spent coming up next on c-span2 supreme court oral argument in a case that questions the church's first amendment rights. then at 9 a.m. eastern we will take you live to the u.s. chamber of commerce where senate finance committee chair orrin hatch will talk about the committee's agenda for the year ahead. .. >> the church is arguing that

the different regulations are a violation of the first amendment. this oral argument from last week is an hour. >> we will hear argument, first, this morning in case 13502, reed v. town of gilbert. mr. courtman? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court the town's code discriminates on its face by treating certain signs differently based solely on what they say. for example political signs may be 32 square feet, may be unlimited in this number and may be placed in the right-of-way of the entire town for phi months before -- five months before the election. but the church's signs can only be one-fifth of that size, only placed in the dark of night the night before the church service. while the church's signs with directional content are only allowed up for 14 hours other signs with directional content are allowed up for much longer.

for example builders' directional signs to home sales events are allowed up the entire weekend, and homeowners' association event signs are allowed to be up for 30 days. >> what are you, what are you seeking? do you want whatever is the most favorable rule, say for ideological signs is that what you want or do you accept that there could be some limit on event signs say some reasonable time climate? >> we're seeking the same as the favorable signs which in this case would be both ideological and political signs, and the reason -- >> ideological isn't time limited? >> well, but it's not allowed on the right-of-way, and so that's major factor in this case because political signs are allowed on the right-of-way. the treatment that we're seeking is equal treatment under the the first amendment. and ideological signs

interestingly enough are still based into their own content category, but they're not allowed on the right-of-way, yet they are allowed up for an unlimited period of time. >> are you are you seeking unlimited placement? >> we are not. we are seeking the same placement that any other temporary signs get which is the category that we're talking about. and, in fact, the city the town here has freedom to regulate the amount of time signs can go up, the size of the signs, the number of the signs. all our argument is that they do it across the board and not treat signs differently based on their content. >> your argument does not turn on the fact that it's a church's sign, does it? your argument would be the same if this was a temporary sign about where the soccer game was going to be. >> well, that's right. and the church's sign merely adds additional components to it. for example, the town puts the church's sign into a category called directional signs, but yet the church's sign has religious speech, directional speech ideological speech but

that's correct. it's equal treatment for that type of sign. and the category -- >> i ask about the category for the political signs, which is the most favorable? because all the time this court says that political speech is the most valued kind of speech, it's at the heart of the first amendment, it gets special first amendment protection. so in a way why aren't -- isn't the locality here basically adopting the same kind of category-based understanding of political speech and its special role in first amendment analysis that this court has very frequently articulated? >> but i think this court has also said, for example that religious speech also a handles that category of core speech under the first amendment. and the problem is what the town does here, it's valuing speech. and i think that's one of the problems. it is saying that political speech in this case is more valuable than an invitation to church. so i think this court has made clear -- >> i'm sorry, that was the significance of my prior

question. what they're really saying is that political speech is more valuable than speech about where the soccer game is. in other words, i thought you indicated that your argument did not depend on the fact that the sign was a sign from the church. >> well, that's right. it doesn't depend on that fact. i was merely referring to the facts of this case i apologize. >> don't you think that political speech is more important than directions to the soccer game? >> maybe in some people's eyes, but should the government decide which is more important? it has said your speech is not valuable, and we can completely ban it. >> well, let's take a sign that in all other ways is equal except that it says no signs on residential property except properties that are being sold. and so it's valued the homeowner's right to sell its

property. would that be contrary to the first amendment? and if not why is that value any different than valuing political speech? >> i think it would be. i think this court's case in lynnmark dealt with a similar sixer where in that city -- sixer where in that city it -- circumstance. this court said exactly that, that the town shouldn't value different types of speech, especially on private property, when you have homeowners' rights that also comes into play -- >> what is its commercial when it relates to a one-time event? for example a yard sale. >> right. >> if the state and the city allow election-related signs to be put up in the right-of-way then anybody who has a yard sale has an equal right? >> well, i think commercial speech under this court's

jurisprudence can be treated differently, and that's one of the important things. the category here is narrow because government speech, government can put up whatever signs that it would like. we hear a lot in the other briefs about warning signs and other types of signs. the government is free to put up signs without triggering this problem. commercial speech, so the narrow category that we're talking about is temporary signs, not permanent signs that are put up in the right-of-way that can be regulateed. >> do you think directional signs is a valid category? >> the reason i don't think it is is because here the direction is part of the invitation to come and worship or part of the invitation to come to a different event. so the directional part of it is in decision to the -- or in addition to the invitation to come in and worship. so although it appears to be a different category of directional, it's important to the speech of the church inviting the community in saying come worship with us, and here's where we're located. and what's interesting about

that, if the church, for example, says we're meeting now at senior living center, that's considered to be a directional sign because the definition is a sign that's intended to invite and direct someone to your service, that would then be banned in the right-of-way. >> i guess you see the concern. if an affluent person wants to celebrate a birthday, he can put happy birthday uncle fred as many places as a political sign and as for long. >> well i think one of the issues is if the government has decided that its interests -- which, by the way is what drives this -- the interests in safety and aesthetics, if those have already been deemed to be less important than speech, then i think speech should be allowed. >> but your answer to the question is happy birthday uncle fred can have as many signs and for as long as a political campaign? >> i think that's right. >> that has to be, it seems to me -- what about a historical

marker birthplace of james madison or whatever? >> i think the answer to that is the that the government is -- >> no, no, it's private. privately owned. >> well, i think if it's allowing private speech then we engage in the problem of valuing, for example, in that case we think that marker is more important than someone else's speech. >> so, again, under your view happy birthday uncle fred and save your soul and birth place of james madison can all be up for the same length of time, same size? >> i think it can. otherwise we have a problem with content-based information -- >> what about permanent signs? i assume it would apply equally to permanent signs, wouldn't it? >> it would, but in another category. ours wouldn't affect permanent signs. that's a content-neutral category. but if you had a permanent sign i think the answer is crush do. >> within the permanent sign category they all have to have

the same -- >> i believe so, except -- >> commercial. >> especially most of the permanent signs are commercial signs when you talk about billboards and other types of signs. >> right. >> so this court, i think has made clear if you do have permanent signs that do allow commercial speech, then the municipality -- >> what would happen if the church has this always meets in the same place and it wants to put up a sign that says every sunday this is the place to go and another church moves around, so it wants to put up a temporary sign. do they have to be treated the same? >> i think they would. if we're talking about the category of what goes on public property, what goes on the right-of-way. on their own property is a different question. but here the town has already decided the allow an unlimited number of political signs up to 32 square feet for nearly the entire year. there are four elections in arizona. so with this time limit of five months, you have political signs in an unlimited number. and those signs affect the

safety and aesthetic interest the same way as the church's sign does, the same way as an invitation -- >> how do you create your temporary category without reading the sign? and sos there is some force -- and so there is some force to the counterargument that what is being willinglated here is not the -- regulated here is not the content, but the funk of the sign. -- but the function of the sign. so how do you get around that argument? >> because -- >> you've already created a category that requires you to read the sign. >> i don't think it does. and the reason the way the temporary sign is defined here is merely a sign that's boast intended and constructed -- both intended and constructed not to be permanent. that's why we think that category is content neutral. as long as it's a temporary sign, it doesn't matter what the sign says. there can be duration requirements, size requirements location requirements, that the government -- >> so your point is if it's stuck in the ground with a

little stake, then it can be treated one way, but if it's in concrete -- >> that's right. >> but seems to me you're trying to find, i don't know a difficult way to deal with an issue that could be readily addressed just by seeing if the sign is for a limited event. in other words what if somebody every time -- you know the stake in the ground basically could last for three weeks. so every three weeks they come along and stick the stake back in the ground. you're saying the only way they can distinguish is by look at whether it has a stake in the ground or whether it's in concrete, and yet it seems to me that doesn't help, that doesn't answer the city's legitimate concern. >> but i think what's important here is that the city, the town's already agreed that an election is an event. and so we have an election that's an event, but yet that single event sign can be up for five months, and yet we have an event where that single event can only be up overnight. it's already made that determination when it allows this type of signs for what i

think is a comparable use, a single event to a single event. the other thing i would say is if you allow signs to be up for one single event for five months certainly there should be some way to say if we have a recurring event as we do here, at least equal to the same time. >> well i mean to say that an election is a single event in the same way as a football game a cookout a basketball championship, it's, it seems to me it's a very difficult thing for this court to have to say. it's just not -- a political campaign is a dynamic that goes on for some weeks that the signs initiate a discussion. i can see you can say the religious sign does or at least should initiate the same discussion on issues that are certainly of the same importance if not more -- >> certainly. >> but it seems to me you're

forcing us into making a very wooden distinction in a proliferation of signs for birthday parties, for every conceivable event that could be up for five months. >> but i think the problem is there already is that here because we have an unlimited number of political signs. if the streets are already littered, which they are, then how serious is the town's interest to reduce clutter? and i think that's the problem. for example many different ways. you can only have one sign per block, five signs total. it could only be a certain size. but it's hard to take the interest seriously of reduce thing clutter when it allowed political signs to clutter the entire town in an unlimited number for the entire year. the church's signs and event signs are not the problem. what we have here is carte blanche authority for political signs to clutter the landscape, unlimited in number for the spire year, and yet the concern is for maybe a but more signs that may be placed. >> and the town say that signs

relating to a one-time event an election or anything else that occurs on a particular date have to be taken down within a period of time after that event and if it can say that isn't that content based the way you define that cop sent? >> i don't believe it is, and in fact the washington, d.c. municipal regulations have that same code, and it's one we could recommend, 13605 and what it says is all temporary signs should be treated the same period. you have to put your date on the sign for when you put it up. every temporary sign can be up for 180 days. if it's tied to an event after the event is over it needs to be done 30 days after the event. i think -- our opinion is the reason that's content neutral is whenever something is over, if your store is closed the event is done then the sign can be removed. but the important part is every sign can be up for that amount of time even if the event is

over -- >> i thought the way you distinguish between temporary signs and permanent signs is based on the nature of the sign, not what it says. so that gets you over the problem justice sotomayor mentioned about having to read the sign. but if there's a rule that the sign has to be down within a certain period of time, i don't see how you get around reading the sign. >> well, what you would be reading would be the date, and the code requires the date to be placed on the sign both for when the sign is placed and for, you know, for what the event is. but i think -- >> so if somebody puts up a sign for a yard sale two days up for the yard sale, that can stay up for 48 days after the yard sale? it has 50 days or whatever the period of time is? >> yes, according to the code. but what's interesting that time period can be anything the town deciphers. it doesn't need to be -- and we're not looking for signs all year long. the town can say, for example

temporary signs can be up for seven days, they can be a certain size. like washington, d.c. does, you can only have three signs per block have to be spaced out. and that's part of our point. and i think one of the things to take a look at is the am key brief that's been filed on behalf of the town by the national league of cities. on page 10 and 14, it lists dozens -- >> [inaudible] >> page 10 on behalf to the -- on behalf of the national league of cities, and the reason i point that out is we don't believe this would tie the hands of the towns because there are dozens and dozens of ways to regulate signs on a content-neutral -- >> what page is this? >> this is page 10 on the national league of cities amickey brief.

spacing, placement criteria ground sign, projx signs. and my point is if you look through their brief, there are innumerable ways for the court -- excuse me, for the town to regulate signs. there's no reason to look at the content of the sign. and the reason is the content of the sign affects the government interest of safety and aesthetics in the same way. if you have, for example, clutter, whether it's the church's sign or a political sign, it's going to clutter the roadways the same way. so the way to deal with clutter is an easy rule and, in fact, even the town can see that the content-based test this court has used and that the majority of the circuits now use in the sign context -- the 2nd, the 8th and the 11th, applied this test to to sign codes. and they say it's actually easier for the towns -- >> what about the vast lawyers of the country where there's scenery? and people want to keep the scenery the same? and they don't want signs at

all? but they don't want to say no signs because someone wants to put up a sign that says jer -- geronimo is buried 50 feet away from here. they say okay we'll make an exception for that does that mean they have to make an exception for everything, and pretty soon the entire state of wyoming is filled with clutter? >> i wouldn't say everything, but they could say, for example -- >> no, no, it's not a content-neutral category. what it is is it is a category that says if you want to say geronimo is buried here, you can. because that will bring people to look at the grave. and that's it. we don't want anything else. we're trying to keep the place looking nice. that's not a city. cities are filled with clutter anyway. at least most parts. but that's -- so what is -- i'm trying to drive at what is your definition of content neutral?

which is something that i wonder. >> uh-huh. >> since i think the entire u.s. code is filled with content distinctions. all of crime is filled with content distinctions. all of regulation has content distinctions. so what is it precisely in respect to the content neutral rule that is consistent with the u.s. code and is consistent with the example, be any, that i gave? -- if any, that i gave? >> the definition we would propose is the same one this court has used since the mosley case about what is content based, and that is the restriction or the regulation looks at the subject matter -- >> try criminal code and solicitation where if you solicit for certain things, you commit serious crimes, and if you solicit for certain other things, they're less serious and so forth. we all know that. how does your definition apply there or how does it apply -- i'm confused. i understand the words -- >> right.

>> but i just have never been able to understand how they apply in -- [inaudible] >> only limited here to free speech questions not criminal laws -- >> i'm sorry. there's a free speech question under criminal law. does the first amendment permit solicitation of drugs to be punished less or more -- you understand what i'm driving at? >> i do. >> the u.s. code. >> i do. >> what i want and am hoping for is enlightenment. [laughter] >> if it's a conduct-related offense, we don't get into free speech. i believe this court's cases say, for example, there are cases where there are criminal laws this, in fact, is a criminal law if you continue to put up your signs, you could actually get signed and jail time -- get fined and jail time. i think there are many ways for the local i the regulate those signs. for example, if it doesn't want many signs, it can say one

person can put up temporary sign or permanent sign or whatever have you. but to say, for example, you can put up a private sign because you think one location is interesting, what if another person has a location they want people to come visit? should the government be able to say we think your location is important, but your location is not? and our response is the government can put up that sign if it wants to make that choice about historical landmarks or directional types of signs. i'd like to leave the remainder of time for rebuttal, if i may. >> thank you mr. cortman. mr. pagan? >> thank you mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we agree with petitioners that respondent's ordnance here is unconstitutional, but we think that the context-specific intermediate speech should apply in exceptions to a sign ordnance

where those exceptions are based on the same longstanding traditional rationales that justify the sign ordnance as a whole. a wooden application of strict scrutiny in this context would suggest that it's presumptively unconstitutional, for example for a town to limit signs on public property but have an exception if you want to paint your street number on your curb. now, that doesn't make a great deal of practical sense and that's not an example i just made up. that's essentially the ordnance this court upheld albeit without addressing this particular issue in taxpayers for vin sent. on a three -- vincent. on a theoretical level, the normal reasons for deep judicial skepticism of exceptions to a regulation of speech don't apply in the context of that street address exception, exceptions for danger or safety signs or other types of exceptions that track the normal safety and non-proliferation rationales for a sign regulation. those kinds of exceptions don't

create any inference that the government is attempting to favor one viewpoint or another, that it's trying to limit the set of ideas that are going to come into the public marketplace or that it doesn't truly believe in the safety and non-proliferation rationales that underlie the sign regulation as a whole. >> well, i mean, you obviously know the difficulty with that which is how does the government decide when this should be an exception, how does the court decide when there should be and shouldn't be? i understood the whole point of the strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions is to find out which are the types of speech or the particular types of regulation that should be given an exception. rather than starting with saying well, you don't apply this scrutiny because there ought to be an exception. >> well i think the main problem of strict scrutiny is it sends a signal to legislatures that they're on safer ground if they enact a broad and undifferentiated restriction of signs than if they try to tailor it to those types of signs that

cause the problems they're trying to prevent. and i think the way the court can manage the situation is to see whether under intermediate scrutiny there really are safety or non-proliferation rationales that track on to whatever exception is being drawn. for example justice sotomayor's exception of the for sale signs. a town might have an ordnance that limits the number of signs you can have on your lawn to two, two signs of any type. but it might also say we're not going to count for sale signs against your quota of two and the reason is that for sale signs are only up on a very small percentage of properties up for a very limited purpose when the property's for sale and they go down once the sale is consummated. >> you want us the sort these ordnances out one by one? >> no -- >> and examine each of these exceptions and say, you know, this is okay and this isn't okay? i don't know that the federal judiciary is numerous must have

to do that. [laughter] and a much more simple rule that the other side presents. cope all signs the -- keep all signs the same. if clutter is the problem, they all clutter. and you shouldn't allow or disallow on the basis of the message. >> well, your honor, it's a simple rule, but i think it's an extremely impractical rule that is going to foreclose experimentation and local solutions to local problems. let me give you another example of a town that has some sort of sign restriction but it doesn't apply that to safety signs like children at play or hidden driveway ahead. if you're going to apply strict scrutiny to those kinds of exceptions, they're probably not going to pass muster unless it's a really watered-down version of strict scrutiny that i think is unfamiliar to the courts. there's actual a -- >> yeah, but what's the problem? you make you make your sign limits big enough that those signs will attract attention, that's all. >> well, i think towns

legitimately should not have to be put to the choice if they want to prevent the proliferation of signs that would cause safety problems -- >> or have the town put up the signs. in which case they can be as big as the town wants. we're just talking about private signs here. >> your honor -- >> you're saying every private individual has to have a big sign, children at play, right? >> well, i don't want to resist too hard that the government can put up any signs it want, but i think the reason we think the government could put up the signs here is not that the government can say it can speak on surgeon topics and private citizens can't, but because of the nature of the signs that are being put up which means some work has to be done hoar by the type of the fact of signs i described are safety signs now it turns out there's actually a fairly robust empirical debate about whether children at play signs or hidden driveway ahead signs actually do enhance safety. and courts are going to have to make a one-size-fits-all conclusion about whether the

state of the evidence -- which right now is fairly equivocal -- justifies that sort of exception. >> counsel, i'm not sure your whole approach is not precluded by our decision in mccull log. -- mccullough. there we is said a facially neutral law does not become content based simply because it may disproportion maltly affect certain topics. in other words, when you're dealing with a initially-neutral law is whether the law is justified without reference to the content. so it seems to me that you've got to get over the content neutrality. your argument only applies when it's content newt lal, and yet here we're dealing with a situation where you're saying it's an exception to the content-based rule. >> well, your honor, i think the court can deal with the competing interests in this case more easily not by getting bogged down in the definition of content-based and con innocent-neutral, but by focusing on the bottom line question of whether this is an

appropriate case for strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. >> when you use those labels in the context of the first amendment, do they mean the same thing that they mean in equal protection? that is,er into immediate scrutiny is -- intermediate scrutiny is a pretty tough standard in equal protection. >> well, i think there are a couple of flavors both under the constitution at large and under the first amendment in particular. i think here we'd be urging something more like a reasonable fit test which we think would give municipalities enough room to draw the kinds of distinctions that i think they reasonably should be able the make between painting your street number and your curb so people can more easily find your house and restrictions on, you know, particular types of speeches that are much more likely to be motivated birdies agreement by that speech. we do think intermediate scrutiny has a fair amount of teeth in the circumstance and we're putting our money where our mouth is because we think

the particular ordnance at issue here fails intermediate scrutiny. but it would give enough room to draw in particular the kinds of distinctions that are drawn in the highway beatification act which allows certain types of signs that do enhance safety and's tet thissics -- aesthetics but generally doesn't allow the grounds on the sides of freeways to become a breeding ground for signs which would decrease driver safety and -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry. >> do you think that a library could say big books are prefer or bl to little books and it so happens that big books are coffee books and little books tend to be mostly political so we're going to put all the political books in the basement and all the the big books on the main floor or? is that a distinct that the first amendment permits? >> i think a court might be

reasonably fairly skeptical of that kind of distinction, but i think signs your honor present particular first amendment problems that the court had to grapple with and didn't quite resolve in metro media and city of ldoux. one distinct problem with signs is that it's very difficult for legislatures to tailor sign regulations and describe types of signs that it doesn't think it needs to regulate to advance its interests thereby allowing more speech without describing those types of signs in a manner that could be viewed as content based. and that's what makes sign regulation very difficult and why we think some sort of context-specific rule in this circumstance would be appropriate. >> i don't see why. i mean, you say it, but why is it true? just make whatever the sign requirement is big enough that any private signs that need to get people's attention will get people's attention. >> well i think -- >> what do you say about signs,

i assume applies to noise as well right? if the city has a noise ordnance, it can distinguish between noises for various purposes, a political sound truck before an election can be given a higher allowance and, i don't know a street evangelist given a lower allowance? >> i don't think that would be permissible, your honor. i think that one key here is that the types of exceptions we're talking about, the only types we think should be subject to intermediate scrutiny track the safety and non-proliferation rationales for the sign ordnance as a whole. if the city is advancing a distinction based on the fact that they this think political or ideological speech is more valuable than, say, religious speech we think that would be subject to strict scrutiny. thank you. >> thank thank you counsel. mr. saab run? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the problem with applying strict scrutiny in

this case or this type of case is that it will have we believe, the opposite effect. it will limit speech because towns, cities will enact one-size-fits-all in order to do that as counsel indicated there needs to be limitations on the number of signs, on the duration of signs. the signs would have to be all large enough to accommodate the largest message that needs to be communicated. and in order to pass strict scrutiny the legislatures in these towns and cities across this country would be inclined to ban all signs except those that the first amendment absolutely allows. >> you can make that argument in all kinds of contexts. i don't know where it gets you. suppose the question is whether we're going to -- whether the town is going to allow anybody to speak in a park. and the town, the town council says well, you know, we would

like to have people be able to speak on subjects that we like i but there's some subjects we really don't like. we don't want people to speak on those, so we have the choice. we allow everybody to speak or we allow nobody to speak. you can make exactly that same argument in lots of other contexts where i don't think the distinct could be justified. wouldn't that -- isn't that right? >> i think there's a difference justice alito in signs as opposed to speech because signs do can take up physical -- do take up physical space. they displace other uses of land, and they perform different functions. one thing that we would like to emphasize in this case is that the temporary or directional sign provision is limited to in signs that are intended to guide travelers along a route from point a to point b. if they have express i content on -- expressive content on

them, then they are no longer a directional sign but are then an expressive sign, and there's a different provision that applies for that. >> so if the sign here said we welcome you to attend our church service and then it says on the bottom meeting place and it specifies the meeting place, but the message is we welcome you to attend our service that's ideological? >> that is ideological. that would not be a directional sign because it is not directing travelers along a route. >> but it says also -- [inaudible] >> the way that this code has been interpreted, justice ginsburg, is that would not be a directional sign because it's

not saying turn right, turn left go straight a few miles. it's not giving directions about how to get there. so i believe that that type of sign would be permitted in, under this ordnance as a ideological sign and would not be limited to the terms of the temporary direction -- >> mr. savrin could i ask what your justification is for these especially generous provisions on ideological signs? putting aside the level of scrutiny why do you have these very generous rules for ideological signs as compared to others? >> well, specifically on the ideological signs is to protect the first amendment right of anyone to speak on any topic at any time. the difference in the -- >> so you're not even purporting to have a content-neutral justification for this. you're essentially saying, yes, we generally dislike clutter, but we're willing to make exceptions for clutter for speech that we think has special

first amendment significance. >> that would not be our position. it's not content based in a constitutional seasons for purposes of applying strict scrutiny, that the distinction is permissible here without relation to the content or in terms of favoring or cent corpsing surgeon viewpoints -- censoring certain viewpoints or ideas. >> and your trying to reduce our rules against discriminating on the basis of content to a rule against a viewpoint discrimination. >> not just view -- >> i mean ideological signs, that is a content category. and there's as much a first amendment right to give somebody directions as there is to speak about, about being green or whatever else. is there no first amendment right to give somebody be directions? >> justice scalia, we would say

that the -- they perform different functions certainly -- >> they sure do but is there a first amendment right for these other messages or not? >> i think they would have a right to speak and i think that they do have that right to speak and that intermediate scrutiny applies to regulations about how speech can be communicated as opposed what can be communicated. >> but you do say in your brief that the first amendment does not require directional signs so they could be banned altogether. >> i think it's narrowly tailored, at least the intermediate scrutiny test in a jurisdiction -- >> well, that doesn't have words. i'll give you an example. the law says no directional signs. that's the law. does that -- is -- does that offend the first amendment? >> i think that well instead

of offend the first amendment i think our position would be that it could survive that analysis. if i could return to justice kagan's question about the interest that is served, it's different. a directional sign there needs to be more of them in order to direct travelers along a route so that justifies a perhaps a smaller size. there's no contention in the record, in fact, the court of appeals found that they function as intended. as far as the duration there's no travelers going to an event that is not presently occurring. in fact, the town of gilbert expanded the time frame from two hours to 12 hours and our question request is whether or not -- our question is whether or not that's something that implicates first amendment jurisprudence -- >> well, you say on suppose we're talking about the context of signs.

you say, well let's look to the purpose of forbidding any prohibition, and i guess it has to do with safety or beatification. >> yes. >> first question would be is there some category that you don't allow to put up signs? answer no. everybody can put up signs. so what about applying strict scrutiny to that if you're going to distinguish on the basis of what the sign says, you have to have an awfully good reason. if your decision is you can't put one up at all. you put 'em up, but you have content, all kinds of distinctions how, how long etc. now, in respect to that maybe you should have more leeway. leeway depending upon the purpose of the sign. so if, for example it's about

an open air knew misl pal movie -- municipal movie, you could put up signs about movies. i don't know you maybe have more leeway there. but still they're saying you'd flunk even that test here because there isn't really a very good reason at all in this case for making the sign smaller or for putting it there for such a short time. now, how do you react? so there are three parts. one, very tough if you're going to say you can't put it up at all. sometimes called strict scrutiny. two, somewhat more lenient if it gets up, but you're trying to distinguish among how and under what circumstances how long. and then, three, do you even satisfy that one? that's called time, place and manner, the second. >> okay. well, with respect to the first one, the interest most of the

times in sign ordnance regulations as you have indicated is aesthetics and -- [inaudible] with respect to aesthetics, don't believe that that would meet the definition of a compelling interest so that it's automatically presumptively and conclusively unconstitutional if the strict scrutiny is applied and there's no compelling interest. with respect to the interests at stake here we again believe that directional signs are functionally different from an ideological sign or even political signs, that the directional signs to not need to be larger and also that there are more of them. and so if there are more of them, the trade-off is -- at least the legislature this in could be -- in this town has decided that they need to be smaller because they need to guide travelers along a route.

>> and political signs are there almost all year -- >> yeah -- or. >> on the rights-of-way when you talk about clutter? what if somebody doesn't like politics? he says politics is spinach. i want ideology. i would like ideological signs on the right-of-way. you say, i'm sorry, you're wrong. we think politics is more important. because we're politicianings. [laughter] ask and we're on the city council. >> i have two responses to that justice scalia. the first one is that there is a statute in arizona that this ordnance complies with in terms of the placement, the duration and the size of the political signs. so the town doesn't have any leeway in that because it needs to comply with the statute. >> does the state statute have the same size and duration? the sate statute says you have to rely on political signs but

does it specify the size and the duration? >> yes justice ginsburg, it does. >> so you're saying that the town ordnance just mirrors the state? >> yes yes, it does. >> and do you have that state law? >> i do. it's section 16-1019. >> so your defense to a first amendment complaint is, what, the state made me do it? [laughter] >> well our defense -- well in part yes, because we need to comply with the statute, and it doesn't make sense that as a result all signs need to be, meet those provisions for purposes of preserving beauty, reducing clutter, so on and so forth. >> it makes a lot of sense if you believe in the first amendment. >> well -- >> if you believe that neither the state, nor the city is entitled to say politics is

really important. as opposed to music. >> the other conversation here justice scalia is that we're talking about public property. and one of the issues that has not been developed certainly in the record in this, at court, is the extent to which a government can select subject matter for what is a nontraditional public forum. so there are issues as well that would need to be developed a little further before any application of intermediate scrutiny we say could be continued. if the, if the court were to find problems with the ninth circuit's application of intermediate scrutiny, i think there'd still be some issues that would need to be developed on the public forum. >> you said -- [inaudible] not a traditional public forum? >> that is certainly, gilbert's

position. it was something that was argumented in the ninth circuit. the ninth circuit did not resolve that issue. but i believe that would be a question of arizona law. but, again with, we have not developed that and that issue has not been developed in this at this, in this court. and i think the reason is because the issue in this court is whether or not strict scrutiny applies. >> how do you justify the differing treatments of petitioner's sign on the one hand and the weekend builder event signs and homeowner association signs? homeowner association signs can be 80 square feet, and the petitioner's sign can be 6 square feet. >> the homeowners' signs are not really directional signs because they can only be within the residential community. they are not directing travelers off site in a generic sense to a

location. there's also a permanent requirement -- permit requirement, and the other thing is that the 80 square feet is that's total sign area. of that's not one sign. that's the total sign area you can have. >> has anyone ever been denied one of those permits? >> i don't know the answer to that question, your honor. >> suppose petitioners want to put up a sign that says we're having a church service at 10:00 on sunday morning. under your cold when can they -- under your code when can they put that up and when do they have to take it down? >> 10 p.m., and they have to take it down, i believe it's an hour afterwards. >> of so they can put it up after dark on saturday and then they have to take it down within an hour after when, the commencement of the service? >> it's the end of the event. >> the end -- >> the end of the event. >> do you think that really gives them an opportunity to invite people -- >> the purpose of the signs is not supposed to be invitational,

it's supposed to be directional. if the event was occurring at 10:00 at night or 6:00 in the evening, it could be up in the day. if the event occurs all weekend long, it could be up all weekend long. it's tied to the event. so in that sense it absolutely serves its purpose for having on the 12 hours before, because if they want to invite members of the public to the services, they can and do have many other opportunities and alternatives including signage including the ideological sign that they can use. >> so they could put up a, quote-unquote, ideological sign that says come to our service on sunday morning but no arrow and then they put up another sign that says this is the arrow? or maybe they put up on the first sign come to our service on sunday morning. we can't the tell you now where it will be because the town won't let us -- [laughter] but if you come if you drive by

here tomorrow morning -- [laughter] at a certain time you will see an arrow? >> the sign could say your honor, where it is taking place. but if it is intending to guide travelers to that location then it would need to comply with the provisions. and -- >> what is the guidance? i'm looking at the -- [inaudible] sign on page 3 of the brief. it just has an arrow. it says the name of the elementary school, and then it has looks like a telephone number and an arrow. the arrow is the direction? >> yes your honor. >> this is not as you described earlier turn left on main street, turn right on front street. >>s it is the same function as -- it is the same function as that. >> what is this about, this argument? i mean you agree they can put

up a big sign, can they put up a big sign, ideological sign saying come to the church service next tuesday 4th and 8th streets three blocks and right and two blocks left, all right? are or are you saying they can't say three blocks right and two blocks left? that's what this argument is about? >> that's what it comes down to. >> my goodness. [laughter] on that it does sound as if the town's being unreasonable doesn't it? >> well, we would say that the sign has what this court has termed an incidental effect on the expression of the petitioners that certainly, they can have the ideological sign the information they want to include. >> suppose we said this that we're, in fact, the argument is of in this nature, in fact you can have a big sign and have everything on it except an arrow, and the purpose of the sign is, in fact, to tell people both what's happening and where, that there is no good under any

test reason for requiring to have this little dinghy thing. >> your honor our response to that your honor is that the directional signs in order to work need to guyed travelers along -- guide travelers along a route, so there's going to be a whole lot of these signs in order for them to function as intended. it can be a mile away, it can be two miles away. is so having just one sign perhaps under the court's hypothetical, it seems rather silly. but if you're thinking about having a whole bunch of these signs over a long distance then i think -- >> does good news church have a number of signs? just as illustration, how many signs do they have? >> i believe the number's 15, but i'm not 100% sure about that, your honor. i know that they have quite a few. >> you see that car when you --

can you see that sign at all when you pass -- >> i'm sorry, your honor? >> you see the sign at all when you pass in a moving car? >> yes. in fact the test found that it functioned as intended, and there's no indication that it did not. so there's -- it seems to me that those are the kind of decisions as far as size duration are ones that should be fodder of legislative deliberation, and as long as it meets the intermediate scrutiny test, it should -- >> whatever that is. whatever that is right? >> well the intermediate scrutiny test, i think, is if it's narrowly tailored and also if there are alternative modes of communication. but i think that applying strict scrutiny to these types of regulations will result in sign ordnances being struck down uniformly just about and the only speech that will be allowed

will be speech that is constitutionally required. everything else will not be. but i think the problem if there is one that gilbert has gotten into, is that it allows a lot of speech that other ordnances might not in a lot of different formats. >> just again if i could understand let's even assume that intermediate scrutiny applies and just focusing on this special provision for ideological speech which allows very large signs to stay up as long as possible, and you would say we're making that exception if you will, to the general rule that there shouldn't be clulter and there shouldn't be a lot of these signs because, why? >> because directional signs can -- >> no no, no. i just asked you for the exemption for ideological signs the especially generous provision for ideological signs. why do can ideological signs get such generous treatment? >> because to protect the first

amendment right to speak. >> okay. so that is a content-based rationale. and that, you know, on one theory you lose regardless of what the standard of review is. >> if the -- >> you're not justifying it on the grounds of safety or on the grounds of clutter. you're saying this is a special kind of speech that we think there ought to be more of. >> with respect to the ideological sign? >> yes. >> yeah. the purpose of that is it is content neutral in terms of anything can be on that sign. >> no. that goes back to what justice scalia said. it's viewpoint-neutral. but, you know, it's content-based. and maybe you're just saying that we've run amok on this content-based distinction. and there would be an argument there, i think. but it is content-based to say what's ideology and what's not. >> and i would agree that that's what we're arguing, your honor. what we're saying is that the

first amendment is, guards against the abridgment of speech. and having a rigid content definition to be the on/off switch for whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny applies is not workable, does not achieve common sense results. it handicaps the legislatures and their ability to be flexible -- >> maybe you think that, but the guy who doesn't like politics and likes ideology doesn't think that. >> well -- >> so we're supposed to sit here and say oh, political speech is the most valuable, and you can allow that, but ideological speech comes in a close second -- [laughter] and then what? then directional speech or whatever else? >> well -- >> i don't want to do that. i don't think you should want any governmental official even a judge, to do stuff like that. >> your honor, i think for

purposes of ruling in this case i think the question is whether or not the temporary directional sign is subject to -- is content-based in a constitutional sense subject that it would be subject to strict scrutiny. we believe of that would be improper, we think that it would be against the jurisprudence -- >> it's content-based in a constitutional sense as opposed to content-based in a nonconstitutional sense. >> whether it puts the finger on a scale of ideas or viewpoints. whether the substance of it -- >> that's viewpoint that's not content-based. you want to eliminate content-based as the criterium and make it -- >> no, your honor, that is not what we're advocating. we're advocating that if an ordnance does not -- if an ordnance addresses the function of a sign as opposed to the particular ideas or even the

subject matter, then it would not be content-based for purposes of -- >> is there a difference between the function of the sign and the content of the sign? >> yes your honor. >> i frankly can't grasp that. what is it? >> it depends -- >> doesn't its function depend upon its content? >> in a literal sense yes. >> oh, i see. what sense are we talking here? >> well, both poetic -- [laughter] we think there needs to be a nuance as the federal government has indicated so that it guides -- the content test is a guide for courts to determine which level of scrutiny applies. and at some level if content is the on/off switch, then such distinctions as temporary and permanent, commercial and noncommercial, even on site and off site are going to be content, and we don't believe that in and of itself justifies

strict scrutiny. thanks your honor. >> thank you, counsel. mr. cortman, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few quick points in response, if i may. clarification point on the state statute. first of all, when this case began, the state statute wasn't not in effect and political signs were actually allowed up for longer than the period of time when the state statute was enacted. it actually lessened that time so it's not the state's doing that the town decided to allow political signs in its right-of-way. but even with the state statute if the state has decided that its interest in free speech and political signs outweighs the interest in safety and aesthetics, then the town should basically adopt an ordnance that abides by that. and the simple way to do that is to treat it as a constitutional floor. if the state has decided that we're going to allow political signs up for that period of time -- and, by the way the statute doesn't mention other signs, so it's not a restriction

like this town code is. all it says is we've deemed it important enough for political signs to be up for -- >> just permissive for political signs. >> that's right. and so the response by the town is, okay if that's the case and the state has decided that political signs outweigh our interests in safety and aesthetic, the way we deal with that is treating other similar signs the same. i think a couple other points the noise ordnance is a perfect example whether it's the sign case or the kovacs case. this would be akin to allowing political speech to be much louder in december bls and -- decibels and for longer periods of time and someone on the corner inviting someone to church must be quieter and for less period of time. they are certainly important interests, safety and aesthetic but as this court said in kerry v. brown and discovery network, the content-based distinctions in the code bear no relationship

to the government interest. the distinctions don't advance those interests. and as to being underinclusive i think it's similar to what this court found in discovery network when there the town wanted to prohibit 62 news racks and then allow 1500-2000 news racks to remain this court said that was underinclusive and would fail just on that. here the town is allowing an unlimited number of political signs but then prohibiting just a few other signs. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> the house gavels in today at noon eastern for general speeches. at 2:00 members will consider a resolution condemning the recent terrorist attacks in paris. no votes are scheduled today with the house expected to adjourn late in the afternoon in preparation of the president's state of the union address tonight.

.. the state of the union address live on c-span c-span2, c-span radio. and c-span.org. >> live now to the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington d.c. expecting remarks to start shortly by senator orrin hatch. the new chair of the finance committee. he is expected to announce his committee's agenda for the year. how they will deal with

enlightment programs and changes to the tax code and trade authority. live coverage as soon as things get underway here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations]. >> starting shortly here at the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington d.c., remarks by senator orrin hatch. set new chair of the finance committee. he will be talking about entitlement programs and tax code and trade authority and how his committee will be approaching those issues. the moderator for this discussion will be bruce joss ten -- josten in in charge of government affairs for the chamber of commerce. the senate will be back in at 10:00 a.m. eastern time for morning speeches. debate on a bill to approve the keystone xl pipeline. they will break for party lunches about 12:30 eastern. they are expected to work on amendments to the keystone bill later tonight in the senate.

watch later on c-span2 as the senate gathers to head over to the house for the state of the union address. they will walk over to the house together. we'll bring that later from the senate on c-span2. waiting for senator orrin hatch, the new chair of the finance committee to talk about the agenda in his committee for the coming year. >> good morning everyone. thank you for joining us today for our policy insiders event. the senator is short on time. he is got a hard stop and get out of here at 9:30 to get back to the hill. i will get into the introduction. we'll skip q&a i think real reason we're all here is to hear the chairman of the senate finance committee. senator hatch is in his 7th

term as utah senator. he is the most senior republican in the u.s. senate today, and is and remains a long-time friend of the american business community. as chairman of the senate finance committee, senator hatch has been an advocate of fiscal responsibility through our nation's tax code. an advocate for expanding trade and expanding american exports and an advocate for reforming and improving our nation's health care system. this morning the chairman will unveil his 2015 policy agenda for the senate finance committee which, as timing has it, is a little bit of a prebuttal to night's state of the union. we hope to hear a little bit more about his plans for comprehensive tax reform his thoughts on how the committee may address the entitlement and health care challenges that continue to confront the nation and what the future may hold on trade agreements and in fact senator, i would only ask and

appreciate your leadership, recognizing tpa's always a heavy lit. any suggestions you have for what we, the business community, might do to help you with, would be appreciated. i think 2015 is going to prove to abyss sy year for us. while the senator has many accomplishments, i will mention one i'm sure he is certainly proud of. he is married to elaine hatch and proud parents of six children, 23 grandchildren, and 14 great grandchildren. please join me, ladies and gentlemen, offering a warm welcome to senator hatch. [applause] >> actually, it is 15 great grand children. and they seem to be popping up all the time. thank you bruce, for that kind remark. you do a great job here at the chamber as do all of the people working down here. they work hand-in-glove with us and help us to understand when we're wrong and help us

understand how to make things right. i'm always honored when i get a chance or opportunity to speak at the u.s. chamber of commerce. everybody here at the chamber does good work to advance the interests of job creators and keep everyone informed of the most important issues facing our country. i appreciate the counsel and tom, bruce and everyone at chamber offered to members of congress over the years. it is an exciting time really to be in washington, at least if you're a republican, with the results of the last election voters gave us an opportunity to do some great things for hard-working americans and believe me, we're not going to waste that opportunity. i'm here today speaking as the chairman of the senate finance committee. the finance committee has the largest jurisdiction of any committee in congress. legislating on issues that impact the lives and livelihoods of each and every american. we have jurisdiction over the tax code, and much of our nation's health care policy. we have jurisdiction over your trade policy and entitlement

programs. and there such more. we have some great senators on this committee on both sides of aisle. i'm very grateful for the senate majority leader and my colleagues for entrusting me with this opportunity and leadership of this important group of senators. pardon my voice. our country faces a number of significant challenges. for example, excuse me. despite some recent upticks economic growth over the last several years has lagged behind historic levels. even though we've seen a decline in the unemployment rate labor force participation is dangerously low and we know that the reason one of the big reasons for the decline is that people just aren't even looking for jobs anymore. more and more americans are forced to work in low-paying often part-time jobs or leave the workforce all together. although we've seen some deficit reduction over the past few years, our national debt is currently over $18 trillion.

that is trillion, with a t. it is projected only to expand in the coming years. and we have we have a coming entitlement crisis that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. if we're going to right this ship, we're going to need a new agenda, an agenda that puts a healthy economy and job creation first. an agenda that gives hard-working taxpayers greater security and independence. an agenda that will put our government on a better and better and more responsible fiscal footing. that's what i'm here to talk about today. as the chairman of the finance committee i want to do all i can to put our country on a better path and to insure all americans have an opportunity to prosper. to get there i have put together what really is a very ambitious agenda for our committee and i would like to lay out some of that for you here today.

i'm fully aware that for some people particularly the cynics among us the word ambitious is just another synonym for unrealistic. to them i can only offer my commitment to work tirelessly and relept leslie to make every -- relentlessly to make this agenda reality. this is not the first time i chaired a committee. i chaired two large committees before taking over senate finance. there are unique challenges to every committee, those who know me can attest i work to get things done. to see what i intend to do, let's talk specifically about what the senate finance committee will be tackling in the 114th congress. tax reform my top priority for the new congress will be to reform our nation's broken tax code. tax reform is long overdue. and i don't think there is a person in this audience who would disagree with that sentiment. comprehensive tax reform is essential if we're going to get our economy moving again.

our current tax system is a roadblock that stands between us and sustained prosperity. i don't believe that reform should be considered optional. it is essential if we're serious about building and maintaining a healthy economy. over the past few years i've laid out seven principles that believe should guide our tax reform efforts. the first is growth in the economy. growing our economy should be our highest priority, as we undertake tax reform. absent sustained and robust growth, our children and grandchildren face a dimmer future. another essential principle is fairness. the tax code should treat similarly situated taxpayers similarly. it should not pick winners and losers. a broader tax base with lower tax rates should be the basis of a fairer tax code. simplicity is also very important principle.

every year americans spend more and more on gross domestic product, well, really we spend more than the gross domestic product of, total gross domestic product much new zealand just to comply with the tax code alone. these billions of dollars could be put to better use elsewhere creating more jobs and providing a greater financial security for families and individuals. permanence is another principle. businesses and hard-working taxpayers should be able to plan for the future without wondering whether the tax code is going to change from year to year. our tax code should also promote american competitiveness. that is another one of my principles. under the current system american employers face numerous competitive disadvantages relative to their foreign counterparts. we need to eliminate these impediments and put our own companies on a level playing field in the world marketplace.

we also need to promote savings and investment. right now our tax code in many ways discourages people from saving and investing which harms growth hinders financial independence, and reduces the quality of life for future generations. that needs to be changed in tax reform. finally, there is the principle of revenue neutrality. if we're scouring our tax code, looking for additional revenue to pay for government spending we're not engaging in a tax reform. we're just plain and simple raising taxes. any attempt to use tax reform as an excuse to raise taxes on businesses or hard-working taxpayers is a needless distraction in my opinion. i don't know any reasonable person who would publicly argue that the american people are undertaxed or american businesses are undertaxed. we need to remember that as we work toward reform. as you know, because of the taxation of american businesses,

some of them are inverting because of better tax rates in other countries and we have a very mobile, moving economy at this point in this country. sadly it doesn't appear that president obama gets it. we've seen reports that in tonight's state of the union address the president plans to call for tax hikes in the name of simplifying the tax code and helping the middle class. the tax hikes he would be proposing is particularly damaging, undoing tax policies successful expanding the economy, promote savings and create jobs. his proposal would send a bad signal to american businesses and their workers who want us to actually help promote the health of the economy. clearly while president obama may be using language typically associated with tax reform his goals depart in many ways from the principles that i have just set forward. revenue neutrality is essential if we're going to enact real reforms. i hope we can get the president

to reverse course on this. simplicity too is important. but it would take creative advertising to argue that what the president will lay out tonight will simplify the tax system. this plan we'll hear about tonight appears to be more about redistribution, with added complexity and class warfare directed at job creation small businesses that about tax reform which is unfortunate to me. because we're going to need real leadership from the white house not just liberal talking points. if tax reform is ever going to be successful we've got to have that leadership. so with myself principles in mind the question becomes, how do we get to reform? i'm sure you all are aware of recent steps we've taken on tax reform in the finance committee. last week ranking member widen and i pointed leaders to five working groups and tasked them to study various areas of the code and offer solutions for reform.

this process i believe puts us on a path whereby partisan tax reform will be achievable. the five working groups are one individual income tax two business income tax three savings and investment, four international tax, and five, community development and infrastructure. my hope is that the committee members in these five bipartisan working groups will use this opportunity to uncover real tax reform solutions and give us real ideas that will aid us in true tax reform. and i believe that is just what they'll do. they're all committed to this process and i believe it is going to work. i speak once again to the cynics who may be out there doubting the intent of this process. this is not an exercise. this is not theater, no nor is it just for show. this is a very real undertaking. i doesn't want to just release a framework or a proposal that don't go anywhere. my only goal when it comes to tax reform to make new law.

the purpose of this endeavor, with the working groups is to produce bipartisan tax reform legislation that will be introduced and marked up by the finance committee later this year. i'm sure all of you have your own thoughts what the final product should look like. i look forward to hearing from you as this process moves forward. in the tax phase we also have to work to fund the highway bill. as you all know the latest iteration of highway funding expires in may. whether we address that as a stand-alone or as part of tax reform we're going to work to find a long-term funding solution to pay for our highways. i agree with chairman ryan that a gas tax increase is very unlikely even though the contractors on highways would readily agree with that. but i believe we can find other solutions. infrastructure properly die find should not be partisan. it should be something that

unites. i'm committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a solution on this very important issue. trade. another high priority item on my finance committee agenda is the advancement much our nation's interest in international trade. this is another area that impacts basically every american. more than 95% of the world's population and 60% of its purchasing power resides outside of the united states. if we want our businesses large and small to be able to compete on the world's stage, they need to have access to these foreign markets. there is just no way around it. trade is essential for a vibrant, growing economy, one that will create more jobs here at home and provide greater prosperity and opportunity for businesses and individual. the u.s. is currently engaged in two of the most ambitious trade negotiations in our nation's history. first, is with like-minded countries in the asia-pacific

region, the trans-pacific partnership or tpp the other is with our allies in the european union, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership or ttip. my goal as chairman of the senate finance committee to help insure these trade agreements meet high standards and provide the very best opportunities for american workers and businesses who hire them. to do that we need to renew tpa, or trade promotion authority. every president since fdr has sought tpa in their efforts to negotiate and conclude high standard trade agreements and you're not going to get them from these countries unless we pass tpa i've been amazed this president hasn't pushed really hard on that after saying that he would but never did. and there is no question it's a a lot of questions are raised. in the last century no major trade agreement has been concluded by an administration and enacted by congress without

trade promotion authority. put simply tpa is essential if these ambitious trade agreements are going to succeed and they must succeed. some argue that tpa cedes too much authority to the president. well i would argue that the opposite is true. the t purchase a legislation that i introduced last year with the two former chairman dave camp and max baucus, actually enhances congress's role in trade negotiations by giving specific directions to the administration as to what they need to deliver to get an agreement through congress. absent the passage of tpa legislation, there is no other way for congress to effectively assert itself and its priors into the ongoing trade negotiations. my plan therefore is to move carefully but quickly to mark up a tpa bill. i'm currently working with ranking member widen and chairman ryan to see if there

are improvement toss it. pa so we can introduce a bipartisan bicameral bill in this congress we can move in short order. i want to thank both of them for working as well as they do together and with me. if president obama can be more forward leaning with members of his party, starting with tonight's state of the union address i think we can get this done quickly. that is what i'm committed to do, while tpa remains the top trade priority there are other important elements of the trade agenda that deserve to be mentioned. this congress has to move to renew the generalized system of preferences, rethor size the -- rethorrize the customs and border protection and immigrations and customs enforcement agencies and african growth opportunity act or agoa. all are important. my plan is to move sooner rather than later on all these

priorities late they are year as well. health care, i would like to take a few minutes to talk about health care policy. there is a lot to discuss when it comes to our nation's health care system. of course hanging over every discussion we have is a so-called, quote, affordable care act unquote. no one in this room should be surprised to learn that opposed the affordable care act and think that it should be repealed but i'm also realistic with president obama in the white house, we'll never get a full repeal enacted into law. while he is president. but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. while we may not yet be able to repeal obamacare we'll continue to strike away at it piece by piece if we have to. just last week i introduced, reduced bipartisan legislation to repeal obama's job-killing medical device tax. i also plan to introduce a bill to repeal the employer mandate, one of obamacare's other anti-job provisions.

the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed the hire more heroes act, a bipartisan measure that will help veterans find work by exempting them from the employer mandate on small businesses. that passed 100% of those voting on it in the house. we'll definitely take that up in the senate. in fact my plan this will be the first bill we mark up in the finance committee. that's, that is the plan of the leadership too. there are other bills in the pipeline. many of which expose different parts of the affordable care act's negative impact on jobs and the economy. including legislation to restore the 40-hour work week. i plan on having the finance committee work through these bills to send them all to the president's desk to explain to the american people why he is right and they're all wrong. but let's be clear. it is not enough for committee or entire congress to simply send messages on obamacare.

we need to work toward positive solutions of our own. in the last congress i worked with senators burr and coburn to develop a legitimate alternative to obama care. the patient care act. our plan addresses the shortcomings of obamacare head on expanding patient choice, curbing rising health care costs and injectioning market forces into our health care system n this congress i'm going to work to bring others on board with our solution. i reached out to experts and stakeholders for their thoughts and critiques on our plan and i hope they will continue to offer their guidance as we move forward. it is important that republicans begin to unite behind an alternative to obamacare because as we all know the supreme court is going to rule on the legitimacy of the obamacare subsidies by the end of june. can they give subsidies to federally-established exchanges?

and of course the language is unambiguous. i personally believe the court is going to say they can't do that. okay? the supreme court will rule on the legitimacy of obamacare subsidies by the end of june. now of course, i can express my own opinion on that how the court should rule in king versus burwell. i won't speculate how the decision will turn out except express my own personal opinion. i just say we should be prepared because should the court validate subsidies to exchange we need to mitigate the discsal damage obamacare will inflict on the health care system and that is something we have to be working on. finally in terms of health care there are a few must-pass items on the finance committee's agenda. one of these is the childrens health insurance program or chip which is set to expire in september. we heard from a number of

governors from red states and blue states alike they want to see this program extended. it is a marvlous program. it worked very very well. i'm optimistic we can work on a bipartisan bicameral basis to extend chip in a responsible way. in addition there is medicare sustainable growth rate or sgr. that expires on march 1st. last year i joined five of my colleagues introducing a bipartisan bicameral bill to fix the broken sgr formula with an improved payment system. that system rewards quality, efficiency and innovation. these efforts will continue in this congress and my goal in the finance committee to address the sgr challenge once and for all. entitlement reform. while we're on the subject of medicare, i want to talk about our enforcement programs overall. as i mentioned, we're facing unprecedented fiscal crisis in

the coming years. if we don't act to shore up our unsustainable entitlement programs. medicare medicaid and social security. they are out of whack. the stakes here are enormous. with these programs we're talking about tens of trillions of dollars. now you heard that right, tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. our nation's permanent fiscal health not to mention our economy and the future of the safety net stand in the balance. everyone talks about entitlement reform but few are willing to do anything about it. and every election our friend on the other side raise that we're trying to destroy social security. nothing could be further from the truth. they just keep kicking the proverbial can down the road on this issue. we need to act and do so sooner rather than later. in the last congress i proposed

five separate bipartisan reforms to our health care entitlements and shared them with anyone who would listen and even some, including the president would not listen. four of these, those reforms focused on medicare and included raising the eligibility age reforming the supplemental insurance system simplifying cost-sharing and introducing competitive bidding into the sim. the fifth reform dealt with medicaid by setting per capita limits on federal medicaid spending. each of these ideas has at some time in the recent past enjoyed the support of members of both parties. this is not a republican wish-list of terrible things we would like to do to medicare and medicaid. these are reasonable ideas that put forward to begin the discussion on entitlement reform. of course we also need to talk about social security a program with $25 trillion again with a

t, in unfunded obligations. the disability insurance trust fund in social security is expected to be exhausted sometime around 2016. so there really is an urgency to act. that is not anyone creating a false crisis, it is a fact. even social security trustees who include officials from president obama's administration urge action and agree. in fact in their words, not mine quote, legislation action is needed as soon as possible unquote. i will be working with a bicameral and bipartisan legislation to motivate dialogue and begin to confront social security's financial changes in this congress. of the. .

of course our income tax system is ill-suited of having ever greater shares of economy from private hands so the inevitable result of ailing to have our entitlements would be a future with yet more ways of the government grabbing resources such as value-added taxes or carbon taxes. i believe a future with all of the above strategy and taxing americans is something we must avoid if we truly value the strength and dynamism of the american economy. okay, pensions. another priority for me this year will be pension reform. the purpose of pension reform is

to help hard-working americans achieve financial independence in retirement. legislation introduced in the last congress, the security entities for employee requirement act called a safe retirement act is designed to do just that. a safe retirement act which the finance committee will take up in this congress will increase opportunities for americans to save for their retirement and help make sure that that money last a lifetime. no small feat in a world where people are living longer and longer lives. my bill would to a number of things. for example, we create a starter 401(k) plan design for small or startup businesses that are not a position to contribute to a plan but still want to help their employees save. it also allows unrelated small employers to pool their assets in a simple 401(k) plan to achieve better investment outcomes, lower costs, and had easier administration.

in addition the safe retirement act encourages thick-skinned -- fixed annuity contract. my legislation tackles one of the most pressing retirement programs facing the country. the problem of poorly funded state and local defined benefit pension plans which are bankrupting states and local governments. look at illinois. it's the biggest problem i have right now. california, you can name almost all blue states and they are in trouble. some of you may know the urban institute has established a comprehensive system for evaluating municipal pension plans across the country. the system grades varies plans using seven separate criteria. i'm glad to say the safe retirement act is the only plan in the country to receive aid grades under all seven criteria. in other words, they gave my plan the highest grade given in the country. i remain convinced my plan represents the best solution to

the growing pension crisis in america. by the way safe retirement act ensures hard-working americans will continue to have affordable access to professional investment advice i restoring jurisdiction over the ira fiduciary duty rule to the treasury department come and requiring treasury to consult with the securities and exchange commission when practicing rules relating to the professional standard of care owed by brokers and investment advisers to ira owners. it only makes sense to give treasury the lead. after all, the fiduciary duty rule for iras is in the tax code. i look forward to seeing the safe retirement act enacted into law. i'd like to talk briefly about the debt ceiling which is going to come our way. likely sometime about midyear. but the limit is yet another major item that falls under the finance committee's jurisdiction. makes you wonder why i went on

this committee to begin with. [laughter] it is at this point on certain have a new extension of the debt limit will be processed and what that will entail. but rest assured the finest committee will play a role in whatever outcome is reached. human resources. another area of judgment that falls under the finance committee's jurisdiction is that of jurisdiction -- human resources. the federal government needs to be a better steward of taxpayer dollars and ensure that funded social interventions actually produce positive outcomes for vulnerable children and families. we should fund what we know works relative to the child welfare system and stop spending scarce taxpayer dollars on what actually hurts children. there are a number of funding streams in the jurisdiction for the senate finance committee that have languished for years without appropriate oversight

and evaluation. as chairman i will review programs like the temporary assistance for needy damage program and the social services block grant to determine if they are producing positive results. and if not what we can do about it. during the last congress i work with senator bennet of colorado to introduce legislation to promote private and public partnerships to promote effective cost savings social intervention. sometimes this is referred to as social impact of bonds. this approach to social service delivery and could offer states and the federal government of viable pathway to innovate promising strategies to achieve positive results and save taxpayer dollars at the same time. i plan to continue our work in this area during the 114th congress. last but surely not least and you are probably glad i'm getting to the end of this, this thing today but you can see

the committee has a tremendous jurisdiction and we have tremendous problems and they are all earthshaking problems. so last, certainly not least i want to talk about oversight. the finest when has a long tradition of vigorous and effective oversight whether it is dealing with our administrative agencies under our jurisdiction or in some cases entities and the private sector. i plan to make sure that tradition continues. michael as chairman will be cheated very progressive but their inner oversight efforts. for too long agencies under the committee's jurisdiction have evaded oversight by simply ignoring congressional requests for information. as the saying goes that is a dog that just won't hunt. the stonewall inn will come to an end one way or another. truckstop we need to look closely at the implementation of obamacare. from hhs to the irs and cms we need to see exactly how they're spending taxpayer money and what burdens their actions are placing on taxpayers. most people don't know this but

the administration spent nearly a billion dollars on state exchanges that were never implemented. and now the states with failed exchange what the federal government to spend hundreds of millions more to help them get their federal exchange working in order. we need to know what happened whether that money will ever be paid back. we will also hold the administration accountable for the management of our entitlement programs and expose any management choices that have led to the loss of billions of taxpayer funds. we will also need to ensure accountability from the administration on the often will take programs and actions undertaken at the treasury the social security administration and other agencies. these agencies are responsible for spending tens of billions of dollars on administered costs alone. and for literally trillions of dollars, the payments to and tax receipts from hard-working american, workers and

businesses. those responsibility out for too long been executed in the shadowy bureaucracies that exist in treasury and social security. we have a responsibility to all americans to ensure that they now have the resources are being utilized and to take decision-making out of the shadows and into the light of the day. oversight of the administration is one of the most important jobs of any committee, and i'm going to make sure that our oversight efforts yield results will improve the way our government functions. how upper the question whether congress we just budget reconciliation as the means of getting several high profile items passed through both chambers. that is a question that has been raised, particularly with regard to health care and tax reform. i know many of your questions about this so let me just say that when it comes to items that fall under the jurisdiction of the finance committee, my preference is to work towards bipartisan solutions.

however, we should not and in my opinion cannot take any two off the table. the stakes are just too high to limit ourselves like that. should we decide to go that route i will work with my colleagues on the budget committee to make sure whatever we do under the finance committee's jurisdiction is effective. as you can consume of a lot on her plate in the finance committee given the challenges we face as a country the size of our jurisdiction, that's the way it has to be. but i think it's a good thing. the senate finance committee has a long tradition of effectiveness and bipartisanship bipartisanship. i have always been proud to serve on this committee for just that reason. so i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee both republicans and democrats to make this agenda a reality, and i look forward to working with all of you and taking your good suggestions. i know that you have not loath to give them. i would go back to what i said about ambition. while some collaborations foolhardy or unrealistic i believe we have to be ambitious

if we're going to do anything worthwhile. we must be ambitious if we're going to solve all of the problems we discussed today at help our country prospered. we must be ambitious if we're going to do good things for the american people. i just want to tell you how much i appreciate the work of the u.s. chamber of commerce, either per share their support in my reelections, and i've appreciated the support of on capitol hill on some issues that helped have helped to make this country a better place. to live work, and raise families. i want to thank you all this morning for what you do. god bless you come and god bless our wonderful country. thank you much. [applause]

>> a [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any other remarks we heard today at the conference you can watch them on line. we will have them up at c-span.org and take a look at capitol hill today. the senate returning after the mlk holiday weekend both the house and senate and today. the house like a 12:00 eastern over on c-span.

working on a resolution on the paris terrorist attacks. over in the senate live 10:00 as well in about 70 minutes from now here on c-span2 big to be working on the keystone xl on the pipeline and some of the amendments related to the bill. we heard more from senator john hoeven over the weekend from north dakota. he was on newsmakers and he talked about the keystone xl pipeline and other issues. >> newsmakers is pleased to welcome senator john hoeven of north dakota this week. he is the sponsor of the keystone xl pipeline bill that the senate is considering. we will talk to him about that and other issues related to energy and policy let me introduce our to guess. and is wall street journals editor reporter and she has been following this for quite a while. neil is cq cq roll call congressional report and we're pleased that both of you. amy, you're the first question. >> senator cummings i'd been debating this bill for six years

with administration redoing the pipeline since 2008. more and more people are saying on both sides this debate is overblown but the jobs in pakistan is because the climate impact is not that big. do you agree with those people who think this debate is not cannot be as big as it is. if you think that the really think you can us with the bill that the bill is pushing to put republicans in control? >> first off not only been aware of this project i think six years with working on a budget been out to north dakota to see first hand what is going on. you and many others know it well. it's a big issue. it's about building the energy infrastructure we need to truly be energy sector to elect refer to it as north american energy security, meaning the energy we produce in the united states together with canada and we produce more energy than we consume. and consumers are reaping the benefit right now. look at the price at the pump. gas is down more than 1 dollar a gallon at the pump. if we equate that the attacks

could they would be more than $100 billion for american consumers. so the point is this. we need to build the energy infrastructure to have the kind of energy plan we're building for this country for north america. that's what this is about. the opponents are trying to block it but it's not just this project. it is the bigger picture. >> on your point on oil prices to think he's low oil prices presents an opportunity for congress to pass overriding of measures that may be harder to do and higher gasoline and private such as perhaps higher gasoline and diesel taxes exporting oil? have been a growing amount of academics who say it is a prime opportunity. >> i'm not a fan of higher taxes. either as governor or in my job innocent. we need to do tax reform and to get revenue from economic growth not higher taxes. in regards to other types of legislation yes, we got the public and the business climate in this country that empowers

the investment to produce more energy, more cost-effectively. the infrastructure to move it more efficiently, more safely. at the same time that develops and deploys a technology that gives us a better environment for storage. that's a we have to do is build a climate for investment continue to grow energy resource at home. >> i wanted to ask because you have the first sort of bite at the apple in terms of getting a bill on the floor this year it's the first test of the new open amendment process, that is something that is entirely unfamiliar to a lot of recently arriving senators from the leadership of senator reid. i'm curious how that's going in terms of the progress that's being made and if you see at what point you see majority leader mcconnell possibly pulling the plug and single day we've had enough of this. people are bringing their amendments to the for. we have to move on.

>> that's a really good question to dovetail of what you just said, why is this the first bill up. it's the first bill up because we're trying to build the right kind of energy plan for this country but also because we have this open amendment process which means returning to regular order in the senate. republicans, democrats alike can bring their amendments down for legislation, have today, get a vote. so we'll have a good debate on energy which we need to have. will work to get the job done for the american people but we are hoping that this helps create more bipartisanship and open up the senate break through the gridlock, not only on this legislation but of the legislation as well. i expect we will be on this bill probably for several more weeks so that people have their opportunity to offer amendments and vote. >> and how is the amendments negotiating going? i know, i figured you were involved in senator murkowski of alaska is the chairwoman of the committee is probably taking the lead on that effort.

but how is that going so far? >> it's going well. i want to give senator murkowski a lot of credit for working to get this process going and being very open. she can work with both sides of the aisle very well. we are really welcoming all of minutes. we already have a number of amendments that are pending. we will vote on them next week starting on tuesday. so i think that's going very well. some of those of minutes of course are for people who are for the underlying bill and some of those. >> somebody been offered a pretty controversial both within the democratic party and within the republican party. senator ted cruz republican from texas is offered an amendment to repeal the oil export ban. there are some people both in industry on capitol hill that would rather not see a vote on the. do you think the senate should vote on lifting the ban on oil export? >> we talked about this before. it's a debate we need to have, a discussion we need to have. people need to understand why it's a benefit in terms of growing our industry in this

country and long-term lower gas prices at the pump benefiting the consumer more jobs economic growth. we are still doing our homework so whether this is a time when we would get enough people to support something like that you know, and maybe a little soon but again that it's a debate we need to have a discussion, part of having a bigger energy debate. that's something we anticipated working on this year regardless whether it's on this bill or maybe on some other energy legislation that we will be working on a little tighter. >> senator, bernie sanders can independent from vermont is pushing an amendment that says climate, a sense that climate change is real caused by humans, something that needs to be done. among the democratic party to be some sort of climate change in them that would be voted on. questions about whether senator mcconnell will allow a vote to do you think they should be a vote on that one anti-think it could be politically controversial for some members of the republican party?

>> we will have an open amendment process of he wants to offer, i'm pretty sure he will get a vote on. i don't think senator mcconnell is trying to block it on. i would expect senator sanders will offer an intimate and we'll have a vote. like i say we will have the amendments from republicans and democrats. some and minutes are from people who support the legislation and some that are opposed. >> how would you oppose -- how would you vote on the measure? >> senator sanders offer that type of uncommitted. i motion to table it would voted to table the amendment. i made the point, why don't you offered on the floor? if it's the same anonymity offered in committee i would vote against it. >> today, friday, nasa scientists announced that 2014 was the hottest warmest climate year on record. i'm wondering how that statistic on that fact fits in with

broader energy pages been referencing. >> i think it makes a point i continue trying to emphasize that is the way that you get more energy on a more affordable basis, more dependably and move it more safely is if you build the infrastructure and making investments to develop and deploy the new technologies that help us produce the energy any more environmentally friendly way. when you block the investments that do that which is what the administration is doing with keystone can you prevent us from developing the technology that helps great better environmental stewardship. for oilsands, produce oil on it per barrel a system for greenhouse commissions have been reduced by 28% since 1990, almost a third. right now both shell and exxon have multimillion dollar projects going on out there to do code generation and carbon capture and storage. if we can develop carbon capture and storage up there that can be applied in this country and other places around the goal. that's a you develop the

technology to improve environmental stewardship. >> on the point of not just energy infrastructure but even broader in the infrastructure area, we are hearing that the president is going to have come has made some announcements about infrastructure today. the vice president i believe with the epa administrator in secretary of agriculture as well as a mayor of the district are going to have an event to date on that. what do you think that the federal, is there anything you're looking for here in terms of infrastructure that you think you might actually hear from the president in the state of the union address next week? >> number one what it was like your is that he will work with us. work with us. our number one focus is creating jobs and growing the economy. making sure that all americans have opportunity for job. this very first bill is about jobs. you know the key is if users working with us instead of when we have legislation that is supported on a bipartisan basis and has overwhelming public

support the first thing he does is issue a veto threat. work with us. that's number one. but in terms of infrastructure i think we've got to do a highway bill this year and i think we can to a six-year a long-term highway bill. that's got to be a prodi. that's something you should talk about. also working on tree. we should be up to expand trade. that's good for all industry sectors. lets you about areas where we can come together. >> are you in the camp with some of your republican colleagues and i think democrats as well who are talking about using revenues that may be gleaned from a corporate tax overhaul or possibly using reconciliation to try and come up with a way forward on funding the highway bill that might not be a gas tax,%? >> if you mean repatriation, i think that's an idea that has a lot of merit and a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. so that's one of the reasons i think we can get a long-term

highway built on issue because i think if you use repatriation to have opportunity to have those revenues to the highway bill without raising taxes. i talked to the ceo of microsoft or microsoft alone has something like $80 billion parked overseas that come to bring it back we face a large tax burden but if we did something on repatriation they could bring it back, creates revenues we could invested in in infrastructure like any highway bill. >> he referenced the president's veto threat on the pipeline come you were for votes short of an override. are those findable speak with we will see. that's why we're having to open in a process to foster bipartisanship and get something that can't attract for more votes so it is at the 67 vote threshold. if we can't then our you know, plan b would be to bring the bill back attached to other must pass legislation either broader energy legislation or perhaps an

appropriate measure. and there is precedent for doing that. the first keystone though i had written which we passed in 2012 we attached to the payroll tax holiday. it passed with 73 votes. >> of course that was to be president obama make a decision within 60 days correct? >> you are showing you truly have followed this spent i did come and he rejected it. >> that's what he came back and wrote this bill which has congress approving the project. >> the president has been critical of the pipeline in the last several months. time in quite well with november elections in fact the he's been saying that the jobs are temporary and, therefore someone not as good as perhaps some other broader infrastructure jobs but she's been saying they won't lower gasoline prices. we can debate the facts all day. what about hear from you is what you make of these negative comments? do you think that signals he's getting ready to reject the pipeline? if he does, what can congress do at that point?

>> number one we've addressed every one of those criticisms and we use his own administration's information to his own administration and by middle impact statements to rebut the reasons or the excuses is given for not approving the project. it's really hard to understand why he doesn't make a decision if he is opposed to it and have some rationale to turn it down why are we still sitting here six years later and he hasn't done that? and then when you have poll after poll showing 65-70% support from the american public for the project, and with a bipartisan majority in the house and the senate, and every single state on the root of all six states have approved it, why does he still not make a decision? and he says he has a process. how can you say you have a process when you hold it up for no viable reason for more than six years? again it just doesn't make sense but it think it goes back to the fundamental fact that the american people want this done

and he is essentially holding it up on behalf of special interest groups. >> what are you going to do if he rejects it? >> i've always said i think we will win on the merits. so i think if he rejected it again i think we would approve the congressionally. it goes back to the merits. energy jobs, economic growth. >> we would be in this tug of war back and forth. >> that goes to susan's earlier question. we will see in either attach it to must pass legislation argue to the 67 votes. >> if i can use that to dovetail into the subject of must pass legislation, though i don't think this is one you're talking about in reference to we might try to advance keystone, it's my understanding you may well be that chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee in this new congress. if that is true, your

appropriation bill is up that department is running under stopgap spending. i'm curious if you have a take away, particularly from the recent retreat the republicans in both house the house and the senate were just in hershey, pennsylvania, on what the prognosis is for keeping the department of homeland security funded past the end of february? >> as you have seen from speaker boehner, leader mcconnell and others, chairman of call on the house side we are going to make sure homeland security is funded at the same time to everything we can to block the executive order issued by the president obama. >> going back to the keystone debate, of course the underlying bill is a mere two pages and 400 words long but in the debate -- >> we will leave this conversation with senator hoeven. you can find it online, c-span.org. take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate returned after the mlk holiday weekend. starting today with the morning

speeches and resuming debate on a bill to approve the keystone xl oil pipeline. they will break a run 1230 him for party lunches in the back to work on a mammoth to the keystone bill. later tonight live coverage on c-span2 as the senate gathered at 830 eastern to head over to the house for the state of the union address. live preview program that starts at 8 p.m. eastern with your phone calls over on c-span. and in coverage of the state of the union address across the c-span networks. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. oh lord, our lord, how excellent is your name on all the earth.