about the potential challenges we're facing in afghanistan, and why education and important things like that would offset those challenges? >> i will tell you, we're just going to go to the fundamental counterinsurgency, helping goodr country. this is fundamental blocking and tackling. it is not a matter of a will for holes up -- wholesale change. it has to be a will or freedom of movement. i have freedom of movement. i am not going to be threatened. in that country, some of the most basic freedoms of being able to take your good out of your small garden and put them

in the market and sell them, that is significant. can you imagine that in the united states of america, things we take so much for granted. that is what they want. they want the ability to put their children in school. the key to all of this is strong leadership. it is a tribal system. we cannot do it the way we view ourselves in the united states of america. it is a strong tribal system. it is different from where it was in iraq. the elders have a lot to say about what is important to that town, that the village. i will tell you, while we were there, one of the tribal chiefs said -- i will not tell you where it is.

this is not unanimous across afghanistan. one of the tribal elders in a rural area of afghanistan, the part in the marines on said, i do not care about electricity. i would just like to have freshwater. i would like to be able to take the stuff that my bill which rose and take it to a market and sell it. that is pretty -- that my village grows and take it to a market and sell it. that is pretty the sorrel. -- visceral. that is a strong city with a credible police force. a credible military that, should something happen, they will step

in and reinforce the police and do the bidding of the nation. that is pretty simple. those are the fundamental basis of counterinsurgency. it is not nation-building. that is what is important for afghanistan. from what i saw and what -- michael can speak for himself -- there are those leaders who are there. they are in the villages. imagine that. one year ago, marjah was on the lives of everyone in this room. now, for the most part, unless you are visiting with us, you cannot remember the last headline you saw or anywhere in

washington, d.c. that had been named marjah on it. one year ago, it was on the tips of our tom. marjah as a series of governors and police chiefs and they are doing a great job. if they can do that at that fundamental level, we can help train them to do that. the united states can ease out and they can build schools and wells. we help them did wells. that is the fundamental. -- we can help them bidig. one last thing. what is it they really want? one of the governors that i was with at christmas time is a great, courageous man. he said, i would like to have my market opened again.

i would like to have freshwater. we are in the middle of this little village. here is what we might call a shallow creek flowing through it that water that no one in this room with drink. he said, i would like to have fresh water. i would like to have some kind of medical care. he said, i do not necessarily have to have a pediatrician or a thoracic surgeon. i would like to have some medical care. i just put two of my women in the back of a pickup truck that were about eight months pregnant and they were having problems in their pregnancy. put them in the back of a pickup truck and they died en route. that is all he wants. he would like to have a nurse. it is pretty visceral. that is what those villages wants.

michael, would you like to comment? >> i would say the debriefings. -- i would say two brief things. afghanistan has been a challenge. i was in paris to see that in the last 12-15 months, the number of afghanistan people populating the government is 60%. that does not mean every one of the 60% is competent, but it is another level. another thing i heard that was encouraging is that governors in afghanistan are able to travel by road to meetings. previously, they would go by helicopter because they would be afraid of encountering a roadside bomb.

now the district governors are moving by road. that is one indication of headway. obviously, there is a long way to go. let's go over here and we will go to the back of the brown. jason will be after this gentleman over here. >> i am with the office of richard lugar. the shin certification -- the senator has concerns that the vital needs of afghanistan are being overlooked. how is your operation securing those needs? >> i am not sure how capital and money out ways our national security. -- outweighs our national security.

that is for the senior leadership to answer that question. we paid a pretty healthy price in iraq. you can use iraq as a model. we lost 851 marines in iraq and there have been 9000 wounded with various kinds of wounds. that is a healthy price. if you look at iraq right now -- i keep going back and i say, when is the last time anyone has anything in the paper about fallujah or any of these places that were in the headlines of our newspapers? you ask yourself the question, was it worth it? there has not been a commander on the ground that has not lost marines and has heartfelt time. the answer for me is yes.

i transition back to afghanistan. if i take that same concept, i looked and i say, i am encouraged. you look into the eyes of these young marines. they want to finish the job. i do not mean to finish the job in a bad way, like in a vengeance way. i mean it in a good way. when you have a 19-year-old marine who is opening up a bakery and that man was run out two years ago by the taliban and that corporal is 19 years old from akron, ohio and he is excited about that, they want to finish the mission. they want to help train the afghan national police. they want to finish the mission. i cannot answer about your initial question. i want to give you a sense of what the marines are feeling.

>> jason in the far back. jason has the gold tie. he is standing near the door. >> thanks for the directions. general amos. over the last few months, there has been a well- publicized number of people from civilian agencies in the government. there have been security concerns that newly arrived civilians are not able to get out to the field as much as hoped. can you speak to the impact the civilian search has had on the operations? >> i would be happy to. what we have done in the last two years has been revolutionary. we do not look at things the same as we did prior to 9/11. i would suspect that many of our

agency partners do not do things the same way. who would have thought we would actually be hiring people in civilian agencies now and that part of their contract -- the way i understand it, when you sign on, you are deployable and you can go to some of these places. some of these places are very dangerous. we have changed. my sense is that we are absolutely headed in the right direction. we spent some time during the evening, on a couple of occasions, with a provisional reconstruction team headed up by a brit who is doing a terrific job. he is a hero. his staff is coming together. the state department is flushing that out. there are others who need to be a part of that. they are coming in.

it is slower than we would like? yes. is the vector heading in the right direction? yes. parts of this evolutionary learning process is that we are going to have to hire a specific kind of people at the front end to be willing to go out with the skill set to willing -- to be willing to do some of the hard things our nation would not expect from our civilian part of the solution. not only is it headed in the right direction, it has to head into the right direction. it is imperative. one of the other lessons we have learned is that, we have talked about the government. it really is the truth. we are in it together. the marine corps has -- i do not

have and my generals do not have any business thinking we are going to go someplace by ourselves line the marine corps flag and fly from the halls of montezuma and we are going to stake out our claim. i will be happy to be in complete support of some interagency effort someplace else around the world and we are providing the capabilities and the security and the ability to do the nation's bidding. it is not where it should be, but it is headed in the right direction. i am encouraged. >> a question in the back. the young woman with the red hair. >> good morning, general amos. a few months ago, the secretary was talking about how he would like to reprogram the agency a long program lines. he mentioned warfare and what

seems to have a lot to do with what the marine corps is doing. i was wondering if any of the warring core acquisition programs -- any of the marine corps acquisition programs look like they are going to be reorganized under different acquisition structures, or if you see that as part of the way the marines do business? the other question i have for you, do you see the marine corps taking an interest in a new class in the future? >> the question about which programs will come under new acquisition strategies. and the new class. >> do you see the marine corps taking an interest in modifying the new class so that it can launch off of an amphibian ship instead of a carrier? >> the first part of your

question dealt with the new acquisition framework. what was the question out of that piece of it? you put a point on that part of the question? >> it was talked about about organizing programs by capability. litoral warfare. was there any sign that marine corps acquisition programs will be rolled up into these structures or will it affect marine corps capabilities? >> i do not know if there is an effort underway to change the acquisition program to lop things under capabilities. i am at on aware of that. i am not saying it is a bad idea, but i have not put any thought to it.

when i spoke earlier, i was talking about how we take what we have and make it better. i was not lumping it under capabilities. i cannot answer that. i heard u-class that there. i think you are talking about the navy's carrier. that is a tremendous effort. go back to the uas question we had earlier. that is an example of taking technology and bringing it aboard something that is pretty significant. we have seen airplanes flying right now. we have seen how it is going to turn out. we are optimistic. i do not know of any effort of trying to pull all that together under different capabilities in the acquisition world. but we have time for one more question. are you waiting -- >> we have time for one more

question. are you waiting, certification? >> i am from the university of edinburgh. you mentioned an emphasis on strategy first. haynes, gold, and priorities must die - aims, goals and priorities must guide assessments. is there more emphasis to shape the marine corps after afghanistan? >> that is a good question. my sense is that when we start talking about budget items and you start thinking about the the fiscal pressures, we are talking about afghanistan. i do not think there is anybody -- i will just speak for myself. if you look at the written guidance i put out after i i have the commandant,

four priorities. my number one priority is to guarantee success in afghanistan for our deployed forces. that is my number one priority. my promise to marines on the ground and their families is that i will spend whatever money is required. i will take whatever personal capital is required. i will make whatever expenditures are required with regard to training and equipping our forces. i will do all of that, even at the expense of the rest of the marine corps, to guarantee success in afghanistan. you heard me talk earlier about the fact that it is not about winning or losing. afghanistan is my number one priority. i sit on the junk chiefs. it is the top priority for the would-i sit on the joint -- i

sit on the joint chiefs. it is the top priority for us. i do not think that is going to change. what we are talking about is the risk in the future. we are out there in 13, 14, 15, 16, probably the next decade. if we are going to look out over the next decade, you should probably look out over the next two decades. when you are buying equipment and procuring stuff, it takes a long time to buy it and all of the things we talked about over the last hour. my sense is that the risk will be addressed in what the department of defense is going to do for our nation in a post- afghanistan environment. it does not mean it will not

apply to all of that. if you take a look at the bulk of the effort, it will be toward a strategy for the world beyond afghanistan. what can we do? what is required? what is it we cannot do? as for risk, how can we mitigate it. ? >> please join me in thanking the commandant. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you are watching c-span covering politics and public affairs. "washington journal" brings you lawmakers and politics. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature programs. on saturdays, "the communicators," and the house of

commons. everything is searchable at our c-span video library. c-span, washington your way. created by america's cable companies. >> the house is in recess waiting for the senate to finish work on extending the provisions of the free trade act. senators our voting on provisions of the bill. the house needs to vote on it before it can go to the president. we are hearing that the house is expected that within the hour to work on the patriot act. it will extend the provisions for a year. a $690 billion piece of legislation now goes to the

senate. the white house has threatened to veto provisions in that bill. >> over the memorial day weekend, commencement addresses from across the country. leaders from politics, business, and entertainment offering their advice for the graduating class of 2011. memorial day weekend on c-span. >> this weekend on american history television, "the washington post" editor ben bradlee and the foreign policy of president reagan. we will learn about the oldest active interesting -- active infantry unit. yet the schedule by having it e- mail to you by pressing p c-span alert button.

>> the president's nominee for u.s. ambassador to china told a senate committee that his focus on him and rights, intellectual property, and security issues is confirmed by the senate. locke would be the first chinese-american to serve as an ambassador to china. we are going to watch as much of this as we can until our live health coverage.

>> the hearing will come to order. we are delighted to welcome our secretary of commerce and our good friend, gary locke, who has been nominated by the president to be our ambassador to the people's republic of china.

welcome, mr. secretary. we are happy to have the ear and excited about this appointment. he liked it all so -- we are happy to have you here and deexcited about this appointment. we are also delighted to welcome the family. emily is 6 and she told us where she is going to school. she would be much happier if the hearings were over and her father could leave right now. gary locke's to read it partner in life and this effort, mona. we are happy to have you all here. -- gary locke's terrific partner in life and his efforts, mona. this appointment -- our relationship with the people's republic of china stands as one of the most important

relationship for our country -- most important relationships for our country today. much of what we accomplish with china will help shape this century. if confirmed by the senate, which i fully expect, secretary gary locke will join a unique group from george h. w. bush to winston lord, who have served in this position. it is obvious to all, but nevertheless worth pointing out yet again, that secretary lo cke's story is quintessentially american. it is the american story. a descendant of hard-working immigrants, secretary gary locke's personal integrity,

integrity, strong work ethic led him from seattle to college in new haven -- in new haven at yale university and boston university law school. as governor of washington, he reached out to china to help strengthen the trade ties between his state and china. it is clear that that relationship is a microcosm of the larger relationship we need to develop and work on today. he doubled the state also exports to over $5 billion per year. at the department of commerce, he led the administration also first cabinet level trade mission to china, a clean in mission. he served as the co-chair of the u.s.-china mission on trade. the relationship between the

united states and china is absolutely vital to get right. we need to avoid falling into the trap of zero-sum competition. we need to forge a relationship based on -- there is still a lot of work to be done. i am not going to speak at length about the long list of issues we have to work on. let me mention advancing human rights, ensuring peace and stability across the taiwan strait, managing trade disputes, protecting the environment and, most importantly, cooperating to help lead the world out of conflicts in areas where our joint leadership can have a huge impact on the course of the

events. i want to make two overarching points. first, with its new-found china needs tot, do more than abide by international norms. that is important. we are hoping china will contribute to strengthening the international system that has helped it to prosper. we believe beijing can step up and can shoulder more of the responsibility that comes with its growing power. we welcome the opportunity to share the exercise of that responsibility together with other nations that care to step up. in the area of non- proliferation, we need china to not only in force u.s. sanctions that abide by supplier group guidelines, but we want china to be a full partner in the effort to secure

a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapons threats that are imposed by iran and north korea. all of our interests are put at risk by their current outline an outlaw efforts to some degree. convincing china that its own interest will be served by taking on more responsibility for sending the international system will be secretary gary locke's most important task as our ambassador. even though china may have some of the hallmarks of a great power, some of its leaders still remain focused on meeting their own domestic challenges rather than taking on a new international obligation. this brings me to my second point. even though china has one of the longest history is on the planet

and one of the richest histories on the planet, and even though it has vast global trading networks today and it is the world's second largest economy, it still lags behind many states, many nations, in its respect for basic human rights. in recent months, the's government has intensified efforts to control access to -- in recent months, china's government has intensified its effort to control access to information. we have been clear about this at all times in our history. this crackdown represents a violation of universal rights, rights guaranteed under chinese law. it is ultimately contrary to the best interests of any government, as we are seeing in the middle east and elsewhere today. as premier wen jiabao pointed

out last summer, the people also wishes for democracy and freedom are irresistible. -- the people's wishes for democracy and freedom are irresistible. the premier said, freedom of speech is indispensable for any country, a country in the course of development and a country that has become strong. the premier is absolutely correct about this. it is clear that some in china see things differently. greater tolerance for dissent would help china produce better results across a range of government and private sector activities. effectively integrating our concerns for human rights and every facet of our relationship will be one of the ambassador's most important and daunting challenges. if confirmed, secretary gary locke will be responsible for

helping build the kind of candid and cooperative partnership that is essential for both countries. i had the pleasure of engaging with chinese leaders on a number of these issues. i think we have made progress in those discussions. i think there has been an increased level of candor and an increase level of cooperation on a number of vital issues of concern. i look forward to secretary gary locke's ability to continue to develop that relationship. we want a partnership with china. there are some in our country about choicese that would push china into a different relationship. there are some who want china labeled as something other than a partner or a possible friend. i believe personally, and i think others here do, believe that that would not serve our

interests. that is not necessary. all of these relationships take work. countries always organized around and react to their needs. that has been true all through history. it is not going to change overnight. the art is to try to meld those needs into a common effort as we try to find ways to cooperate wherever possible for the larger global community even as we meet our own needs at home. mr. secretary, i believe the president has made a good choice and a wise choice in the nominating you. we look forward to your testimony today and we look forward to working with you in this important task. lugar.r l >> senator, i join you in

welcoming secretary gary locke. i appreciate this opportunity to express the views about the priorities of the united states- chinese relationship and about the nominee. china also global leverage has increased as it positions itself as the leading creditor nation. more than 80% of the world's current account balance our ports -- account balance surplus. chinese --the tiny holes 25% of all -- the chinese hold 25% of what we all to other countries. we need a more sensible global balance that depends less on chinese credit. china remains an important market for united states' exports.

china is the largest export destination for soybeans. the united states has a serious trade deficit with china. the benefits of the u.s.-chinese market has not reached its " potential because of unfair competition in china -- has not reached its full potential because of unfair competition in china. we have heard about inconsistent market access and lack of intellectual property rights enforcement. the next ambassador to china will have to deal with a wide array of security problems.

these include issues related to north korea, iran, pakistan, burma, and other nations, as well as maintaining the security of taiwan. the ambassador must confront the chinese government on stopping cyber attacks on the u.s. government, on american companies, and on individual american companies that originated in china. there has to be a greater understanding in the interaction between china and american military leaders. the relationship between chinese military leaders was a point raised by senators. the ambassador must have a deep

understanding of china's integration strategy for its southeast asian neighbors. china is also dedicating massive financial resources to securing and developing natural resources in many parts of the globe, including latin america and africa. another specific area of concern that has received to buy a little concern is the in congruence reality of our -- that has received too let the concern is the incongruity reality of our -- the united states must press this point of equity for the establishment of american information outposts in china. the american ambassador must give consistent attention to human rights deficiencies in china.

political and religious freedoms in china continue to deteriorate. this committee needs a firm commitment from the nominee that he will work to advance the rule of law in china. he must press chinese leaders regarding the growing campaign of censorship, arbitrary detention, and this appearances. i look forward to these hearings to learn more about secretary gary locke and his strategy for approaching the chinese in ways that will effectively enhance economic prosperity for americans and the national security of our country. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. you're full statement will be placed into the record. >-- your full statement will be placed into the record. >> thank you senators. it is a pleasure to come before

this committee. i am humbled appear before this committee. it is a sign of the importance that the president has nominated a current member of his cabinet to serve in this new capacity. i want to thank president obama for his support and his confidence in me. i am proud to be joined by my family, my beautiful wife mona and our children. the matter where public service has taken us, the other washington or this washington, they have been the irreplaceable constants, providing much love and much support. if my father were still alive -- he passed away this past january -- he would be proud, if i am confirmed, to see his son become the first chinese american ambassador to the country of his and my mother's birth. i thought it came to this country as a young boy.

he joined the army before the outbreak of world war ii. he was part of some of the most fierce battles in france on their journey to berlin. after the war, he returned to china where he met and married my mother. he brought her back to seattle where they started a family. china is a nation they would hardly recognize from their childhood. it is a country filled with alter-modern cities where hundreds have been lifted -- ultra-modern cities where lifteds have been liste out of poverty. we want to address pease and poverty in ways consistent with national norms -- peace and

poverty in ways consistent with national norms. if confirmed by the senate, i pledge to help build a positive and comprehensive relationship that president obama and hu jintao have agreed that our nations should aspire to. opening markets in china have been a focus of mind as governor for the state of washington and as commerce secretary. if confirmed, helping u.s. current -- u.s. companies do business in china will be a big part of what i do every day. increasing exports to china will help create jobs and economic growth here at home. it will also improve the quality of life or the chinese people by providing more access to american may products and services, the best in the world, and help the chinese leaders meet their goals of modernization. i will also work to expand bilateral cooperation on a host

of critical international issues from stopping the nuclear proliferation to balancing the global economy to combating climate change. we have made progress on a number of those concerns. our work on north korea and iran, we encourage china to do more. it is an important sign that we can cooperate to address sensitive issues in the u.s.- china relationship. there are many areas of collaboration. there are also areas of disagreement. that includes human rights. we have significant concerns about china's actions in recent months, especially -- especially the crackdown on journalists. these are fundamental tenets of u.s. policy. if confirmed, i will advocate for of holding universal rights in china. as much as the job of ambassador

is to communicate our position to chinese leaders, i pledge to reach out to the people of china. my goal will be to convey and express the values that america stands for and the desire for ever closer bonds of friendship between our two peoples. should i be confirmed, i will work closely with this committee. i hope to host each of you and your staff in china. we have an outstanding team of career professionals at the embassy and the consul in china. if i am given the privilege of serving, i will do my best to promote our objectives in china. we have much to do. lugar,n and senator luk thank you for this opportunity to address you. i welcome your questions and your comments. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

i neglected to point out -- i think it is more properly that you do -- your status as the first american of chinese descent. that is an amazing part of the story. i am confident that it gives you a special level of credibility and a capacity to validate a bunch of issues. i think we are well served in that regard. i want to get your sense of how we manage the economic component at this point in time. there is a degree of anxiety within the congress with respect to the currency issues and the trade practices and some of the

procurement practices. we have had these meetings with the chinese. we have discussed these things. some americans would suggest that this discussion has been going on for quite a while without the kind of results that impact their perception of the on the fairness of the playing field, what it is intellectual property or other things. -- whether it is intellectual property or other things. the progress seems slow. i was wondering if he will comment. is that the way it is going to be? does that represent a difference of opinion over it? doesn't represent the imbalance of leverage? why is it taking -- does it represent the amount of leverage? is it taking so long? >> we would all agree that

progress has been slow. we are making progress. progress has been accelerating in the last few years. china and the united states and the g-20 nations have talked about a rebalancing of the world economy. part of that rebalancing includes american consumers being less in debt. we have to get our fiscal house in order. the president has ambitious goals as evidenced by the budget he proposed for the next several years, which will freeze domestic spending. there is a discussion about our debt and our deficit. china recognizes that it must export less and focus more on domestic consumption. we in the united states must export more. these are opportunities of win- win before us that have the united states' companies

exporting more to chinese. -- exporting more to china. there is a hunger for things that are made and produce in the united states from services to products. u.s. exports to china rose by 32%. across the united states, exports to other countries grew by 70% on average. our exports to china are growing by a faster rates than elsewhere to the rest of the world. we are seeing movement on the currency. china recognizes it needs to allow its currency to float more freely. we think it should floats more and faster. when you combine the affect of - we think it should sfloat more and faster. we have strategic and economic dialogue where we address these

specific, global issues. we have made progress. we have to make sure that we monitor the progress of china, make sure they adhere to their commitment whether it is on intellectual property -- the chinese have a campaign right now. that campaign has been extended to insure that the government agencies and state-owned enterprises purchase legitimate software. we have to monitor that. we are insisting on accountability to make sure the chinese follow through. it is an important relationship. it is one in which we need to convey to the chinese that it is in their mutual self-interest to engage in free and fair trade. as you indicated earlier, not just to abide by international norms and institutions, but be a world player and help solve some

of the issues facing the world. but let me come to that for a minute. -- >> everyone understands that the chinese leadership and the chinese people are smarts. they are analytical and capable of defining what they see as interests. -- their interests. given the fact that you consciously -- that you constantly hear from them that they have 500 million people. that is twice the size of the united states. they want to bring them into an industrial and more prosperous standard of living. there are internal challenges.

we talk about their interests. we want to persuade them to see that their interests are -- how do you do that in your judgment? they see their interests as being focused on his internal struggle. >> with respect to some of their internal challenges, then interest focused on food and heating the growing population. insufficient energy and in recent days you have seen the reports of limitations or reductions in electricity available for factories and households. the health and welfare of their citizens. given the contact with the west, given the ability of the people of china to visit and see what other developing countries are enjoying, seeing american

life on television shows, there is a hunger for greater prosperity and a greater standard of living. the chinese are concerned about making sure there is stability within the country. these are the areas in which united states companies and the united states government can help meet those needs of the chinese leaders and the aspirations of the chinese people. that can reduce our trade deficit and help american companies sell more of their american made goods and services, including agriculture, to china to meet the objectives of the chinese people and leaders. we need to convince and inform the people of china that america stands willing to help. it can result in a mutually beneficial relationship. >> let me ask one last question. i want to hone in on the interests. when we met with president hu

jintao here, i raise the issue of their efforts with respect to north korea. they tell us they do not want a nuclear north korea. north korea also current activities are contrary to china also the-north korean's current activities are contrary to china current korea's activities are contrary to china's interests. we note that kim yong-il is in beijing right now. he is focusing on the economic ties between the two countries. how do we get china to exert

what we believe is greater leverage with respect to north korea's behavior, particularly their aggressive behavior toward the south and the dangerous moments that have been created as a consequence of that double you would think there is a greater ability. are we misjudging bear -- dangerous moments that have been created as a consequence of that. do you think there is a great ability? >> china has a unique role given its influence and ties to north korea. we urge china to do more to urge -- to influence north korea's behavior. north korea is giving china pause and causing china to realize they have to step up to defuse the situation to make sure no further provocations occurred that could result in

retaliatory actions by south korea. that would destabilize the entire region. there is a greater urgency and understanding of how delicate the situation is and how not korea must be brought back to six-party talks. -- how north korea must be brought back to six-party talks. i think china understands that. >> do you think china can do more? >> china definitely can and must do more. >> as i mentioned in my opening statement, i remain concerned with the confucian centers in the united states. i want to focus for just a moment and get your views on public diplomacy. in addition to this problem with

the centers, in the budget prioritization of our country, we are likely to see the boys of america -- boys of america jammed. i am please -- voice of america. the administration's efforts to get more american students to china through the 100,000 strong program remains badly under- resources. d. these are fragments of the problem. how do you perceive american diplomacy been put so that we are able to get an audience with the chinese -- american diplomacy being pushed so that we are able to get an audience with the chinese leaders?

>> is not enough to talk to the chinese leaders. the appetite for more freedom and democracy rests with the people themselves. the more exposure we can give them to american value and the more interaction they have with american tourists and american students, even a chinese business people coming to the united states to promote democratic reforms and the appetite for greater liberties and freedom -- the state department would welcome more funding for many of these programs of diplomacy. we also need to be aware of the new methods by which people communicate with each other over the internet. we will continue with what the ambassador did in terms of blogging and messages over the internet to the chinese people. i also believe that we want to

continue reaching out to the chinese people using radio and television shows and their versions of oprah. they would reach hundreds of people and they are repeated over and over and over again. those are the types of mechanisms and media strategies we would like to deploy. i believe there is a growing interest among commerical's interests -- among of america's young people to study in china. we need to encourage more semesters and years abroad. that is how we can help fulfil the president's goal of having 100,000 american students studying in china. >> if you become the ambassador and you have booked on the ground over there, i hope you will stay -- you have boots on the ground over there, i hope you will stay in touch with

people have an interest in this. these are problems china has faced, as well as our chinese embassy. i am hopeful this will be a major focus of yours as you have outlined college in this morning. -- cogently this morning. i hope you will be a champion of intellectual property rights. this affects many companies in china as well as individuals. what do you believe you have learned about improving property rights situation as secretary of commerce? these issues have come to you in that form. how do you think we might make progress if you are in china? >> we need to interact with the leaders of china and businesses in china, especially the young people in china, students in the colleges and universities.

as they begin to innovate, as they begin to engage in cutting edge research, they need to understand that without intellectual property rights protection, their hard earned work could be for naught. we must convey the message that it is in the economic self interest or the chinese people and the chinese government to have strong intellectual property rights. without it, innovation will occur elsewhere or not at all within china. with stay-owned enterprises and government support of research and development, if there is not a strong property rights regime, those investments could be stolen and appropriated by others. that is not in the south entrance of of the chinese government. >> we are beginning to see the increase in strengthening of intellectual property rights and

we have many exchanges through commerce department, justice department, and american bar association groups traveling to china to help develop a rule of law. the musket continue pushing these fish -- we must continue pushing these issues. i can tell you the most recent meeting, the campaign, the chinese need to be held to their fire. we need to make sure they're our audits that we can depend on, and the chinese president reiterated his support last january.

it is a high priority topic for the u.s. government as a whole. it has been performed before commerce secretary and will be a top priority for me as ambassador to china. >> let me ask one further question. many believe inflation in china is picking up steam, at least many leaders seem to indicate that, that in fact, a so-called bubble might form in the chinese economy, which has many greater dangers than those forming elsewhere because of the enormity and the present position we talked about earlier today, where the chinese are financing a good part of our budget as well as other countries'/ -- countries'. what position should we play in that situation, because that could be of great consequence to us, europe, to the world, if for

some reason the chinese have an inflationary bubble and a recession that changes markedly in the buying and selling in an international way? >> i think clearly we need to help open up the chinese market to some of our services, whether it is in insurance, pensions, and other areas of the financial services market. we need to help lend our expertise to china as they deal with some of these economic issues. i believe the key is there rebalancing of the world economy in which they are not so dependent on exports, the focus on domestic consumption. if they have a recession, that could be -- that could have an impact on that type of consumption, but it is something we will need to watch carefully. we need to encourage more

exchanges between our top financial services sectors as well as our financial institutions and government officials. secretary geithner has a host of collaboration's and exchanges with his counterparts in china. let me add that 70% of treasurys are held by domestic entities, and that 30 percent remaining are held by other entities. china has 1/3 of that. china has a hold on the ownership of our securities -- only 8% of our total debt and in no way the stratopause position in any way influence -- does waya's position in any influenced our foreign policy. >> i would like to congratulate you on your nomination, and i

know how great a moment this must be for you and your family. we wish you the best in this assignment, and i appreciate your having come by my office for the extensive discussion that we were able to have. i have three questions i would like to get your thoughts on today. the first is i held a hearing in my capacity as the chair of the east asia subcommittee, running the kenseth -- where guarding the consistency and lack thereof in our characterization of governmental systems rather than human rights. we talk about human rights. it is something of an a more for office -- amorphous

term. even in the united states, someone could allege that the first amendment's violation is a violation of someone's human rights. when you get to countries such as china, what we had is a fundamental difference and governmental systems that rarely gets discussed when we are in hearings like this. they do not have a democratic system. they do not have elections. the freedom house evaluations of freedom of the press rate shine upon -- rate china among of the other countries of asia-pacific near the bottom of the list. we are on the one hand in an

environment where we want to push our economic interests forward and want to ensure there are not misunderstandings in terms of security issues and we want toward a time when this can be resolved, but we talk about two completely different systems of government. what are your thoughts about the challenges of that and what the future holds? >> obviously, there are major differences between our histories as countries, cultures, values, and certainly our governmental systems. as you note, there has been much criticism of human rights issues and freedom of the press issues in china, notwithstanding that, i believe there is a great appetite and a hunger by the chinese people for information as to what is happening around the world, and the people are able to obtain much of that

information. what we as -- must do as a country, as to engage with the chinese people directly, and to convey the values of america stands for and our views on various issues. and while much of the press is controlled by china, there's also a growing movement for greater freedom among the press. it is incumbent upon the ambassador and other officials who operate in china, from our embassy or visiting members of the congress, to take advantage of those different mechanisms of talk shows, radio shows, meetings with students, using the internet to communicate and to express the values for which we stand. >> my second question relates to the concern that i and many he will have regarding their role -- the role that the chinese

government should be playing in assisting in a resolution of challenges -- a role that is a level of the emerging power around the world. you mentioned some corporation in the areas of iran, burma, and north korea in your opening remarks. there are other issues where i thinking we could encourage the chinese to become more visible and proactive in the international environment as we reached toward solutions. i have held two hearings on sovereignty issues, different kinds of sovereignty issues, with which i believe we could benefit from a more overt participation from the chinese. the islands in the south chinese see, where the position

of china has been they will only negotiate in a bilateral environment which makes it impossible to solve those issues, quite frankly. the other hearing as i discussed with you when you visited was on the issues of downstream water rights, mekong river, but also the red river that goes into the north of vietnam where china as one of the few countries of the world that does not recognize right. -- does not recognize riparian rights downstream. what can you do to encourage the chinese to participate in finding solutions to these sovereignty issues in and other than a bilateral and crime? >> we need to impress upon china the stability of the asian

region is obviously in the interest of not just the other countries, but also china. therefore engagement on these issues is in its self-interest as well, dealing with water, dealing with disputed territorial claims, and that they should be addressed in a way ful, collatborative that conforms to rules. >> with respect to china's continued status with regard to per capita income, which allows its government to receive billions of dollars in concessional lending for a lot of their development projects at the time when they are sitting on trillion dollars of surplus because of their trade balances -- what would your comment beyond that?

>> there needs to be a more frank recognition that while china is considered a developing country, it is more developed than most other countries and that various international mechanisms must recognize that. that is the position the united states in the current negotiations over the doha round. there are degrees of developing countries. not all should be lumped in the same category. i think that applies with some of these same issues that you just raised. >> thank you very much. >> chairman kerry has passed that the gatt will be handed to you at this juncture, and i am pleased to handle the gavel to you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, thank you for

your service our country, it is exceptional, and i appreciate it. this is an incredibly important position that you have been nominated to, and i have three lines of questioning i hope to pursue with you. one is on taiwan, one is on iran, and the other is the intellectual property. co-chair the senate tie 1 caucus and i am concerned about this. reports about defense authorities clearly outlined the direct threat faced by taiwan as a result of an unprecedented military buildup, and experts have raised concern that taiwan is losing a qualitative advantage in defense arms that has served as its primary military deterrent against china. to counter this buildup, the

taiwanese have sought to modernize their fighter fleet about which i believe in terms of the tie 1 defense as a deterrent capacity is in the u.s. national security interest as well as is promoted and compelled by the taiwan relations act. later today i will be sending a letter to the president along with 40 members of the senate requesting that the administration accepts taiwan's letter and notify congress would give the sale of the f-16 loss. share with me your opinion about that balance in the tie 1 state -- taiwan straight and speak to the issues. >> we believe the cross-division

be resolved peacefully. the administration will continue to follow the taiwan relations act and make available to tie 1 services necessary to enable them to have a sufficient self- defense capability. we also believe that china must reduce its military deployment aimed at taiwan. having said that, no decision has been made with respect to further sales of defense of items to taiwan. that is under review, and that is being at violated by both others within the defense department and the state department. >> i appreciate the formal and sugar, which i expect it. -- i appreciate the formal answer, which i expected. let me go further because he will be the ambassador in china. it is difficult to have -- i

understand the one-country policy, but the you can be devoured if you do not have the ability to defend yourself. is it going to be clearer from her -- clear from your position should you be confirmed that taiwan has within a one-country structure the continuing right to exist and to make its own self determination efforts? >> that is a fundamental part of our policy, that the united states stands with high want to ensure that it can defend itself and that its self- defensive abilities are never he wrote it. the problem is that taiwan has been seeking his help since the 2006 -- since 2006, but we are on the closing down that line if we do not make this sale, and we will leave taiwan in a position

that is indefensible at the end of the day, and to me that will only exacerbate the situation for the one-china policy. i hope that inside of the administration you will be an advocate of making sure that balance is retained, which is in our collective interest. secondly, it is very rare that we get 40 members of the senate to join of together to make a message to be administration. on iran, there is a long history of sino-iranian relationships, nuclear cooperation, and both parties remain keen on this. my interest is that china is interested in sharing its technology is with iran. last week the reza report that the chinese inaugurated a missile plant in iran. what steps would be taken as a

bastard to address the chinese government was a -- what steps would you take as chinese ambassador to address the chinese government? >> china has played an important role in diplomatic efforts to address the threat posed by iran's nuclear program. we have said that we are concerned that china and chinese companies not backfill, especially in the energy sector. we know that if other companies from china are engaged in energyg develop iran's sector, that will provide income that will be used to develop nuclear heavily, and we oppose that. we believe that china can and must do more, and we have asked

our own set of sanctions and legislation, and i want to inform you and reiterate that on tuesday as the department announced various proliferation- related sanctions against several companies and individuals around the room, including three chinese companies and one chinese individual. we think what china is doing and what chinese companies are doing seriously. any proliferation and were -- and work on arms his paramount of importance and of concern to the united states, and we believe china can do more to abide by the u.n. resolution by help enforce and also understand the position of the united states with respect our sanctions policies. >> so he will do that robustly

prove them on very much sir. >> you have been at the forefront of promoting the united states products and services abroad. i know you know that the u.s. international trade commission released a 332-page report on infringement and its effect on u.s. competitiveness. that report suggests losses to u.s. industry are valued at $40 billion, over 2 million lost jobs. in january there were high hopes that the special property rights campaigns would result in changes, but we have seen none. on that issue and on the issue that brings something close at home to me in new jersey, which is the on-line journal piracy conditions that have not improved on the ground, we have a company in new jersey that has 50,000 workers in the united

states, over 3000 in my home state, that consistently find themselves with ipr violations taking place where chinese libraries just go ahead and consumed totally the intellectual core rate rights of these medical and other journals. will you vigorously as our ambassador and press -- impress and pursue the chinese to seek enforcement of intellectual property issues? >> that was one of my top priorities as commerce secretary. certainly, it is a top priority for the united states government, and that includes my work as ambassador if i can confirm. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you. >> i am here for just a few more

minutes. i want to tell -- we have competing finance committee and a couple other things going on recor. >> mr. secretary, yet a challenging job in front of you. there are lots of different issues and a lot of them have an error here, and i am not going to go over all of them, but one of the things that is important the and importance to all senators, and this is true from my service on the intelligence committee, and on this committee, is that the united states has a policy of trying to contain both iran and north korea and contain their nuclear ambitions. of course, the only countries like this can pursue their nuclear ambitions is to have very sensitive and highly technical materials they buy

from somewhere, and we all know that the united states is very diligent in containing the products that are produced here from winding up in the hands of either the iranians or the north koreans. unfortunately, we do find that there are chinese products wind up their -- there. china says the right things. it takes the positions they do not support that. yet it is chinese companies that are doing business through the back door or the black market or what have you do allow certain technological equipment to get into the hands of both north korea and iran. want to encourage you in the strongest terms to reinforce with the chinese and our concern about that and how you cannot

talk about in one setting and yet turned a blind eye in the other setting as your compan in army these countries. i know you have talked about a little bit, but i would appreciate perhaps if you could enhance your testimony in that regard. >> again, both in north korea and in iran, china played a very constructive role in helping pass and formally the u.n. resolutions. >> and we appreciate that. >> then impose sanctions on north korea and iran. it is important that those obligations be enforced throughout the world. that is why on tuesday the state department announced a proliferation related sanctions

against companies, including chinese companies and individuals, in addition to entities around the world. stopping proliferation is an utmost priority of the united states govern, and that includes the best of the china. we need to convey to the chinese people and the leaders of s china that it is in their national security interest to avoid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in north korea and iran. whenever commercial benefits some of their companies may obtain a continuing to sell or transfer technology to north korea or iran, that the risk and potential to destabilize order in the world are not outwighed,

peace and security for the entire world outweight any advantage made by any companies. >> the cards are a very modest in comparison to the harm done internationally by putting these highly sensitive products that have been developed by a very sophisticated people into the hands of those who want to use it not for good. thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> i have a follow-up question. i am acting now in my capacity as chair of the subcommittee. >> we should have an election over this. i can help. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate it. i want to follow up on a couple points raised by my colleagues, and, secretary locke, is a pleasure to have you here and i want to thank you for your willingness to have yearning come forward for this position. your background and training is what we need in representing china, and record in commerce is -- i think will be very viable to your role as ambassador. i think you and your family for your willingness to continue in this role. i want to follow up on points raised by several of my colleagues on commerce issues, starting first with intellectual property. i know senator menendez just a question you on this trip i want to underscore the importance to american manufacturing and to american production that we can press on the chinese their

international responsibilities on enforcement of intellectual product issues. it isn't manufactured products, so many different areas where china has been a major abuser of allowing rusks to be manufactured or stolen by their country, violating intellectual property issues. i heard part or response to senator menendez and would encourage you to make this a high party. -- high priority. i wanted of about china as it relates also to the currency manipulation they should. we have talked about that. if there is one issue is the most dominant as far as a level playing field for u.s. manufacturerer and reducers -- and producers and farmers as

having a level currency, i would hope he would make that a top party. china has made progress recently because they thought it was in their economic interest to do that. they do not to with respect for a level playing field. i would hope that our policy would be very clear that they must allow their currencies to float, reaching its economic balance and not an arbitrary balance. those two are my principal economic issues that -- the i would hope he would move forward on and i would be glad to pay a response. >> property rights were remains problematic. it remains a top party. it was a top priority for me and my discussions with chinese officials as commerce secretary cannot and also as a lawyer on behalf of u.s. companies,

helping open u.s. companies in china. it will be a top party for me as ambassador if confirmed by the senate. we know that the inability or lack of china cost currently floating and being sent by market forces with american companies at a disadvantage and in an unfair position. all our work at commerce, which will continue as ambassador to china, if confirmed, is to ensure that american companies have fair access to china, and that includes currency, a level playing field intellectual from a rights, because as the recent report that senator menendez indicating, u.s. companies are losing tens of billions of dollars because of violations of intellectual party rights. that is of great concern to us

in the united states government, and will continue as ambassador to china. >> one final point. china is becoming a more interesting country as it relates to our policies in the middle east. we have seen recent events between pakistan and china revealing that china is becoming more interested in the region. i would like to get your assessment as to where we think we can make advancements in china's help as it relates to iran, pakistan, or afghanistan in the region as the how china could be a more constructive partner with the united states. >> he and i did states and china have collaborated on whole host of issues, including countering terrorism and that is of great

interest and of particular importance in afghanistan and pakistan. we share an interest in stability in that region. and in countering terrorism, and we are encouraging china, given its alliances with pakistan, to do more in the area of countering terrorism. i believe because afghanistan and pakistan are so close in the region, bordering china, that they have deep interest in ensuring stability in that region as well. we need to partner with them and urge china to do even more in helping promote and using the alliances that they have to promote that stability. >> thank you. i know that since you have taken on the position in the cabinet, you have been living in the state of maryland. we welcome you in maryland any time. we come back soon.

we are very proud of your nomination. >> we have been very pleased to live in maryland. >> as a senator from virginia -- [laughter] let me say they're pretty nice never is in virginia as well. >> it was a tough choice between a great school systems in virginia and in maryland. >> thing i learned politics was to quit while you were head. [laughter] let me say as a quick follow, i mentioned in a hearing about a week ago when we had general jones here, in the context of what we are discussing a little while ago, senator cardin raising it with a afghanistan, we examined and that make the afghanistan situation, moving laterally out in afghanistan, to

pakistan, and pakistan to india, but i believe the movement toward resolution in that part of the world could give china a major opportunity to demonstrate that they can assume some leadership. with a country that has had a special pleasure for a long time, and i would hope he would find a way to encourage the. -- encourage that. last week -- i would ask you a question about transfers of arms. is particularly troubling with respect to china house relations with north korea and allegations that have been made. last week china blocked the release of a report by a seven- member panel tasked with monitoring sections of retreat. report concludes that north korea has been exporting technology in violation of u.n.

sanctions with of the mets st these shipments were transiting china to iraq. we have other allegations of the past year or so with respect to, burundi, all going back to in china there were shipments from north korea, but not as of late. one commentator a couple days ago said that many analysts argue that china is committed to upholding its you and obligations, but has a problem of lax export control enforcement, and while china cannot marshal the resources to prevent the shipment of north korean weapons, it can commit 300,000 internet police to stifle free speech. what is the state department house policy on this issue, and

what degree you believe it is a priority issue in terms of our future relations? >> we are concerned about these allegations shipments, and we believe the reports should be released said there can be greater transparency and scrutiny on what is happening by north korea. getting back to the issue of the region itself and the special relationships that china has developed with several of these countries, we believe china should use its influence as a source for stability and security and prosperity for the entire region, and we will be encouraging china to use that special relationship to increase the security and stability of the region. that also applies to north korea. we are deeply concerned about shipment of weapons systems,

material, from north korea and other parts of the world. >> could you provide us with the state department policy on this statement of policy of the issue of the trans shipment " we have been having difficulty getting a statement from the state department? >> i will try to do that. >> and with respect to your comment and my follow on to senator cardin, pakistan, this is a major opportunity for u.s.- china relations if the chinese were able to step in, given their history with pakistan and assisted in a solution in that part of the world that could -- with a benefit from that, and it would be a great signal the you

have a follow-up question? i am instructed by the chairman to indicate that the hearing records will remain open for 48 hours for any senator who wishes to make a further statement or ask questions for the record. other than that, i again with congratulate you on your nomination. i know what a special thing this must be for your family and also for those who went before you. it is touching to hear about your father during your testimony this morning, and i wish you the best of luck. and the hearing is now closed. >> thank you very much, senator. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is coming back in in a few minutes, extending the patriot act. the senate approved the measure about an hour ago. so we will bring you the house live when members gavel and. until then, nancy pelosi talk about medicare and the increasing cost of pharmaceutical drugs in her weekly briefing. she is joined by elijiah cummings. >> i am very pleased to be here with the ranking member of commerce committee of the united

states. he is going to speak to an issue that he has taken a lead on, and we are very proud of him. before we hear from him, i wanted to set since last we met, we had a spectacular election in new york 26. i want to congratulate congresswoman-elect kathy hochul wonderful campaign. medicare was the issue. it opened the door for her and she walked through, guaranteeing medicare for the american seniors, calling into question the priorities of making seniors pay more while giving tax breaks to big oil. as you may know, she is a respected county clerk of erie

county. she worked for senator daniel patrick moynihan, but she brings a great knowledge of her district, which is more important than any familiarity with washington, as she is a mom, two young -- college age. we feel -- i know she will be a great addition to the congress. i spoke to her again this morning and said he did a great, great service to the american people by making the fight for medicare, and we thank you for that. especially in calling to the public's attention the wrong card is of making seniors pay more and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and the big oil.

i wanted to move on to the issue of -- medicare and the 26 of the year. medicare in terms of strengthening it. some of you may recall in our fix for 2006, when we took over the house in 2007, we had two provisions that are relevant to the discussion we're having now. one of them relates to how we strengthen medicare and actually lower costs -- all health care costs in our country. if he can read it, i will read from the card, which may recognize. the prescription drug program by putting people at a juncture programs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower prices, injuring the program works for all seniors. his negotiating for lower prices

is something that we could not succeed with when president bush was present. we did have it in the house version of the health care bill cox but we could not hold it in the senate, but we do believe it is a way to strengthen medicare by reducing costs. their questions about -- the point is, there are savings to be had by negotiating the drug crisis and addressing how medicare reimbursement takes place for drug benefits. it is also part of our agenda in 2006 and is achieving energy independence, and crack down on price gouging, eliminate in billions of subsidies for big oil and use the savings to provide consumer relief. that is a subject that our distinguished ranking member will address with this ugly, but how it relates to medicare is an hour old friend -- the chart is

our old friend. how can you -- the public when you vote for a bill, the republican budget, that is tax big oil -- it is the wrong priority. democrats will not let this happen. medicare is a killer economics security for american seniors. we will fight to defend we will prevail because as president lincoln had said public sentiment is everything, and the public sentiment is to preserve medicare. again, we intend to strengthen it by reducing costs of trust, by eliminating fraud, which is

part of our health care bill as well, but the fight that we will be having is with those who want to end medicare. that simply will not happen. as we talk about the midsized car keys of the republicans, and we talk about the fact that they are giving tax breaks they oil while they are raising costs for american seniors, it is important to note what other things are being done about it. our distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings, has the report and you may be familiar with it, and i thank him for his leadership. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. we are in the committee concerned, the democratic side -- >> we are leaving now to go to the house of

representatives. the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the nat on maye 26, 2011, at 2:50 p.m., that the senate passed senate 1082, that the senate agreed to senate concurrent resolution 13, appointments, advisory commitment on the records of congress. with best wishes, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on maye 26, 2011, at 6:25 p.m., that the senate concur in house amendment with an amendment.

senate 990. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i present a privilege red port for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk rill epe -- will report the title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, all points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 281, resolution providing for

consideration of the house amendment ott senate amendment to the bill senate 990 to provide for an additional addition to the small business act of 1958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, and when it adjourns that day it adjourn to meet on tuesday, maye 31, at 12:00 for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. i ask unanimous consent that the house adurns -- ok, i didn't mean to do that again. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. dreier: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill senate 990 to provide for an additional program urn the small business act and small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes with the senate amendment to the house amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment. the senate amendment shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and criminaled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the jew tishary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is

recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good from kohl, mr. polis. and all time yielded is for debate purposes only. we have before us a hard-fought complemies for an extension of the patriot act. we know there are two priorities items that need to be addressed here. number one, ensuring we do not face another terrorist attack against the united states or our interests and number two, equally important to preserve the civil liberties and constitutional protebs that the american people have. this compromise does just that. we have a three-month extension. the house judiciary committee and mr. sensenbrenner's subcommittee had three hearings. we see a bipartisan and bicamera compromise before us and i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kohl. mr. polis: there has been a major development in the war on terror in the last few weeks with the successful defeat of

osama bin laden striking a major blow to al qaeda. at a time like this, we should re-examine the restoration. mr. conyers, my colleague from michigan, put forward an excellent proposal of the many thoughtful proposals that would improve the patriot act and protect our constitutional rights. unfortunately, discussion of that proposal and debate an the vote on that proposal was not allowed under this rule and therefore i'm opposed to the rule and the underlying bill an reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. dreier: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kohl. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that might be

relevant to a terrorist invest, including medical records, your dire dyery, what books you've checked out at the lie prayer. in the past these were limited to narrow classes of businesses an records but the patriot act has stripped away those rights and chips away at the right of privacy. second 216 allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps and obtain warrants that don't express the subject of the tap. so much for the fourth amendment which states that warrants must specify the person and place to be seized and searched with quote, particularity. just to make sure the executive brample doesn't have the unfettered powers this version of the patriot act would continue to give them for four years. the final section, section 6001, deals with a lone wolf provision, which allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in

the u.s. even if they're not connected to any threat. this power is granted in secret courts. we're told that government that is never used this power so i ask my colleagues why should we re-authorize it if it hasn't been used, shouldn't it be allowed to expire particularly in light of our recent successes in the war on terror and the defeat of osama bin laden. my friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about the growth of government yet in spite of the rhetoric this bill grows government and takes away privacy and respect for our private lives. this is the tiche government intrusion which the bill of rights was designed to prevent. the provisions in the patriot act continue to be an affront to our most basic liberties as american citizens. i urge anyone who is worried about the unchecked growth of the state to think twice about this bill. perhaps look at a short-term extension and have a real discussion of restoring the balance between individual

rights and security. i urge a no vote on the rule and the underlying bill and yield back any time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i may consume to say this is a hard-fought compromise, it's a four-year extension, we need to ensure our security, number one, and we also need to ensure civil liberties and i believe this measure does just that. it passed the senate by a vote of 72-33. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. i ask that my colleagues have five days to revise and extend their remarks. i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid pop the table. -- is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 281, i call up s. 990 with the senate amendment to the house amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment and report the motion. the clerk: senate 990, an act to provide for to a temp rir extension of programs under the small business act and small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. senate amendment to house amendment. mr. smith of texas moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to senate 990. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 281, the resolution shall be debated for for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the committee. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith an the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each control 20 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers and the secret from maryland, mr. ruppersberger each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith.

mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 990. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. spith: four months from now, america will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in u.s. history. tonight at midnight three national security provisions that have helped prevent another 9/11 attack will expire. congress must do its job and approve this legislation to re-authorize them before time runs out. some argue that since we haven't had a major terrorist attack since september 11, we no longer need these laws. others argue that the death of osama bin laden brought an end to al qaeda and the war on terror. both of these claims lack merit. the patriot act provisions continue -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is correct, the house is not in order. the gentleman from texas may

proceed. mr. smith: the patriot act provisions continue to play a vital role in america's counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large scale attack but also to combat an increasing number of shawl terrorist plots. earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from saudi arabia was arrested from my home state of texas for attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. he attempted to purchase chemicals to construct a bomb against targets include the dallas residence of former president george w. bush, several dams in kohl and california and the homes of three former military guards who served in iraq. information obtained through a section 215 business records order was essential in thwarting this plot. make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. these provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations and may -- and they are effective. we also have heard repeatedly from the obama administration

about the critical importance of extending these laws. s. 990, the patriot extension act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to re-authorize the existing patriot act provisions for another four years. by doing so, congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted. in february, congress approved a 90-tai extension of these provisions. in in the last three months thembing house judiciary committee has reviewed the patriot act and how it's used in investigations. the crime ste subcommittee has held three hearings on the patriot act. hear wrgs held at the f.b.i. and department of justice and all committee members were attorney germ eric holder told the committee he supports these

provisions and urged congress to re-authorize them for as long a period of time as possible. the roving wiretap provision allows intelligence officials after receiving approval from a federal court toll conduct surveillance on terror suspects regardless of how many communication devices they may use. they use many forms of communications to conceal their plots including disposable cell phones and free email accounts. roving wiretaps are nothing new. domestic law enforcement agencies have had this since 1976. if we can track down a drug trafficker, why shouldn't we use it to prevent a terrorist attack? the business records provision allows the f.b.i. to access third-party business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and

espionage cases. this provision requires the approval of a federal judge. that means the f.b.i. must prove to a federal judge that the documents are needed as part of a legitimate national security investigation. these two provisions have been effectively used for the last 10 years without any evidence of misuse or abuse. our national security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign governments, terrorist groups and their agents. but what about a foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied to a terrorist organization? the lone wolf definition brings our national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence officials to answer the modern-day terrorist threat. since 9/11, we have seen terrorist tactics change. in addition to coordinated attacks by al qaeda and other groups, we face the threat of self-radicalized terrorists who are motivated by al qaeda but

may not be directly affiliated. the lone wolf definition includes rogue terrorists even if they aren't a member of a terrorist organization. the terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight and neither should our national security laws. the patriot act is an integral part of our offensive against terrorists and proved effective of keeping america safe from terrorist attacks. i urge my colleagues to support this re-authorization and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this extension of the three expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot act and intelligence reform of terrorist prevention act. when we considered these provisions, it was to extend them temporarily so the house could consider to improve them

or allow them to expire. many members on both sides of the aisle objected to extending these provisions without a hearing or debate changes to the law. the extension was rejected the first time with votes by both democrats and republicans. chairman sensenbrenner did hold a series of hearings in which members of the judiciary committee were able to consider the issues and hear from many experts who made thoughtful provisions. these three provisions, expansion of the definition of an agent of a foreign power to include lone wolf and section 215 which allows the government to obtain library records and have aroused a great deal of controversy and concern anditely so. section 213 authorizes the government to get anything relative to a a terrorist

organization even if it doesn't pertain to terrorists or terrorist activities. section 215 is sweeping in its scope and the government is not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation. congress should either ensure that things collected with this power have a powerful nexus or allow this provision to expire. section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person to be tapped nor the facility to be tapped. there is virtually no particular atlanta required. this is a clear violation of the fourth amendment and no limits and no requirement that the government name a specific target, either a person or location. section 6001 of the act, the

so-called lone wolf provision, permits surveillance of non-u.s. persons who are not affiliated with a government affiliation. this provision has never been used but we are told it is vital to remain on the books. surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or with a terrorist organization is not normally what we understand as foreign intelligence. there may be good reasons for government to keep tabs on such an individual, but there is no reason to success pepped all our normal laws under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation. we must punt for a few years. no need to consider many of the improvements that many members believe are important, no need to have a debate or vote on those changes. another my way or the hey vote. no way to protect our nation from terrorism while protecting our fundamental liberties from government intrusion. the republican majority has the

vote to extend these priorities, but i stand with my colleagues in both parties in opposition to which our liberties are being treated today. i urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and demand the house have a serious debate on the important issues impacted by this legislation affecting our security and our liberty. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i continue to reserve my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i rise today to support a seven-day extension which means i believe that we can fix these problems. and i'm disappointed that we again, having given -- having been given the responsibility of oversight now rush for a two-page document, a two-page

document that is now the essence of the patriot act, which, in fact, will provide some challenge to the civil liberties of all americans. i highlight just one or two. the business records applies to citizen and noncitizens alike, where law enforcement or government authorities can come and take items no matter what their relevance if they think that they might have some relevance to terrorism, any tangible thing, restaurants, where you have gone to a restaurant. they can ask for what you ate, a hotel, your record, libraries, your records. why couldn't we do this with a seven-day review time? and allow us from new hampshire, texas to california to be able to say that we stand with our soldiers in securing the nature nation, but we believe in civil liberties. 9/11 and the terrorists that we

were shocked that could find their way to lift off, that was a question of not connecting the dots. not that i didn't have the information. we didn't connect the dots of information that was sitting on the desk of an agent in the midwest. intelligence, getting information, analyzing is part of securing the homeland, not violating the rights of americans. here we go again, business records with no restraint. not adding the civil liberties and oversight provisions that were found in john conyers' legislation and as well the chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate, chairman -- senator leahy. what is the rush to protect those whor in fact, citizens of the united states? what is the rush not to protect them. support a seven-day extension. don't vote for legislation that violates the civil liberties of americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: i rise in support of senate 990 to re-authorize the three expiring provisions of the patriot act for four years. this legislation provides much needed certainty to our intelligence officials who rely on these tools to prevent terrorist attacks and prevent espionage. this bill does not go as far as legislation reported by the judiciary committee earlier this month. h.r. 1800, the bill i sponsored along with chairman smith and chairman rogers and chairman lungren, permanently authorized the lone wolf definition and the roving authority and section 215, business records authority for six years. the patriot act has been playinged by mifts and misinformation for 10 years.

we have heard those. in the last three months, there have been claims of warrantless monitoring and blatant constitutional violations. make no mistake, each and every one of these claims are patently false and if congress fails to re-authorize these laws before they expire, america's national security and that of its citizens will be the most vulnerable in the decade. the lone wolf provision allows the government to track a foreign national, not a u.s. person, who engages in acts to prepare for a terrorist act against the united states, but is not affiliated or cannot immediately be shown to be affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization. the lone wolf provision is quite narrow and cannot be used to investigate u.s. persons and only applies in cases of

suspected international terrorism. the government cannot use this provision to investigate domestic terrorism. while the lone wolf provision is yet to be used, it is an important provision that recognizes the growing threat of individuals who may subscribe to radical beliefs who do not belong to a specific terrorist group. the recent death of osama bin laden strengthens its importance as the fear of retall tower act increases. section 206 authorizes the use of roving wiretaps for national security and intelligence investigation. this allows the government to use a single wiretap order to cover any communications device if the target is using or about to use. without roving wiretap authority, investigators must seek a new court order each time a terrorist or spy changes cell

phones or computers. in today's world of disposable cell phones, free email accounts and prominent social media, roving authority is a crucial tool. section 215, allows the fisa court to issue orders granting the government access to business records and foreign intelligence, international terrorism in clandestine cases. this is similar to the grand jury subpoena in criminal investigations. there are numerous protections written into the law to ensure that the authority is not misused. under section 215, only an article 3 fisa judge can issue an order for business records and investigation of a u.s. person cannot be based solely on activities protected by the first amendment and the records must be for a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. and minimumization procedures

must be utilized . records of library circulation, book sales, firearm sales and the like must be approved by the f.b.i. director, his deputy or head of the f.b.i.'s national security division. by contrast, the grand injure subpoena can obtain all of these records in the criminal investigation with simply the signature of a line prosecutor. business records, which by definition, reside in the hands of the third party do not, and i repeat, do not implicate the fourth amendment. since this law was first enacted over 10 years ago, the provisions have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or found unconstitutional. the lone wolf definition has bevernen challenged nor has the roffing wiretaps. but four a.m. ate courts have upheld criminal roving wiretap

authority under the fourth amendment. section 215, business records were challenged but after congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 re- authorization which many people are complaining against -- mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. sensenbrenner: these three provisions have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in helping law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country safe. the death of osama bin laden proves that american intelligence gathering is vital to our national security. the fight against trim, however, did not die with osama bin laden and neither did the need for the patriot act. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two

minutes. >> i rise in opposition to another attempt to extend oversight over our constitutional duties. mr. kucinich: three provisions found in the terrorism reform and u.s.a. patriot act that at the time of their passage constituted an unprecedented increase of government power. earlier, the department of justice released its annual report on surveillance activities for 2010. it's reported the government queue drupeled its section 215 orders. section 215 also known as the business records provision, allows the f.b.i. to order any person, any business, to turn over any tangible thing as long as it specifies it's for an authorized investigation. orders executed under section

215 constitute a serious violation of the fourth amendment and first amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of first amendment rights such as library records and medical records. the other amendments to be extended include section 301, the lone wolf surveillance provision in the terrorism act of 2004 and allows the government to conduct -- it allows the government to circumvent the standards. lastly, section 206, known as thedoe wiretap, allows the f.b.i. to obtain an order if the foreign intelligence surveillance court without having to specify the target or the device. these provisions were given a sunset for a reason. there's an abundance of evidence over the last 10 years that these powers have given the government license to infringe on constitutionally

protected privacy of the american people with no accountability. it's time we stopped rubber stamping these provisions, reform the patriot act, stop big government from reaching into people's private lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: may i ask how much time remains on each side? the speaker: the gentleman from texas has nine minutes remain, the gentleman from new york has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: the house is once again in a rush to make the government's ability to seek all manner of records without having to demonstrate to a court that citizens under suspicion are actually engaged in terrorist activities. the power of government for surveillance and enforcement are among the most important

but also the most fearsome. we know these authorities and others as well have been abused because the department of justice inspector general has told us so. i know it because for eight years i served thope house permanent select committee on intelligence. let me tell you, american freedom and security are not well served by the excessive secrecy imposed on our society and government or by this legislation. the foreign intelligence surveillance court, which is responsible for improving government surveillance requests urn the patriot act, is the kind of court that should be used only rarely and in the most special circumstances. instead, it's become a kind of routine clandestine government. treating some americans as above suspicion and others as sppt without cause has made us a less just and also a less secure society. the patriot act was originally passed at a time of high

emotion in this country. nearly a decade after the patriot act enactment, the death of osama bin laden has provided us with an opportunity to stop and reflect on all that has transpyred over the last 10 years. it is past time for us to pause and re-examine the validity of the assumption that led to the passage of the patriot act an the validity of its current application. but you say, we cannot debate the validity of its current application because the applications are classified at a high level. that's one of the points we should be the baiting thoroughly before any re-authorization. sitting on the house permanent select committee on intelligence for eight years, let me tell you, that secrecy does not serve america well. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, chairman of the house administration committee and

also senior member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. lungren: can't hear. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i know we want to get to a vote very, very soon and normally i would refrain from speaking on this except that because it's an important issue and some of the things stated on the floor are so patently untrue, there's an obligation for those of us who have been working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the floor. number one, the fourth amendment is not implicated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will the house be in order, can the individuals having conversations to my right please take their conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from california may continue. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. speaker. we have heafered statements on this floor that are absolutely not true. they're the same statements that were made the last time we had this on the floor, the same statements that were made when we re-authorized this a few years ago. and one of the most amazing things is a continuation of this argument that we vice president done proper oversight. i don't know where you have been, but many of us on this side of the aisle have been at briefings and hearings on these very issues, seeking out the truth on these things. the canard that somehow we are tearing the constitution up just does not stand any kind of

inquiry whatsoever. the suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. and the argument that somehow since we got rid of osama bin laden we don't need this is the most absurd of all. one of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against osama bin laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you the information that you need. it doesn't fall from heaven. it doesn't come like manna. you have to go get it. we have carefully constructed these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is

necessary not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has occurred but rather to prevent these terrorist attacks. one of the things people should keep in mind is we have intervention of federal judges in these three different areas of the law. it is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go unfettered into looking for this information. rather, they must justify it to an independent federal court. an some say, oh my gosh, it's a secret court. it is a secret court because in fact there are certain secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save this nation and our citizens from those who would attack us. one wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. the fact that we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to dismantle

the means which allowed us to do that. it is in fact a reason why we should continue this. any honest examination of the history of this judiciary committee and the crime subcommittee will reveal we have done the oversight necessary to ensure we have the tools to fight the threat of terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of american citizens. to suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. to suggest it's unconstitutional to somehow ignore the decisions made by every federal court that has looked at this. but you can continue to make these statements, you can continue to confuse the public, you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought not to be raised. with all due respect, though everybody is entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts they must take the facts as they are and

the facts are that this is constitutional, it is workabling it is necessary, we have to do it, and we have to do it now. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in support of s. 990. these provisions provide important tools that help keep america safe. i am pleased that this bill includes sunset. mr. ruppersberger: sun eths allow for the executive branch to conduct oversight on an ongoing basis. i believe these provisions are consistent with the constitution and provide the tools the government needs to keep it safe while protecting civil liberties. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we're

prepared to close on this side so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. let me say we've heard all these arguments before, many times, on this floor. it's hard for me to believe that a proper investigation and proper procedure would not have been able to improve this bill, these provisions in any way, that all the hearings, all the suggestions that were made, came to no changes at all. i'm not going to debate for the fifth time with mr. lungren his statements. i do not believe they are accurate. he does not believe what i say is accurate, we're on similar ground there let me say before -- let me just say that i believe these provisions should be ameppeded, they should be changed, they are a violation of our rights an leave it at that. therefore i will oppose them. before we conclude, i want to recognize the judiciary committee council sam selko who

is leaving the committee for what i know is a bright future. i know i speak for every member of the committee when i thank him for his wise council, his capacity for work and his friendship. we will miss him greatly and wish you the best of luck, sam. with that -- with that i urge the defeat of this bill and i yield pack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield the plans of my time to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. moreno, a member of the judiciary committee and a former district attorney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. -- >> i put a terrorist away using

-- mr. marino: i used the patriot act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. marino: it was easier for me to get a warrant and document as a district attorney than it was for me to get documents pursuant to the patriot act. i just could not sign a document and get papers and have a pyre tap. i had to go through a judge, it had to go through my first assistant. myself. the justice department. a judge. and then back to the office for a signature. it was absolutely no circumstances where i could get information from a citizen who we believed to be a terrorist by not getting a warrant. an example is the roving

wiretap. the roving wiretap was designed for one specific reason. wiretaps, when the wiretap law went into effect were based on a phone being on a wall in a particular location. over the years, because of cell phones, terrorists and criminals and drug dealers were buying and are still buying cell phones in five, 10, or 20 batches, using them for several minutes, dropping them, continuing the same crime, just switching to a new cell phone. the law allowed us not to have to go after a new warrant for each cell phone. that was logical. because the phone was not attached to a wall at a particular location. they were roving. it has done its job not only in drug work but in terrorism work as well. the same thing for documents and the information from business records and bank records. they ask as a district attorney, i didn't even need a warrant, all i had to do was

subpoena those documents. that is not possible under the federal system. we have to go through a farsa -- a fisa court to get those warrants. i've done that for 12 years what we are hearing from the other side is not true about warrantless searches. the senate approved 990 with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. it is time for the house to do the same thing. time is of the essence. we have until midnight tonight to help keep america safe because the terrorists are out there continuing to work. these are commonsense provision that is have worked effectively for 10 years to prevent terrorist attacks. protect the american people and preserve civil liberties. they need to be extended for another four years. the terrorist threat we face as a nation has not expired, neither should these important

provisions thatville helped keep us safe from terrorist attacks. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this national security bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. there being no other requests for time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house rule 281, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

come to the floor of the senate to talk about the patriot act. i'm pleased that we have cracked open the door that we will shed some light on the patriot act. i wish the door were wider open, the debate broader and more significant, but we will talk a little bit about the constutionality today of the patriot act. i was a cosponsor of senator leahy's amendment, and i think it would have gone to many great steps forward to make sure that we have surveillance on what our government does; authorized

audits a the attorney general to continue to watch over to make sure that government is not invading the rights of private citizens. and i do support that wholeheartedly. jefferson said that if we had a government of angs, we wouldn have to care or be concerned about the power that we give to government. unfortunately, sometimes we don't have angels in charge of our government. sometimes we can even get a government in charge that would use the power of gernment in a malicious or malevolent way to, look at the banking records of people they disagree with politically, to look at the religious practices of people they disagree with. so it's very important that we are always vigilant, that we are eternally vigilant of the powers of government, that they not grow to such an extent that government could be looking into our private affairs for nefarious reasons.

we have proposed two amendments that we will have votes on today. one of them concerns the second amendment. i think it's very important that we protect the rights of gun owners in our country not only for hunting, but for self-protection, and that the records of those in our country who own guns should be secret. i don't think the government, well-intentioned or not well-intentioned, should be sifting through millions of records of gun owners. why? there have been times even in our history when government has invaded your household to take thin from you. in the 1930's, government came into your household and said give us your gold. gold was confiscated in this country in 1933. could there conceivably be a time when government comes into your house and says we want your guns? well, pple say that's absurd. th would never happen. i hope that day never comes. i'm not accusing anybody of being in favor of that.

but i am worried about a government that is sifting through millions of records without asking, are you a suspect; without asking are you in league with foreign terrorists; are you plotting violent overthrow of your government? by all means, if you are, let's look at your records. let's put you in jail. let's prosecute you. would this not sift through hundreds of millions of gun records to find out whether or not you own a gun or not. let's don't leave those data banks in the hands of government where someday those could be abused. what we're asking for are procedural protections. the constitution gave us those protections. the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. the fourth amendment is equally important. it gives you the right to be free of unreasonae search. it gives you the right to say that government must have probable cause. there must be at least some

suspicion that you are committing a crime before they come into your house or before they go into your records, wherever your records are. the constitution doesn't say that you only have protection of records that are in your house. you should have protection of records that reside in other places. just because your visa record resides with a visa company doesn't make it any less private. if you look at a person's visa bill, you can find out all kinds of things about them. if you look at a person's visa bill, you can find out what doctors they go to, do they go to a psychiatrist? do they have mental stkpwhreupbs what type of medications d they take? if you look at my visa bill, you can tell what type of books i read, what types of magazines i read. one of the provisions of the patriot act is called the library provision. they can look at the books you check out in the library. people say well still a judge has to sign these warrants.

but we change the standard. the standard of the fourth amendment was probable cause. they had to argue, or at least convince a judge that you were a suspect. they were doing something wrong. now the cause or the standard has been changed to relevance. so it could be that you went to a party with someone who was from palestine who gives money to some group in palestine that may well be a terrorist group or not. buthe thing is because i went to a party with them, because i know that person, am i now somehow connected enough to be relevant? and they would say, well, your government would never do that. they would never go and investigate people. the problem is this is all secret. so i don't know if i've been investigated. my visa bill sometimes have been $5,000. sometimes we pay for them over the phone, which is a wire transfer. have i been investigated by my government? i don't know. it's secret. what i want are protections.

i want to capture terrorists. sure, if terrorists are moving machine gunsnd weapons in our country, international terrorists, by all means let's go after them. but you know the worsteople, the people we want to lock up forever, the people all of us universally agree, people who commit murder, people who commit rape, we want to lock them up d throw away the book, and i'm all with you. but we still have the protections of the fourth amendment. if someone is running around on the streets of washington tonight at 4:00 in the morning and we think they y have murdered someone, we will call a judge and we will get a warrant. just because we believe in procedural protections, just because we believe in the constitution doesn't mean that we don't want to capture terrorists. we just want to have some rules. i' give you an analogy. right now he have a been to the rport. most of america has been to the airport at some point or time in the last year or two. millions of people fly every day. but we're taking this shotgun

aprofess. we think everyone is a terrorist. so everyone is being patted dowfnlt everyone is being strip searched. we are putting our hands inside the pants of 6-year-old children. have we not gone so far, are we so afraid that we're willing to give up all of our liberty in exchange for security? franklin said if you give up your liberty, you'll have neither. if you give up your liberty in exchange for security, you may well wind up with neither. because we take this shotgun approach, we take this approach that everybody is a potential terrorist, i think we actually are doing less of a good job in capturing terrorists because if we spend our time going after those who are committing terrorism, maybe we'd spend less time on those who are living in this country -- children and otherwise, frequent business travelers who are not a threat to our country -- instead of wasting time on these people, we could spend more time onhose

who would attack us. i'll give you an example. the underwear bomber -- for goodness sake, his dad reported him. his dad called the u.s. embassy and said, my son is a potential throat your coury. we did nothing. he was on a watch list. we still let him get on a plane. he'd been to nigeria, to yemen twice. for goodness sakes, why don't we take half of the people in the s.a. and have them look at the international flight manifest of those traveling from certain countries who could be attacking us. for goodness sakes, why don't we target who we're looking at. my other amendment concerns banking records. 8 million banking records have been looked at in ourountry, not by the government. they have empered your bank to spy own. every time you go into your bank, your bank is cd to spy on you if you make a transaction more than $5,000. the bank is ened to report you.

if the bank doesn't report you, they let a large fine and the tune of $100,000 or more. they could get five years in prison. they are overencouraged. the incentive is for the bank to report everyone. so once upon a time, these suspicious activity reports were maybe 10,000 in a year. they're now over a million of these suspicious activity reports. do i want to capture terrorists? yes. do i want to capture terrorists transferring large amounts of money? yes. when we're wasting time on 8 million transactions, the vast majority of these transactions being law-abiding u.s. citizens, we're not targeting the people who would attack us. let's do police work. if there are terrorist groups in the middle east and we know who they are let's investigate them. they have money in the u.s. or they're transferring it between banks, by all means let's investigate them. but let's have some constitutional protections. let's have some protections that

say, you must ask a judge for a warrant. some have said, how would we get these people? how would we capture those who are transferring weapons? we would investigate. we have all kinds of tools and we've been using these tools. others have said, well, we've captured these people through the patriot act and we never could have gotten them. the problem with that is it's unbelievable. you can tell me that you've captured people through the patriot patriot, but you can't prove that you would have captured them had you n asked for a judge. we have a special court. it's called the fisa complete it's been around since the late-1970's, not one warrant was ever turned down before the patriot act. but they say we need more power, we need more power given to these agencies, and we don't need any constitutional restraint anymore. but my question is, the fourth amendment said you had to have a

probable cause, you had to name the person and the place. well, how do we change and get rid of probable cause and change it to a standard of relevance -- how do we do that and amend the constitution without actually amending the constitution? these are important constitutional questions. but when the patriot ability came up, we were so frightened by 9/11, that it just flew through here. no senator read the patriot act t didn't gohrough the standard procedure. look at what's happening here. ten years later you'd think the fear and hysteria would have gotten to such a level that we could go through the committee process. senatoreahy's bill went to committee, it was deliberated upon, it was discussed, it was debated, it was passed out with bipartisan support, it came to the floor with bipartisan support, but you know what it's not getting a vote now? because they've backed us u

against a deadline. there have been people who are implied in print that if i hoaltd patriot act up and they attack us tonight, that i'm responsible for the attack. there are been people who have implied that if some terrorist gets a gun, that i'm somehow responsible. it's -- it's sort of the analogy of saying that because i believe that you should get a warrant before you go into a potential or alleged murderer's house that somehow i'm in favor of murder. i'm in favor 6 having constitutional protections. these arose out of hundreds of years of common law. they were codified in our constitution because we were worried. we were incredibly concerned about what the king had done. we were concerned about what a far distant parliament was dation without our approval. we were concerned about what james otis called "writs of assistance." writs of assistance were pieces of paper that are warrants that were written by sdiers. they were telling us we had to

house the british soldiers in our house, and they were giving general warrants, which meant we're just going to search you willy-nilly. we're not going to name the person or plashings we're not going to name the crime you are accused of. if a government were comprised of angels, we wouldn't need the fourth amendment. what i argue for here now is protections that protect us all, should we get a despot, should we someday elect somebody who doesn't have respect for rights. we should obey rules and laws. is this an isolated episodehat we're here talking about the pay patriot academand that there is -- the patriot act? it is a deadline, huer rirks hurry, we must act. we have had no sufficient debate on the war with libya. we are now encountered in a war in libya. we now have a war in which there's imn 0 no congressional debate and no congressional vote. but you know what they argue? they say it is just a little

war. but you know what? it is a big principle. it is the principle that we as a country elect people. it is a principle that we are restrained by the constitution, that you are protected by the constitution, and if i ask the young men and women here today to go to war and say we're going to go to war, that there darn well should be debate in this body. we are abdicating those responsibilities. we are not debating the patriot act sufficiently. we are not having an open amendment process. quay, am i pleased it took me three days of sitting down here fiblghting, but i am going to get two amendment votes. i am very happy and pleased that we came together to do that. i wish we would do more. i wish senator l heys bill were being voted here on the floomplet i wish there were a week's worth of debate. the thing is we come here to washington expecting these grand debates. ifer been here four months. but i expected that the important questions of the day would be debated back and forth. instea what happens so often

is the votes are counted and recounted and laboriously counted and when they know they can beat me, when they know they can beat somebody else, then they allow the vote to come to the floor. but some, like senator leahy's bill, i'm suspicious that it's not going to be voted on because we may not be able to beat it. or they may not be able to beat it. i support t so the question is, should we have some more debate in our country? we have important things pressing on us. i've been here for four months and i'm concerned about the future of our country because of the debt burden, because of this enormous debt we're accumulating. but are we debatin fully? are we talking about ways we could come together, how republicans and democrats, right and left, could come together to gure out a crisis, this crisis of disebt? no, i think we're so afraid of debate. but particularly with the patriot act, the thing is with the patriot act is that it's so emotional, because anyone who stand up like myself and says we need have protections for our

people, that we shouldn't sift through every gun owner in america through their records, looking and just trolling through records ... interestingly, we have looked at 28 million electronic records when the inspector general looked at this. 28 million electronic rords. we've looked at 1,600,000 texts. if you said to me, they asked a judge and they thought they were terrorists, i dot have a problem. but do you want them trolling through your facebook? do you want them trolling through your e-mails? do you want a government that is unrestrained by law? this ultimately boils down to whether we believe in the rule of law. so often we give lip service to it on our side and the other side and says, well be in the constitution and the rule of law. when you need to protect the rule of laws, when it is most unpopular, when everybody tells

you that you're unpatriotic or you're for terrorism because you believe in the constitution, that's when it's most prey shurks that's what it is that you need stand up and say "no," we can fight. we can preserve our freedoms. we are who we are bus of our freedoms and our individual liberty. if we give that up, we're no different than those we oppose. those who wish to destroy our country want to see us dissolve from within. we dissolve from within when we give up our liberties. we need to stand up and be proud of the fact that in our country it's none of your darn business what we're reading. it none of your business where we go to t doctor or the movie or what our magazines r it's nobody's business here in washington what we're doing. if they think it is the business of law enforcement, get a warrant. prove to somebody -- at least have one step that says, that person is doing something suspicious. the thing is that these suspicious activity reports -- 8

million of them have been filed in the last eight years -- the gornme doesn't have ask about this. it is sort of like they have deputized the banks. the banks have become sort of ike police agency.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 250, the nays are 153, the motion is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to 2 u.s.c. 1928-a an thed orer of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member of the house to the nato parliament -- parliamentary assembly. the clerk: mr. larson -- mr. larson of connecticut. the chair lays before the house

the following personal requests. the clerk: mr. owens of new york after 2:30 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. the chair is -- the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests, as soon as the well is clear. for what purpose does the gentleman from kohl seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the house will suspend.

will the members kindly take their conversations off the floor. so the gentleman from kohl may be heard. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. times have been hard for the newspaper business but this week the "pueblo chief tain" experienced a tough loss. the retirement of its managing editor, tom mcevoy.

he's a native of the area and graduated from c.s.u. pueblo. after receiving a master's degree in 1969, he spent a year working in the a.p.'s denver bureau until he accepted a teaching position at his alma mater back in pueblo, kohl. during the summers, he worked part time in the "chief tain's" news room and in 1957 -- it became full time. mr. gardner: these were the days of investigative reporting, it doesn't exist anymore. stories were literally filed over the wiferes an tom was without a doubt what one would consider old school he took over as the political beat reporter for "the chief tain," working out of denver he cover covered the state capitol and remembers what the kohl state legislature was like be