete defense for having used the i-9 process in good faith, the whole e- verification process seems to be

irrelevant. >> we have not wrestled that in practical application, and i'm not aware of them reaching that point under the federal system, either, because it does seem at some point, that the system should worked. you get back a final non- confirmation, not a tentative non-confirmation, that that employee is unauthorized, that that employees should carry greater basis of action, but i'm not sure how that plays out in actual enforcement action. >> i was not quite sure what she meant. the emphasis was that this statute was being evaluated on its face, and she said as applied as my particular talents to rise. how would that work? on its face, how would an as-

applied challenge come about? >> i think, perhaps, if we -- perhaps in terms of what are the outer limits of our definition of license, outside the definition of licensing and similar laws, perhaps that would be an as-applied challenge. some of the i-9 concerns are perhaps more appropriately resolved in a direct case where that issue has arisen. i think she was concerned about some of the implementation questions that were wrapped into the legal challenge. but for the most part, i think for the general framework of our statutes is appropriate for -- in this challenge. >> you think after this case, we could look forward to cases one by one or all the various types of licenses? those would be as applied challenges and would not have

been resolved by this case. >> your honor, my hope is -- >> really wasting our time, are we not? >> would it not be easier to take the solicitor general's position that if you are adjudicating good faith or intent differently in any way from the federal government, that it is pre-emptive? is that not what waiting for an as applied challenge means? whether or not you are putting different requirements on proving good faith. >> no, your honor. i was trying to give examples of the kinds of things that may come up as a practical matter, but i think -- >> let me ask the question directly. if arizona's system does not permit an employer to rely on

non-suspect documents, the i-9 documents that are permitted employers to rely on, the arizona systems says you cannot rely on those -- is that pre- empted or not? you cannot rely on i-9 documents, or the arizona system says you cannot hire someone who has not been approved under the e-verification system. >> i think those would both be problems. we need to be consistent with the structure and obligations imposed. >> are you conceding with any variation from the federal standards for criminal and civil liability is automatically precluded?

as i read the exception, it is an exception for state licensing and similar laws, and it does not say, "so long as those licensing and similar laws go no further than what the federal government has done." we often allow states to impose regulatory requirements that go beyond the regulatory requirements that the federal government has imposed, and that is not automatically considered to be pre-empted. why are you conceding that arizona cannot go beyond what the federal government says? >> because i think what congress preserve was our ability to impose sanctions, including the revocation of state laws, but i do think they established a uniform national standard. i do not think you could establish a strict liability office in arizona. we have to have a requirement as they have in federal law. >> what i was looking at

specifically is federal law says if you look at the driver's license and social security card -- those are i-9 docs -- then the employer has established an affirmative defense and has not violated the law. that is what it says. that is the federal law. arizona law that i was reading -- maybe there is another page i should read -- is determining whether it is an unauthorized alien, a create a rebuttable presumption, that means it might be rebutted. so i see a difference there. the reason that is relevant is because my first question -- if you are an employer, prior to your lot, it is 50/50. i'd better verify because of undiscriming, and it is not that hard. i just look at the driver's

license and the social security card, and if i hire an illegal immigrant, the same thing. same both ways. employer, look at that driver's license and social security -- you are not home free. if it turns out that you have been hiring this illegal immigrant, and he is not an american, your business is finished. but what happens if i discriminate? under our law, nothing. that was the original point they made. that is why i brought up this question of difference in standards, and i want to be absolutely clear what your answer to that is. >> and i'm hoping i am being clear. we have the same standards as federal law. we have the same defense -- >> where is it in the statute? what i worked -- what i read were the words rebuttable presumption, and i might be reading the wrong words. >> let me explain while i find

the specific statutory site. 178a is the provision, establishes an affirmative defense, said that is the provision that provides the i-9 defense. the rebuttable presumption issue -- this is how that comes into play -- we have to, in bringing an enforcement action, relied on information from the federal government regarding whether someone is authorized or unauthorized. we have to rely on that information from the federal government. we bring our action for if we have verification. we have additional information that we have established the size requirements, and we bring our action, but the employer has an opportunity to rebut the

evidence we have presented in a state court proceeding. it may be that person does not work for us or some other type of evidence, so that is the role of the other type of assumption. in terms of the prior adjudication -- >> just so you know, i enter for your answer as confirming the implication of justice breyer's question if there is a very substantial difference between federal and state law on this point -- i interpret your answer as confirming the application. if you are home free, by a special sick -- social security inspection and driver's license inspection under federal law, and you are not under state law, that is a difference. >> you think you are home free under state law? >> to the extent that you would be home free and have the benefit of that good faith defense. >> it is an affirmative defense

under both. >> yes, your honor. >> the main point -- i think maybe i was mistaken, perhaps. but then we are still stuck with this enormous discrepancy in a penalty. in characterizing it as an enormous, but it seems like it is even on discrimination under the federal law. it is not even, "your business is out to lunch, gone" on the other side. >> i think that is the natural consequence of the savings clause that congress has -- >> the savings clause itself, the word licensing -- not everybody looks at this, but i did look at the legislative history, and when you look at that paragraph, it seems to me that that paragraph says what it means. it's as precisely what it is. the first thing it says is if you are found to have violated this -- there is -- suppose

somebody has been found to have violated the sanctions provision in the federal legislation, you have been found by the federal government. then, the state can revoke his license. ok? that is one thing. the second thing is the state says it does not want to pre and fitness to do business loss, such as state farm labor contract loss. in other words, it is thinking of some precise set of licenses, and that is why this licensing thing was there, and the very next part of this federal law are informing amendments, and those conforming amendments apply to departments of government that were concerned with maintaining state farm labor contract in laws. i grant you, you have to go beyond the text, but of us do because we get enlightened,

and going beyond that text, it seems to me we should follow what the house report says. what is your response to that? >> first, we would focus on the text. >> i said, yes, i got broad licensing, but let's look at your explanation as to why they put those words there. >> the farm labor contractor is just an example. i think it says such as an example of the type of prisons that existed at the time that address that. that is not an all-inclusive universe of sanctions or licensing laws that might be subject to this. they also did not specifically say there has to be entire federal adjudication. passive voice has been determined without specifying who is making that determination, and it's specifically refers to state and local processes that provide for the suspension and revocation

processes. the following sentence says further, we do not intend to disrupt laws such as forestry and fitness to do business. we think this is a fitness to do business law in that we are establishing as a state standard that if we engage in misconduct, knowingly employing on authorized aliens, we will have the ability to take action against the license we have given you to do business in our jurisdiction. we think we fit within that last sentence. >> can you also explain the i-9 -- you said it is the same as in the fed. if you have documents, but you also require the e-verify.

does that information modified the i-9? >> they work in our system as they do under the federal law. that you get a rebuttable presumption if you get in your favor if you use the e-verify, an affirmative defense if you use i-9. we do have an example if that employer is terminated because they are unauthorized and show up with a different name and different paper two weeks later. you will not be established -- able to establish your good faith. but we do incorporate the same obligations that exist under federal law. also, i wanted to address more on the farm labor contractors and the amendments and what we think they were doing was simply dividing responsibility at the federal level between the department of labor and their processes that pre-existing. and what they were establishing

and said we are not going to have these determinations of whether the department of labor contractor has employed an unauthorized alien. we are going to instead use the established process, but importantly, what congress did not change in the agricultural worker regulations was the provision that addresses state law. it said that those federal laws only supplement the authority of , and that means that they preserve all of the state's sole authority that they had before in the area of farm labor contractors, and i think it is important to reinforce that those have been preserved. this is an area that has traditionally been within the mainstream of state police power. we acknowledge that congress does have the ability to preempt

us, but they left important discretion in terms of our ability to impose sanctions through licensing and similar laws, and we are doing so by establishing this scheme that provides for the suspension and revocation of state licenses. it is an important part of a balance that congress struck by addressing what state authority exists after that congressional enactment. we think the lower courts properly determine the scope of that provision, and unless there are further questions, i thank you for your attention this morning. >> thank you, counsel. mr. phillips, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. once again, may it please the court, i want to again where justice sot pointed me to before, which is the question of whether there is a basis for allowing the state to

independently investigate and independently adjudicate these matters, and what is the evidence that congress did not intend that. this is from the house report recognizing that everyone understands that, but it seems to articulate common-sense legislation that says you have to have a federal adjudication in the first instance and once you have got thahen the state is allowed to add that sanction. that principle seems to me is reinforced by the limitation on what you can use the i-9 for. it seems to me clearly that what congress intended in 1986 when they enacted this is that you would have a federal enforcement scheme, and it is only in the context that you are allowed to use the i-9, and the notion that a state could adopt a standard of intentionally and knowingly and not be able to have the materials available seems to be flatly at odds with each other, and it cannot be that congress

intended under those circumstances to allow these matters to be adjudicated in that particular fashion. >> what can the state do that would be complementary rather than conflicting? >> it seems to me the easiest -- the easiest is if an employee is convicted of violations, and he happens to be a barber, and the state licensing law says if you are convicted of a federal crime, you will lose your license -- it is available to the state under those circumstances, and i think this is exactly what congress had in mind, to issue a notice to show cause why that person should not have their license revoked -- and how can you be advised by a federal government that has not gone after many convictions? >> it seems to me the whole question, and i do not think pre-emption can be a moving

target. you have to decide on the basis of what congress had in front of it in 1986, but remember, congress was balancing three at least very difficult problems -- minimizing burdens on employers, minimizing discrimination against people permitted to be hired, and avoiding hiring people who are not permitted to do so. and how you properly recons not to do that is difficult, but the one thing that seems to be clear is that was a choice and believed led to itself and for the federal government to sort out and not give the states to offer it -- the opportunity to come in where they did. >> you are just kind of blanket over the savings clause. -- blinking over the savings clause. that is not a regulation by congress of power to itself. >> if you interpret the savings clause, as i do, which means truly as a supplement to federal adjudication, then is a

very narrow adjudication on that basis because at that point, you have already invoked the entirety of the federal scheme, and it does not modify the balance on those broader legal issues. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," a program about the news of the day, collecting you with elected officials, newsmakers, and policy-makers. every week night, congressional hearings and policy forums. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our

programming and the time that c- span.org, and it is all searchable on our c-span video library. c-span -- washington, your weight. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> watch "book tv" all this week. tonight, "the warmth of other suns." and arguments against the obama >> then live when sennight, a look back at the year-books with your phone calls. "book tv" all this weekend on c- span2. >> the original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. you will see the grand public places and those only available to the justice staff.

you'll hear about how the justice system works from all the supreme court justices. learn about some of the recent developments. the supreme court, hearing for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world, but i wonder if it is so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high-school senior class of nine students can travel from a desk in that small school to a desk on the floor of the u.s. senate. >> search for farewell speeches in here from retiring senators on the c-span video library, every c-span video from 1987. all online palfrey. it is washington your way. >> the 111th congress ended

earlier this month. we taking a look back at the farewell speeches for departing members and the new faces replacing them. we will start at 6:30 without going ranking member pete hoekstra. then a man who is taking his seat, bill huizenga. then james oberstar. that is farewell and welcome speeches coming up tonight on c- span. during prime time starting at 8:00 p.m. we will look at executive power and its new limits with kenneth starr and attorney john yoo, who wrote the memos on tortured during the george w. bush administ then "q & a from london with the london bureau chief john burns.

>> the candidates running for chairman of the republican national committee will take part in a debate next week. michael steele will debate on monday. that will be live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. one of the candidates joined us for an interview. this is a half an hour. >> joining us is gentry collins. he is a candidate for the chair of the republican national committee. here with the questioning is elliott.on., adnd phil why are you running? why do you want to be party chair? >> if we are going to beat barack obama and beat his ideology, we have to put the rnc

back on track. republicans had a very good cycle, but it was not driven by the rnc. we sort of got away with that that organization at the republican national committee. there are a variety of other committees that help capture the energy available. that cannot happen in 2012. there are several things only republican national committee can do if we are going to have another successful cycle. i am ready to put it back on track so we can beat barack obama. >> 168 members of the rnc, how do you win? >> doocy as many members as you can. i have been to 20 states already. you win by offering a specific plan about how you put the rnc

back on track and how you keep the party together not just in 2012 but 2011. how do you harness the energy and convince the grass roots base and the tea party that they have a home in the republican party? >> you are talking about this organization -- disorganization of the rnc. don't you bear some responsibility for this organization? >> the tradition of the rnc and lack was financial and not political. folks at the rnc builds a great deal of knowledge both academic and practical about how to run outstanding programs. also more recently as election laws have changed, how

republicans run absentee and early voting programs as well. we had so many of those sitting on the shelf. they were traditionally funded by the rnc. the real driver of problems at the rnc was not our ability to put good political programming, it was our ability to fund those programs and the state parties that run them. >> you have resources to send money to glom and the virgin islands. -- money to guam. >> which was entirely inappropriate. that is part of the reason i joined a so many members in saying we need new leadership. >> you left on november 16 and sent a letter that was critical of chairman steele. you have been known for your

discretion. you don't talk to a lot of reporters or folks outside of your circle, yet within hours that letter circulated vary widely. it made news on its own. do you regret the way you left? >> i spent a great deal of time thinking about what my responsibility was to our members. i certainly knew it would make its way to the press but i did not provide it to the press. i provided it to not even all our members. i provided it to members of our executive committee. what i have witnessed over the course of the summer and fall when we were trying to deploy resources into the field is that members had not been given the facts by leadership. i know a lot of coverage said my leisure -- letter was harshly critical. it does not mention chairman

ofsteele. it talks about how we spend those dollars and how that compared to the historical presence. over the course of several non- presidential cycles. it is more comparable band 2008 would have been. i was careful to stick just to the facts and to omit the squabbling that goes on and rumor mill type stuff and look just at the facts. i think you will find for all of the folks who said you should have left differently, none of them have been able to refute any of the fax i laid out. the reason for that is they are accurate. over the course of the full it became clear to members of the rnc had a sense not all was well. they were being told by the chairman we have raised a record amount of money and was

challenged about one cache was so low. it was because we passed out more money to save parties. i decided all of my career has been spent working quietly building the organizations you suggest. i decided i had a responsibility to members to make sure someone who had seen behind the curtains had told the truth. and they needed to make a decision about how to organize the party. >> there is -- the rnc took down its $15 million line of credit. some people are speculating the debt might be higher than $25 million. that will be for you to take over when you get in there. you are one of the top campaign operatives in the country. why do you want this job? >> that is a very tempting thing to do. it is something i thought i

would be doing print like many republican operatives, my chief objective is to win the white house back. to add to our house majority, but i came to the conclusion having seen a number of presidential campaigns from the inside, that if we did not put them back on track that winning a presidential campaign was going to be much harder and maybe not possible. somebody has to do that job. the next chairman does not have a challenge over the course of a two-year cycle. they have a challenging immediately. we find his starkly the chairmen who have been able to meet those challenges most rapidly with the shortest learning curve are those who came out of a political background. they have run campaigns in the

tough cycles over the variety of states. that is a professional background i share. i decided the rnc needed leavitt -- needed new leadership. and i was uniquely positioned between having a professional background that has made for a successful chairman and close enough to committee members that i can get a fair hearing. >> talking to rnc members, there is a sense they want one of their own to take over and run the committee through this cycle. i am wondering what your argument to them is. why not elect one of their own? why bring someone who does not have a vote on the committee? >> i think there is a real hunger for confidence. committee members are tired of being embarrassed.

>> are you saying chairman steele was incompetent? >> i think a number of things happened argue that we need new leadership. we need leadership that does not have its first mission saying provocative things on the news shows. it needs to make sure political plans are in place that can win back the white house and they are funded. that was clearly a major failing of this chairman. there is a convert to turn that around. my sense is that there is a real openness to hire the best person for the job. would some members like to have a voting member? certainly, but i have been around the committee for a very long time. when eric chairman was deployed to iraq and consistently ever

sensed as political director for the rnc. a couple of presidential campaigns in between. i have a very positive relationship with many committee members. i am not a stranger to them. i have had a successful working relationship with them. there is a real hugger to get this right. if we don't put the rnc back on track we will not put the country back on track. more than any other qualifier, people want somebody who can do the job. i think i have been able to make that argument. >> citizens united led to the american crossroads. didn't that ruling and the is outside interest groups devalues the role of the dnc in presidential elections? >> not at all in presidential

elections. those outside groups can spend it different kinds of money. they are largely unlimited. the rnc is very limited. and not in as much competition as suggested. but federal law provides very specifically that the rnc and dnc can do things that these other entities cannot do and other party committees cannot do. i think of the coordinated funds that can be spent on behalf of the presidential campaign. up to $50 million. the national convention can only be organized by the rnc. the coordinated turnout program between the party organization and the federal campaign, none of those can be done by third party groups. so in a presidential cycle the

role of the national party is has not been diminished. >> you have talked a lot about raising money and how important it is. some say the next cycle will be $300 million. your background says you can raise money. there has never been a fund- raiser who pulls in the money come and you have been a campaign operator. why can you raise money? >> a commitment to sell to investors apolitical plan to put the party back on track. i did have experience with that this fall when it became clear the rnc was not raising major note -- major resources is needed. i met with several dozen of the largest donors. i found that the it biggest problem is they have not been asked in 2009. i braced myself for an anti-rnc

response. instead what i got was a where have you been response. it had not been told how the rnc planned to win elections. why we needed your investment and how we will manage those dollars? when i was able to make that case i met with success. it was a significant introduction to national finance. i would also suggest that if there is nothing to invest in, major donors will not come back. the next chairman is going to have to articulate not only how we win in 2012, how do we have one in the senate and keep the party together in 2011? how do we make sure all this energy in the grass roots does not splinter the republican

party into several pieces? that is going to require a chairman who has a political background. you will find if you go back in history, you find the people who have successfully run campaigns have made for the best rnc chairman. it prepares them to sell a plan to investors. >> listening to this recent conversations among the candidates, there is not a real difference between what all of you are selling. what is the biggest difference between you and your competitors? >> i have made a career out of winning elections in a variety

of states and cycles. many of them in tough cycles. go back over the last two presidential cycles you find three positive anomalies. in 2004 there were two states that went to bush in 2004. i ran one of those. i was executive director of the party. we had not been republicans since 1984. we were just one of two states that year to turn it around the republican. in 2008 i was responsible for the -- for senator mccain. there was one target state in 2008 contested by both sides that went to mccain. that was the state of missouri. missouri was a state that had a history of voting not for the republican but for the winner in

the presidential election. that was going from a republican governor to a democratic one. a very tough cycle we were able to find a way to win a swing state when no other swing state was going our way. i have a consistent background on the presidential level of learning how to win tough campaigns. we certainly have other qualified candidates, i don't think anyone will share that background. >> you will have control of the house in 2012. 23 democratic senate seats up. what worries you the most with regard to the house and senate races? >> you have to worry about redistricting. one of the things they chairman has to get on top of quickly is making sure the rnc is healthy enough so we can provide

redistricting with the data and legal support that they will need in order to have a successful redistricting cycle. we had more than a dozen legislative chamber pickups in the 2010 cycle. in order to have the kind of redistricting cycle we can have, rnc has to get its financial house in order. the first concern from a political point of view is in 2011. also with respect to the house, we had a great year in 2010, we won a lot of swing seats. we will have a lot of freshmen incumbents running in what could be a different kind of cycle in 2012. that had the wind in their

sales and a more positive political environment than they might in 2012. making sure that those freshmen legislators in swing states are doing their work at home, putting together good campaigns and getting started on that early would be my chief concern ahoy as i look at the congressional races. >> i want to talk about your timeline as you made this decision to run. he resigned from the rnc on november 16. the committee you are using to raise money was filed on november 9. and you are meeting with top donors are around the country before the election. how did you make this decision? talk about the time line that took you to the guy who wants to take over the building. >> a couple of questions with respect to the timeline on the

filing of the committee, i have a longtime friend from the republican party in iowa, as we had discussions about who the next chairman should be, consistently encouraged me to make a run. i wanted to keep the option open. he filed a committee on november 9. in terms of how the decision that made more broadly, it had always been my intention to elect a republican president. ast operatives' share that as chief objective. as the question unfolded about how do we put the rnc back on track and what are my

responsibility is with respect to making sure our members have all the facts that they needed in order to make a good decision, the conversation shifted from do we need to do something, to yes, we do need to do something. as we look back at rnc history, we found the people who had become the most successful chairman were the ones to have a background professionally of winning elections all over the country in a tough cycles. the challenge for candidates is most of them has been appointed by presidents and not necessarily elected. s restarted looking at who shared that professional qualification, we also added in the other criteria.

who is close enough to the committee and a positive enough relationship to at least have a fair hearing to be successful? we came to the conclusion i am uniquely positioned for those requirements. it was a decision i did not arrived at lightly. i think the next chairman will have enormous challenges on his doorstep. the first $5 million debt payment comes in february. and you have to figure out very rapidly how to keep the parties from splintering. have to make sure we don't have a third-party challenge which relaxes barack obama. how deeper. elects which relax-

president obama. it requires an operative for whom it will not be a long learning curve. >> you are talking about a third party challenge. what worries you the most? >> i think either is a possibility. i regard either as a remote possibility that is avoidable with good leadership at the rnc. but i think the party has to be worried about either scenario. because either one draws from not only the base of conservative support, but from the growing base of no party -- to view the republican party and our nominee is as a more preferable alternative to president obama and his liberal policies. i think the third-party

candidacy is probably pulling more votes from the republican nominee then from president obama. i think there is a huge amount of energy in the country. and our party did not be paid itself very well. we have to earn some trust back. that is a perfectly. -- legitimate thing people are worried about. we will be watching to know how we perform as a party as well. are we serious about this? are we providing which is 40 party activists regardless of personalities to put the country back on track. these are key questions we will have to worry about.

>> you have talked about your relationships with the committee and talking about the strategy of this particular race. you have two public supporters and your other opponents have 10 or more public supporters. how many people do you have to have on your side as you go into the christmas break to show you are a viable candidate? >> i have been officially in the race for a shorter time than some of those other candidates. at least one other having been working on running for a number of years. we have been to 20 states and had a very warm response. the vast majority of members have yet to make this commitment. we have had very positive

initial conversations with many of them. the commitment i made to those members is i would not rely on the rhetoric so many candidates are using. i would rely instead on specific plans. we are rolling those out one a week. we have another call with all 168 members. every tuesday night we are doing this. tomorrow we will be rolling out a full finance plan. the response is that is the kind of leadership we need. we need to see what those plants look like. to see whether any other candidates roll out specific plans about how they will put the party back on track. i think you will see after the holiday season a lot of

movement. >> if we can go back to the tea party, how do you keep the tea party in the republican fold without appearing like you are trying to coopt it? >> the next chairman has to be absolutely serious about not participating in primaries. what we will do is respect the will of the primary electorate and support our nominees once those primaries are concluded. i think that commitment ought to be made by every candidate for chairman and be respected but once we have a new chairman. as i travel the country and hear from people, folks who are part of the tea party movement, that was one of the chief complaints of the party apparatus itself in 2010. secondly, there are nearly two

dozen states that allow for a petition-based ballot initiatives to be put on the ballot. what i proposed is we lead a campaign to put referendum on the ballot to repeal obamacare in as many states as it allows. that prepares us for 2012 from a turnout perspective. in 2011 it give some positive place for the energy that is exist for conservative change. it gives us something to do so that we are not just talking about personalities. we are not simply sitting on the sidelines while the presidential contest is going on. we are preparing a around a shared mission and principals to do something good for the country.

those are the kinds of things the next chairman can do to make sure members of the tea party see the republican party as someplace they can find a home. >> michael steele is one of those personalities. why is he not suited to the chair for two more years? >> past is prologue. it shows us very clearly that among his strengths are not relationships with major donors or resources in the turnout programs that are critical to winning the white house. while he is a good and decent man and treated me well, heat has not been a good chairmen from that perspective. for that reason i think the rnc needs new leadership in 2012. >> thank you for being with us on c-span. >> gentry collins will join

michael steele and four other candidates in a debate next monday. that will be live at 1:00 p.m. on c-span. watch "book tv" all this week. the pulitzer prize winner on her latest book. laura ingram argues against the obama administration in her best seller. and mark helprin on the presidential campaign. then live when senate, a look back at the year-books with your front -- phone calls on "book tv." >> the original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. on sunday you will see those only available to the justices and their staff. you will hear about how the court works.

and learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court comment. for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> michigan congressman pete hoekstrais retiring from the house after 18 years and a failed bid dutch the gubernatorial bid. we spoke about his career in service on the intelligence committee. this is a half hour. >> pete hoekstra is spending a half hour with us. he first came to congress in 1992 and back for the lame-duck session. that is it for you. what is that like? >> it is kind of liberating. it is a wonderful job but my wife and i and our family is

excited about what the future may bring. >> you thought you had a bid for a public office. what are your future plans? >> we are looking at a number of different options. there are a number of different options out there. we are sorting through what those might be. it stems from perhaps working with a think tank, have stewing some tv and media analysis on that national security issues. those are the kinds of things we are considering right now. >> our goal is to talk about congress and recorded history with you. let's start with the response about what congress was like when you came here in 1993 versus what it is like today. what has changed? >> a lot of things are the same. i am not sure much has changed. we are coming back two years

after i got to congress in 1994. we went through a republican revolution. the first time in 40 years republicans were in the majority. we are in 2010 on the eve of a new republican speaker coming in to office. i am watching these eight freshman republicans coming in to washington. it is like i have been through that. i think a lot of the things i experienced the first time i came to d.c. are not all that different than what these freshmen are going through. they are being pulled from different ways from the two parties to lobbyists and members of congress. my successor i talked to about what he needs to do to get on the committees and lay the

foundation for where he wants to be in four years. a lot of that is the same. >> when you look back on the 1994 congress, the first majority in how that transcended over the years, what do you think went wrong as the years progressed? >> what happened is we had a very successful run from 1994 to 2000. we have a democratic president who is more than willing to work with the republican congress. we rolled back taxes and we restrained spending. we had a solid economic growth and balanced the budget. we are getting the kinds of things done we hope the next congress can do with this president. what happened in 2001 was a couple of things.

9/11 changed the fiscal dynamics of the country. the economic impact of 9/11 drove down government revenue and economic activity. it made a difficult economic environment. i came in 1992 on the premise that smaller is better. that one of my passions was let's return control of education back to states, back to local school districts. you may remember the crowning achievement of president bush in his first year was the passing of no child left behind, which i could not believe any republican was in favor. but it passed through the house of representatives overwhelmingly.

and it more than doubled the federal government's role in k- 12 education. we lost sight of what our principles were rather than being an independent voice in the house. we became more parliamentary saying it is our job to follow the leader of our party. we would have been much better off saying we will stay true to our principles and we have a president who is a different branch of government. he has his agenda and we know who we are. when we agree with the president we will work with the president. we don't let president bush dictate to much of what the agenda was in 2001. >> harkening back to 1994 with incoming speaker newt gingrich, you are part of the inner circle. i recall his reading list and

his desire to open up the congress. a lot of new thinking ideas about how congress would operate. he did not stay in power. as time went on some of the members had ethics issues. tell me what you think happened to that desire for change? >> i think we became too comfortable with being in control. we lost our focus and we ended up with more of a commitment to doing what we thought was necessary to stay in control, that that became the overriding concern rather than doing and staying focused on what our principles work and our core values. i think if we step closer to our core values we would never have gone through that process of being in the minority for four years. the public said you are no

longer with us. when you are a representative if you are not listening to your constituents they had a clear process for saying we want someone else. that is to vote you out of power. >> the incoming leadership team has some newer members. do you think among them there is a sense of lessons learned? >> i think so. john boehner and i worked together on the education committee in 1993. we worked on the contract with america. in that same period john was elected into leadership and was conference chairman. then he lost that post and regained that post. for him to go through that valley, he understands the concept of lessons learned. we could not have a more

experienced person moving into the speakership than what we have with john boehner. he does understand perhaps more than any other republican member of congress what it is like to have had the opportunity to lead and to lose it. it happened to him personally and he has seen it happened to the conference. as he is preparing to lead this new congress in 2011, we will have someone who personally went through that experience and has watched these republican conference be in the minority elected with the speaker newt gingrich in 1995 lose in 2006. now he will be the speaker in 2011. he will hopefully be able to share his experience through the leadership he will bring to the

republican congress and the house of representatives. >> i am guessing you don't agree on any policy issues. give me your thoughts on nancy pelosi's term as speaker. >> i think when she was bigger she had a huge majority and 179 republicans. you had the 60 votes in the senate for the last couple of years. i think the democratic leadership got to be arrogant, they recognize they could push their policies through without republicans. while we did not agree on her politics, i disagreed on her process. she really cut republicans out of the role of being policymakers. it was all in the hands of hurtt leadership team. they brought that stuff to the floor and did not go through the regular process.

kind of like here it is. she fuel a lot of the energy because republicans were saying we have knowle -- no role in policy. the only way we will get a role is to go back in the majority. it is cleared speaker pelosi has no room for conservatives. she not only some ways fuelled the electorate, she also energized republicans. it is the only way we could thought we could get a voice back. >> is that different than the way the house gop treated the democrats? >> i think so. i am sure they will have examples of where we did some of the same things they did to us. i think for a period of time the process was much more open. john boehner said we will give

more authority back to the committee. i think that will be good for the institution and john will carry through. >> what do you think some of the initial tests world -- will be for the new leadership? >> clearly spending. and i am expecting we will get to the new year and will have a continuing resolution through january into february. this new majority will have to finalize spending plans january through september. then we will have -- it will come down to what issues they will reform. health care reform, many folks will want to know what will happen. will you repeal it or modify it? they will be interested in taking about -- i will look at education.

a lot of these folks have the same values of education i have, which is small government and power -- which means they will have to not only repeal health care but i hope they repealed no child left behind. that will be very difficult. that is the key task of whether we believe in in powering the public and parents. one of the most important things we have this education. that will be a key test. we have all the issues with national security. not only is 2011 a year where we will have a new speaker, we are also approaching the 10th anniversary of 9/11. i am concerned about what al qaeda has planned or what they want to get done as we leave at to the anniversary of 9/11.

these men and women will have their hands full. >> 9/11 was a big change in career direction for you. i want to have you shared with me your recollections -- were you in the capital on 9/11? >> i was in my office and was expecting a group of farmers from michigan to talk about asparagus. i was in my office. i guess i was actually meeting with these folks. we got a call from my district office saying are you watching tv? i am in a meeting. turned it on. i was here on the hill. >> there was awhile when we thought the last plane was bound for the capital. how did the day progressed for

you? >> first, we did not talk about this. this anymore. trying to figure out what exactly was happening. i remember looking out my window at one of the streets and it is filled with people. some people evacuate in the capital. then you are out looking over the office building and you see this plume of smoke in this guy. you know that is the smoke coming from the pentagon. then a little while later the capitol hill police start coming through all the corridors and saying evacuate the offices and go home. that is an inconsistency for me because for 18 years i have slept in my office. this is my home. this is where i sleep. but they kicked me out as well.

i had to find a place to go. it was pretty frightening because no one understood what was happening and who was doing at and what else might happen. >> i am visualizing the defense with all the members of congress on the steps of the capital city in the national anthem. best -- is that a particular memory for you? >> oh yeah, and i think it was actually "god bless america." sure, it was an experience all of us will never forget. you are on the steps of the capitol and the speaker was flown out and came back. it is a very emotional time. >> soon after that you had the intelligence committee and

started to see things others will not have access to. how did your thinking about the world change with that experience? >> we talked a little bit about the white house in 1996. we felt that we had economic security. we were balancing the budget, things were going very well. and we felt that there was this sense of national security. the berlin wall had come down 10 years before that. it is kind of like the threats are diminishing and we can focus -then agenda that' - national security issues are taken care of. we found out the national security issues were taken care of. the threat we face was different than before. even until this day there is uncertainty about how do you confront, contain and defeat this threat from radical jihad

tests? >> -- radicaljihadists? >> how did this partnership work between the two of you? >> it is like we were an old married couple. we fought on issues but we always found a way to get the job done. we did intelligence reform together. we did that with senators collins and lieberman. there were four distinct individuals. this is one of the things that is hard to do now with the environment on capitol hill. we developed our own competence on the issue. we felt comfortable if i was talking to jane about intelligence i respected her opinion. i knew it was well-reasoned and had a solid foundation. i think she had the same kind of respect for me. we had the confidence on the

issues and a respect for our viewpoints on those issues. we have a genuine personal relationship -- we like each other. we traveled together, so we liked each other and were always committed to getting something done. on occasion we would do some of the political things, but underlying it was the french ship and the commitment to get something done -- the french ship to get something done. we recognize why we were doing it or why we had to do it. but we never let it become the barrier to our friendship or the barrier to getting something done. >> does that happen more than the public knows about or was the situation unique? >> i think many of the people on

capitol hill have those kinds of special relationships with members on the opposite side of the aisle. on any major piece of legislation, but the last couple years we have not seen it as much because one party had that dominance. but when you have a president of the other party, then you recognize you have to develop that camaraderie to get something done. if you don't, the other party doesn't have a leverage point. then sometimes those relationships don't get built. i think it happens more than what people give it credit for. and sometimes members don't want to highlight it. it is about focusing on getting these things done. it takes some time and energy. it is well worth it when it happens. >> with a few years of experience, how do you feel

about the intelligence restructuring? has it worked the way you anticipated? >> it has not worked the way i anticipated it. i expected a smaller director of national intelligence that would be focused on strategic long- term issues. what do we have to do to develop human intelligence to do technical collection and those types of things? long term policy issues and structuring of the community. too much of the dni has become focused on things that were already being done. it has just become another layer of bureaucracy. that is what some people want us about as we were putting it together. there is a real need for a dni for long-term strategic thinking, but if you put that in place she will create another layer of bureaucracy. and in certain cases the critics have been correct. it does not mean it is the wrong

direction, it means congress has not been forceful enough in guiding the dni to where it needs to be. >> overall, with the agency -- we have seen reports of all of the agency is responsible for national security. we keep seeing reports of agencies squabbling. the kinds of things that at the time you told us you were trying to address. what is the public supposed to take away? >> i think cooperation is better than what it was leading up to 9/11. there is a lot more information sharing but there is more that needs to be done. this is one of the things we needed a dni to focus on, the collaborative environment. there are some other things that have happened. we have kind of created a four- pronged agency.

there is one force coming out of the national security council. then you have the dni. you still have the cia, which is pretty much an independent actor. then you have this new cyber czar. it is kind of like now we are back in the same position. we still have no one overall putting in place a strategy for the intelligence community. i am in favor of having a strong dni, and that is what the intelligence reform bill was striving to do. we did not put enough clout into the bill to create the dni, so we still have a splintered intelligence organization. sometimes you will get these squabbles and it makes it look like the community is not working together. they recognize they have to and they recognize the threat. there is always more work to do.

>> this has become a policy discussion. is there a lesson about congress to take away from that? >> yeah, i think the lesson is -- i have learned this a long time ago. that in congress we think the job is done when we pass a law or pass a bill to become a law. in reality, that is where the work starts. i have worked for an office furniture company. i put together a marketing plan. when it got approved by senior management it was not like the work is done. it is like i forecasted we will sell 100,000 units. let's get to work. we now have to sell 100,000. too often in the institution, the benchmark is passing the bill and getting the president to sign it. we have all seen it with the president signing the bill. the members who were instrumental in getting that bill passed.

seat, we got it done. and in reality that is where the work starts. too often we stop at the bill signing and go on to something else. we should be focused on here is what this bill is intended to do. let's hold each other accountable to make sure it does what we intended it to do. >> you have a marketing background and when you came to congress that was tapped upon by the leadership in 1994. one thing that has changed enormously is the explosion of media. i guess the two-part question is what is it like to be a member of congress when every record -- everything is on record. the flip side is do you think congress is using the tools at its disposal to communicate with the constituents? >> whether congress is effectively using the tools,

some are using it very effectively. there are other still trying to figure it out. with the explosion of media and these social media types of things, it basically means you are on 24/7. you cannot let your guard down because you can be at a party or a social gathering and you can make humorous -- make humor out of something and it can be taken out of context. and it can be devastating to the person who said that. it has taken some of the spontaneity out of us as representatives. you are always on guard for what you may or may not do. you have to be very careful. but i think it is a wonderful explosion of information to the

public. i am looking forward to being able to hear about what is going on in congress through the 24/7 media. and be able to understand what is going on and what my colleagues are going through. >> is it a better thing for the institution to have this explosion of watchdog websites and people keeping tabs on how people are voting and that sort of thing? >> having gone through a campaign recently and lost, and seeing how some of my votes were twisted, to kind of like i don't like it. but it is the reality. i think i am a tremendous believer in the public. that when presented with information bad they are becoming more discerning as to what the immigration is. -- what the information is.

and they are holding people accountable. i find it interesting in my race for governor the two of us that did not run negative ads finished first and second. i would have preferred to have finished first but when we were down and i felt good about the campaign we ran. i did not embarrass my supporters. i see you wrote a checked, man did you run a nasty campaign. the people who ran the nasty campaign is finished behind us. >> it certainly was not the experience nationally. >> but i think as we move michigan may have been the exception to the rule. in this thing, the people who ran did not do well . >> over time, you are thinking

changed on term limits. why? >> a couple of things happened. we did not pass it. we tried. we put in place, and it is hard to explain, a process that was better then sell proposed -- self-proposed term limits. we allow people to build up seniority and the experience and have the opportunity to lead. you leave for six years. you can stay in congress if you want but not in that same committee. i felt comfortable that we put in place a better solution. i think since 94 we have gone

through bill, john boehner and now john kwan in being the leadership spot on the education committee. i committed to this. as an avid surfer 12 years. -- i said i would served 12 years. i served as the ranking member. when it came to an end, i thought those time for me to leave. >> congress is being asked to vote on waivers for the committee chairmen. we do support that? >> no. there is only been one waiver to date since this has been put in

place and that is when george bush asked for one additional term on the intelligence committee. they felt he was instrumental for leading the intel committee during the time after 9/11. it is a very specialized circumstances. the process has worked. >> we only have one minute left. let me ask a sentimental question. do you anticipate when you leave the office was your prevailing thought will be? >> it will be nothing but positive. it is one of the greatest job in the world. at the same time, you lose your privacy and opportunity for schedule. in some ways it is a difficult job. the thought to be nothing but positive and with a real

optimism about what i can do in the future. >> thank you for spending this hour with us. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. i wonder if it was so explosive if someone from a town of 300 people -- exclusive if someone from a town of 300 people can travel from a desk in a small school to a desk in the united states senate. >> senate farewell speeches in the senate -- c-span library all online and of free. it is washington your way. documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. you will hear about how the

court works some of the supreme court justices including elena kagan. learn about some of their recent developments. it is caring for the first time in high definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. republican bill huizenga will proceed mr. hoekstra. we spoke to him about his expectations. this is just under 25 minutes. >> bill huizenga is joining us this morning, and elected on november 2. he is joining us from grand rapids michigan. you will be taking over from your old boss, peter hoekstra. how would you be different from him? >> good morning .

on the substantive side, there will be very little difference. i was one of his policy advisers. i dealt to the integration of issues back here in michigan with what was happening in washington. you will not see a whole lot of difference in our voting. it is a style thing. i am a different person. >> he is known for the legacy of his reign on the intelligence committee. does that interest you? what will be your focus? >> that would be very interesting to me. i was working for him when 9/11 happened in 2001. that sharpened the nation's focus obviously. that is a little bit of my background, for a policy and concentration in latin-american history and politics.

i have travelled quite a bit. my committee is on the financial services. i just received that. i have backgrounds in small business. 30 minutes ago, i was standing with a couple of my employees and my business partner who was my cousin. that is my heart. i would love to do that. the other thing that will be mr. hoekstra's legacy is education. that was really his first passion pr. i am very pleased with my particular committee assignment in the financial-services. >> lessons learned from the congressman? >> and let of lessons. make sure you are paying attention to the district. -- a lot of lessons. make sure you are paying to the district.

he bit the incumbent which was the biggest upset in the country in 1992. he made sure that people in michigan heard him and saw him on a regular basis. that was one of my job is working with them, to make sure we had a consistent and pervasive presence back here in the district. i think that is probably the best lesson learned, and making sure you are taking care of people back on. the other element is making sure we are using taxpayer dollars wisely. i think we cannot always look at our constituents where in the eye and say we are using every dime you are giving us in the most efficient manner. those are too big lessons that i learned. along with just being yourself. how are we going to be different? there are different personalities. you have to be yourself. if you are the same person faced yet church or at the grocery stores or on c-span, they get

a sense a few you really are. like you said you are going to be serving on the financial services committee. what is the first thing you want the committee to do? >> there is a lot of reform issues coming up. there is the brain -- f rank/dodd bill. i have a lot to learn personally. i am looking forward to that. i know i will be digging through mountains of information in trying to travel around some of my credit union people and insurance and investors. they have been contacted me and talking to me about what their experiences are dealing with the regulations that we have. first and foremost, i will be in a learning mode and learning what subcommittees will be the

next big issue. >> when he be serving on any other committee? >> actually, it is considered an "a" -- exclusive -- committee. what we will do is serve only on that committee and then have some subcommittee assignment on that. >> there is a story i saw that a lot of the incoming freshmen republicans said no to a spot on the appropriations committee. were you offered to that? why do think that there -- that used to be a sought after committee. a lot of new republicans are saying they did not want to serve on that. >> i was not offered that opportunity. i may have taken them up on that. that is with the areas where there will be a tremendous amount of activity. we have to make sure that our

top matches our walk -- talk matches our walk. we will be talking about fiscal restraint. on the frontline did that is the ways and means and appropriations committee -- on the front line of that is the ways and means and also of the appropriations committee. i hope we have the courage of our convictions at the caucus to move forward at that. from what i have heard and seen, we have some very good and confident people. >> he said this will be difficult. there is a new poll about mid- november that said the voters did not have much faith that republicans will deliver on their election promises. >> i think we are kidding ourselves if we think that november 2 was all about what great people the republicans are predicting a -- are.

i come from a very republican area in michigan. others would say we just needed a change. i wanted to give barack obama a chance and go in a different direction. a year into it, they would say i wanted change but that is the what i meant. this is not the direction i wanted to go. this is a combination of the message the republicans are bring forward as well as a reaction to the democrat majority. it is incumbent upon us to walk the talk. we have to make sure will me say what us and that we are different physically and morally that we better do it. if we do not commit the american people will send it a message to us. >> do you believe that begins with an earmark a band? >> yes. we have already put that in place. that is one of my first vote as

a congress member. that is one of the first things that we voted on. >> what is your position on the tax cut a deal that was just approved by the house? >> mr. hoekstra was one of the 35 republicans that voted no on that. the challenge is that there are some very good things in there. we are trying to do planning and get some certainty. the response i have got was of a " there you guys go again." we are loading it up with subsidies. it is a little bit different. it is a very difficult vote. i believe we will see more types of those votes.

the choice is not good vs. bad, it is bad verse is really bad reverses a really bad -- it is bad verse is really bad. >> i will probably be leading no on it. the debt issue is something that we have to fix. i have five young kids. those are my five reasons for running. if we do not get this debt under control, it is going to eat us alive prepare. we have to keep our eye on every single vote that we do. that is a significant part of the equation. i cannot tell you exactly how i

would have voted, but i would have been leading know and calling mr. hoekstra -- leaning follwing --mr. hoekstra.ing mr. >> what do what republicans to do a dot and? -- to jobs in the economy? >> everything that we do is helping to create an atmosphere that will put paychecks in people's bank accounts and create jobs. that is really what we need to be focusing as we are moving forward. we have some very difficult decisions that we have to make on the spending and revenue side and all those things.

that has to be our primary focus. the key is making sure we have an atmosphere that will allow the entrepreneurs to emerge. that is from credits availability to regulation. also there is the taxation issue. >> have you had a conversation with john boehner? what was it like? >> i had a chance to talk with him a couple of different times. after my primary win and in november. we have been out there twice. we had a new member orientation. lastly, we were back there for some briefings with the congressional institute. i had a chance to chat with him as well.

i had some pretty extensive conversations. we are people ready to roll up our sleeves and go to work to do that has been very positive. -- and go to work. that has been very positive. what of my friends is on the panhandle area in florida. he just won his seat back as republicans. republicans have held it since 1886. -- have not held it since 1886 b. he said we need to go out and get into this. that is a feeling a number of that have. -- of us have. >> what is the first agenda item? >> the speaker will be setting

that along with the majority leader as to what we will be needing to do. i think some of that will be dictated [inaudible] the budget deal was struck in the house. we will see what is happening in the senate but if we had a few of those issues -- senate. we have a few of those issues coming to an end. we will probably be dealing with health care during the first of the year and getting ready as we are laying ground for the president's state of the union address. >> i've heard from some that one of the other first items they want to roll out is how they plan to cut spending across the board. what do you think should be cut first? >> i am not sure just doing a blanket cut is necessarily the right direction.

we also need to start looking at what programs work, what are the programs that we must be doing constitutionally. it may not mean an equitable 10% cut across the board. there may be some of that. we need to dig in. why would we want to fund programs that are not working or that we should not be doing? what we should do is identify those issues and those programs that are working and that we constitutionally must be doing and find them well. we will make sure they have time to do what they need to do and defund the things that are not working well. it is not as simple as saying people lop 25% for whatever that percentage is off the budget.

we will have to deal with that very soon. >> does that include cutting spending at the pentagon? >> everything has to be on the table. this morning i spoke to a chamber of commerce and had a couple of veterans come up afterwards. there is concern of how we are caring for our veterans. my father is a disabled world war ii veteran. my brother and lock is a rehabilitation doctor -- brother-in-law is a rehabilitation doctor. at that a little bit of feedback from them -- i had a little bit of feedback from them. the question is, are all the programs we have them place in the spending policies and procedures, can we tightened those up? the question is "yes."

-- the answer is "yes." this has to be on the table. do not do anything dumb that will put is at risk or danger, but make sure that the military is held to the same standards we will hold to any other administration. >> you said your service on the financial-services committee. i am wondering if there is someone you are looking forward to meeting our questioning as to sit on the financial services committee? have you thought about that? >> there is not anybody that i am wanting to pull in necessarily. i think i want to talk to dave ramsay. gaveink we need to bring da ramsey to the capital.

-- bring the day brandy to the capital d --ave ramsey to the capital. we will have some discussions with people that you are dealing on wall street and some of the other banks. i think we have some questions that need to be answered as well. i do not see another tarp tight bill coming out of this. i think we have some tough questions we ought to be asked who are in the industry. -- we ought to be asking people who are in the industry. it helps create an atmosphere for positive job growth. that to be an area i would like to look at. my background is in real street. my family has a construction company.

i'm a licensed developer. housing is another issue for me as well. >> you are currently a small- business owner. >> i own a gravel co. company -- gravel company. my dad started. they expanded into a ready made concrete company prevent -- concrete company. i bought the gravel company. i have a couple of employees. within the past our outstanding with the gravel patit employees. it is an amazing intersection when you start talking about taxing things legislatively and then having to live with the excess of that as a small- business owner, whether that is

regulation or taxation or the general attitude. it seems like so often the government is ready to say "no." we have to stay "yes." it is very helpful having back firm footing in both of those world. >> i've read that erick kanter sent a book out with a bit of some at dos and don'ts. was to keep the profile of from the moment you are elected and to you takeover. you are now the member of congress. >> we have been out and a round quite a bit. pete hoekstra and i have set a

close relationship. we talk constantly. our staff talk to each other. some of his staff by either served with or helped hire. i am bringing a number of his current staff members along with me. one will be my district director. i have been out in a round. i have -- out and around. i've a fairly high profile in the community. it is not a thing we have not been doing when i was a state legislature or as a candidate. we are trying to make sure that people know that we are out, we are listening, and the key is

making sure we return home and we are communicating with people. the schedule they laid out will help as to that. >> when your family be joining you in washington? >> we have some direct flights. that will work for us quite well. my parents are a little older and down the street from where my wife and i and our children live. our school as a quarter of a mile the other direction. i want to make sure that my kids had as much of a west-michigan up bringing as they can. we will take the advantage of having them in washington. it'll be a neat opportunity for them. >> when about yourself? had he found a place to live -- what about yourself? have you found a place to live? >> i have not preve.

i kid you not. the three biggest questions i have gotten our -- what we do about health care? what we do about the deficit? when you sleep on the couch like he did -- what are you going to do about the deficit? are you going to sleep on the couch like pete did? i am not sure i can sleep in the store. we will evaluate that. that is an advantage i had working with pete prior to this. whether i ended up on the couch or in an apartment with other colleagues, we will see. >> thank you very much. >> it is my pleasure. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. >> in november, jim oberstar

lost his bid for 19th term in the house, ending his tenure as the longest serving minnesota congressman. he speaks with us next in the committee hearing room. it is under 35 minutes. >> i will want to start with [inaudible] let's stay with the home state by th. how can they support to the dfl and the tea party? >> i think this was a unique year of a national wave of reaction against a number of national issue. they did convert to minnesota. they did next door in wisconsin. -- converge in minnesota. they did next door and

wisconsiin wisconsin. it came together. we lost the minnesota state senate for the first time since 1972. we got a lot the majority but we lost 2/3 majority. -- we lost not just the majority, but we lost 2/3 majority. in my own district, a fringe area around the suburbs, there was a swing, legislators lost in that area. yet, we elected a democrat to the governors office. that was a curious outcome.

it confirms the independent of minnesota voters. >> did you see this coming? >> i knew from the very beginning of the year after the obama inaugural that we were in for a very difficult year but th. transition elections are a transitional time -- transformational time. verydent's proposed challenging options for the congress and the american people. we have a huge debt override. we have massive unemployment. we have the troubled assets relief funds to deal with. i knew in january the we would

not get these problems solved by the time of the next election. i had prepared by campaign staff that we would have to work very hard and a lot of outreach and take on these issues. toomey, this is something very visceral. in 1948, the steelworkers union, my father was a founder. in 1948, they were negotiating contracts with mixed steel and propose coverage of health insurance and retirement in

their contract. the steel company's appeal to the regulations board that said that retirement and health insurance are not subject of contract negotiations. harry truman won the election. he spoke at a big rally there. he replaced the challenge of the labor relations board. the steelworkers union appealed the previous decision . board ruled that help ensure. help insurance and retirement are extensions of pay -- the board ruled that health insurance and retirement are extensions at pay. the steel workers went on strike later for 150 days.

i remember it well. they won. they prevailed. over time, they improved their inclusion of health insurance and retirement pay in their contract negotiations. i wish my father lived along the neck to see the day we passed a national health insurance program. -- live long enough to see the day we passed a national health insurance program. >> we had in a series of these interviews with members you are not coming back -- who are not coming back about the fact that over the course of the last 25 or 30 years it has been a time of growth in the united states. it has always been building in growth for the most part. we are in $14 trillion worth right now. the current congress will find ways to trim government.

the question that comes to mind -- is more fun being a congressman when you were there or for the current crop? >> i served on the budget committee for six years during the reagan era. we spent hours and hours of finding ways to trim the ts back. cutbac .t is not a pleasant task i it is one that requires cooperation. i understand how difficult it is to balance that. in that first reagan budget, it

eliminated the grant program for waste-water treatment construction. we clean up our household municipal waste and converting that to a loan program. then the loan program was restricted further. those are the purposes for which i sought the congress and i want to expand the support of government for those public purposes that have a broad social benefits such as clean water. all the water that ever is will be with us today. i have also search congress long enough to have voted for the clinton deficit reduction package, at the bill that sets

as encores to a balanced -- set us on course to a balanced budget in 2001. in 1993, we voted to cut programs for 400 federal agencies. we reduced the number of subcommittees in the house would cut their own budget. -- in the house. we cut our own budget. there was a structural change in the function of government. we also recaptured some of the high end tax revenue from those high earners that regan had cut taxes for. the result was to wonder $36

billion budget surplus. that was held up $5.70 trillion in january 2001. we were on track to have zero debt held by public in 10 years. then president bush push through huge tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans, locked into two wars and it was offset by a share of sacrifice by all americans. that put us on course to high unemployment. it allowed non-bank baby banks

-- non-banks to function as banks but the we had this market. there is a need for a rescue package. somehow, that become the democrats' problem and not the republicans' problem. whether we did not express a properly, we did address it. there is a bush ^ initiative to deal with this. the restrictions we put, they wanted $7 million. we held them accountable. we put restraints on it.

the others pay back with interest. the message got lost in this last election. but i knew we had all these difficult issues to deal with and health care. i did not anticipate health care taking so long. i thought it is something we would see through to enactment in 2009. that did not happen delays and filibusters. there are 412 house passed bills by the committee on transportation infrastructure that have not been acted upon. the democrats have the white

house committee said that come and the house and they cannot pass the bills. -- the white house, if the senate, and the house and they cannot pass the bills. center mcconnell did not give him credit for that. -- senator mcconnell did not give him credit for that. in made it difficult for us to move our agenda. much of it was pending in the senate. that included the future of aviation. >> and at about partisanship, but -- let me ask about carter's and shipped -- let me ask about partisanship in congress.

do you share that? can you trace the route? >-- roots? >> in our committee, we have had the best buy partisanship of any committee in the house and the senate. in 2007, we passed one to expand the locks on the mississippi and improve navigation and protect against floods and rebuild what lends -- the wetlands. it is vital to the well-being of the nation. president bush vetoed that bill. he overrode the veto. that is bipartisanship. that is a 2/3 boat. -- vote.

this happened because i establish a partnership with the ranking member of florida. when it to the chairmanship -- prior to that we did things together. i established an inclusiveness with the republicans. during the years later got we served in the minority, when mr. schuster was chairman, we travel the country for the transportation bill that was later known as the t-21.

in atlanta at the end of a news conference, the last question was a reporter who said "why are you a democrat siding with mr. schuster the republican?" i said because i never saw a democratic road or republican bridge. we will build all american road and all-american bridges. the reporter turned to mr. shuster in said "where your republican traveling with jim oberstar?" he said that we were joined at the hip their reach a common ground -- joined at the hip and we reached a common ground for the better of the country. not everyone has the best t ideas. they are out to do throughout

2000 and 2008 we passed significant -- throughout 20007 in 2008 we pass significant legislation. he had an idea of engaging the private sector. as you looked each other in the eye -- as we looked each other in the eye, there was a trust between us. he is not setting a trap for me and i am not setting a trap for him. on are being opene and and this to see what we predict open and honest to see what we can do for the better good. -- we were being opened and honest to see what we could do for the better good.

there is one pass in 2007 and then again in 2009. there were a host of other cops that brought the first affordable pay system on the department of energy, burst of affordable pay system about big -- there were a host of other ones that brought the first affordable pay system and the department of energy our arm. what happened in the latter part is that republican leadership took more control of committee initiatives and said

a harder and more difficult and et a harder and more difficult edge. congress has always authorize the corps of engineers. thursday authorized a study to determine whether you have the right approach or some other initiatives is the right approach. what are some potential cost and benefit? that goes back to the congress. ?- congress tha republican to the position that this is the category of an era marked in told their members the

cannot remember -- recommend projects to the core of engineers. it as a point of friction. members neknew that constituents wanted these projects. we have the nom federal funds to match the federal dollars to carry this to completion. steps like that disrupted the bipartisanship. i said we need to move this bill.

if there is a change of heart, you are welcome to bring your project back into the opposition. that could have been done. it could have been made highly partisan. i said that was not the right way to conduct the public's business. craigslist ticket to a different subject for the -- >> let us take it to a different subject. you have seen a lot of presidents. i am wondering which of those he felt was the best at promoting his own legislative agenda? who worked with the congress most effectively? >> lyndon b. johnson, no doubt about it. kennedy was an idea person who inspired people and rousted them. he appealed -- and arouse them. he appealed to their greater good of each individual. lyndon johnson knew how to get it done.

he worked every issues personally in addition to having a very able staff at work the hill on both sides of the house and the senate prev. i have never seen anyone so affected. in one instance, i had worked with my predecessor on the development act. i did a great deal predic.

lyndon johnson grabbed me by the lapel and said "i want you to tell john that i want that." [unintelligible] he said "i know what you are here for and i will do it." i've never seen a president operate that way. it cannot hide vietnam on the shoulder, -- if he had not had vietnam on his shoulder, he would have been on the books as the greatest president. >> i want to look at the time you have served here and maybe what's your most memorable boat was. >> i've had many.

my first term, second year in congress the house and senate have passed a cost-of-living adjustment for retired federal employees. shortly afterward, i reseat a letter from may -- received a letter from a constituent saying i know this congress is paying for the adjustment. i'm a white house retiree. i did not get an adjustment. why? their question. -- fair question the bi. it turns out they had their own separate retirement program. it should have been included in a separate provision of that cost of living adjustment. they were not because people did

not notice prevent i introduced -- notice. i introduce legislation. -- i introduced legislation. i said this was the right thing to do. the committee, house, senate passed it in joe ford signed into law. i sent it to my constituent and said the congress has acted to correct the problem you brought to my attention. two days later, i received a letter his wife saying, has been received your note. he was so thrilled to know that this had passed.

he died the next day. he died knowing that government could work for even one person. >> the moral is, if you have something write your congressman. >> the constitution provides every citizen the right to petition the government. that person petitioned the government and the grievance was redressed. he did not receive the benefit. he knew that government could work together for one person. >> you have spent a lot of time in this room. what will be missed? >> i will miss the hearing process comedy get and a -- process, the give-and-take. that has been my question on my

service of the congress. i'm going to miss problem solving. is finding a way to make it work. that i find the most rewarding part of the public service. >> i was reading a story about you clearing out her office after all these years. there is a lot of history in that base but you have accumulated. what are you going to do if your

papers? have you decided? >> the minnesota historical society director came up to review the files and help me understand what they find useful for history and which things to discard its, as -- discard, as did the library of congress. we have divided the papers. 120 boxes are going to the minnesota historical society and probably eight or 10 boxes of material that i will find useful in whatever i pursue next are staying with me. >> have you decided what you want to do next? >> i would like to teach a graduate level and to help shape the thought of the next generation of transportation

professionals. i want to continue to be engaged in those aspects of transportation that i have found the most exciting and rewarding, safe route to school which i initiated in 2000. changing the habits of an entire generation of children and moving them from inactivity to an active lifestyle and reducing the possibility of growth in over the city -- obesity. i want to be engaged with the safety issues in transportation. >> you leave this institution with an audit amount upon this and respect for what can be --

with an audit amount of respect for what can be accomplished. -- with an obvious amount of respect for what can be accomplished. i think there is the problem with the perception that the economy did not turn around fast enough when in this age of instant communication with the blackberry since you a message and to send a response back in a second. people be used to that. -- are used to that. i held hearings every 30 days. we can account for 1,300,000 jobs. we should have had twice as much. -- as much funding in highways

and waste-water treatment and taxiways and transit buses. it is going to take that turnaround of job creation and some fiscal discipline to bring down the annual deficit and the long-term debt of the government. that will help to restore the public trust in the congress. >> the last question. if you put a single word to your emotion as to leave this place, what would that be? >> nostalgic. >> why? >> i love what i have worked for and accomplished, seeing people go back to work in my district.

when an iron ore processing plant was shut down because a lack of marketing gateman -- marketing engagement, bringing over 1000 jobs. this is a time when you made a difference in people's lives. i will not be able to do it in the same way. there is a feeling of accomplishment. i have worked every day. it is the greatest honor elected by your peers to serve them in the greatest democracy in the face of the earth. to lead that is -- to leave that is difficult. is difficult.