different from each other. this was a general line drawn around these buildings that you can't even enter them just to enter quiet conversation that wouldn't interfere with the operation of that clinic in any way. that involved protesting. even then upheld the first amendment challenge. i think the two cases are distinguishable. >> all right. please join me in thanking the panel, and thank you all for coming. [ applause ]

the supreme court has two cases remaining, the hobby lobby case on the contraceptive mandate and health care law and another on employee unions. decisions on those will be announced monday, the final day of the court's term. we have many of this term's oral arguments on our website c-span.org where you can listen to the cases as they were argued before the supreme court. one of the court decisions handed down yesterday and talked about during the event we just watched was the case involving an abortion clinic buffer zone. politico has this story about the case. the supreme court on thursday unanimously struck down a massachusetts law that restricted speech outside abortion facilities. a decision abortion rights advocates decried as a threat to patients' safety at clinics

nationwide. the court said the state law violated the first amendment because its buffer zone limited speech too broadly, covering 35 feet from the doorway of facilities including public areas like sidewalks. thursday's decision does not directly affect buffer zones in other states and cities and justices indicated more limited restriction could be put in place in massachusetts. again from a politico story. now the oral argument from january. the case is mccullen versus coakley. mccullen versus coakley. mr. rienzi? >> this court has held the sidewalks are a natural and proper place for free citizens to exchange information and ideas.

for that reason the court has held public sidewalks occupy a special position in first amendment analysis. yet the massachusetts law at issue here makes it a crime to enter on to certain public sidewalks even for the purpose of peaceful conversation or leafletting. the law applies at abortion clinics throughout the state on every hour of every day that they are open regardless of the circumstances. massachusetts asked this court to uphold that statute under the time, place and manner test, but the law fails each aspect of that test. i would like to begin with narrow tailoring. the state says the law is necessary to protect its interest in preventing obstruction and congestion. the law is not narrowly tailored for three reasons. the law is regardless of any threat of construction even when the sidewalks are open and

empty. mrs. mccullen does her counseling early on tuesdays and wednesdayed, beginning 7:00 in the morning. she testified she is alone when she does this counseling. nancy clark testified 90% of the time she is at the clinic in worcester she is all alone. a statute that makes it illegal for mrs. mccullen or mrs. clark to engage in peaceful, consensual conversation on a public sidewalk for fear of obstruction and congestion is not narrowly tailored. >> mr. rienzi the problem that the state faced is it doesn't know and it has a history, there was a considerable history of disturbances blocking the entrance. it doesn't know in advance who are the well-behaved people and who are the people who won't behave well. so and after the disturbance occurs, it's too late.

so the state is trying to say we want to make sure the entrance is not blocked. the only way we can do that is to have a rule that applies to everyone. we can't screen people to know who will be well behaved and who will be disruptive. >> so i think the state is simply wrong about that fact for several reasons. there are many tools the state has in its current tool box or could enact that deal with that concern. if i may back up a second, i think there are two different interests the state asserts when it makes that arg um, justice ginsburg. first, they say there are actual deliberate bad actors. there are some people the state claims deliberately violated the law, blocked the door and interfered with access. there are also circumstances where there are enough people on the sidewalk even lawful, consensual conversation might accidentally block a door. i think those are actually two quite different interests, but

there are tools in the tool box to deal with both of them. for example, section e of this statute makes it illegal to impede, block, obstruct or even hinder somebody's access to the clinics. that section of the statute is not challenged here, never has been. >> i should probably ask this of the other side, and i will, but do you happen to know when was the last time that massachusetts prosecuted somebody for obstructing entrance to an abortion clinic? >> so i believe the last cite in the record that i'm aware of as of 1997, there was a decision in a previous injunction case against people who had been adjudicated through broken rules, a 1997 case on that. to my knowledge they have never brought a case under the federal face law in existence for 20 years. >> there have been laws against obstruction during this entire period, right? >> there have been laws against obstruction the entire time.

>> you say only once in 1997 that was the last time a prosecution was brought? >> that was an injunction against prior bad actors. >> you are not taking the position that 1997 was the last time an entrance was obstructed. where the police were called to open access to a clinic? are you taking that position, that the last time it happened was in 1997? >> he frankly couldn't say i know the last time it happened. >> but you know in the record there were more examples. >> in the regard there was testimony claiming that happened. my argument is the state has tools deliberately designed to deal with that. >> mr. rienzi, the state says of that particular tool that it's a hard thing to prosecute because you have to show intent and there's a lot of obstruction and interference that goes on naturally just because there are a lot of people around. so that that is an insufficient tool is what the state argues.

>> to the extent the state is claiming there are deliberate bad actors deliberately blocking the door, i don't think there is a good argument if there are police on the scene and they say get out of the doorway, in either case the person moves where there is not a problem or they don't which is clear. amicus united states has prosecuted 45 cases and got seven convictions. >> sometimes there are bad actors. probably more often it's just a function there are lots of people. they, your clients and all of them want to be as close as possible to the site and that that naturally leads to an interference with normal access. >> that is the second part of the state's argument. i don't think this law is narrowly tailored to that concern. the evidence in the case is that the crowds the case is concerned about happened at one clinic one day, one time. saturday mornings in boston. when they happened there are video cameras rolling and police

officers present. there is no reason to believe the police can't simply say move out of the doorway. if someone is front of the doorway, they certainly should do that. >> does the record show how many clinics in the state are covered by the law? >> i believe there are 11 or 12 clinics in the state. so long as they are free-standing clinics. >> do you want to concede at this point, imagine the state has two groups of people. one group feels what the other is doing is terribly wrong. the second group feels we absolutely want to do it and everyone is in a fragile state of mind. they want to, if possible, at least one group wants to shout as loud as could you at the other, please don't do this. the other says, please leave me alone. we are not saying which group is which, the analogy is obvious. if i keep all the titles out. does the state have the right, in your opinion, to say it's tough to referee this, we see

the potential for real harm. on one side or the other, so we're going to have this kind of 35-foot boundary. you want to concede that and say, okay, but the evidence here doesn't justify it or do you want to fight that, too? >> so, no. i do not need to concede that. i think a solution done with painted lines on the sidewalk that says -- >> now you are in for the details. i want to know about the principal. i can imagine applying special care, need must be taken outside of hospitals for veterans, even though there are some who are very much opposed to the war because these people will be coming out in wheelchairs, it will be terrible. we can think of many, many situations. irrespective subject matter where there is a need for subject refereeing. i want to know if the concept is okay with you or not? >> generally speaking, no. i don't think the concept --

>> so protesters, like the one we had in the schneider case at a funeral of a veteran, can go right up to the public sidewalk outside the church and put up the signs they did, give out the leaflets they did talking about that veteran in the ways that they did? that's okay by you? >> so, so a couple of points about that. one. >> there was no evidence there that they were disruptive. they were just expressing their first amendment rights. there is potential for disruption because of the strong sentiments around that. >> agreed. i think a statute that worked the way this one does here that would make it illegal to even engage in peaceful conversation on sidewalks, near a church or near a funeral or near just about anything else, i think clearly is not permitted by the first amendment. >> in schneider, they were held

not so far back that their shouts and protests couldn't be heard, isn't that the case? they could still be heard. >> i think they -- perhaps for part of the funeral procession that passed by. >> you see now why i'm trying to narrow it. in my case in schneider, i thought it was pretty important the demonstrators were behind hills and police restricted where they can go. many states enacted similar laws. i thought that's important because maybe it would have come out differently and you could argue that and i could. i'm trying to narrow it. i'm trying to see to what extent do i have to look at this particular set of facts, in which case we are into the hearings, et cetera. and to what extent is there a matter of broad principle here? >> the matter of very broad principle is a law that makes it illegal to engage in consensual conversation, quiet conversation

on a public sidewalk, an act that makes that a criminal act for which mrs. mccullen can go to prison is not admissible. if you compare the to the military funeral protest law that, law is specifically drawn to acts that disrupt the peace and good order of the funeral. >> but if you are saying you could not do an act, that instead say, it's a little too hard to figure out what does and does not disrupt peace and order, so we're just going to say 25 feet around a funeral or 25 feet around any facility, that that's never permissible? >> generally speaking i think any law like that runs into a big first amendment problem, even eliminating peaceful consensual conversation that doesn't disrupt anything. in this court's past decisions, it says regulation is required. if it's a rule around any

facility or all funerals, for example, is that there isn't nearly as much distortion of the marketplace of ideas as happens when you do what massachusetts did here. >> for example, i was intrigued by one of the examples you gave in your own brief which you said slaughterhouses. let's say that there are animal rights activists, and this is easy to imagine, who try to interfere with access in and out of slaughterhouses. and a state passes a regulation that says there is a ton of interference, it's preventing the operation of these facilities and employees can't get in, suppliers can't get in, slaughterhouses are leaving the state because of this problem, so we're just going to set up a zone and let's call it 30 feet because it's very hard to enforce anything else. i guess my reaction to that hypothetical -- you must have used it for me to say, oh, that's terrible. my reaction, my intuition is

kind of, what's wrong with that? have everybody take a step back. what is wrong with that? >> what is wrong with that is a couple of things. one, this court's decision requires precision of regulation. an injunction against groups and individuals like metz and shenks. keeping them back, i have no problem with that solution. it's a general statute that is tied to one event that gives the state enormous power to interfere with the marketplace of ideas. >> one of the examples that is given in one of the amicus briefs in this case, and they provide a lot of background is a state law that creates a buffer zone around every fraternal lodge. what would you say about that? >> i think it is difficult to imagine the government interest -- first, i guess, i

don'tparticulars of that law and what it restricts. if it restricts peaceful conversation on a sidewalk, that should not be permissible under the first amendment. generally speaking the idea of the government picking one particular item and saying around this, suddenly the character of the public forum changes from a place where people can have peaceful consensual conversations to where we will imprison them for doing that is a dramatic restriction of first amendment rights if there is a particular group or individual who keeps interfering with the fraternal order, you can get an injunction. i don't think they should say peaceful discussion and leafletting. >> let's go back to the slaughterhouse. people say it's important for us to face-to-face and talk with the employees and why they should get different jobs and change their practices in various kinds of ways. people think signs and chants are great, but there are people

who want to make one-to-one contact with the truck drivers, employees, whoever. but you say we have to let whatever interference goes on even if there is a record of real obstruction, of real interference with the operation of the facility in order to allow that to happen. i guess that's pretty hard. >> to be clear, your honor, i'm not saying the government has to let it go on. i'm saying the government has tools that are better drawn to it than eliminating the peaceful consensual conversation. >> this is justice kagan's question. suppose this were a given, assumed that those laws did not work. could there then be consideration of a buffer zone? now, this is a hypothetical that i'm sure you wouldn't accept in the context of your case, but suppose. >> suppose it were given there were no way to keep abortion

clinic open. >> the laws, reference to obstruction and block an entrance simply do not work. >> if the laws simply do not work, perhaps the government could come in and make a case it has a compelling interest and that this is the least restrictive means of doing that. >> at this point, that was a better way of getting what i was trying to get at. just assume that there isn't. let's look at the narrow part of the case. let's assume that the colorado case is right. and this particular restriction is more restrictive than colorado in two important respects, which you've gone into. they had hearings in massachusetts and they discovered that the colorado law didn't really work very well. so what are we supposed to do? are we supposed to now go look at -- as long as those hearings are legitimate hearings and they have good explanation on something like whether the zone

is eight feet and consensual or 35 feet and different amounts of sidewalk depending on the nearness of the facility. when doesn't it become just up to them? we are not legislators. we can insist upon a reasonable record, but how can we do more than that? on this detail. >> so on this detail, what i think the court should look for, for example, have they -- state said they did not even convict a single person of one -- >> you understand that, we all understand that. it's one thing to try to prove intent on such matters, particularly when people are in good faith. they are trying to explain it. it's another thing to actually stop the congestion and protect the interest of the woman who wants to have the abortion, maybe in a fragile state of mind, and this kind of thing could interfere with they are health, et cetera. there are two interests, one on

each side. we know eight feet with a bubble is okay. we are not sure about 35 feet. they have an evidentiary record. >> a few things. one. the reasons this court allowed the eight-foot no approach zone because it did not stop discussions with willing listeners. >> do you accept the reported here shows it did not work well in the sense that justice breyer used it? >> no. >> i recall the record. all it says that the police found it difficult to apply a bubble. they have to measure eight feet, whatever it is. they didn't say that massive obstruction and protests are occurring, preventing people, that wasn't the finding, was it? >> i agree, it's not. >> that's why i just asked you that question. it happens the police testified

with evidence and examples that the eight-foot bubble doesn't work. it also, they have evidence and reason for thinking if you want to have a conversation, you have to convince the woman to walk ten feet. the difference is about half, you know -- if you were near me, twice as near, we would have colorado. if we are over where the first row is, we have massachusetts. they have evidence we can't enforce this colorado thing very well. i want your answers. >> you set me 35 feet further back and sted me to make my argument from there. >> i would hear you. >> you might hear me, but you suggest would you receive it differently. if i were sent back there but the state were permitted to stand in front of you like a normal lawyer and make their argument in a normal way that, would be a significant difference. >> i am not denying the difference. we heard different characterizations of the record. i didn't mean to characterize it. i want you to explain what it is

in the record from your point of view or lack thereof that means that the constitution intervenes to prevent massachusetts from doing it. >> so the constitutional narrow tailoring test under the time, place and manner test requires that the law not restrict more speech than necessary to hear the government's interest. >> how long does it take? from when you enter the buffer zone until you reach the clinic entrance? >> if you're walking nonstop, seven to ten seconds, something like that. >> so the conversation can go on before those seven to ten seconds. there is not much you are able to do to have a conversation to persuade people in seven to ten seconds. >> i respectfully disagree on that last point. the in evidence this record is the inability to speak with people closer to the clinic has a dramatic effect on the petitioner's ability to reach their audience if someone

happens to be walking on the same side of the zone you are standing on, you may have a shot. the clinic has a space. >> if you know they are going to the clinic. >> places like worcester and springfield where the only chance to reach the audience is standing on the public sidewalk and waving a leaflet as they drive through the driveway entrance. if you have to stand 35 feet back, there is zero chance to reach that audience. >> isn't that more a function they just have a private parking lot? even if this law existed, you can't reach those people because they drive into a private parking lot and you can't talk to them anyway? >> no, your honor. i don't think that is a fair characterization. there is a public sidewalk on which before this law you had the right to engage in speech. the fact this pushes you 35 feet back makes it impossible to make the offer. many people would just drive on by and don't want the information. that's fine. that's their right. many people do want the information and have acted on

the information. this law makes it much harder, almost impossible in places like worcester. >> is there a buffer zone you would concede is permissible? if it were 12 feet? would that be all right? >> as the size of the zone decreases, i think the imposition on the speech rights gets less and less and better and better. so the adequacy of the alternatives, for example that, may improve as you go. it would still be a problem, i think, to have zones on the sidewalk where even when no one is there, it's a criminal act to have a conversation. >> that goes back to justice ginsburg's question. how is a law supposed to deal with that, the fluctuating conditions? >> that is precisely the point. this should not be addressed with a statute like this. this should be addressed with a statute drawn with large crowds or a dispersal statute. it talks about how concord, new

hampshire, and los angeles. they give the police the power to disperse crowds when they become violent. >> it is the case, isn't it, not only abortion counselors are excluded from this area, everybody is. anybody who wants to talk to anybody or just wants to be there. this is a dead speech zone, right? >> in many respects it is. in many respects, it is no different than the speech free zone for jews for jesus case. >> it is a conduct-free zone. you can't sell hats there, you can't beg there. you just can't go there. >> i agree the government eliminated more than speech on that sidewalk, but they eliminated speech on that sidewalk surely as in the jews for jesus case. >> employees are permitted to

speak within the scope of their employment, isn't that right? >> thank you, justice alito, yes. they haven't restricted speech for all people. >> that is a contested point because the attorney general reads scope of employment to mean getting to my job and leaving my job, and does not include speech activity. >> on the face of the statute, i don't think that interpretation doesn't do very much. >> officer of the state is a term that needs to be interpreted, the term is scope of employment. scope of employment within the statute means getting to work and leaving work. it doesn't mean a political speech. >> so the attorney general says it's more than just getting to work and leaving work. it's doing their job. of course, i don't believe they have the authority to do that. i don't think they can arrest somebody who happened to speak about abortion when they work at

an abortion clinic. they have a statutory defense. even if they limit it to doing their job, you end up with a problem the night circuit saw. if a clinic is allowed to use that sidewalk to say, good morning, may i help you into the clinic and the government says that is a valid use of our public sidewalks, but the state says mrs. mccullen will go to prison if she says, good morning, may i offer you an alternative? the government doesn't get to decide the public sidewalk, which it leaves open for people walking by. if i'm walking down to get a cup of coffee, it's fine. >> am i correct that the attorney general's regulation with respect to employees of the clinic in a way made this even more content based because there was a prohibition on discussing the abortion procedure? >> i agree. that's one of the reasons the interpretation is flagrantly

unconstitutional. if you talk about abortion, we'll arrest you. that mirrors the interpretation of the exemption of people walking through the zone. you can walk through. this is ja 93-94, provided that the individual does not do anything else within the buffer zone such as expressing their views about abortion. the government is saying you want walk through. >> it says you can't talk about anything. >> i agree. >> it's not based on speech about abortion, it says you can't speak about anything. >> the interpretation as to the employees that the attorney general proffered for six years is about speech about abortion. >> excuse me. if you are going through the zone just to get somewhere, not to get to the clinic, and you're walking with a companion, can't you speak to your companion? it doesn't ban speech by everybody walking through. >> the attorney general has taken multiple positions on that. in the lower court their position was you can't talk about abortion or partisan

issues. they told the first circuit you can't even wear, you could be arrested if you wore a cleveland indians shirt just passing through. at this court they say people passing through have speech rights. either one is bad. the government doesn't have the ability to say who gets to speak and doesn't get to speak. if i may reserve my time. >> thank you, counsel. miss miller? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, petitioners can't and do protest abortion in massachusetts, and they can do it in the public spaces right outside abortion facilities. >> this is not a protest case. these people don't want to protest abortion they want to talk to the women who are about to get abortions and try to talk them out of it. i think it distorts it to say what they want to do is protest abortion. if it was a protest, keeping them back 35 feet might not be so bad. they can scream and yelled and hold up signs from 35 feet.

what they can't do is try to talk the woman out of the abortion. it's a counseling case, not a protest case. >> your honor, i would say it's a congestion case. certainly ms. mccullen and others can have those conversations right in front of the abortion facility. it's just that those conversations are moved back a few feet. in point of fact -- >> it's more than a few feet. 35 feet is a ways. it's from this bench to the end of the court. if you imagine the chief justice is sort of where the door would be, it's most of the width of this courtroom, as well. it's pretty much this courtroom, kind of. that's a lot of space. >> just as a factual matter, i did want to point out in boston, for example, the door is recessed. it's a private entrance with recessed door. the 35 feet is measured from the door. so it's actually only about 23 feet -- >> i thought it was two car lengths. >> i'm sorry? >> two car lengths. >> i'm sorry? >> two car lengths.

>> exactly right. >> a little less than -- >> can go back to justice scalia's question. i didn't hear that he was saying that this case is not a protest case, it's simply about calm conversations. that is what i want to know if the evidence showed that. >> certainly, there's a picture of a calm conversation -- >> the evidence upon which massachusetts based its decision to go to 35 feet instead of 8 feet. there were hearings. the evidence show what was involved was calm conversations between one person trying to counsel another or did the evidence show something else? >> certainly the evidence showed something else. a certain amount of space around the facilities. what we had, for example, were pro-choice advocates swearing and screaming at pro-life advocates within the buffer zone. you had the pink group, which is a pro choice organization, pushing and shoving and jockeying for position. >> surely you could have a law against screaming and shouting

within 35 feet. or protesting within 35 feet. isn't that more narrowly tailored? what this case involves, what these people want to do is to speak quietly and in a friendly manner, not in a hostile manner, because that would frustrate their purpose with the people going into the clinic. >> again, experience show that even individuals who wanted to engage in close quiet peaceful conversation were creating congestion -- >> there's some people who are peaceful. in which case, i would accept justice scalia's suggestion this is a counseling case. you cited some other evidence that suggests there were other people who were screaming, pushing and shouting, which sounds like, in his characterization, a protest case. the reason massachusetts found it difficult to write a statute that distinguishes one from the

other is -- why do people write statutes that sometimes do not make these fine distinctions? why did they, in this instance? >> because it didn't matter whether people were being peaceful or whether they were -- >> could you have written such a statute that would have worked? >> it would have been very difficult. >> how did you pick 35? why 35? >> again, experience showed that some amount of space needed to be open. so then it was simply a question of looking at past experience at the prior injunctions, for example, your honor. in planned parenthood, the bell, there was actually a 50 foot buffer zone imposed. we knew from of course madsen and shank that 36 foot buffer zones were acceptable when you were being responsive to that kind of problem. we knew a 15 foot buffer zone would be acceptable if responding to a similar kind of problem.

so at some point or another, the legislature was aware that some amount of space needed to be created and it chose 35 feet as a reasonable response. a reasonable amount of space around the facility. >> is there anything in the record -- i did work in the legislature for a while as a staff member. that you don't write these fine statutes because they won't work. they have too fine a distinction. the activities commingle. i knew you were just going to nod your head as soon as i said that. i was trying to get you to say it. in spontaneously if it's true. is there anything in this record that suggests this is one of those cases to say whether they're counseling somebody or whether they're screaming at somebody? whether they're pushing somebody or whether they're standing near them peacefully? is there any evidence in the record i could turn to that would suggest that? >> you can say yes.

>> and i will. >> she can't say yes if it isn't there. which ask her to read it. >> i will, your honor. >> the best description of that is of course the evans case functioning as a goalie's crease. >> let me ask this question. assume it to be true. an elderly lady who was quite successful and had meaningful communication with over 100 women going into the clinic before this law was unable to talk to teen one after this law. assume that's true. does that have any bearing on our analysis? does that have any bearing on justice breyer's question about whether or not a law can be written to protect that activity? >> i think no one is guaranteed any specific form of communication.

there is no guarantee to close quiet conversations. the question is, are there adequate alternatives? there are adequate alternatives. >> you say there's no guarantee of talking quietly. you want me to -- there's no free speech right to quietly converse on an issue of public importance? >> generally on a public sidewalk. of course that right is tempered by the state's interest in making sure that the public sidewalks function as they should and that there is peace and good order. i would give you an example. >> i still don't know where you're going. this goes to justice breyer's question. you cannot write an ordinance that says intimidation, blocking, is prohibited, and still allow the kind of

conversation that i described earlier and that i want you to assume to be true for the purposes of this question. >> your honor, we couldn't hear, obviously, because that wasn't the problem. the problem with making that fine of a distinction is that it doesn't address -- >> in speech cases, when you address one problem, you have a duty to protect speech that's lawful. >> you do, as long as your protection is narrowly tailored to your interest. >> i think what you have to say to this court is it's impossible to write a statute of the kind we're discussing now and this is justice breyer's question. >> it would be enormously difficult to write a statute that addressed the problem and the significant interest here

where you are making that kind of a fine -- >> may i just ask a question about a distinction. let me give you this example. a woman is approaching the door of a clinic, and she enters the zone. two other women approach her. one is an employee of the facility. the other is not. the first who is an employee of the facility says good morning, this is a safe facility. the other one who is not an employee says, good morning, this is not a safe facility. now, under this statute, the first one has not committed a crime. the second one has committed a crime. and the only difference between the two is they've expressed a different viewpoint. one says it's safe. one says it's not safe. how can a statute like that be considered viewpoint neutral? >> your honor, i think what the statute distinguishes is based on what those people are doing. the -- as you say, the employee could say if she was performing her job, which would be escorting that individual into the facility, and if she wasn't

unnecessarily cluttering up the buffer zone, which was the reason that the statute was enacted in the first place, then that person could say that. you judge it on what shies doing, not what she's saying. >> what she's doing is what she's saying. she approaches and she says, this is a safe facility. the other one says, this is in not a safe facility. they have a bad safety record. they're the only three people in that zone. the difference is a viewpoint difference. >> what the legislature has done is it's created a circle around these entrances and only permitted particular conduct within that buffer zone to allow the traffic to keep moving on the sidewalk and to allow people to get in and out. so unless you have a permissible purpose for your conduct to be in the buffer zone, then you cannot be in the buffer zone and that is what the statute is addressing. >> i don't understand. a permissible purpose to say

this is a safe facility but not a permissible purpose to say this is an unsafe facility? >> the statute is not focused on that person's speech. the statute is focused on what they're doing in the buffer zone -- >> what they're doing is speaking -- >> the consequence is just what is described by justice scalia. the consequence of the statute. are you saying that the consequences of what you write are irrelevant to this argument? >> certainly, i wouldn't say that, your honor. >> seems to me you should answer justice scalia's question. >> with respect to viewpoint discrimination, your honors, the statute has a perfectly legitimate sweep. it allows people to go in and out of the building. it allows pedestrians work back and forth across the sidewalk. it allows for employees -- the snow shovellers mentioned. >> you could have created a completely silent zone. i don't know whether that would be permissible or not. but it would be a different question. you could say nobody can speak here. people can shovel snow if they

work for the clinic. they can sweep the sidewalk. they can do maintenance. they can go in and out. but they can't utter a word. well, that would be a different statute. this statute says there's an exemption for employees of the facility if they are operating within the scope of their employment. and surely, coming out and saying this is a safe facility is within the scope of their employment. >> right. >> how do you justify that? forget about the conduct now. the speech that's allowed. one can speak and say it's safe. the other cannot speak and say it is not safe. >> what i would argue, that speech, in that particular circumstance of the employee doing her job and not unnecessarily cluttering the buffer zone, that speech is simply incidental to the permissible conduct. it doesn't make the statute on its face, it doesn't make it viewpoint discriminatory. >> what if it's a question about whether this is a safe facility? that's incidental speech?

>> it's incidental to her performing her job. your honor, if there were a circumstance where that kind of speech were habitual or wide spread or touched on advocacy in any way, shape or form, then obviously petitioners would have an opportunity to challenge the statute as applied. they haven't even begun to make the case that there's viewpoint discrimination actually happening in the buffer zone. >> it's very hard for me to credit the statement where the implication that for an employee to say, we're glad you're here, this is a safe facility. it's very hard for me to credit your statement that that's incidental to their function. >> it's incidental to the permissible purpose for which they're allowed in the buffer zone. i should point out, actually, that pplm, again, this is in the brief.

page 2-a. they actually train their escorts not to engage in that kind of speech. that's first of all. escorts really only exist and only operate in boston on saturday mornings for a couple of hours. they don't work at all in worcester or springfield. >> that raises another question, ms. miller. because i assume that's true because the crowds and the obstruction really are with respect to one facility at certain periods of time. so mr. rienzi says it's only at one facility, not all ten, and it's only for certain periods of time, not all day, every day, you know, why not narrow it that way? so why not? >> because the experience has shown you do have problems at worcester and springfield. those problems do center around the driveways. 85% to 90% of patients who approach those facilities do so by car. and the only public sidewalk,

there's a small slice of public sidewalk between the road and the private driveway. and that's the only opportunity that individuals would have in order to protest. what's happened in the past in worester and springfield is you would have pacing across these driveways. that's joint appendix 41. you'd have individuals stopping and refusing to move in worcester. you'd have literature thrown into cars. you'd have hands and heads thrust into open windows. and there was at least one accident in worcester. that's at ja-19. so there definitely was conduct that was a problem. and it wasn't even that there are a couple of lone protesters in worcester or springfield. there are events in worcester and springfield. there are regular protesters there every week, first of all. second of all, the crowds get much larger at the semiannual -- >> i object to you calling these people protesters which you've been doing during the whole presentation.

that is not how they present themselves. they do not say they want to make protests. they say they want to talk quietly to the women who are going into these facilities. how does that make them protesters? >> your honor, the problem of course that the statute was looking to address was not with protesters per se. it was with people who had a desire to be as close to the facility doors and driveways as possible to communicate their message. the result of that was congestion around these doors and driveways. so it wasn't concern about protest. it was concern about people actually being able -- >> i would think if you tried to do a statute that distinguished between protesters and counsellors, that would be content based much more than this statute is. >> i would agree. >> which is not to say this statute doesn't have its problems in my view. so i guess i'm a little bit hung up on why you need so much

space. >> again, the experience -- we've had quite a long experience in massachusetts. a long history of crowds around these doors. of even violence the clinics -- and we've had law enforcement and others who have viewed that crowd on a regular basis and have described the activity around the doors and driveways as being so frenetic. you have so many people there. the bad actors and the good actors. you have so many people congested in the same space from all points of view that it effectively blocks the door. >> before you sit down, can i ask you this question. suppose the state legislature has hearings and they say there's a long history of violence and obstruction at sites where there is a strike and replacement workers have been called in. could the state pass a statute that says there's a 35 foot zone like this around every location in the state whenever there say

is a strike and there are replacement workers? could they do that? >> well of course labor actions are protected by federal law. so any state law couldn't directly conflict -- >> could federal law do that? >> well, this court has repeatedly upheld restrictions on labor activity if given the right record. so the answer is yes. the first amendment would -- >> in every case. in every case there could just be a flat rule? doesn't matter whether there is any history at that place? any indication there's going to be violence? maybe there will, maybe there won't. across the board, zone around every place where there's a strike. >> certainly it would be an easier case to defend if we had history. as we have here. and you'd have to prove that the solution -- >> you don't think there is a history of violence at places where there are strikes and replacement workers? >> i don't think there's been

the kind of history and sustained violence. we have almost this unique record in massachusetts with respect to facilities -- >> is there any -- is there any abortion clinic that has not had a problem in massachusetts? >> in -- there was -- when the legislature was considering the statute, there was a survey submitted. that reviewed the experience of the ten facilities. six of them said they had significant problems outside their facilities. eight them said at the very least they had regular protesters. there were two who did not report significant problem. >> this is testimony by the clinics themselves, right? >> correct. thank you, your honors. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the massachusetts statute here is simply a place regulation that does not ban speech but instead effectively moves it from one part of the forum to another. in this case, away from the small areas -- >> which of our precedents do you think governs this case? >> so, your honor, i think a number of them that are helpful. madsen. upheld the 36-foot buffer zone that had a no speech zone very much like this. >> that was an injunction? >> it was an injunction but it was upheld under an even stricter standard that is as applies here. even aside from that, i think a number of the pillars -- petitioner's argument here are directly contradicted by this court's precedent. so for example, the idea that unrestricted -- that you have the right to choose the best mechanism of communication is contradicted by hefron.

the petitioner said i need to be able to talk quietly to people to ask for money. that's the only way i could goat it. this court said you have ample communication channels over in that booth. in frisbee, what the protester what this court said in frisbee was you have alternative channels of communication. you can go door to door. you can mail things. you can make calls. i think that pillar of the -- of the argument -- >> what's the alternative here? standing 35 feet away and yelling? is that the alternative? >> no, your honor. >> to comfort these women? >> the alternative in this case is the entire length of the sidewalk, quiet counseling, leafletting and conversation is permitted. the last 4 to 5 seconds before the counsels enter the clinic that know who's going into the clinic -- >> until you get to the area close to the clinic, you don't know whether passersby are going there or not. >> the testimony is actually to the contrary. get quite good at identifying who is and who is -- going into

the clinic. >> is your concern that absent the statute there will be physical obstruction to the entrance, is that a major concern? >> your honor, let me address that. the answer is yes, but that's not all. what the legislature had before it -- that you're defending is you don't want this physical obstruction statute to be

misinterpreted. what's wrong with the physical obstruction statute as an answer to many of the problems that massachusetts is facing? >> your honor, i don't think it it's at all an answer to the problems massachusetts is facing. because as justice scalia has repeatedly pointed out, these are not the type defendants who are at issue with the face act. murder, arson and chaining to doorways. . something quite different. it is congestion in front of doorways. it is people, individuals -- >> that's obstruction under the federal statute. >> it is not, your honor, because those are specific intent crimes. in both massachusetts and in the federal statute. for example -- >> -- even a dog knows the difference in being stumbled over and being kicked. >> so your honor -- >> you're saying federal prosecutions can't tell when people are deliberately obstructing, this is beyond the realm of the law. >> what's at issue here is not

that type of deliberate on structuring. what the testimony before the legislature was, was there was a congregation of people and the massing of people. indeed, there were pro choice protesters in the zone who are certainly not intending to obstruct. it was -- so what they were dealing with was quiet counseling -- countercounseling leading to congestion in front of the doorways. also testimony there were people handing literature to moving cars, accidents and near accidents. which are not intentional obstruction in the least. the kind of statutes this court -- that are at issue in the specific intent do not get at the kind of peaceful, quiet yet congesting and disruptioning conduct that is at issue here. justice breyer, i would urge you to look at the evans testimony. the heffernan testimony. the coakley testimony at ja-51. there are specific arguments why these did not work. the argument petitioners make here is very, very broad. the lower courts have upheld buffer zones around political conventions.

around circuses. around funerals. the idea that you could defeat those buffer zones by simply saying i would like to have a quiet conversation with the delegates as they go into the political convention would wipe out a number of court of appeals decisions and the kind of buffer zones this court, i submit, and the lower courts have found, are needed. >> how far do you think -- what to you think a state legislature or congress needs to find in order to establish a zone around some category of facility at which there -- they have some evidence that there have been some disruptions and some obstruction? >> so, your honor -- >> take the example -- i think it's a real ordinance some place you can't have -- there's a buffer zone around fraternal lodges. >> i'm not aware of the history of fraternal lodges but the

issue here -- >> what would they have to find? or slaughterhouses. or sites where there are strikes? >> so i think there -- for example, in the slaughterhouse what they found around circuses and conventions is the idea that there is massing of people that prevents the orderly ingress and egress into the facilities. not an isolated incident, that the state had 14, 15 years of the history of the massing. they have tried other things. they have tried the statutes that justice scalia have identified. the testimony was it wasn't working. and that the police were coming in and said we can't enforce it. why is that? because they had a hard time measuring consent. >> what kind of a record do they need? could there be a state law that says there could be no picketing around any store to try to prevent people don't patronize this store? isn't that thorn hill versus alabama? >> right.

thorn hill, they struck that down. >> right. >> but it was very different from that statute. thorn hill was you can't go anywhere near the facility and it was only one type of speech. this is content neutral. and it is a narrow buffer zone. >> i'll ask this one more time. i think it's -- i understand the desire to create a buffer zone around certain sensitive facilities. what i'm asking is what requirements, if any, does congress or state legislature have to meet before they can do that? if it is done, do we simply say they have a rational basis for it and that's it so they can establish basically a buffer zone around any kind of a facility they want? if not, then what needs to be established? >> your honor, i think in the evidentiary realm, it's hard to have hard and fast rules. i would say you need a lengthy history of serious congestion

and other problems and a -- some sort of showing that the alternatives weren't working. but that's what's here. since 1994. this is not something the legislature woke up one day and said in light of one incidence we're going to deal with. what would it take to support a broader statute? it's hard for me to say. but i think this record shows -- >> what about the example of a strike? there certainly is a long history of labor violence in places where there are replacement workers. could it be done in that situation across the board? >> so i think that would be a very broad statute. hard to defend. if there were before the legislature as there is in this case the kind of conjunction and the solution i submit is much narrower than the commissioners are suggesting. it is to clear out an area around the entrance. the testimony is 22 feet from the entrance in boston.

22 feet from the edge of the doorway to the edge of the buffer zone. it is an nba three point zone. i don't -- >> i understand you're saying the reasonableness of it. maybe we can make some progress here. the regulation of labors up to the nlrb. the nlrb does regulate picketing. it does say what you can do and can't do. the courts have reviewed that. what standard do courts use when the nlrb decides in its wisdom and expertise, well, the pickets can go here but they can't go here? you can do this but you can't do that? what standard of review do the courts use? >> i'm not aware of the standard they use. but it is -- >> are you aware of any case -- only to show my ignorance of it. where the standard has differed from the ordinary apa standard? >> i'm not, your honor. i'm not aware of cases one

way -- >> should we create a new standard for reviewing this kind of regulation? i think it's a serious question. >> i don't think so, your honor. >> thank you, counsel. you have three minutes remaining. >> several points. it's not impossible to teal with the problems. 49 other states deal with the alleged problems. institutes for blocking a door will be its firsts in at least two decades. is. >> is that true? the only one of its kind? >> municipal statutes that are similar that are frankly based on the first circuit decisions in this case. secondly, here, the police officers testified that they know all the regular players at the clinics. they know them all. if you know them all and they're congregating in the doors, you should go to court and get an injunction and say stay out of the doors. until they do that, the claim they have to throw their hands

up and put people in prison for freedom of speech is not a very persuasive claim. all of it, boston, saturday mornings. the claim that the legislature can extrapolate from that to ban peaceful speech in boston at other times when the sidewalk is empty and at other clinic, where the sidewalk is empty and say, well, there's abortion there. and where there's abortion, we expect certain speech problems, therefore, we're going to make it illegal to speak there. that's the state's claim there. the evidence is boston specific. the first amendment requires precision. they need to regulate the problem where it happens. if that means police officers, if that means dispersal law, if that means actually bringing prosecution, they ought to do that. they shouldn't imprison mrs. mccullen for her speech. third, the united states mentioned -- >> questioning the government's reputation -- >> i don't believe the government -- >> is it limited to the three situations?

to murder, arson, chaining? >> no, it is not. the statute is not remotely limited to that. i direct the court to section c -- i'm sorry, section -- it's the definitions section of the statute. definition four, physical obstruction includes even making entry unreasonably difficult. it is not at all solely for violence. it's for physical obstruction. counsel said they brought 45 cases across the country. that's true. zero, zero in massachusetts. they shouldn't be able to restrict the peaceful speech. recognize there are some situations that are so ordinary that we should put people in prison for peaceful conversations on public streets. that ought to be the exceptional case where the statute passes strict scrutiny and the state has tried the solutions it claims don't work. that is not this case. the government does not claim. they didn't say it would be impossible, they said it would be hard. 49 other states do different things. the federal government protects

peaceful speech in the face law. face is a great example of something that deliberately gets at the problem. if somebody's in the doorway and they need to get out of the doorway, the answer is, sir, please get out of the doorway. she has a consensual conversation 25 feet away from the doorway. that's an extraordinary power for the government to ask, to selectively control speech among will be participants on public sidewalks. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel, case is submitted. the supreme court has two cases remaining, the hobby lobby case on the contraceptive mandate in the health care law, and another on employee unions. decisions on those are likely to be announced on monday, the final day of the court's term. and just a reminder, too, we have many of this term's oral arguments on our website, c-span.org, where you can listen to the cases just as they were argued before the justices. looking live at capitol hill, the house and senate are out. they are out for the july 4th

recess. back for legislative work on tuesday, the 8th of july. before they left yesterday, house and senate democratic leaders repeated calls for house republicans to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the passage of the bill in the senate. news conference with a number of leaders is about 40 minutes. >> we're sorry to all be a little disorganized here. we've had a lot of things to do this morning and just finished the gold ceremony for president perez, which took a long time. really, a wonderful ceremony.

i think it's important to quote comedian leslie neilson. it portrays what's going on in the house of representatives better than anything i could ever think of or study to figure out something better. this is it. here's what he said. doing nothing is hard to do. you never know when you're finished. well, certainly that's what's going on in the house of representatives. because they have done nothing like the republican tea party directed republicaned we have in the senate. it's been 365 days, 52 weeks, since we passed in the senate a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. that common sense immigration bill would create jobs, reduce our debt by $1 trillion, and keep families from being torn apart.

in a true bipartisan way, eight senators, four democrats and four republicans, sat down and hammered out what they thought was a solution. went to the committee and went to the floor, and we passed it. senator leahy managed that bill. americans want their elected officials to work together to fix our nation's problems. this is a problem that needs to be fixed. eight in ten americans support immigration reform. that, to me, is about 80%. and polls have shown even a majority of republicans support a bill with a pathway to citizenship. even this, president tom donahue went so far as to say, republicans shouldn't bother to run a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. he said it more than once. it wasn't a slip of the tongue. he really believes that.

this republican-oriented directed organization led by tom donahue believed this. and i think they're right. the house has had a long time to act. they now have a month to act. new majority leader mccarthy has a clear choice to make. he can get to work and force a vote on immigration. it wouldn't be very hard to do because it would pass by a wide majority. i've said, and a majority of republicans would vote for it, and of course democrats would vote for it overwhelmingly. now, if something is not done by the republican dominated house of representatives during the month of july, the sole blame without any condition or suggestion of minimization would be that the republicans are the reason that we have been able

to -- been unable to do immigration reform. each day they don't act, each day they are killing it, each day that the house doesn't act, we don't make progress toward closing a deficit, creating jobs, other countries become more competitive economically, we lose talent, and more families suffer. so instead of wasting time, wasting time suing the president, the house should do the work of the nation, pass comprehensive immigration reform. >> thank you very much, leader reid, for your strong statement, for your great leadership. one year ago, as you mentioned, one year ago this week the senate passed a strong bipartisan immigration re -- comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. for one year we have been waiting, urging, cooperating with the republicans in the house to bring a bill to the

floor. they didn't want to bring the senate bill to the floor. we suggested a compromised bill, hr-15. many of the co-sponsors are here now. they rejected that. we said, just do it any way you want, but bring a bill to the floo floor. give us a vote. people across america, the religious community, have traveled the countries, have had starvation, fast, all the rest to make the point how important this is. the law enforcement community, that was the bible. the badges, the law enforcement community have testified here over and over again how important this is. you can make a business case for it. if you have agriculture in your state, if you have technology, if you have hospitality, the list goes on and on. why this is needed for the economy of our country. it will, as the senator said, reduce the deficit by about $1

trillion over the next ten years. a couple hundred billion in the near term. it's about our values as a country, that we want people who are here to have rights and be -- have a path to legalization and citizenship. it's about a sense of decency toward other human beings, as president george w. bush has said. when we have this debate, we should do so with respect for the people we're talking about. whether it's about our values of respecting people, whether it's about our economy and the need to have comprehensive immigration reform. there's so many reasons why. today on this one-year anniversa anniversary, we say to the speaker, give us a sign, give us a vote. if we don't have some indication in the month of july that there will be a hearing -- or there

will be a bill scheduled for the floor, it seems that there's little chance for us to pass such a bill. i'm hopeful. i believe the speaker is of good faith on this. the senate has acted. it's long overdue for the house to do so. we have many senators and members who are here, but because we have votes on the floor, i'm going to yield to the democratic -- we'll go to dick durbin, a champion on immigration reform. the leader of the fight for the dreamers and the congress and comprehensive immigration reform. >> thank you very much. when i heard yesterday that speaker boehner was going to sue the president of the united states for using his executive authority, it recalled a moment in history in one of the darkest moments of the civil war when another president from illinois named abraham lincoln sent a message to general george mclelland, who was refusing to use his army to execute the war and win. his message was summer.

if general mclelland isn't going to use his army, i'd like to borrow it for a time. that's what we face with this issue of immigration. speaker boehner, who's refused to call this bipartisan measure out of the senate, is critical of this president for using his authority to try to address the many challenges of immigration facing our nation recalls that moment in history in my mind. we passed a bill after a lot of long, hard efforts and negotiation. it was a bill that had the support of business, of labor, of the faith community, all across the united states. it is a bill that really appeals to all of america because it solves an american challenge that still continues to this day. despite his majority in the house of representatives, speaker boehner refuses to call this bipartisan measure because he knows quite simply it would pass. and if it passes, it would begin to solve the problems of our

broken immigration system. a year has gone by. i don't know how much more time he thinks he needs, but i hope that speaker boehner will speak up today, and fe had does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration, and he shouldn't be sued as a result of it. >> i'm pleased to follow my friend dick durbin. leader reid just told you that we came from a ceremony giving the gold medal to shimone perez. in many ways, a founding father of his country. a country which for my len ya was peopled by the jewish people. but in another sense, a nation of immigrants. as america is a nation of immigrants. made great and courageous and entrepreneurial by its immigran immigrants.

we have a new majority leader. i was once the majority leader that had the power to put a bill on the floor or keep it off the floor. mr. mccarthy and i talked yesterday and i asked him to consider bringing this bill to the floor. i urge speaker boehner to bring this bill to the floor. america deserves the right to have its representatives vote on this critically important issue to our country. from an economic sense and from a moral sense we demand, we plead, we ask on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the american people, bring this comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. and do it now.

>> well, thank you. i want to thank all of my colleagues for their hard work. we're here today, as everyone knows, because a year ago tomorrow democrats and republicans came together in junk the way people want us to act, in a bipartisan way on a major issue where everyone compromised and we addressed our broken immigration system. the bill we wrote was not perfect. and it's not everything that any one person wanted, but it's a good, reasonable compromise that strengthens the border, offers tough but fair path to citizenship, reduces the deficit, and boosts our economy. it got broad support across the political spectrum from the most liberal to the most conservative. and yet still the house can't summon the courage to bring a bill to the floor. the house has yet to act. hope springs e term because republicans know that if the house does not pass immigration reform, they'll be handing the house, the presidency, the

senate to democrats in 2016, and we will write our own bill in 2017, and it'll be a bill less to their liking. the leaders of the house know that they're coming up to the edge of a demographic cliff and immigration reform is the only thing that can keep them from falling off of it. a majority of their caucus knows it as well. an informal w.h.i.p. count before cantor was deemed lost indicated a majority of them said, let's move a bill forward, even if they don't want to vote for it. they know. they all know. but it's a small sliver of a minority of america which has disproportionate weight, the tea party, that prevents them from moving forward. they're afraid of the tea party. they're afraid of the word amnesty, even though our bill is not amnesty at all. but rush limbaugh says it enough and they're afraid their primary voters who skew far right

believe it. a majority of the republicans in the house, therefore, are in the pray yes, vote no caucus because they want to deal with the issue for the good of their party, but they're afraid of the tea party and the almost hateful anti-immigrant forces led by steven king. the tea party may be a sliver of the american public, but they make a huge percentage of primary voters in their district. so the question before house republicans is this. will you let steve king be your spokesperson? dictate what your party does on immigration, which is nothing? for the next year and a half, that's what you're doing. that's exactly what the republicans are doing. or do you summon a little bit of courage and pass immigration reform that'll be good for you, your country, and your party? i'd encourage my friends in the house to look around and realize

that the tea party, while still very powerful, is peaked. in only one major election did they cause the demise of an incumbent. and that is eric cantor. if you look at the lindsay graham election, if you look at the mitch mcconnell election, if you look at the election in oklahoma. renee elmers in a conservative district campaigned on immigration reform and won. their fear is greater than the reality, but they're quaking in their boots and america suffers. i'm still hopeful. maybe they'll come to their senses because people usually at the end of the day do what's in their self-interest. and it is clearly in the self-interest of the republican party to move forward. and speaker boehner knows it. but they have about a month. they have about a month to summon the courage to do what's right for their party and what's right for their country, to break the chains of bondage that the tea party has wrapped around

them, which will consign them to minority status for a generation. let's hope for the good of the country they summon that courage. >> thank you, majority leader reid, leader pelosi, and all my colleagues and senators who have spoken before me. there's no question that my colleagues have all laid out many reasons why we need this cir, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. most notably that comprehensive immigration reform will reunite families and strengthen our economy is of great importance to our country. that's why you heard the 80% of people who are polled saying that they want it to be passed in this congress. as chairman of the hispanic caucus, it has been our signature issue, and we've been

fighting fearlessly and always in support of getting it done this year. the will of the american people, by that 80%, are telling us to act. yet, republicans continue to hold immigration reform hostage. the u.s. senate has done their job. it's critical that we in the house of representatives do our job. the house has a bipartisan solution before them in house bill resolution number 15, which was introduced by my chc colleague, congressman joe garcia from florida. it has been said many times, but i will say it once again. now is the time to pass comprehensive immigration reform by this 113th congress. thank you. >> well, you know, i'm glad to

join my colleagues on both sides of the capitol here because we're at the end of the line. it looks as though the republicans may be giving up on our last chance to bring 11 million people out of the shadows. our last chance to make sure that there are no second-class citizens in america. last chance to do what is right for america, for the economy, and for the future of our country. and the last chance for the republicans to be on the right side of history. the political consequences of their inaction and obstructionism are now forthcoming. today, one year later, after hundreds of rally, thousands of advocacy meetings, hundreds of thousands of families being torn apart, immigration reform sits languishing in the house of representatives and the country waits. 11 million people wait. and the toll from republican inaction compounds. families suffer. children suffer.

deportations continue and injustice prevails. i hope our republican colleagues in the house remember their immigrant heritage. i hope they understand exactly what the cost of inaction is and what it will mean to stand on the wrong side of history just to score political points for a handful of the most conservative districts in the country. i hope they understand that we're not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act. by killing immigration reform, they're turning their backs on their own immigrant heritage, on the agriculture community, on the business community, law enforcement, the religious community very broadly represented, the high-tech community in silicon valley, and most importantly on their own base who have begged to fix our nation's broken immigration system. they're simply on the wrong side of common sense and political realism. and the worst of it is, because

of republican inaction, even those of us who are u.s. citizens sometimes are detained in raids based on the color of their skin. hundreds of thousands have been deported despite having u.s. citizen children. they are not criminals. they're hard-working families trying to make ends meet. so i say to speaker boehner, history says act now. the clock is ticking. and the fallout for republican obstructionism will at the end of the day take years to recover at the ballot box. the fact remains, if we had a vote in the house of representatives, this bill would pass. so i'd remind the speaker and the new majority leader that their first job is to govern. in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions. if he believes at all that responsibility of leadership is that he should move the history to action and stand with us on the right side of history, then

i think he will be rewarded. people are suffering. 11 million are living in the shadows. families are being separated. the clock is ticking, and history is not on your side. but the lives of millions, millions are in your hands. [ speaking spanish ] [ speaking foreign language ]

>> i'm congress member judy, which ru, chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus. it's been almost one year since two-thirds of the senate, democrats and republicans, voted for comprehensive immigration reform. the american people and countless aspiring americans from around the world have waited long enough. every day that house republicans stonewall progress on reform, millions within the asian-american and pacific islander community feel the devastating impact. it affects people like the leon family who came to the united states from china but had to leave their 22-year-old son

behind. if he was to petition for his son to come to the u.s., it would take him up to 12 years. today, more immigrants come from asia or the pacific islands than any other region in the world. those from asian countries account for 10% of all undocumented immigrants. api's make up 40% of the 4.2 million individuals caught in the current family visa backlogs. some families have had to wait up to 24 years to reunite with their loved ones. not only that, with the employment backlog, 80% of those waiting for the employment visas are from asia. and that's why i helped introduce hr-15, our bipartisan immigration bill. it has the votes to pass. mr. speaker, the american people don't want anymore excuses. it's been 364 days since the senate passed its bill.

bring comprehensive immigration reform legislation up for a vote now. >> let me join with my colleagues from the senate and all the members who have come up from the house to say once again congratulations to the senate democrats and republicans alike who passed the bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system a year ago. a year ago. that means 365 days, every day some 1,000 individuals being separated from this country, from their families, from their loved ones. every day republicans in the house have refused to let us have a vote. we also see that today republicans who have been talking about giving us a chance to have a vote soon on immigration reform are now talking just the opposite. we now know that there's a letter that's going to the president telling thim he should

eliminate the deferred action program for many of these immigrant young americans who know no other place as home other than america. more than half a million of these young people, many of them at some of our best universities and colleges, some working, many of them already starting businesses, being told that they should be deported from this country. that's where we are today. it seems like the republicans in the house haven't listened to their colleagues, republican colleagues in the senate. and it's certainly clear they're not listening to the people. overwhelming numbers of democrats and republicans throughout this country want us to fix this broken immigration system. so we're left with one conclusion. house republicans have a choice. they can do this the american way, passing a common sense immigration reform, or they can do it the tea party way. we hope our house republicans here choose the american way to

do business and fix our broken immigration system. i still have confidence that we get this done. because everything proves that you can. our senate colleagues have shown that. the american public is behind it. perhaps the one place we've placed too much confidence and faith is in the republican leadership. because after months of saying they were going to do something, after months of putting out principles, we're beginning to see their true colors. so let me finally conclude by saying something in spanish. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> it's time to vote. we deserve a vote. the american people deserve a vote. we can get this done if we just get a vote in the house of representatives. mr. speaker, it's time to vote. >> thank you. i'll be brief. it would be hard to overstate how frustrated the people in colorado are with the way the congress works or doesn't work. we're a state that's a third republican, a third democratic, and a third independent. it was a great day in -- when the united states senate a year ago was able to pass this bill and i could go home and say to people, we finally did our job. we did our job in a proper way, working together in a bipartisan way.

republicans and democrats. seven to eight months of bipartisan negotiations. dozens of hearings on the issue, all in public. a month between introduction and committee mark-up. 37 hours of consideration in the judiciary committee. 300 amendments, 212 considered, 100 passed. thoroughly bipartisan from the very beginning to the very end. we could not have passed the bill in the senate without our republican colleagues. brave colleagues willing to stand up and face the base of their party and say, this is the right thing to do for our country and ultimately the right thing to do for our party in that order. it's been rare to see that kind of leadership in the five years that i've been here. and that's the kind of leadership we need to see in this house of representatives today. and i don't look at the recent elections and take a conclusion that a vote for immigration is terminal. one of the members of the gang of eight, lindsay graham, running in south carolina, won

with almost 60% of the vote. he had the guts to do what was right. he had the guts to go home and say why he did it, why it was the right thing for his state, just as it's the right thing for my state. so because of the intransigence of some people in the house, a minority of the minority, the border hasn't been made more secure in the last year, the visa system hasn't been made more functional, the ability for people that are here that are undocumented to pay taxes and come out of a cash economy hasn't been addressed. my farmers and ranchers in colorado still risk losing their farms and ranches as a result of their intransigence. so i hope they'll pass the bill. i apologize for running longer than i intended to. i hope we don't miss the vote. thank you. >> they said they're going to hold our vote. >> okay. >> very quick. clearly a year has passed. a year has passed that we could have stopped dividing faeps. a year has passed we could have had an immigration system that works. a year has passed we could have collected revenue we didn't

collect. a year has passed we could have invested in our nation's future. [ speaking foreign language ] and today what we do is treat the symptom. these children on the border are just part of the symptom of a broken immigration system. what we need to do is fix the immigration system. if we fix the immigration system, we would have the resources to process these children. we would have the system that worked behind it, that those who have their parents in the united states would have a pathway forward. we could have made a difference. we have not. [ speaking foreign language ] there's not much more to add than the men and women that went before me, but the time has come to act. we ask the speaker to put it to a vote. hr-15 has the votes to pass. we think we can get it done.

thank you for being here. >> we're ready for questions. >> senator schumer, how much, to what extent, do you think the issue of unaccompanied minors have -- >> they've had -- >> and a quick comment on the detention center in the state of new york. >> number one, it's had very little effect. they've had excuse after excuse after excuse. first it was the border wasn't secure. then it was the hastard rule. then it was the president wouldn't enforce the rule. we don't believe this had any effect at all. as for any proposed center in any part of new york, i'd have to look at the details before commenting. >> what about this idea that if they can't get immigration reform through the house or won't move it in the next couple of months here and the president decides to do something by executive order, doesn't that sort of correlate with what speaker boehner said, well, this is another abuse -- >> well, speaker boehner has a very good antidote to what he fears. put a bill on the floor. he's like shooting his parents and throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.

pass a bill and that won't happen. the president has no choice, and we've made it clear to our republican colleagues, both publicly and previously. if, if, if they don't bring any bill to the floor, the president has no choice on a humanitarian basis and on a policy basis to account where he can on his own. is it as good as a comprehensive bill? not even close. but it's better than nothing. >> let me answer that question with saying, here's the abuse. the abuse is not giving the american people by virtue of their representatives in the house of representatives a opportunity to cast a vote and declare a position on immigration reform. that's the abuse. and the speaker, who has the power to allow such a vote to take place or not, has been abusing that power by virtue of not giving the american people a shot. so when, in fact, the house of representatives on a whole host

of issues, but this one most importantly to me, fails to at least either put up the senate bill or put up the house's version of it, then he invites clearly the action of the executive branch to try to do that which the congress seems to be incapable of doing. but if i find it abusive that the 13 members from new jersey who represent 9 million people don't get a chance to cast a vote on behalf of the 9 million people of new jersey who overwhelmingly want immigration reform, which is also reflected of the overwhelming view of people throughout this country. >> senator, at what point is it time -- >> -- shouldn't the issue on deportation come before? why wait another month for the white house to decide on deportation? >> we've always said the deadline for getting a bill done feasibly is july 31st. we believe that. are the chances very small? very small. but is there still some hope? hope springs eternal. maybe speaker boehner would come

to his senses. everyone agrees. a comprehensive bill is a lot better than any action the president would take. >> in addition to that, let me just answer -- excuse me. i'll get to you. in addition to that, let me just say, what does speaker boehner say? you ask a question, why shouldn't we ask the president to seek deportation relief now? spiker boehner goes around saying, well, the main reason we can't go ahead and even permit a vote on their own version of what immigration reform would be is because the president doesn't -- we can't trust the president to enforce the law. which means he wants more people to be deported, more families to be broken up, more of the same ineffective system that we have today. so what we're saying is, let us give them a chance and not give them the fuel to say that the president doesn't enforce the law. because you have a chance to make a law that can be enforceable. that means you have to pass immigration reform.

in the absence of that, then, you know, i'm sure there will be actions. >> when we talk about the situation of the unaccompanied minors, the humanitarian crisis, and we talk about the law enforcing the law, remember this is a law that was proposed by dick army, republican in the house, and signed by george bush, republican president, and so we are in the process now of trying to enforce that law. but if the laws are broken, it's always very difficult to make it work the right way. that's why the president is prepared to use whatever authority he has to make the laws work as best possible. we should probably close. >> i've been raising my hand for a while now. there's data out today that more than 72,000 u.s.-born children lost a important to deportation last year alone. as we speak, you know, who knows how many more thousands have been deported on a daily basis. a lot of the complaints you're raising today you've been raising for a year.

i'm just wondering, what is your strategy following up on what my colleague said? you know, it's clear republicans are not going to move on this in july either. so what is your strategy to push it? what are you planning on doing? because the president is not going to do it either. >> it's not a solution to say republicans aren't going to vote. a year ago had republicans in the house permitted us a vote on the senate bill or on the house version, authored by congressman garcia, those individuals would not now be in deporation or have been deported if they could prove they had a reason to stay uh under the provisions of the new law would it have been able to take effect. let's recognize you can't just dismiss the shutdown politics of a do-nothing republican congress. if it's not doing anything to fix a broken immigration system, we shouldn't be surprised that we have individuals who we hope

in the future won't be deported being deported. and we should not be surprised that we have several thousand young people trying to get into the u.s. the system is broken. and the longer republicans continue to shut down an opportunity to vote, we will find these type of results that are crazy, make no sense, are not good for our economy and certainly not good for families. good afternoon, everyone. i'm shujan nawaz. behalf of my colleagues and president fred kemp, i want to welcome all of you, to this, our second event in two days on afghanistan. for obvious reasons, because the attention is now focused so much on afghanistan from our side, even though we know that washington, which tends to get distracted by crises of the day in other parts of the world, we felt it very critical we

continue our focus on afghanistan and at the south asia center in particular because we've been looking at this country and its surrounding neighbors for the last 5 1/2 years. we felt it very important that we continue to raise issues, particularly at this critical juncture in the development of afghanistan. so even while we wait for the final results of the election, we felt that it was critical to share with you expert views on exactly what to expect in afghanistan and the region. so i'm delighted that we have today a discussion on afghanistan's economic transition and transformation. and i'm very pleased to welcome today paul ross, who is the mission chief for afghanistan at the international monetary fund.

paul is a colleague, former colleague from my own days at the fund. and somebody who has had a very rich background within the fund dealing with an array of major responsibilities, including macro economic and policy design program negotiations and lending. he has worked in a range of countries, low and middle-income countries, including afghanistan, of course, haiti, armenia, pakistan, kazakhstan, egypt, indonesia, russia, and turkey. he's also evaluated the imf's financial needs, liquidity, and risk management. and before joining the fund, he was with sg wallburg and company in london. he's a british subject and attended the university college, university of london, and

columbia university. so i'm going to request paul to speak briefly, give us his view of the economy of afghanistan. particularly since the imf has recently completed its article four consultations, which for those that don't follow the imf jargon, is the sort of annual physical of the economy where they go in and examine the books and talk about the issues that are looming and ways in which the fund and the member country can then ameliorate the situation, if there are any problems that need resolution. so i'm going to request paul to speak. please remember that this session is on the record and also remember if you have any cell phones that you haven't switched off, that those are

switched off so we don't have any interruption. i also want to welcome the audience at home courtesy of c-span. and let me say also that, you know, we are very grateful to support for work on our region from our various funders and particularly on pakistan. but in this particular case, you know, we are grateful for the support of all our colleagues within the atlantic council. so thank you and, paul, please. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. thank you to shuja and his

colleagues for inviting me. and thank you all for coming. i'd like to share today the imf's perspective on the outlook for the economic transition and the economic transformation in afghanistan. and to start, most of you familiar with afghanistan, its location. as you know, it's a land-locked country and is neighbored by iran, central asia, pakistan, and china. and its strategic position between iran, central asia, and south asia is reflected in both its population and in its history. now, i'd just like to outline what i have planned -- oh, excuse me -- what i plan to cover today, which is i'd like to start by sharing with you the key messages from my presentation. then i'd like to talk about the achievements made in the afghan economy between 2002 and 2013. and then i'd like to talk about the outlook for the afghan economy and the risks it faces. and then i'd like to discuss

policies that we think will help afghanistan manage its transition and transformation successfully. and i better define what i mean by transition and transformation. by transition, i'm referring to this year, 2014, where we have a political transition with presidential elections to be followed by the appointment of a new government. at the same time, the international troop drawdown is well under way and is expected to be completed by the end of this year. so this is the transition year for both political and security aspects. and in terms of transformation, i'm talking about the next decade. beginning in 2015 and running through 2024. now, i'd like to start with my key messages. and i have four key messages that i'd like to share with you. over the past dozen years, afghanistan has made enormous progress in reconstruction

development. it's doubled per capita income levels. it has also taken very important steps to lay the foundation for mac kro economic stability and growth, to reduce poverty, and raise living standards despite the difficult security conditions and the challenge of rebuilding many economic institutions. second, i think that assuming a smooth political and security transition, continued reform on the economic front, and continued donor financing, the outlook for the afghan economy should be positive. third, i think to ensure inclusive growth, growth that is broad based and created jobs and is spread throughout the population, they'll be a need for continuing macro economic stability, continued structure reforms, political and security stability also. and let me explain what i mean by macroeconomic stability.

it's a jargon we use frequently. what we're referring to is low inflation. so continued low inflation with a low-debt position, which afghanistan has at the moment. we're talking about a budget that is balanced after taking into account the donor financing that afghanistan receives. and similarly, an external current account that is financed -- the deficit in that account is financed by donor grants. last but not least, afghanistan has a fairly comfortable international reserves position. so it's a continuation of those things is what i mean by macroeconomic stability. the last message i'd like to leave with you is that the imf is committed to maintaining a close engagement with afghanistan, which means we continue to discuss economic policies with the afghan government and the afghan central bank and also we'll continue to provide technical assistance to help build economic institutions and strengthen them in afghanistan.

now i'd like to turn to recap the achievements that have been made in the afghan economy between 2002 and 2013. first, the afghan authorities, with significant donor support, cleared external rears which they inherited. they introduced a new currency and created an independent central bank. they've established a modern ministry of finance that's able to collect revenue and manage expenditure. they've established commercial banking system and also they've benefitted from support from donors in the form of a comprehensive debt restructuring and a large amount of debt reduction between 2006 and 2010. at the same time, part of these achievements has been to establish and maintain macroeconomic stability. so as you can see on the right-hand side, the international reserve's position is comfortable at seven months

of import and $7 billion. currently debt is low. at the end of last year, debt to gdp was 6%. and inflation is also low. it's about 6% currently. and as i mentioned earlier, the budget and the external current account positions are balanced after taking into account the donor grants that are received. now, as i mentioned earlier, gdp has increased significantly in this period. gdp as a whole in u.s. dollars is increased by 2 1/2 times. and gdp per capita has almost doubled. this growth gain has been due -- both due to generous donor support and reform efforts made by the afghan authorities. and you can see the levels of donor support to the afghanistan economy reason the right-hand panel. now, i'd like to go to the second part of my presentation looking at the economic outlook

and risks to the economy. first, to set the stage, i would like to recap the donor commitments that were made in 2012 2012 to afghanistan. in may, 2012, at the nato summit, afghanistan's international partners provided by assurances to finance security spending estimated at $4 billion per year through the following decade and words that $4 billion that government is expected to make gradually increasing contributions. in july, 2012, in tokyo, donors agreed to continue their development assistance pledging $16 billion in the period through 2015 and to sustain a similar level through 2017. donors in the government also adopted something called the tokyo accountability -- mutual accountability framework which were a set of principles, objectives, and reform

commitments to promote, aid effectiveness, reform good governments and inclusive sustained growth. and donors indicated that their support would depend on afghanistan meeting the commitments made under this tokyo mutual accountability framework. follow-up conferences by nato as well as by development partners are expected to be held later this year after the new government has been installed. . now, turning to the medium-term outlook, as i mentioned, this will be determined by the success of managing the economic transformation from dependency towards more self-sustaining economy over the transformation decade 2015 through 2024. international finance assistance will continue to be needed and several factors will play a role in the growth outlook. the drawdown of international troops has reduced aggregate demand over the past couple of

years and that has affected growth in those years. and as i mentioned, security and pl political conditions will be importance determine determinates of growth. through those improvements in economic governments, the business and investment environment will improve and it will encourage higher levels of private sector participation activity, higher investment, and growth as well as more job creation. low inflation will need to be maintained. this is a necessary condition to continue to have a stable investment environment. now assuming these things take place, the ones i mentioned

about political security, macroeconomic policies, do more to support and improved governments, gdp could triple in u.s. dollar terms over the next 20 years this projection assumes a modest pickup in growth during the transformation decade, 2015 through 2024 led by private sector activity and the development of the agriculture and natural resource sectors. although gdp growth has projected -- i apologize. although gdp growth is projected to slow to just over 3% in 2014 because of the international troop drawdown and political uncertainty in the early part of the year, it is expected to pick up thereafter as activity and investment rebund. continued reform efforts and donor support will ensure gaps

are covered and with prudent monetary policy inflation should remain in single digits. in the longer term, an improved business environment, better economic governance are expected to facility private sector led growth and development of the natural resources sector achlt cordingly, growth could accelerate to 6% per an and then converge to 4% per annum there after. as i mentioned, there are a lot of risks there's a wide range of risks. many, but not all of them, are on the down side. on the upside, a smooth security and political transition could result in larger inflows and higher confidence, higher investment, and higher economic activity. a significant improvement in security could even generate a peace didend for economic activity through higher activity across sectors, more foreign direct investment, better regional transportation and the

return of expatriots. on the down side there are a number of risks. in the near term the principle risks are related to a potential deterioration, either domestic or regional security conditions, possible political instability and inadequate implementation of economic policies. over the medium term, the down side risks or donor fatigue which i'll discuss nult a minute. in addition, a weakening of banking supervision that would fail to manage banking sector risks or delays in developing natural resources are down side risks. the large foreign exchange reserve's position does provide a sizable buffer, at least in the short term for risks. now i said i would talk a little bit more about debt and as i mentioned earlier, debt is

modest currently but there are large expenditure needs and only limited domestic revenue capacity at present which means that the high dependence on no do more to financing is likely to continue at least in the near term. as i mentioned, following the extensive derelief starting in 2006 and ending in 2010, afghanistan's debt burt was alleviated significantly and as of the end of 2013 a debt amounted to 1$1.3 billion which is about 6% of gdp. moat of that was owed to multilateral creditors. under the baseline scenario and given the donor pledges that were made in tokyo and chicago in 2012, debt is sustainable. however, there are significant vulnerabilities. if growth were to slow or economic reforms were to stall or security to deteriorate or if financial support was provided in the form of loans rather than

grants there would be a need for large fiscal adjustment, either raise significantly domestic revenue or to make expenditure cuts. of course, expenditure cuts would affect security and development in the economy and growth. so if debt finance were to replace lower levels of grants, then debt would increase rapidly and would soon reach an unsustainable pra ttrajectory. so that was my -- that was the outlook on the risks. i'd now like to talk about policies to manage the transiti transition first let me start by talking about afghanistan's economic strategy. this strategy is designed to address the challenges that the economy faces and to reduce the vulnerability which is it has. first, maintaining macroeconomic stability, which i've talked about before in terms of maintaining low inflation,

conservative fiscal policy and low debt and manage the external position, both the current account and reserves. this macroeconomic stability, along with an enabling political environment, is a pre-condition for growth and poverty reduction. second, moving towards fiscal sustainability, this is aimed at improving the self-reliance of the economy, moving towards self-reliance over the long run. so that over time afghanistan can finance more of its own operations based on its own activities. and this will mean both more domestic revenue mobilization as well as better expenditure management so the revenues are used for, say, poverty reduction, social safety net or development outlays to help increase the capacity of the economy to grow and improve living standards. third, there's a need to promote

financial sector stability and development through banking sector reform and strengthened supervision. to ensure that the banking sector does not experience trouble or crisis, and also so it can increase its capacity and ability to provide credit to the economy to help the economy grow and particularly to help new enterprises start and grow. the fourth element is to improve economic governance which is to really spur the business and investment environment to allow the private sector to function. and that includes many components, making the tax administration business friendly, making the banking sector open to the population so people can get credit when they need it for investment. it also means actions to fight and reduce corruption. for example, the anti-money laundering laws combatting financing of terrorism, going ahead with making easier for businesses to get licenses for

investors to invest and so forth. all these things are designed so that by reducing corruption and rent seeking you're lining economic incentives with pro-poor and broad-based growth in the economy. i'm going to talk a little bit more about each one of these areas now, starting with macroeconomic policies. on fiscal policy, the policy mix so far has been using fiscal policy to support demand which had been financed by grants and monitor policy to focus on managing inflation. this is predicated on donor flows continuing to finance the fiscal and external deficits. so as i've mentioned, revenue mobilization is needed and also to ensure that expenditure is managed effectively so there's proper prioritization, both to ensure that enough is