senator grassley has a scheduling conflict. we will proceed. he sends his regrets. he is very conscientious. he wants to attend all hearings that he possibly can. the scheduling conflict was one that he could not avoid. okay. i would now like to introduce gary locke and ron kirk. welcome. as is or usual practice your statements will automatially be included in the record. i urge you to summarize. to the point. it right down to it. okay. >> thank you very much. thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important topic. the administration and congress do need to work together to ensure our economic relationship is more balanced and provides more benefits for american workers and businesses here in america. over the last 20 years including as the governor of wasington state helped double exports i have watched the transformation of the chinese economy and seen firsthand how expanded trade of paternities the benefit to both of our countries. last month i lead a clean energy trade mission of 24 u.s. companies to china. on the final day we traveled. assembling solarp

republican charles grassley of iowa sounded out the nominee on the role of international law in u.s. courts. >> should judges ever look to foreign law for, quote unquote, good ideas? >> i guess i'm in favor of good ideas coming from wherever you can get them. but i don't think that foreign law should have independent precedential weight in any but a very, very narrow set of circumstances. so i would draw a distinction between looking wherever you can find them for good ideas, for just to expand your knowledge of the way in which judges approach legal issues; but makinging that very separate from using law as precedent or independent weight. >> reporter: amidst tense exchanges there were also humorous most as when pennsylvania democrat arlen specter asked about televising supreme court proceedings. >> i think it's always a good thing when people understand more about government rather than less. certainly the supreme court is an important institution and one that the american citizenry has every right to know about and understand. i recognize that some people, some justices may have v

senator grassley established that. is it a satisfactory test? let me move on to another question. i don't think i'm making to much progress. one of the grave concerns which has risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any way you can look at citizens united oter than being aremendous jolt to the system? >> senator specter, as an advocate this is one i've taken a strong view on which is that it was a jolt to the system, that there were -- there was a great deal of reliance interests

as of senator chuck grassley came out and said, no, he will not agreed as it stands. has he changed his mind? guest: we have not seen anything new sense that, no. host: do the senators from maine and chuck grassley, are they looking for further concessions? become guest: we hear they were just unhappy with the process of the $19 billion fee. they were not necessarily opposed to requiring the financial industry to pay for the cost of the bill. they were just upset that this was a fee that really wasn't discussed on the house floor or the senate floor. it was something that was basically attached to the conference committee early in the morning last friday before the committee finished its voting on the conference report. they were failing -- feeling this was and that did not see the light of day. they want some been a more transparent. host: what has scott brown said about his argument for taking the fee out? guest: that it is inappropriate. that it will essentially be passed along to consumers. that it will hurt the bank customers and not something he could support. h

senator charles grassley, forward, who will be coming up for reelection, rep stephen king will be coming up for reelection. and it behooves all of them to look closely at their record and for us to look closely at the record and make the decisions based not so much incumbent versus new as what the individuals have done. host: houston, texas. add all the democratic life of caller: wanted to comment on the election so far -- and on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to comment on the election. he said it is a republican year. i'm not so sure. it is an anti-incumbency year. the thing about the democrats in the house, a lot are pretty safe seats. only 40 or 70 actually competitive. i'm wondering it is perhaps he bought the the republican lineup too hard. i do want to comment on texas for governor. i think bill white is the best candidate the democrats have had since he and richards. he is well funded and have crossed over appeal to republicans and business people. whereas the governor in there now, only 149% in the primary -- only won 400 -- 49% in the primary. the possibility if latinos

couple of weeks ago, and you were talking about farm issues, i recall about a year ago you had chuck grassley -- he is a big corporate farmer and voting against black farmers getting their money. but i agree with their last caller. i think republicans and democrats. i am a true independent. i am starting to wake up and his see that money is controlling washington too much. lobbyists, former politicians, former executives, it is just too much. and it will kill the so-called two-party system. here in detroit where i live at, the republicans in a 90% democratic city, they control of the economics because they bought off the mayor, the city council, and they are so-called democrats. it is just out of control. that is why we have a federal deficit of trillions of dollars. that is why michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country, because corrupt bought off politicians where corporations are buying people host: arkansas. steve, go ahead. caller: if you are a police officer in our state, you have to be a resident of what ever you are a police officer at. if you are from fayetteville, you

senator grassley established that. is it a satisfactory test? let me move on to another question. i don't think i'm making too much progress. one of the grave concerns which has risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any way you can look at citizens united other than being a tremendous jolt to the system? >> senator specter, as an advocate this is one i've taken a strong view on which is that it was a jolt to the system, that there were -- there was a great deal of reliance inter