as chairman mccall noted, it is now been almost 14 years since 9/11, some of what i've seen in your report calls to mind the troubling pre-9/11 trend that we had. i know you are a former department of justice official. a former assistant to the united states attorney. as you know, we had a problem before 9/11 where law enforcement was not shipping information, or connecting the dots. we had an excuse back then -- the law did not allow it. we changed of the law. i want to ask you about your report. use a tsa did not identify these individuals because tsa isn't cleared to receive all terrorism categories under the current agency guidance. that i restate that accurately? ms. fitzmaurice: mr. roth: yes sir.

mr. ratcliffe: is this a situation where we need to change the law? mr. roth: it may very well be. my suggestion would allow tsa to deal with the office of national intelligence, and determine whether or not they would be able to have access to this information. if not, it may require a change in the law. i would say i share your concerns that information shipping is critical particularly in this area. even if there is information in the tide database that is unsubstantiated, it is still useful to do a review of someone who will not unfettered access to secure areas in the airport. what is troubling about the tide database, and the checks, is that tsa is being treated as if they were a walmart. an individual holding a site

badge stand in line at walmart to determine whether or not the will be a criminal history check. mr. ratcliffe: let me ask you about that. we talked a little bit about that in your testimony. you talked about the fact that airport operators reviewed the criminal histories for new applicants for these badges. tsa, and the airports, are not legally aren't -- authorized for this. is that correct? mr. roth: yes. mr. ratcliffe: then, how do they know if an employee has committed a crime during their tenure at the airport? mr. roth: and that is the difficulty. that is why tsa is providing this program they will start at the end of this year. to get vetting into the fbi started.

currently, that is a vulnerability. mr. ratcliffe: do they have the ability to check against marshall services? ms. fitzmaurice: we do check against them. mr. ratcliffe: that does not prevent against all crimes correct? ms. fitzmaurice: correct. mr. ratcliffe: i see them at times expired, i yield back. mr. katko: i never recognize mr. keating five minutes. mr. keating: he said reminds him of "groundhog day" it reminds me

of "catch me if you can. one of the major things that came out of that was the fact that there was real jurisdictional problems with airports. we are hearing that today. in very severe terms. i want to follow up, and say if you have not complied by the airport, what can you do about it? we have found holes in perimeter's not being looked at. they were cited as molar abilities. nothing was done. it was no enforcement over those municipal airports. we are seeing now in testimony this morning when you are reviewing someone for employment you were doing only 1% of it. you're finding mistakes they did not do. yet, how was that followed up? how were they penalized?

it seems like we have a basic jurisdictional issue, aside from information sharing where you have federal agencies that aren't giving each other information that they should. we can change the lot major that is the case. yet, what are you doing with the biggest maladies -- the municipalities? take the exit lanes movie authority away from the tsa employees, and give it to the local municipal employees? given what was discussed this morning, as it fair to say that it is officially dead? willy stopped pushing that -- will you stop pushing that?

will the replace them with municipal employees? are you aware of what that effort has been like, trying to shift that? ms. fitzmaurice: i want to make sure i understand your question. you're asking whether we would take back the responsibility of the airport? mr. keating: you have been asking airports to shift the responsibility, to take the responsibility. many airports are right next to where people are coming in. that has been delayed in part because of members of the committee expressed concerns. is it fair to say that will not be pursued anymore? ms. fitzmaurice: i don't have an answer for you on that. i will have to get back to you. mr. keating: also, when we are looking at the number studies

all the vulnerability studies we found that it is less than 3% of the airports that are being reviewed. we found that it is only 1% now. we also know that the airports are not doing their job either. so we have these lapses all the way through. i would hope, maybe i can ask mr. roth this, do you think there is a need to have more accountability and a better need to enforce the operations of airport authorities? they can just look at the recommendations, look at what is been found, and we are not clear if anything has been done, other than them. they can shrug their shoulders as they did with perimeter security. they can say we don't have the resources. i don't want to see a situation where we have a tragedy.

the federal government is pointing their finger at the principality's, the authorities pointed at the federal government, other law enforcement, finger-pointing is dangerous. it will get us nowhere. how could -- do you think there is a need in what the tsa can do with airports? mr. roth: you raise a good point. we have not done work on that. i would be willing to consider it. irrespective of whether tsa follows up, and finds out whether the airport officials are doing criminal history checks, when they find noncompliance, what do they do about it? i don't have the answer. mr. keating: i have the answer when a comfortable ability studies -- nothing -- will ability studies -- vulnerability

studies -- nothing. >> i appreciate your leadership in this most disruptive study. i appreciate your report. there are several things that were very disturbing to me. first of all, my understanding is that security credentials are being given to individuals regardless of their authorization dates, is that correct? mr. roth: that is correct. we found that you can get a security badge that would not turn off at the termination of your authority to work. >> you are telling me we might that people, we probably do, who are walking around, non-escorted, and our airports who are here illegally? mr. roth: who not have authorization to work, yes. >> you know, certainly we have

these people social security numbers, correct? we have these people social security numbers? mr. roth: we do not. >> you are telling me we have people walking around on escorted insecure areas -- un-escorted, insecure areas and we don't even have there's a security number? holy cow. the report in the inspector general investigation found that we have thousands of incomplete or inaccurate applications. can i ask you, if you will bear with me, can you give me the first initial of your first name?

s.? do you think i can guess your first name and those three minutes? my point is simply this -- we have applications that only have the first initial of the first name. ms. fitzmaurice: that is correct. >> does that scare you? ms. fitzmaurice: we are looking at, and concerned with where we have erroneous, and the missing information. we are taking actions, we have implemented logic and ever system. >> i appreciate that. i really do. i travel usually twice through the busiest airport in the world. to think that we may have people walking around in that airport who we don't even know what the name is. we don't have the social security number, isn't that

something -- look, i am ok. i am confident i can take care of myself. i want to major my son is ok. my youngest son is coming up tomorrow. should this be taken care of immediately? ms. fitzmaurice: we are taking actions for continued improvement to improve the data quality for the betting systems. mr. carter: i just can't believe that in a world's busiest airport, we could have people walking around on escorted -- unescorted, whose social security number we don't know or their names. we are talking about this? we have to be at the phone right

now. we have to figure this out. i am appalled at this. i appreciate the efforts here, and i appreciate all the efforts of all of you but we need to take care of this immediately. i yield. mr. katko: thank you, mr. carter, i think the committee shares her frustration. -- your frustration. instead, we chose to have this human. i want to juxtapose tsa's response to serious problems with what the committee has done. we found out about this a week ago. we are having a hearing today and are marking up a bill to fix this problem. the point is -- if you have issues, and you need things done, i encourage tsa to come to us because we can give you fixes rather than waiting a year

to hope to get something while gaps continue. i know tsa is working on issues. we had a problem at pre-check. a bill is being introduced next week to deal with expanding the project program. we have that run properly. we concluded it was not. we take a lot of nonsecure, and put them into pre-check that is not right. back to be fixed. with access control, that is absolutely positively abysmal. when the learner having guns on airplanes, it is a problem. it cannot wait for discussions. we will have discussions about

that. we also have many other things we are working on. i can tell you going forward, i highly encourage tsa to work with us. to close ranks, and say we are working on the issue. your employees are not getting checked against the database. they are still sit -- spinning the wheels. you are entrusted with our nations of security. we need to do a better job. it starts with the leadership. it took us months of begging the president just to appoint a successor. that is unacceptable in such an important agency. we will not wait for things to happen. we will legislate. we can't wait for these things

to be fixed. i encourage you to keep doing what you are doing. you expose issues that need to be taken care of. i know it is a lot of work. what you're doing is critically important. i applaud both of you. keep it up. with that, i want to thank the witnesses. the members of the committee may have additional questions, we will have responses to these in writing. the committee stands adjourned. i will note, we are going right to mark up after break and will have these built out of committee today. that is how it should be done. [inaudible]

>> tomorrow, a discussion on the iranian nuclear negotiations. c-span's live coverage from the american conservative union starts at 11:30 a.m. on c-span3, the atlantic council hosts a discussion on u.s.-brazil relations. >> c-span2 to the best access to congress. -- c-span gives you the best access to congress. every morning, washington journal is live with elected officials, and journalists, and your comments. created by america's cable

companies, and brought to you as a public service. >> it would give president obama more latitude in negotiating trade deals. the modified a bill now returns to the senate. he was part of thursday's house debate. mpore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: well, welcome back, everybody. i have to admit i'm a little disappointed that we are back here today. last week a bipartisan majority stepped up to pass trade promotion authority. that vote showed that republicans and democrats can still come together to do what is right for this country. it was a vote that i'm very proud of. unfortunately, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle would not stand with their president and voted to sacrifice

a program that they support, a program that they asked for in order to block our path. it was disappointing, but we are not going to be discouraged. that's why we are back here today. enacting trade promotion authority is critical for our economy and our national security. and so we are going to get it done here today. why do we need t.p.a.? well, mr. speaker, it's pretty easy. easy question to answer, because we need more trade. 95% of the world's consumers, they don't live in america. they live in other countries. and if we want to make more things here and sell them there then we need to tear down those trade barriers that make american goods and services more expensive. we know that trade is good for our economy. one in five jobs in america are already tied to trade.

and they pay on average 18% more. we also need more trade to bolster our foreign policy and our national security. stronger economic ties leads to stronger security ties. more market share means more inplunes. that's why so many national security -- influence. that's why so many national security forces, former military leaders, former secretary of defense, former secretaries of state have all called on congress to pass t.p.a. they understand what is at stake here mr. speaker. what is at stake here is no less than america's credibility. because the rules of the global economy, they are being written right now. the question is, who is going to write those rules? will it be the united states and our allies? or will it be other nations that don't share our values? or don't share our commitment to free enterprise and the rule of law. our friends in asia and europe are getting ready to place their

bets. they want to sign up for american-style free enterprise. but they need to know that the united states is going to stand strong as a reliable ally, as a reliable trading partner before they do that. that's what t.p.a. is all about. so how does it work? we have heard all kinds of crazy misinformation spread by the opponents of of trade. i mean crazy stuff, really. let me one more time explain what t.p.a. is, and what t.p.a. is not. t.p.a. is a process. it's not an agreement. it's a process that gives us the best shot at getting a good trade agreement. it's a process dating back decades that congress has used to insert itself into trade negotiations in order to provide

more accountability and more transparency to the administration, to the president and this t.p.a., this t.p.a. has more transparency and more accountability than any version ever before. it lays out 150 objectives and guidelines that the administration must follow while negotiating a trade deal. these are our priorities. if the president wants an agreement, then he must meet to address these priorities. he must meet these guidelines in order to get it passed through congress. this t.p.a. also requires that the administration consult with congress during the negotiations. give us access to all of the text. provide timely briefings on demand. allow members to attend the negotiating rounds as accredited advisors if we want to. if we are in session, we send our people much that's what the zinke amendment accomplishes.

finally, perhaps most importantly, mr. speaker, t.p.a. ensures that the american people can lead any trade agreement, every trade agreement, long before anyone is asked to vote on it. 60 days. an agreement must be made public and posted online for 60 days before it can even be sent to congress. this turns fast track into slow track track. mr. speaker, it's temperatures, it's effective oversight, and it's accountability. because if the president doesn't meet these requirements or doesn't follow the negotiating objectives we can turn t.p.a. off for that agreement. we can cancel the vote. we can amend the agreement or stop it entirely. so ultimately we, congress, we always have the final say. no agreement takes effect. no laws are changed unless we vote to allow it. this process t.p.a., creates a path between congress and the administration that allows our

trading partners to know that we speak with one voice. it allows them to make their best efforts, knowing that as long as the administration follows t.p.a. congress will not try to rewrite an agreement later. in other words it gives america credibility, mr. speaker. and, boy, do we need credibility right now. make no mistake. all of my colleagues, make no mays take, the world is watching us. they are watching this vote. the foreign policy failures of the last few years, not to mention the stunt pulled here last week have capitals all around the world wondering if america still has it. are we still the leader? are we still the republic that other countries aspire to be? they want to know that we are still willing to engage, still willing to lead. that we are still a nation that's out front. or are we in retreat and decline? we are here today to answer that question again. america does not retreat. america leads.

and that is why i urge my colleagues to vote yes for t.p.a. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: it is said that we should write the rules not china. but make no mistake. the we is not congress. leaving us with only a yes or no vote at the very end. to vote for t.p.a. now is to surrender congressional leverage to get it right in shaping t.p.p., the most significant trade negotiation in decades. congress will have settled for a bill with so-called congressional negotiating objectives, so vage they are essentially meaningless. it won't matter to those who

basically approach trade with a 19th century dogma, trade between any two nations will naturally be beneficial. simply matching the comparative economic advantages of of each. but that has not worked out when in this era one nation manipulates its currency as it trades with the other. when nations suppress worker rights to keep their wages low. or degrade their environment to help them compete. or when nations heavily subsidize their markets, or they keep their markets closed while their competitor keeps them very open in vital areas whether industrial or agricultural. so let us write the rules. but congress must be sure they are right. we must make sure that the beneficiaries are the many in

our nation not just the few. as often stated in this debate trade does, indeed, create winners and losers. as one who has worked hard to help put together expanded trade agreements, i know that in a globalizing world economy failure to write the rules effectively is one of the reasons there have been too many losers, millions of jobs lost, with middle class wages stagnant for decades. while the relative few have done so well. congress should not give what would be identify sentionly a blank check to u -- essentially a blank check on ustr on key outstanding issues on the t.p.p. negotiations. with this t.p.a. you are saying fine, to no meaningful currency provision. you are saying fine to giving

private investors in growing numbers the ability to choose an unregulated arbitration panel instead of a well established judicial system in order to overturn local or national health or environmental regulations. with this t.p.a. you cannot be confident. vietnam and mexico would adhere to meaningful labor standards. with this t.p.a. you can't be confident that japan will open its market at long last to our cars or agricultural products. and with this t.p.a., you can't be confident that there will be access to lifesaving medicines. despite a bombardment of rhetoric, instead of the approach that we laid out in a substitute that we have not even been allowed to consider in the committee or in this house the reality that this t.p.a. will

not put congress in the driver's seat but the back seat. for t.p.p. and for six years in important negotiations with europe and t. tip and who knows what else. congress has -- ttip and who noles what else. congress has the responsibility to get trade negotiations on the right track not the fast track. vote no. i keep the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to a senior member of the house ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: thank you, chairman ryan for your leadership. free trade, economic freedom. with as little government interfeernts as possible. it's one of the great economic rights of every american. given the choice between more economic freedom or less, we should always choose more. we know if america doesn't lead

in fair trade, we'll grow weaker and our foreign competitors will grow stronger and our factories and manufacturers will be priced out and shut down. texas is made for trade. america is made for trade. it's time through expanded trade to preserve these economic principles that have helped us thrive and grow. that's why congress flexing its constitutional muscle and setting clear rules for future american trade is not just a good thing for america. it's a great thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield two minutes to the chairman ofure caucus and a member of our committee -- of our caucus and a member of our committee, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. so this trade promotion authority legislation, as we heard is all about writing the

rules. writing the rules on trade. it's about who will lead or who will retreat on insisting on free and fair trade. this t.p.a. legislation sets forward the instructions on how we will write the rules in any trade agreement. ok. who is going to lead writing the rules? on currency manipulation where countries, not just the companies but the countries themselves that want to trade with us, are cheating by manipulating their currency to make the value of their goods look less expensive than american products in the same area. when those countries are cheating, what are we going to say should be the rules when it comes to turncy manipulation? under this t.p.a., we can't say anything. because we are prohibited from including anything in a trade agreement that will deal with currency manipulation. so you then have to ask a second

question. wait a minute, you're telling me countries going to sign these deals are allowed to cheat when it comes to how they manipulate their currency so their products will look cheaper than ours? and we are supposed to depend on those same countries that are cheating to now enforce the rules in these agreements against companies in those countries that are cheating? . what kind of instruction is that? what about when it comes to letting people in america know what's in these deals? what if we want to know where the products that are gick to brought and sold in our store, where they come from? shouldn't we have the right, if we want to know the country of origin of a particular product? i've heard about tainted milk coming from places around the world. we've heard about toys with dangerous chemicals in them that our kids play with. don't we want toe know where these things are coming from? not that we're going to degrade the place where they come from,

but we want to know -- made in the u.s.a. or made somewhere else. under this t.p.a., we can't ask those questions. we won't be able to find out where product is made because someone else, a tribunal, not an american court, will decide whether we can label a product as made in the u.s.a. or not. and right now, these international tribunals that have no american jew rests, judges, sitting on them, get to decide for us if americans should have the right to know where a product is coming from that they're buying from a store outside of their neighborhood. how does that lead on making sure trade is free and fair if we can't even put a label on a product coming from some other country that has in the past sent us tainted products? we can do much better. we have over two or three decades of experience writing trade deals. we know what work, we know what

doesn't. the thing we know most is that enforcement is the most difficult aspect of trade because most companies in faraway places don't follow american law and american rules and they cheat and they think they can get away with it. we can do much better. let's get a better trade deal that's free and fair. this doesn't give us that, it doesn't give us the right rules. reject this t.p.a. legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, another distinguished member of the committee, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: last week new york a bipartisan majority, house granted trade authority to elevate standards for our farmers our workers, our business, so we can compete in one of the fastest growing regions in the global economy. it's time for taos move forward. i feel confident that with the

assurances we received from the republican leadership this body will have another opportunity to also pass trade adjustment assistance so that the training programs and education for the workers who need it will be in place. out of consideration for some of our colleagues who are trying to get home today with their communities after last night's terrible shootings, i yield back the remainder of my time. i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. it's time for north korea move on. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: -- it's time for america to move on. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker mr. ranking member, mr. chairman. if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. that seems to be the approach on trade. despite the fact that t.p.a. passed the house last week by

eight votes, only eight votes at no point did the light bulb go off for the leadership that perhaps they could work with the majority of the democratic caucus to find agreementen how to move forward. i don't know why that didn't occur to you. instead of cooperation, they've opted to use procedural tricks to pass the t.p.a. now, the leadership has chosen to take a bipartisan bill, passed by both chambers of congress that would aid our law enforcement officers and public safety workers and inject the unrelated controversial trade debate into it. i can say that because i'm one of the sponsors of the bill. this bill, the defending public safety employees' retirement act, i worked with my friend, congressman reichert, on, on behalf of the men and women who serve the public in physically demanding work each and every day.

it would ensure that they could assess and access their full retirement benefits at the time they retire without incurring a tax penalty. it's a good bill. i'm not only one of the sponsors, i voted for it. but today this bill to provide tax fairness for our law enforcement officers, has been twisted, diminished, to a convenience vehicle to ram through fast track for deep -- far deeply flawed trade bill. this is not the same bill, mr. ranking member through the speaker, through the chairman this is not the same bill we voted on friday. please reed this bill. -- read this bill. it's not. i urge a no vote. in fact, the president of the international association of firefighters, has written a letter urging members oo-- to oppose attaching t.p.a. to this

bill. the transpacific partnership would establish the biggest trade agreement we've seen in years, encompassing 40% of the world's economy. we need to take our time and do it right. in its current form, t.p.p. is woefully inadequate and fails to ensure a fair deal for american workers. issues that have been neglected in t.p.p. such as prohibiting currency manipulation ensuring food safety, as an example, only 1% of imported fish into this country seafood, is inspected. i hope you ask the next time you go into a restaurant, you ask the proprietor is this -- has this fish been inspected? he'll look at you like you have three heads. sthant interesting? creating strong rules of origin. you saw how this country mr. speaker -- mr. levin: i yield 30 seconds.

mr. pascrell: this country got shafted with our deal with korea on country of origin automobiles. you don't see any more cars traveling thru korea or certainly china that are made in the united states of america. we are taking a back seat. instead of protecting the interests of u.s. workers, not protectionism, we're not advocating that, this trade deal gives protections and sweetheart deals to multinational corporations. pure and simple. and the american people look at every poll from the left from the right, from north south, east, west, do not accept this bill and we shouldn't either. thank you mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to another member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

i was thinking what a difference a week does not make. the vast majority of the people in my congressional district were opposed to fast track last week, and they're even more opposed to fast track this week. we've seen fast track before. we've seen the jobs leave our community, our district, our state, and our nation. fast enough. they don't need our help. they don't need anybody else's help. we need to create jobs here in america, not have them flee. i agree with my colleagues who have said vote no. i agree with the people of my congressional district. and i shall vote no. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cuellar: thank you mr. speaker. i thank you for yielding, ranking member. i support t.p.a. to give the president the authority to negotiate this agreement. it's strr simple. a lot of those countries already are able to send their goods into our countries duty-free system of what we want to do is allow our exporting companies to be able to export to those countries duty-free also so we can send our goods over there. look at what is happening in texas. texas exports more than $289 million last year, up 146% from 2004. let's look at the number of couldn't companies that export. they're not the big companies. 93% of those exporting companies 40,737 that export, 93% of them are small and

medium-sized businesses. i ask you to please support t.p.a. it's good for texas, it's good for the united states and it's a no brainer to allow taos export to those countries. thank you so much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much. the people of this gat nation are watching us todayand they are begging and pleading with us to please vote down this bill. this bill, allyou have to do, whonows better than the american people who live in the towns and the cties where they've seen their manufacturing plants close andhey've seen their jobs shipped overseaed, every trade deal has done it.

let's look at the china deal. as a result of the china deal, two million manufacturing jobs have been shipped from america over to china. look at nafta. yeah, they created jobs, but where they created -- but where did they create jobs? in mexico. where did the manufacturing plants go? they went to mexico. that's why the american people are ringing everybody's office and urging them, please let us not lose any more jobs. and those of you who are concerned about income equality the reason we have that as a burning issue in the heart and soul, particularly of middle class america is because we're seing the middle class vanish. these are the jobs. these manufacturing jobs, ladies and gentlemen. not these big, polluting, what the big corporate presidents make millions of dollar.

yeah, they're going to make plenty of millions of dollars but these jobs go into the middle section of our economic stream and the lower income. look at akron, ohio, look at atlanta, georgia, look at chicago, look at detroit once vibrant cities and the backbone of america is manufacturing. we're shipping it out to the world and you know what else we're shipping out there? we're shipping these jobs. not only that, the profits of these companies, last year $2 trillion of profits. held in these overseas accounts away from our taxing structure. can't you see america is getting weaker because of these trade policies? i urge you to vote no and stand up for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it is now my pleasure to yield one minute to the

gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. first, let me thank our ranking member for yielding and once again for your tremendous leadership. i rise in strong opposition to this bill and to once again say no to fast track. this legislation cynically uses a bill that would exempt retired federal police officers and firefighters from paying a penalty on withdrawals from their retirement accounts if they retire after the age of 50. now what does that have to do with fast track? absolutely nothing. this is just plain wrong. what's more, we know now that the senate is consider attaching the trade adjustment assistance, t.a.a., to the recently passed african growth and accountability act, better known as agoa, as a means to get this trade package passed. that's why yesterday my colleagues our congressional black caucus chair congressman

butterfield, congresswoman bass, congressman ellison and myself, we sent a letter to the senate leadership expressing our optician -- opposition to what they're trying to do, to use agoa to promote trade. the african trade act has promoted the growth of democratic institutions throughout africa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: in no way should that be used as a bargaining chip on this bill. it's outrageous. members should not have to choose between programs that they support, like t.a.a. and agoa and supporting fast track. these procedural gimmicks are outrageous and they're fundamentally dishonest. if members fall for this maneuver, we not only risk imperiling the t.a.a., a program that many of our constituents relie on, but also agoa. we've got to vote no on this

bill, no to attaching t.a.a. to agoa. let's get back to the drawing board and come up with a real fair free, transparent trade bill. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, who i think is ranking on the asia subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: if you vote for this bill, you get fast track without trade adjustment assistance. there is no assurance trade adjustment assistance will come to this floor or it will come to this floor in a form the republicans or democrats will support. the supporters of this deal can't make their case without repeating demonstrably false statistics. the fact is we won a $177

billion -- run a $177 billion trade deficit in goods with the countries we have free trade agreements. $75 billion in services brings the net to over $100 billion deficit. so how have so many members been misled by charlatan lobbyists in coming to this floor and giving stalls statistics? they are given this slippery phrase. go down to the floor and talk about what has happened since nafta. now, since nafta, usually sounds like since the early 1990's. what they mean is excluding nafta. excluding nafta when we review free trade agreements is like excluding lebron james when you evaluate the cavaliers. this bill is catastrophic for our national security. it hollows out our manufacturing base. and it is the greatest gift to china that we could possibly

make. because it enshrines the sang row santh nature of curn -- sack row sang nature of surncy shall -- currency man national park plays. in addition, the rules of origin provisions allow goods that are admitted to be 50% or 60% made in china. that are actually 70% or 80% made in china to get fast tracked into the united states. so china gets 80% of the benefit of this agreement without having to admit a single american export. as to vietnam, our workers are going to have to compete against 40 cent an hour labor, but we are told we get free access -- the speaker pro tempore: is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. sherman: we are told we get free access to the vietnamese markets. vietnam doesn't have freedom, vietnam doesn't have markets. they are not going to buy our exports anymore than their communist party decides to do

so. the chairman points out that with trade comes influence. that's right. there will be nike lobbyists here financed by this bill and its effects, lobbying against going after vietnam for its oppression of religion and its oppression of unions. so they will have -- they will have influence here in washington. they will continue not to have freedom. and we will continue to lose jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: we are only two speakers left on our side with deference to our members trying to get home to south carolina. i yield to mr. tiberi. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the chairman of the trade subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr.

speaker. read the bill. i got it right here. the only difference is the number at the top changed. the content is the same. t.p.a. is not a trade deal. it's a process that holds this president accountable. sets in motion congress inserting itself -- by the way nafta? i just continue to get blown away by the misinformation. no wonder the american people get confused. i take this personally. as the gentleman from new jersey knows, my dad lost his job way before nafta. we have a trade surplus in manufacturing with nafta. we have a trade surplus in services with nafta. we have a trade surplus in agriculture food, and beverages with nafta. in fact, we have a trade surplus with nafta if you take out oil and energy products. we had a trade surplus in manufacturing with nafta. i do get fired up about this. 95% of the world's population is

outside the united states. a multinational corporation can move anywhere they want to. a fortune 500 company could move anywhere they want to, and they do. lakeshore in my district, a family owned business, they cannot. this is about breaking down barriers for lakeshore. for screen machines. because they can't move a plant overseas and they are at a competitive disadvantage. a large corporation can move. they can't. ladies and gentlemen, this is about jobs. this is about the american worker. this is about the fact that we have the ability today to compete anywhere in the world if those trade barriers are broken down. we have to break them down, mr. speaker. one out of ever every five jobs, they are good jobs. vote yes on t.p.a. and yes for the american workers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i'm trying to limit our speakers to one minute. so now i will give one minute to

a very distinguished member from california, karen bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. bass: thank you, mr. speaker. last week i spoke in favor of h.r. 1891, the agoa extension and enhancement act of 2015. in the middle of tremendous controversy and tension over t.p.a., it was encouraging to have legislation that wasn't controversial. in fact had overwhelming support with 397 votes. the bill was sent to the senate and we were hopeful that h.r. 1891 would have already made it to the president's desk. unfortunately, the bill is a victim of its own success. so many rumors are floating around that because agoa is popular, supported by both democrats, republicans senators and house members, that now senators are considering adding more controversial bills into agoa. we are hearing t.a.a. might be added. the press is even reporting consideration is being given to using agoa as a vehicle to extend the ex-im bank.

we hear the thinking since agoa failed in the house last week that if it's -- if t.a.a. failed in the house last week, if it's added into agoa, we will all vote for it. agoa can and should stand on its own. the senate should pass agoa and send it to the president. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield now one minute to the gentlelady from new york who is ranking on small business ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: i want to take this opportunity to thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, once again we are being asked to vote for an agreement that will cost jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode workers' rights. all in the name of so-called free trade. this agreement is being negotiateded in the dark behind closed doors. that secretive process may benefit large multinational companies and their lobbyists, but it does not help small

manufacturers in brooklyn. it does nothing for new yorkers struggling to raise a family while keeping their jobs from being exported. when vareous -- we end up with bad deals for american workers and we have seen this in the past. new york lost 374,000 manufacturing jobs since nafta and the world trade organization agreement. this vote, mr. speaker, comes down to a simple question. are you going to side with wall street, large corporations, and their lobbyists? or will you stand with working families in your district? i will take the latter. vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield, two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: in washington, we

never seem to lack for self-certified smart people. they are the folks that know what's best for you and your family. and while they, today, are insisting on railroading through this fast track trade deal is it -- and i say it so sweet for working families, is it so unreasonable to ask what do the workers think about this bill? and while the environmental provisions have been secreted away from the public, we do know that ustr does not believe in environmental law enforcement. is it unreasonable to stop and say, what did those who advocate for clean water and clean air and conservation of our resources, what did they think about this trade deal? i believe they support fair trade. they recognize that it raises all votes but unfair trade

sinks too many of them. they are capsized by competing with those who paid an average minimum wage of 60 cents an hour and whose only worker organization is the communist party in vietnam. i believe our workers deserve respect. this bill asks american businesses to go out and compete with countries that mistreat their workers, that pollute the air and water and destroy their natural resources. and those that inflate -- adjust their currency, manipulate in ways that are unfair. railroading this bill through today will deny any opportunity which we have struggled so long for so many months to try to achieve to make this a better right track bill. the fast trackers have rejected every constructive improvement that we have offered to this measure. and all of us here in congress

have to concede we know less about what is in this trade bill than the vietnamese politte burrow than the malaysian government that has sex trafficking. we need an open fair process to advance real trade opportunities for all families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doggett: reject this fast track. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: we had one additional speaker. i don't see her. lrts. -- all right. mr. ryan, the chairman, and i have agreed we'll each speak briefly. you know, i started off by saying it's said we should write the rules, not china. and that's true. we have been striving to try to help write the rules. we did so for years. we introduced a substitute bill that outlined where we were

coming from and where we thought these negotiations should go. that wasn't even given time for discussion. so here's what we are left with. when you vote for t.p.a. under these circumstances essentially what we are saying to this administration it's essentially a blank check. and they take, they may let us see some of the documents, but often in ways we can't discuss in public. this is likely to add up to a t.p.p.. it will be even more controversial than this t.p.a. for that reason, i strongly urge that as was said earlier, we slow down this process in order to try to find a root -- route to a t.p.p. that would have

broad bipartisan support. that has always been my aim rather this kind of a vote with only a small handful, few handfuls of democratic votes making this far, far, far from a bipartisan vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, for those who are coming to the floor protesting this particular process, for the minority, it's the stunt pulled last week that brought about this process. we talked a lot about what t.p.a. is. it's a process. not a trade agreement. i want every member in this body to think about what this vote represents. it's one that will speak loudly about our political system. can it still work? it's a vote about what kind of congress we want to be. will we empower ourselves in

trade agreements or just let the administration do whatever it wants? it's a vote about what kind of country we want to have. are we still committed to leading? are we still the symbol of freedom and free enterprise? so mr. speaker, this is a vote for accountability and for transparency. this is a vote for a stronger economy and higher wages. this is a vote for our system of free enterprise. this is a vote for american leadership. this is a vote to declare that america still has it. this is a vote to re-establish america's credibility. mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, following today's

encouraging vote over in the house, i'd like to update the senate on where we stand with regard to trade. first, a brief look back at how we got where we are today. back new april the finance committee came together to advance four trade bills on a big bipartisan vote. it was everyone's goal at that time to consider all of those bills and to begin the process of passing this significant trade agenda. and it remains everybody's goal now. that's a point that's been proven many times over. when our democratic colleagues insisted on tying t.a.a. to t.p.a. it was difficult for most on my side to swallow. many in my conference oppose t.a.a. but with the larger goal in mind and understanding that for my friends on the other side

t.a.a. has often ridden alongside t.p.a., we put the two policies together. this was not an easy lift, but in the interest of moving forward we compromised. the process was not easy. we had a few close calls. we even worked through a filibuster to address our colleagues' concerns. but all the hard work paid off. it eventually led to a good result at the end of last month of 62-37 vote here in the senate in favor of more opportunities for american paychecks for american workers and farmers and for the american economy. unfortunately, though, as we all know now, that was not to be the end of the senate's role in the process. that's okay. not every plan turns out perfectly every time. but the point is that you don't give up. the american people didn't send us here to sulk but to work

through tough problems. so that's what we're going to do. here's what it's going to take. number one working together toward the shared goal of a win for the american people. and, two trusting each other to get there. i think we can do that. so here are the next steps. in the judgment of members of both parties in the house and in the senate, our best way forward now is to consider t.p.a. and t.a.a. separately. that means t.a.a. will come second after t.p.a., but the votes will be there to pass it reluctantly, not happily but they will be there if it means getting something far more important accomplished for the american people. to that end i just filed cloture on the motion to concur with the house-passed t.p.a.

bill. i then filed cloture on the agoa and preferences bill with an amendment that adds to that bill t.a.a. this puts the senate on a procedural glide path to consider and then pass the t.p.a. bill, the agoa and preferences bill and t.a.a. and so assuming everyone has a little faith and votes the same way as they did just a few weeks ago, we'll be able to get all of those bills to the president soon. i know there's a fourth bill too, a customs bill. given the complex and thorny procedural processes at work on that bill, we'll have to turn to that one as soon as we're able, but we will turn to it. it will have to go to a conference committee and then return to the senate floor where it too -- it too will be passed

and sent to the white house. i know it's hard to do, but if we step back a few paces and recall what we were all asking for just a few weeks ago, we should be able to take some satisfaction in all of this. it means that before the july 4 before july 4 the president will have signed t.p.a., t.a.a., and the agoa and preferences bill, and we'll be well on our way toward enactment of a robust customs package. all of that together, mr. president, would be quite an accomplishment. all it's going to take is some hard work, some faith in one another and everybody voting the same way the next time they voted the l

>> sitting frnt left of the chamber. so when brooks comes into the chamber he comes into the center doors, sits down and is almost looking directly at sum never. the problem is he's not looking at him. his head is bowed. he is literally signing copies of the crime against kansas speech. brooks gets up, walks down the center aisle with his cane, approaches sum anywhere. sum anywhere again totally oblivious, head down signing

copies of the speech. brooks reaches him lifflingts his cane over. he said it is a libel to my state. and my relative. he looks up at this point. brooks is blurred through his glasses because he's so close. and brooks strikes him on the top of the head with a cane. sum anywhere's head explodes in blood almost instantly. >> on the caning of massachusetts senator by south carolina congressman. it drove the country close tore civil war. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> if it please the court. message's on texas plans plates are government speech. the state of texas etches its name on each license plate, and texas law gives the state sole control and approval authority of everything that appears on a license plate, texas is not abridging free speech rightsful motorists me remain free to speak with a bumper sticker or window decal but the first amendment does not mean a motorist can compel any government to place its imprimatur on a battle flag. >> one of the problems of the standard whether it is regarded

as offensive to many people. is it government speech to say, mighty fine bourbon to advertise a project? >> yes, the government can approve the messages, just because it has endorsed messages or is accepting and generating revenue to proven gait the messages doesn't defeat the fact it is government speech. when the library of congressship takes sponsorship for the national book festival, that's still government speech on the web site. >> suppose texas erected 500 electronic billboards around the state, and on the billboards they posted some government messages, wear a seatbelt when you're driving burt at the bottom people could put a message of their choice. would that be government speech?

>> justice alito, the portion the government has sole control over that would be government speech. of the government doesn't have final control or approval authority over another portion -- >> that was the bottom. the government has the same kind of approval authority it has here. it will allow people to say, inoffensive things but if they say something that is offensive, they won't allow that. that would be government speech. >> it would be government speech under the best reading of -- that you have final approval authority and the government isn't abrimming other traditional free speech rights. >> i'm sorry, i don't understand. almost anything the government does it has final authority to veto. whether it's a school or a government web site. it always retains the authority to say

no. the issue is, when can it say no? the constitutionally. so i don't think it's merely that. and in summer, the government actually created the words that were being advertised. so isn't that substantially different because the government is not creating these words? >> just sotomayor, on summan the court indicated -- >> the monument case. i'm talking about johan unanimous. >> that's right. in summan though, a private organization put it name on the monument and donated it to the park. in johanns the government created a program to espouse the message, beef is what for dinner, but even then, as the court recognized the secretary of agriculture didn't write ad company. the government had control but just not at every step of the way saying this is how the message must be. but the end of the day had final approval authority. but returning to justice alito's discussion about the tests. the test can include other elements

and, this is government speech. texas has its name on every license plate. there's a formal process here of notice and the board takes a public vote before approve anything specialty license -- >> do you want us to hold that because it's government speech the government can engage in viewpoint discrimination? >> that's right. and the court has recognized that in sumam. >> does hat have any limits? suppose somebody submitted a license plate to texas that 00:05:14 unidentified speaker said, vote republican, and texas said, yes, that's fine. and then the next person submitted a license plate to texas and it said, vote democratic. and texas said, no, we're not going to approve that one. what about that? >> justice kagan, our position wouldn't allow that -- >> why wouldn't it?

>> the establishment clause, the equal protection clause, due process clause, other constitutional bars. >> this is not an establishment clause issue. i'm curious what constitutional constraints you think there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical i just gave you. >> absolutely, justice kagan. there could be other constitutional bars such as equal protection clause. the oregon supreme court -- >> all you had to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates. from saying vote republican. right? >> absolutely. >> you put the same question. what stops texas from saying it -- its election literature it passes out. vote republican. i think something prevents that, and whatever prevents that would prevent it on the license plates, too. no?

>> that's correct, justice schoola, which is why the issue is government speech in general but the court recognized unanimously the government speech doctrine does not -- excuse me -- the government can speak even if it takes certain viewpoints -- >> what case do you want me to read to show that the government can engage in viewpoint discrimination when it's his own speech? the monument cases? >> yes, justice kennedy. sumam would be the best example. >> is this a case where the state, the government, has aided in creating a new kind of public forum? people don't go to parks anymore. if the government bought 17 soap boxes to put around the park, that government property, but the government can't prohibit what kind of speech goes on. the why is this a new public forum in a new era? >> i don't think it's a public forum for private speech. the court never recognized a

public forum for private speech when the government places its name on the message, when it completely controls the message, receiving notice and comment from the public. >> that's -- already. the whole question is whether you -- that is circular. the question is whether you can control the message. you're assuming the answer to the question. >> justice kennedy, i think the court has looked at governmental intent to determine whether there's a public forum for private speech. for all of the reasons that we're pointing out, this is government speech, it is the same -- the flipside of why a public forum has not been created. so, -- >> i'm not quite shoe why it's government speech since there's no clear, identifiable policy, at least art arguable there's non -- that the state is articulating. they're only doing this to get the money. >> i don't income a message can be part of any test for government because government

must supreme in all sorts of ways. the court in sumam indicated the 52 structures in central park were all government speech, yet it's a wide array of res imagine -- messages such at alice in wonderland. >> here you could have conflicting messages. what's the government policy between allowing university of texas and university of oklahoma plates. >> the state of texas can promote the educational diversity of citizen is. >> okay. the policy permitting mighty fine burger plates and pretty good burgers plates. >> mr. chief justice, as an austin, texas, establishment the state of texas could promote that message, but even if mighty fine burgers weren't a texas establish. , texas is allowed to endorse speech, and just because it would be generating -- >> so it's endorsing speech. >> it is the government speech. the analogy would be an endorse. such as a professional athlete. the professional athlete, for instance, places a logo or product or otherwise on some apparel the athlete is wearing.

that's still the speech of the athlete. >> but the athlete done advertise nike on his jersey and adidas on his shoes. you can see one message. that athlete is endorsing this brand. but texas well put its name on anything, and the idea this is their speech, the only thing that unnyes it is they get money from it. >> mr. chief justice -- >> better be good. >> the state of texas does not put its name on everything. it follows a formal process with a public vote -- >> you told me yourself you said its name i etched on the license plate. >> every message on the license plate, yes, that is the state's message. >> how many of them are there? >> as of the beginning of this month, there were 438 specialty plates, 269 of which were available for general public use. >> how many have you disapproved other than this one. >> texas agencies have denied about a dozen plates. some of

that information is in the record, some is not. >> what other ones have you disapproved? >> the board's predecessor denied a prolife plate. the board denied a texas dps trooper foundation plate, and the board's predecessor denied a dozen other plates. >> on the ground of offense? >> the information is not clear as to what the grounds for those denials were. the legislature itself has repealed multiple specialty plates that it created. >> could i ask, mr. keller, if you good down to texas and just stare at license plates are most of them just the standard license plate and then these 400 license plates you see very rarely, or do most people actually have one of these specialty plates?

>> well, there's a wide range of -- i believe most platers still the standard plate. >> but there's a substantial percentage that are not and it's not by any means unusual to see a specialty plate. >> not unusual to see a specialty plate in the state of texas, but the state of texas by etching its name on it can keep control of what appears on license plates. still the state's message. >> what is the limit to this argue. that's what concerns me. your answer to my billboard question was disturbing, but suppose people still did good to parks and the state had an official state soap box at the park, and every once in a while a state official would mount the soap box and say -- give some official state announcement. other times people who paid a fee would be allowed to go up there and say something they wanted, provided it was approved in advance by the state. would that be official state speech? >> justice aleta, i think we're starting to cross over into a situation what is called -- what this court called a

subterfuge. if you are abridging traditional prespeech rights and limiting access to a traditional public forum that's an instance where -- >> why hasn't this become traditional? i don't mean to interruptity -- justice alito. you have opened a new forum. >> i don't think it's become extra tra divisional because texas has always main maintained control over is plates and exercisedder toal control. so unlike a park, which has been held since time immillion morial for the public to speak -- >> you want us to say the public are not involved over time -- people don't go to parks anymore. they drive. >> absolutely. the public traditional public forum can't evolve over time. but the indicia of a traditional public forum has to be one that is open, and texas is not open license plates. if other states -- >> in a world in which you have

approved 400 license plates and they're pretty common in the state of texas, and you have only disapproved a very select few, it does seem as though you have basically given -- relinquished your control over this and made it's people's license plate for whatever private speech people want to say. >> justice kagan, it would be odd to say it's private speech when the board is taking a public vote and receiving notice in common, governmental function of when the government wants to act, and it's placing its name on the license plate. when the government is placing its name on the license plate, it is accepting and signifying this is the government's message -- >> does it have notice for every one of 430 that it's approved, every time there's a request, is there a notice incumbent procedure? >> if it's a legislature

created plate, the legislature would do and it there wouldn't be an agency notice. but under existing law, notice and comment would be required for every specialty plate approved by the agency, which is all specialty plates not approved by the legislature. >> i think a good analog to this case would be the u.s. postal service's postage stamp program. there, the u.s. is placing its name directly on the medium, thousands of stamps have been issued in the past and yet there's also private input that is allowed on to what the postage stamps will look like. just as the respondents can speak in all sorts of ways on a bumper sticker right next to a license plate or in the envelope on which a stamp would appear, that doesn't mean that someone is allowed responsive speech to whatever appears on the stamp or a license plate. >> does texas also have specialty plates insofar as the letters or numbers of the plates are concerned? can you

get a license plate that says, hot stuff, or something like that? >> ity scalia, we do have personalized license plates in texas. >> are those sensorred in can -- censored? >> the speech is controlled completely by the state of texas. texas -- this is not in the record -- >> even though the individual selects hot stuff or whatever other message. so i guess if this is not allowed, we can't allow that either. >> yes, sir. >> right, dirty words are -- people are entitled to use dirty words. >> justice justice scalia, the court's holding would affect -- >> i'm not sure your analogy to the postal service works because none of us can imagine the postal service having commercial advertisements on its stamps. re/max reality, you won't see it on a postal stamp. >> it may be true the u.s. postal service has not chosen

to engage in that type of expression but it development think that defeats the fact this is still government speech. even justice souter's dissent in johanns, we have that here. have texas' p name etched on the license plate. also, untenable consequences fall from an opinion recognizing that texas has to offer responsive speech. texas should not have to allow speech about al qaeda or the nazi party simply because it offers a license plate propagating the message, fighting terrorism. >> there's an easy answer which is they don't have to get into the business of selling space on their lance plates to begin with. i if you don't want to have the al qaeda license plate, don't get into the business of allowing people to buy a space to put on whatever they want to say. >> mr. chiefity that would be an answer to all of the government speech cases, and i assume, for instance, that the court didn't say, well, if you don't want to accept the monument, just don't allow

monuments and that's because government -- it allowed the selected messages to propagate and is allowed to speak -- >> that might be because they've done that since the time of the pyramids or whatever but they haven't had license plate messages since time immemorial. so maybe that's why they shouldn't be considered just like the monuments. >> mr. chief justice, don't mean to suggest they're just like the monuments but it's still a fixed medium, and a tangible message is being displayed to a captive audience, as the court recognized in leeman. and in those situations the government is entitled to select the messages it wishes to propagate and are going to be close the identified -- >> identity rather have the license plates than the pyramids. i don't know that we want to drive texas to having pyramids. >> justice scalia, we also want to retain our license plates. >> that shows what this case is

about. the respondents want texas to place itself stamp of approval on the confederate battle flag through license plates and texas doesn't have to make that judgment. >> i don't want to beat a dead horse. what's the best distinction you can give me between what you do with license plates and billboards, a soap box, an official state web site where people can put up a message they want, subject to state approval? if we were to write an opinion that tried to draw a distinction between the license plates on one side and those other things on the other side, what we say? >> the very first thing is texas has its name on it -- >> it has its name on all the other things. >> in this situation we have exercised selectivity and control as my previous answer addressed. also, we market this program to the public, saying specifically that no one is entitled to whatever design they want. rather, the board of the

legislature has to approve it. that's the final line of the joint appendix. so this is not a situation where out in the world, if you see a soap box in a park, that you would wonder, if this the government speaking or not the government speaking? is the government abridging traditional spree feature rights? is this a case where texas wants to maintain and has maintained control of what it says on license plates, and respondents -- everyone remains free to speak in all sorts of ways, speeches, leafletting -- >> i don't think you answered justice alito's question in every park you need general lay permit to do certain kinds of speech. so the government controls that permit process, and tells you that it can say no. so, why is

that different in the situations that -- it can't me merely control is what i'm saying. the ability to veto. because that would then give you the ability to veto -- you could create a program in every public forum that basically controls in the same way. >> justice sotomayor, there's a difference. we need to be clear about what approval means. if approval means access to a forum, and it's not government controlling every single word of the message, then i don't think you have government speech. if it's simply you have a demeanor. >> have we held you can deny access to a park or to a forum on the basis of the content of the speech? >> content-based regulation -- >> absolutely. access on the basis of content. a different situation entirely. >> justice, that is correct. we are denying access -- >> mr. keller, one concern that

raises -- this goes back to what justice kennedy said -- is that outside the traditional area of streets and parks, this is a new world, there of all kind of new expressive forums being created every day. and as those come into play, as long as the state says, hey, look, we're going to regulate everything for offense, we're going to keep anything offensive out of this expressive forum, it does create the possibility that in this new world, with all these new kinds of expressions the state will have a much greater control over its citizens' speech than we have typically been comfortable with. >> that's right, justice kagan and i think for all of those reasons a anywhere rove ruling -- a narrow ruling in this case would possibly be a beneficial way to go. >> do you know of any other expressive fora opened by the state, manufactured by the state, that a have the said's name only it as license plates do? if there are lot of -- >> this is a unique --

>> what can you tell me to help me, which might not help others, that i don't think these categories are absolute, think they help but they're not absolute. so i would ask the question first, this isn't government speech in common english. it is the speech of the person who wants to put the message on the plate. the plate is owned by the state. the state says, we don't want certain messages to be displayed. and my question is, why? why not? what is the interest that the state is furthering in keeping certain messages off the plate? >> justice breyer, the state -- >> you have the republican example, democrats, not every interest is a justifiable interest. some are and not some are. that's why i ask my question.

they keep some off and let some on. what is their interest -- which are the ones in i'm asking a factual question. why have they kept off the ones they kept off while letting on the ones they left on? >> justice breyer -- >> they have no interest at all in making such a distinction, then i think since speech is heard a little, they ought to lose but if they have a justifiable interest, since you can put the bumper sticker next door, think they win and therefore i'd like know what their interest is. >> the state of texas' interest is propagating messages that show the diverse backgrounds educational backgrounds, products of texas -- >> yes. >> no, i'm -- >> texas each one of those interests that they allow to be put on the license plate, they like texas hamburger joints, and they probably would not

approve a chicago hamburger joint being on the texas license plate. they like some of these messages, others they don't particularly like. am i right? >> i'd like to get my answer. i'm asking you, what is the interest in texas and why does it keep off the messages it keeps off? >> in this particular example -- >> no, not just this exam. there are a set of things they've kept off. why? >> justice breyer -- >> don't try to general rules itch think the justice is asking you for a specific. why would you -- >> justice breyer, i'll use the dps trooper foundation plate that was denied. texas didn't want that on he license plate because it was concerned if a motorist were pulled over, that then the the police would see -- >> look, i can think of many reasons i could make up. man

they want to keep controversial political messages off? i'd say they have an interest in that, in suggesting to people, texas doesn't sponsor this -- i just want to know what they really are, and now you have said one. what was the one you just said? >> the transportation -- texas dps troopers foundation. >> you're on the license plate approval board. what standard do you follow? when do you grant a request and when do you deny? what is the rule. that's what justice breyer is asking. >> in texas regulations provide the board can deny those that might be offensive or for any reason established by a rule -- >> then i think they lose. the reason they lose is because i don't see the state can come in and say we keep off a private message and we'll tell you the reason later. we can do it for any -- any reason we want. you're hurting speech and i

don't see texas' interest in saying we can keep it off for any reason we want. that would be the republican, democrat, too. i'm saying questions. but i think you have to have some kind of legitimate reason for keeping off -- doesn't have to be much. it could be just a little -- >> texas can have legitimate reasons for not allowing -- >> why don't you tell us what they are. >> i think that would be requiring something like a formal process -- >> don't assume. i just want to know what they are. >> texas does not have to associate itself with messages that it doesn't want to and finds offensive. and because texas has given that explanation here, we know that. many times government officials speak and don't disclose shire motives and that's -- >> except texas did and now full circle back to my first question. justice -- it said this message would be offensive to maybe people so that's -- to many

people so that's -- if the message would be offensive to many people, that's the standard they're applying. ask isn't that too broad a discretion? >> no, the fact we have that much discretion confirms this is government speech. mr. chief justice let me reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. gorge. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court we're here representing the sons of confederate veterans because they wanted to have a license plate to raise money and in fact for the state of texas to keep up monuments which was the purpose of their whole process in this case. and the state of texas has gone about issuing an open

invitation to everybody to submit to them public designs for license plates and to create and -- thus created a limited public forum for these license plates. >> can texas itself formally let's say, by a joint resolution of the legislature, endorse the grand army of therepublic and not the son's the confederacy. >> the legislature can endorse anything it -- >> can the legislature endorse austin hamburgers dish. >> the legislature has created a confederate heroes day and people on my side of this -- this side. >> what about american heroes. >> the government created a holiday for people -- for

juneteenth we the slaves were free. >> why does this sncc your craw when it's on a license plate but you acknowledge texas can do the things so long as it's texas speech. the only question here is whether this is texas' speech or not? if it is texas' speech, all of these things can be said, can't they? can't all of the things on the lance plate -- >> texas speech by itself and is not joint speech -- >> doesn't seem like a very significant issue. >> well, if that's -- >> what's what we are concern about. as long as texas says it's okay bit if you put it on a license plate, what -- i don't understand what the theory is. >> the state has created a very successful money-raising program in which it solicits people to come in and submit their design for their license plate, so they can -- they have to submit the design, have to

put up some money to make the plate, and then the plate doesn't ever get published to anybody until the person -- somebody ordered it from the -- >> suppose the message that the applicant said we want this design, and the design is the swastika. is that speech that -- whoever is in charge of the license plates, do they have to accept that design? >> i don't believe the state can discriminate against the people who want to have that design -- >> it has a swastika and somebody else wants to have jihad on my license plate. >> bigin -- >> jihad. >> jihad on the license plate can be -- there's obviously a district court from ohio in

which infidels was held to be -- >> what is your answer in this case as to justice ginsburg's hypothetical, yes or no? must the state put the symbols or messages on the plates at the request of the citizen. yes or no? >> yes. >> how about make pot legal? >> say again. >> make pot legal. >> yes. >> that's okay? and bong hits for jesus. >> yes. >> the you're arguing for the opened of texas specialty plates. >> i couldn't make a better argument in that direction. >> we have got along about it for a long time -- >> but in a way, your argument curtails speech. only if you prevail, you're

going to prevent a lot of texans from conveying a message. you have to agree with that. >> i would -- if the state continues to use the same standard, which is it might offend anybody, the state can deny the plate. if that's the standard, then the -- and they exercise their discretion on the statutory standard that it might offend somebody, you -- >> you have no alternate standard in order to have a proper or solution that seems wise for justice ginsburg's hypothetical. you have no standard. >> the answer to having a standard that controls people's speech is that the standard has to be pretty low hanging fruit as -- and the christian law students association, college

of hastings vs. martinez justice alito in the dissent for the centers in that case said that offensive speech is something that speech that we hate is something we should be proud of protecting. >> that in that context. >> you say they can or they cannot. have a standard which says we're trying to keep offensive speech off the license? >> as long as -- >> yes or no. >> -- offensive is in the eyes of the beholder, of course. they can't have that. >> can or cannot. >> cannot. >> i see what you're saying. but if i were to go back to sort of the basic underlying thought here, is speech heard? >> yes. >> the answer is, yes. the private speech is somewhat hurt. a lot, put up a bumper sticker. you can't say a lot. how is it hurt? you get the official imprimatur. is there something to be said

for texas? yes. what they're trying to do is to prevent their official imprimatur from being given to speech that phones people. people don't like it, put up a bumper sticker. we have two interests in opposite directions and many, many cases. we try to weigh those things when the other things don't tell us the answer, and i guess -- i don't really see the big problem that people who are putting up with speech, even the texas considers offensive, put up a bumper sticker. what's the problem? >> well, i -- the culture of creating specialty plates began in texas in 1965. we have been doing this and we have gone bonkers with people buying these things. there's 50,000 people with the -- >> that's a lot of money, isn't it? about $8,000? >> say what? >> is it about $8,000 to get a

plate? >> i think it's more than that. and that -- >> i have a different question which is -- i actually do think this is hybrid speech. it's both government and the individual speaking at the same time. but that goes back to what justice scalia said we said we can't compel the individual to put something on their license plate that they disagree with. >> we have that case. >> so why isn't the reverse true for the government? if you're going to ask me to put my name -- >> because -- >> the law requires it. the state's name on a license plate, why can you compel us to do something we don't want to endorse? >> the re -- >> why shouldn't it work both ways when it's -- >> the reason is that this has become -- and it's the numbers -- it's become a limited public forum for putting up messages --

>> how do i know which is the government's and which is only the individual's? i wouldn't have known that -- that pro anything was sponsored by some states and not others. or endorsed by some states but not others. how do i know that a particular license plate the government doesn't endorse? >> you can't tell whether the government wants your speech in advance in this program. you have to submit what you think you want, and then the -- >> that implies to a certain degree of approval. >> of course there's approval. just like approval for someone to speak in a park. the columbus, ohio case, where -- >> but that's brought it earlier. you have regulations for speaking in the park. you can't have content-based regulation. this is a content-based. this content, the state doesn't want. >> and they have a standard that is -- that the lowest common denominator.

if any person could be offended, they can deny it. that is their standard. >> it would be offensive to many people. >> no, ma'am, i think the statute says actually, any person. >> of course, mr. george, if you had a standard like that in a case in a normal case where we were regulating private speech, of course we would find that imper miss illinois. but the question is whether this is a very different kind of context and let's go back to i think justice scalia said about the nature of license plates. i think there's a clear regulatory purpose here. it's the government that actually makes the license plate. i think the license plate continues to be public property, if that right. like you have to return the license plate. it has the state's name on it.

it's clearly the official identification that the state gives with respect to a car so why doesn't all of that make this a very different case from the typical forum cases that we usually address? >> well, the reason is that we do have hybrid speech and they opened up and created this billboard, as justice alito said. they created a billboard opportunity, and they have since they can make everybody have a license plate, they said we're going to create a billboard opportunity, and put messages -- let you put messages on it and pay us money for using our billboard. that's what they've done. then they say to some people, if i don't like your message because you're a republican or you're a democrat or you are -- you want to say mighty fine burgers instead of whopper burger, they can do that. that's sort of arbitrary control of speech based upon a standard that it might offend

anybody, is they either need to get rid of the program or open up the program to just everybody else, and if somebody publishes a speech they don't like, justice o'connor in the thomas vs. ohio case suggested you might put a number on it from the klu klux klan, put the cross on the hill. >> i asked my question before because i wanted an answer. i'll try again. it was -- i'm trying to get rid of all the conceptual basis here. you just go back -- forget the public forum, et cetera. go back to look to see, is speech being hurt? and the answer is, yes. but not much. because they can

put a bumper sticker. and you look at the other side of it and you say, does the state have legitimate interest here? and the state says, yes. -under interest is that there are messages we like, messages we don't care about and messages we don't like, and we have a system for keeping the last off because it is the government speaking, which represents the citizens, and the citizens do -- it's their government and they don't want just in the example justice scalia gave, to have their government associated with messages that this commission doesn't want. and maybe there are limits on that but that's the basic idea. now, i think you would say, harm to speech, we see the other, da dow da -- dah, dah, dah. what your response. >> the response is the forum has been created -- >> forum. i can't tell who a license plate is a forum or not a forum or a three-part test. i can't get that. i'm trying to go back to the basics.

>> one of the ideas that you have articulated and others on this court is what would the reasonable observer believe this was? for example, the -- would they believe that the speech is the state's speech or would they believe it's the person who bought the plate because there's no -- nothing gets communicated -- >> how about both? how about both in answer to that? it is the state's license plate, has texas on it in big letters. yes, we have to approve it. yes, we approve a lot but there's some we don't approve because it's our speech. it may be the speech itself but it is our speech. >> both those are state created and they charge more money --

>> but answer the hypothetical. justice scalia said first colleges, next scenic places. >> they can actually -- >> have the money.

and suppose there's some little town that thinks it's really scenic and there's a way to petition to get on this list. you see where i'm going? at some point, if you have just

a standard state plate, of course that's government speech. if you have 5,000 different variations that people can create for themselves, it becomes a lot harder to say that's government speech. so where would you draw the line? >> my view is that when the people get to create a message themselves, and then an organization in this case, create the message for themselves, and then the people who look in the catalogue, pick out the license plate that they want, and put it on their car, then the speech is the speech of the person who communicated it -- >> my problem with this is how do i know? there are three categories of plates i understand. there's the official state plate, there are specialty plates created by the

legislature, and there are specialty plates created by an individual. how do i tell the difference between the legislative plates which are government speech, and the private plates? do i need to? what i do know is what i said at the beginning. it's both people speaking, and i think both people endorsing each other's message in some way. why should the government be compelled to accept speech it rejects because it thinks it's wrong? >> in the first place -- >> does it want to be associate with directly. >> in the first place, the way people pick out plates, there's a big, long catalogue with 400 different organizational plates, 480, and it gross every day. of organizational plates, and people pick them out of a catalogue, out of a web site and pick the one they want to pick, and then they put it on their license plate. the

communication of the information on the license plates actually is controlled entirely by the people who pick the plate. >> but what aboutity alito's hype the -- hypothetical. suppose the state by itself has ten messages 20, messages 200 messages, 2,000 messages, and you can choose, but the state makes up all the messages and gives you all the choices. result -- what result? >> the result is if the state has all the messages and picks all the messages and then the people who it sell thursday plates to -- >> i know that's the result of the hypothetical. i want to know the legal result, the first amendment answer. >> well, the state can design all kinds of license plates that it wants to choose -- >> dot that mean as i proposed and justice alito's question consistent with the first amendment or not? >> it is not first -- the

individual submits -- when other people submit the design -- >> that's not the hypothetical. the hypothetical is the state has 5,000 and makes them up and you can choose. is there a first amendment violation. >> i don't believe if the state does everything, then it's the creator of the message, and the speaker is the driver. >> what happens if private people could submit messages but they all had to go through the legislature. >> my view is it is much more difficult case for us i the legislature passes a statute because that is a legislative act and a clear act of the -- >> what's the difference, then? if you think that would be all right, texas has said, the dmv does it, not the legislature different branch of government but it's government just the same. >> i understand that. the issue is whether or not the -- in the cases we have court of appeals cases that don't

distinguish between legislative action and nonlegislative actions and those that do. it is my judgment that the state has a greater claim making its speech when the legislature and passes the bill and the governor signs it. then the statute is clearly an explain make -- expression of the state. >> when anybody buys a license plate -- >> going back to that for a second. i take it that if i object to the message on the new hampshire plate, live free or die, have a right be to disassociated with that. >> yes. >> well, if the state, which represents many people in texas, doesn't want to be associated with a particular message, why doesn't it have the right to say, we don't want that on that? we don't want

that association? >> because -- >> the state represents x million people. they don't want to be associated with this message. >> i understand -- >> what's the difference? >> the difference is they invite people to make their -- they charge people and have them pay for the manufacture of the license plates by giving them the chance to design a message. that's what they do. they -- the people who come up with these things, they pay the front of-end costs, put up $8,000 collateral and it is a money-making scheme they use. the fact that they choose to apparently twice in history, -- there may be more but we can't document anymore -- ever turned anybody down, this is not a forum which people actually --