we have not. [speaking spanish] there is not much more to add than the men and women who went before me. 15 has the votes to pass. and we think we can get it done. >> how much and to what extent do you think the issue of s?accompanied minors has, ♪ >> very little effect. they have had for excuse after excuse. then the president would not enforce the law. this did not have any effect at all. as for any proposed center in new york, i would have to look at the details. >> if they cannot get

immigration to the house and the president does something by a second order, doesn't that correlate with what owner said that this is another abuse of power? >> boehner has an antidote to what he fears -- put a know on the floor. it is like shooting his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. pass the bill and will happen. we have made it clear to republicans publicly and privately, if they do not bring a bill to the floor, the president has no choice on a humanitarian basis and on a policy basis to act where he can on his own. is it as good as a comprehensive bill? not even close, but it is better than nothing. >> let me answer that question, by saying here is that abuse. the abuse is not getting the american people by virtue of

their representatives in the ause an opportunity to cast vote and declare a position on immigration reform. that is the abuse. the speaker, who has the power to allow such a vote take place or not, has been abusing that power by virtue of not giving in factle a shot, when the house of representatives come on a whole host of issues, but this one most important to me, fails to at least either put up a senate bill or put up the house 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 i find it abusive that the 13 members from new jersey who represent 9 million people do not get a chance to cascade growth on behalf of the 9 million people of new jersey who overwhelmingly want migration reform, which is reflected in the overwhelming view of the

people throughout this country. >> [indiscernible] month for theer white house to decide -- >> the deadline for getting a bill done feasibly is july 31. we believe that. are the chances very small? very small. hope springs eternal. maybe boehner will come to his senses, because everybody agrees a comprehensive bill is better than any action the president would take. >> in addition to that, let me answer. say?does boehner you asked the question, why don't we ask that question to seek deportation relief now? boehner says one of the reasons, the main reason we cannot go ahead and permit a vote on their own version of what immigration reform would be is that we cannot trust the president to enforce the law, which means he wants more people to be

reported, or families to be broken up -- deported, more families to be broken up, so what we are saying, let us give them a chance and not give them the fuel to say that the president does not 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, there are will be actions. >> when we talk about unaccompanied minors, the law enforcing the law, this is a law that was proposed by ardick by george bush, republican president, so we are in the process of trying to enforce that law. if the laws are broken, it is difficult to make it work the right way. that is why the president is prepared to use the authority he has the law work as best as possible.

i have been racing to head data outle, there is today that more than 22,000 u.s.-born children lost parents to deportation last year alone, and how many more thousands had been reported? a lot of the complaints you have raised today you have been raising for a year, and i am wondering what is your strategy following up on what -- said, republicans are not going to move on this in july either. what is your strategy to push it? what are you planning on doing, because the president is not going to do it either. >> it is not a solution to say republicans are not going to vote. a year ago if republican's have permitted a vote on the senate will or on the house version, uthored by congressman

garcia, they would not be -- if thef they had provisions of the law have been able to take effect. you cannot dismiss the shutdown politics of a do-nothing republican congress. if they start anything to fix a broken immigration system, we should not surprised that we have individuals who we hope in the future will not 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 working, no longer republicans continue to shut down the opportunity 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 our families. >> the leader is clear. he can blame a lot of people. there's one responsible party, republicans in the house. we have a bill, we have put it on the house, we have got 98% of the democrats signed on to it.

not one republican has signed to get it through the discharge visitation -- petition. they have had every excuse in the book, like the hastert they said the calendar did not allow it, then they said they needed to meet as a caucus. that lasted 24 hours. and they said they did not trust the president. now they are trying to blame it on children. it is beneath the dignity of the body, and in the end they will force the president's hand, because in a vacuum the constitution is clear, and when they used children as an example of the president acting outside his authority, it is pathetic. these children are make and accept the fact that they were not born here. it is sad and we have to keep the pressure on. it boehner does not put him on the floor, i believe, and i do

not speak for the leader, but i believe the president's hands will be forced. >> we have a vote -- >> democrats in the hispanic caucus -- >> there's no division. it is clear. it is a fault of the leadership of the republican caucus, that they are unwilling to bring a bill to the floor, period. and what we are going to do after that when that option of the best a solution is not available, we will be forced to then go to whatever -- >> it is for the president to take action now. >> i understand, and you will grow that spirit in our caucus. i believe the president should act also. as a member of the legislative branch, my job is to pass laws, because what of the president does, it is nowhere near as important as getting a legal remedy that fixes the problem. not a band-aid. >> now or in a month, or in august? >> we will be right back.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama is in minnesota today and tomorrow kicking off a series of white house summer trips. this is a live trip from minneapolis. at a townehaha park, hall. the motorcade pulled up just a short time ago. the press corps has a right. we should expect to see the president momentarily. this is live coverage on c-span. ♪

waiting for president obama this afternoon, hosting a town hall meeting in minneapolis. we expect the president momentarily here on c-span. we will bring you live coverage. comes supreme court term to a close, we spoke to reporter about the decision on presidential recessed appointments. -- recess appointments. this is a staff writer with "the hill."

the supreme court has ruled on the case of president obama's making recess appointments. they said the president overstepped when he appointed three members to the national labor relations board in 2012 while congress -- the senate said it was in a recess. the court and all nine justices believed that was a violation of the constitution's recess appointments clause. >> leaders on capitol hill have responded. we have reaction from harry reid and mitch mcconnell. we will look at both, and then i would like to get your take on their comments. we will start with majority leader reid. reform,since the the senate has been -- this from mitch mcconnell -- a unanimous supreme court has

rejected this brazen power grab. all americans should be grateful for this. what is your take on both of those remarks? >> i think they both have a point. mr. mcconnell is right that this was a rebuke to presidential authority. boils down to a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive ranch, and the inislative branch onwon that the court found limits to the powers. the a read is right that at least for the time being this may not -- leader reid is right for at least for the time being this may not have an effect on appointees, because the senate had the nuclear option and that allows most nominees to move a simple majority rather than a larger number of senators hacking that the number -- hacking that nomination. as long as the president's party

controls the senate, the president will likely have his way. >> has there been reaction from the white house? didot yet, but the nlrb issue a response just a few minutes ago, saying that it would now be reviewing the decision and any decisions that it would have to revisit. some just -- some suggest there are hundreds or even thousands, more likely hundreds decisions that were made by the court when it was unconstitutionally structured, so those would have to be revisited. anyill this really have impact on past nominations, including the national labor relations board members who were the subject of the supreme court case, or is this only going to affect future nominations? >> that remains to be seen, but likely the latter, because at least in the case with the nlrb, those members have been

reconfirmed in the traditional fashion by the senate. there is no issue there. conservativesing, on the court would have gone farther to limit presidential recessed powers to only between sessions rather than during recesses within sessions of congress, and the majority, led by justice breyer, suggested that if the conservatives, led by mr. scalia, had their way, there would be countless numbers of nominations and appointments in the past that would be now thrown into question. atyou can read this work thehill.com. thanks for your time today. >> you bet. >> that decision was handed down today from the supreme court. as we wait for president obama, he could get a question or two

on the decision during this town hall meeting, about to get underway. in the senate, chuck grassley came to the floor this afternoon to talk about the decision regarding presidential recess appointments. here is what he had to say. >> i ask for permission to speak. i come to the floor today to praise the decision to strike down obama's illegal recess appointments. our goal -- article two, section two of the constitution provides ways in which the president may appoint certain officers. it first, it provides that the andident nominates and by with the advice and consent of

the senate, a points various -- appoints various offices. president allows the to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happened if the senate is in recess. on january 4, 2012, the president made four appointments. they were purportedly based on the recess appointments clause. he took this action even though they were not made in the words of the constitution during the recess of the senate. these appointments were blatantly unconstitutional. they were not made with the advice and consent of the senate, and they were not made during the recess of the senate. in december and january of 2011 and 2012, the senate held sessions every three days.

it did so precisely to prevent the president from making recess appointment. it followed the very same procedure as it had during the term of president bush, and that was done at the insistence of the girardi leader reid -- of majority leader reid. bush declined to make recess appointments during these times, respecting the senate and the constitution that we were in session. to president obama chose attempt to make recess appointments, despite the existence of the seventh being beingsion -- the senate in session. as the supreme court said today, for the purposes of the recess appointments clause, the senate is in session when it says it is, provided that under its own

rules it retains the capacity to transact senate business, a quotation from the decision. no president in history had ever attempted to make recess appointments when the senate said it was in session, and i'm a little surprised, since senator obama -- or president obama had served in the senate that he would not know how this had been respected in the past i president -- by presidents. so president obama failed to act consistent with the constitution's broad delegation of authority to the senate to determine the rules of its proceedings, as the constitution states. these illegal appointments represent just one of the many important areas where president obama has disregarded the laws sith his philosophy of the end

justifying the means. we should all be thankful then that the supreme court has reigned in this kind of lawlessness on the part of this d innistration -- reine this kind of lawlessness on the part of this administration. and it should reading some comfort from time to time that the checks and balances of government do work. the supreme court was called upon to decide whether president obama could make recess appointments even when the senate was in full forma session. were the sake of the constitution, fortunately, and the protection of individual liberty, the supreme court said it did not. now, this is a very significant decision. it is the supreme court's biggest rebuke of any president, because this was a unanimous decision, the biggest rebuke of any president since 1974 when it ordered president nixon to

produce the watergate tapes. it included a unanimous decision, including both justices, that even this president has appointed to the supreme court. int shows that disregard which the president held his body and the constitution when he made these appointments, and remember, i am a little surprised because at one time he was senator obama. thanks to the supreme court, the u.s. -- the use of recess appointments will not be made only in accordance -- will now be made only in accordance with theviews of the writers of constitution, our founding fathers. it is worth eating in mind that the president, the justice department, and the senate said at the time of these appointments. the president said that his nominees were pending and he

would not wait for the senate to take action if that meant that important business would be done. inthe president stated another way than that i have a pen and a phone, and if congress will not, i well. but the supreme court has made clear that failure to confirm does not create presidential appointment power. were sointments blatantly unconstitutional that originally there was speculation that the justice department had not approved there legality. but in fact, the department of office of legal counsel had provided a legal opinion that claimed to justify the appointments, in other words, justify the unconstitutional action of the president. now, the department's office of legal counsel's reasoning was preposterous, and this unanimous

decision backs that up. that office defined the same words "recess those quote that appear in the constitution in two different places differently and without justification. it claimed that the senate was not available to do business, so that it was in recess when the president signed legislation that the congress passed during those pro forma sessions. thedepartment allowed president rather than the congress to decide whether the senate was in session. 's today's supreme court unanimous decision made clear, the office of legal counsel opinion was an embarrassment reflecting very poorly on its offer -- its author. she had told us that she would not let her loyalty to the

president overcome her loyalty to the law. this office of legal counsel opinion proved otherwise. it said the president had that power he did not have come and he did not have that power as expressed today by that unanimous decision of the supreme court. those partisans in that office who defended that opinion and thor should be humbled and should take back their misplaced praise, not that i expect them to do that. the office of legal counsel opinion furthered a trend for that office from one which gave the president objective advice whichhis authority to one provided legal justification for whatever action he had already decided he wanted to take. hasaps now that the office been so thoroughly humiliated, it will hopefully conclude that the department and the president

will be better served by returning to the former role of that office. ♪ >> hey, hello, minneapolis. good to see you. good to see you. well everybody have a seat. it is good to be back in minnesota. the last time i was here it was colder. tip forre is just a folks who are not from minnesota. if you come here and the

minnesotans are complaining about how cold it is, it is really cold. because these are pretty tough folks, because they do not get fazed by cold. when itod to be back is warmer. i have to begin by congratulating our u.s. soccer team, team usa, for advancing. next round of the world cup. usa! usa1 -- usa! >> usa! usa! >> absolutely. we were in what was called the group of death, and even if we win today, we were in the toughest grouping, and we got through, so we still got a chance to win the world cup. we could not be prouder of them.

they are defying the odds, and earned a lot of believers in the process, and i want everybody on the team to know that all of us back home are really proud of them. tell you, i've been really looking forward to getting out of d.c. [laughter] but i have also been looking forward to spending a couple of days here in the twin cities. our agenda is still a little loose. i might pop in for some ice cream or visit a small business. i do not know, i am just going to make it up as i go along. with secret service, i tease them, i am like a caged bear, and every once in a while i break loose, and i'm feeling super loose today. might do not know what i do. you do not know what i might do. [applause] who knows? the main reason i am glad to

is i wanted a chance to talk to folks about their lives and their hopes and their dreams and what they are going through, and i want to spend some time listening and answering your questions and just having a conversation about what is going well in your lives and in your neighborhoods and communities right now, but also what kinds of struggles folks are going through and what things are helping and what things are not. now, before i do, i just want to mention our governor is here. [applause] and mark gave me an update on the flooding that has been going on across the state, and some folks here are affected by is as well. we made sure that fema is already on the ground here. the army corps of engineers is

helping to build up a lengthy. i told -- a levy in the area. i told the governor we will be there as we declared a about what needs to be done, and you are going -- you should feel confident you will have a strong partner in fema and the federal government in the process of cleaning up. [applause] and you can also feel confident because if we did not help out, then i would have mayor coleman and mayor hodges and congressman keith ellison giving me a hard time. they will hold me to it. they do a great job on behalf of everyconstituents day. [applause] i also wanted to mention that up the road there is a memorial service for a person that many of you knew and loved, and that who served sor,

long in congress. i had a chance to know jim. we overlapped before he came back home. publica good man, a good service. he was somebody who never forgot the folks in the iron range that he was fighting for. and in a lot of ways, what he represented was a time when folks went to washington, but they understood that they were working on behalf of hard-working middle-class families and people who were trying to get into the middle class. that fight continues. we have made progress. ie one thing i -- one thing remind people of, just on about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we were then when i came into office. unemployment is down, the deficit has been cut in half, housing market has improved, solid,have gotten more the number of people who are

uninsured are down, exports are up, energy production is up. so in the aggregate, when you look at the country as a whole, by pretty much every measure, economy is doing better than it was when i came into office, and in most cases, significantly better. we have created now 9.4 million last 51s over the months. [applause] the department rate here in minnesota is the lowest since it has been in 2007. [applause] but here's the thing -- and i'm not talking about anything you do not know -- there is still a lot of folks struggling out there. that event an economy when it grows and corporate profits are high and the stock market is doing well, they are still having trouble producing

increases in salary and wages for ordinary folks, so we have seen wages and incomes flat line even though the costs of food and housing and other things have gone up. there are a lot of people who have worked really hard, do the responsible,are but still find at the end of the month that they are not getting ahead. and that is the central challenge that it drives me every single day when i think about what kinds of policies would help. so i have put forward an opportunity agenda that is the continuation of things i have been talking about since i came into the united states senate and served with mark and things that i've been working on since i have become president, making sure that hard work pays off, making sure that if you work a goodour kid can go to school, and end up going to

college without a huge amount of debt, that you are not going to go broke if you get sick, that you are able to have a home of your own and you are able to retire with some dignity and some respect, maybe a vacation once in a while. that is what people are looking for. and that means that we got to revert this mindset that somehow if anybody at the top does really well then somehow benefits automatically trickle down, because that is not what has been happening for the last 20, 30 years. calledon monday what we a white house working families summit, and we talked about bread-and-butter issues that everybody talks about around the kitchen table, but unfortunately do not make it on the nightly news a lot. we talked about childcare and the fact that it is prohibited for too many young families. we talked about -- [applause] paid familyout

leave, says that if a child was sick or a parent was sick, you could actually go help and take care of them, which is, by the way, what every other developed country does. we are the only one that does not have it. we talked about work face flexibility so that if you want to go to a parent-teacher conference with your family -- or for your kid, or a school that you could balance that and infect those companies, we discovered that the summit, who provide that kind of flexibility, usually have more productive workers, more loyal enders from and companies up being more profitable. we talked about increasing the minimum wage, which would benefit millions of people all across the country. [applause] we talked about equal pay for equal work, because i want my daughters to get paid the same as men do. [applause] all of these things are

achievable, but we have got to make washington work for you, not for special interests, not for lobbyists. we do not need a politics that to the most fringe elements of politics. we just need folks who are having a commented conversation about what is happening in their lives and how can we help. and then try to take some concrete action that makes a difference. so that is what i want to talk about, and i am hoping that some people in washington are going to be listening. and theyhem will be, will probably be saying i am crazy or socialist or something, but hopefully they will hear from you, some of this stuff will sink in. with that, i will take some questions.

i will make sure i do not lose my voice, and i think we have microphones in the audience, and i will just call on folks. the only rule i got is when i call on you, you have got to wait for the microphone, introduce yourself. if you keep your question relatively short, i will try to keep my answers relatively short. boy, girl,ing to go boy, girl, to make sure it goes fair. all right? who wants to go first? this young lady right here. tell me your name. >> i am sure all hill. i admire you. worked to protect our students abroad. i support hundreds of students who work their way up through college and are not well protected by any surveillance or laws. they are killed. i'm here because of my son tyler

hill. >> so this is like exchange programs or study abroad programs? programs, study abroad are coordinated by the universities and colleges that sponsor them. there should be interaction those educational institutions and the state department. there obviously are some countries that are particularly dangerous, and in this cases making sure everybody has good information going in is important. tragedies happen when folks travel overseas. unfortunately, tragedies happen here as well. but what i would like to -- [no audio] >> it looks like we have lost

the signal to the president in minneapolis during his town hall meeting. it appears we have regained the signal, so we will go back now live to president obama. >> good afternoon. my name is dan. i question, use with about tragedies at home, and how we can reduce gun violence in this nation and what we can do to team up together and make a difference. [applause] ll, on my way over here i was talking to a mom i had lunch wonderful, by the way comanches are, but i will not embarrass her. and she has a couple young sons. and we talked about a whole bunch of issues, the cost of childcare, the fact that wages do not go up to meet the cost of living. but one thing she talked about hownewtown, and i described the day that sandy hook happened was probably the worst day of my

presidency, and meeting those families just a couple days after they lost these beautiful six-year-olds, 20 of them, and then some of the parents -- or some of the teachers, administrators that had been affected as well. i was sure after that happened there is no way that congress is to do some common sense stuff. and i thought that the issue of and common sense legislation has been controversial for some time, but i thought that was going to be a breakthrough moment. the fact that it was not was probably the most disappointing moment that i have had with congress. what we have done is we have actions, 24 executive things that were in our power, to really try to tighten

tracking where guns go, making we are sifting through and separating out responsible gun owners from folks who really should not be having a weapon. so we probably have made some prop gress. we have probably saved a few lives. but i will tell you, this is the only advanced country that tolerates something like this. we have what is basically a mass shooting it seems like happening once every couple weeks. campuses, kids and we are not going to be able to eliminate all that violence, and there is a strong ownership, andn there are wonderful folks were sportsmen and hunters, and i

respect all that, but we should be able to take some basic common sense steps that are by the ways of supported by responsible gun owners, like having background checks so you cannot walk into a store and buy a semi automatic -- [applause] something i am going to keep on talking about, but i was asked about this a few weeks ago, when i said honestly, this is not going to change unless the people who want to prevent these kinds of mass shootings from taking place feel at least as passionate and are at least as mobilized and well-funded and organized as the nra and gun manufacturers are, because the congress are such where even members of congress who know better are fearful that

if they vote their conscience gunsupport common sense legislation like background checks, they are worried they're going to lose their seats, and, frankly, there are a number who have, because the other side is very well organized. keep on talking about it. we are going to continue to work with law enforcement and community groups and others to try to take steps locally and at the state level, but if we are going to do something nationally, then we are going to have to mobilize ordinary folks, moms, dads, families, responsible gun owners, law they are goingd to have to get organized and be able to counter the pressure that is coming from the other side in a sustained way, not in not in the few

weeks after a tragedy. all right. young lady right there. the one in the orange -- you got a mike right next to you. >> i am an educator with public schools, and i have a son in college who is struggling through college with student loans. i have been an educator for 27-plus years. [applause] andow you are into sports, i hear they generate a lot of money. we generate a lot of minds, and it really bothers me that i cannot pay for his education. >> i am just curious what your son's circumstances are. is he going to a state school, a private school? >> he's going to a community college, and want to go to a college in new york, in fashion design. >> but he is in community

college in minnesota right now? >> correct. for thes he eligible federal student loans programs, or is he finding that the cause of your income or his family's income it is hard to get some of the lower interest loans? >> kind of both. is something we've been spending a lot of time on. there are a couple components to the problem, and by the way, this is something near and dear to my heart because i was not born in to a wealthy family. i am here only because of my education, but the reason i was able to get that education was loans, workts, during the summer, all those things allow me to pay the bills. costs were lower than when i was going to school. i know you cannot tell from my

gray hair, but i'm getting a so ie older now, and andted college in 1979, when i graduated, i was able to get a four-year college education. i had some debt, but i could pay it off after one year. now the average student that does have debt is seeing $30,000 worth of debt. and even if they are able to take out loans, that is a burden that they are carrying with them in their first job, it may prevent them from buying their first home, if they got a business idea, that is money that is going to take them a while before they are able to start a business, and as a consequence, it affects the whole economy. now, is really important just to remind everybody a college education is still a great investment as long as you

graduate, as long as you graduate, so when you go in to college, you got to be determined, i am going to graduate. it is a great investment, but not if you take up $20,000 worth of debt and you do not graduate and do not get the degree,, which is why we're spending time talking to colleges about what are you doing to retain students. the things we need to do are, number one, try to keep costs of student loans down. we have been working with colleges and universities telling them that the federal government is going to subsidize universities with your student loan program, you need to show describingat you are for them what their repayment plans would be, that you are keeping tuition low, and that you are graduating folks at a higher rate. he got to work with colleges and universities to lower costs, we

got to keep the interest rates on student loans low. right now there is legislation that was presented in the elizabeth warren sponsored it, and it just allows student loans that you already have to be consolidated and you can't refinance them at a lower rate just like you could your mortgage if the rate goes down. republicans all voted against it. i do not know why. he will have to ask them. but that is an example of a tool we can use. we have also put in place -- this is something that i passed a while back and now i have whereby -- a program you never have to pay more than of your current income to pay back your student loans so that if you decide you want to go into teaching or you want to go into social work, something

that may not be a high-paying profession, but a satisfying profession, that the fact that you have had some student debt is not going to preclude you from taking that position. so there are a number of different steps we are taking. i will tell you, though, in addition to what we are doing at the federal level, you will need is talk to your state legislatures. part of the recent tuition has gone up is because state legislatures across the country have consistently lowered the support that they provide public universities and community colleges, and then the community colleges in the public universities feel obliged to increase tuition rates, and that adds a burden to students. the bottom line is your son is doing the right thing. the fact he is starting in a community college will save his money. be a goodill investment, so he should shop around and get the right information.

we are going to do everything we can to keep it as affordable as possible, and i'm sure he's going to do wonderfully and then he is going to look after his mom. all right. 's turn, this guy gentleman right here. you i amesident, like the father of two before, intelligent girls. in stem are both careers, and i am wondering what we can do to promote and encourage more girls to go into stem careers. >> this is a great question from a great question. fort of all, stem stands science, technology, engineering, and math. america became an economic becauseer in large part

we were the most innovative economy. we are a nation of inventors and and we expand the boundaries of what is possible through science. and that continues to be the case. we still have the most cutting-edge technology, the most patents, but if we are not careful, we will lose our lead. and if things are not being invented here, then they are not being produced here, and if they are not produced here, that means the jobs are not being created here. over time, other countries catch up. so what do we have to do? number one, we got to make sure we are investing in basic science. sometimes people say i do not know what the federal government spends money on, they are all just wasting it. and of the things the government does is it invests in basic research that companies do not invest in. if it was not for the investment

in basic research, th3een things like the internet, things like gps that everybody uses every day, veins that result in cures for diseases that have touched probably every family that is represented here in some fashion, that stuff never happens. you do the basic research and then you move on to commercialize it, and that is often times when the private sector gets involved, but sometimes they are not able to fund basic research. number two, we got to make sure we are investing in working with let'sies who are doing, say, advanced manufacturing, the next phase of manufacturing, linking them up with universities so that once we have a good idea, a good invention, whether clean energy or a new way to build a car,

that the next phase of production and innovation is done here in the united states. we have opened up what we call four advanced manufacturing hubs around the country. i want 15 where we link private sector and universities so they become centers of innovation and jobs get created here in united states. but the third thing we need is we need more folks in engineering, math, science, knowledge, and peter science -- science, technology, computer science, and we do have a school system that encourages those subjects, and i was a political science and english major, and you need to know how to communicate, and i love the liberal arts, so this is no offense, but we've got enough lawyers like me, we need more engineers. we need more scientists.

generally speaking, we are not getting a good enough job educating kids and encouraging them into these kinds of careers. we are particularly bad when it comes to girls. somebodyole thing is said i was a sports fan. i am. and one roll of sports is you do not play as well if you only got half the team. we do not have everybody on the field right now if our young women are not being encouraged the same way to get into these fields. so this starts at an early age. i've used my office of science and technology partner with elementary schools to first of all train teachers better in stem, then to really focus on populations that are underrepresented in stem, not only young women, but also african-americans, latinos, others, getting them

interested early. for example, we know that young girls, i know as a father, they or if theydo that are in a team and social environment, so making sure that the structure of science classes, for example, have collaboration involved and there is actual experience doing stuff as opposed to just it eating a classroom exercise, that there are certain things that can end up making a better experience for them, boosting their confidence, and encouraging them to get into the fields. so we are going to continue to spend a lot of time on this. i will close by saying every year now i have a science fair at the white house, because my attitude is if i am bring me in the top football and basketball teams to the white house, i should also bring the top scientists. i want them to feel that they get the spotlight just like athletes do.

[applause] and these kids are amazing, except they make you feel really stupid. met, she student who i just graduated. when she was 12, she was diagnosed with a rare liver cancer. fortunately, she had health insurance. they caught it early enough. she responded to treatment. lovely young lady. it did not come back. but by the time she got into high school, and she was taking biology and chemistry, she became interested in why was it that i got this thing at 12 years old? so she talks to her teachers, and she designs a study where she goes to the surgeon who took out the cancer from her liver, takes samples, identifies the

thetic profile and chromosomes that might have led to this particular kind of cancer, writes up the research in science magazines, and now has a scholarship to harvard to pursue her interest in biomedicine. and as you might imagine, her parents are pretty proud of her. i was really proud of her. but it gives you a sense of the possibilities for young people and young women if somebody is sparking that interest in them and telling them this is something they can do and they should pursue their interests. all right. [applause] ok. young lady right here, in the yellow. the university of minnesota student body

president. i have a softball question. is, the houseion republicans recently released their recommendations for the reauthorization of the higher education act, so i want to know where you think republicans and democrats can work together and what the top priority should be for the reauthorization. l question, how do you get a president to be your commencement speaker? >> aw. first of all, you have to invite me. that is a good start. commencement last at uc irvine. they had a campus-wide letter-writing campaign. i think we ended up getting 10,000 letters? something like that. they also have a very cute mascot. it is an anti-eater. that is their -- it is an

anteater. gophers are cool. but the invitation is a good place to start. then we will work from there. higher education reauthorization act, that is a bill. there is a lot of complexities to it. i will just focus on an area that i think should be the focus, and we've already talked about it, and that is student loan costs and how we can hold schools were accountable for informing young people as they are starting their education what exactly is going to mean for them. we have already started this -- i mentioned a few things. one thing i did not mention is consumer finance protection board that we set up that in response to what had happened during the great recession, when people were taking out mortgages

they could not afford, and predatory lenders were getting folks a lot of trouble, the same way you should be protected from a faulty appliance or a faulty car you should be protected from a faulty financial instruments, to make sure it does not explode in your face. cfpbne of the goals of was to tackle the student loan issue and what we have done is called ahat we know what you owe program, which pushes colleges and universities not to do the financial counseling on the exit interview, where suddenly they had you a packet and say to my , here, this is what you at theanded to them beginning, break it down for them, and that well all young

people to make better decisions and their parents to work with them to make better decisions about what college expenses are going to be. before, this is true for education generally. the federal government can help, but states and local governments have to do their part as well. in public education, the federal government accounts for about 7% of total costs. the rest of it comes from state and local taxes. we have tried to do is leverage the little bit of money that the federal government how --o this to modify andncentivize reform, experiment with new ways of learning. for example, can we use online classes more effectively to help keep house costs down?

can we get more high school students get transferable college credits while they're in high school so that they can maybe graduate in three years instead of two? we are trying to encourage folks to experiment in those ways. all of that we hope can get all of that we hope we can get embodied in the higher education act. i will tell you if i'm for it, the other side is against it even if originally it was their idea. i can't guarantee you we will get bipartisan support for these ideas. there's nothing that should because thising it is making the college education of better value for families. not be a democrat or republican issue. gentleman right here in the uniform.

>> good afternoon, mr. president. >> good afternoon. i'm a recent graduate from the freedom house ems academy and site paul. [applause] teaching at the academy and i just got hired. i have fought for st. paul fire. have you considered starting any other organizations such as the freedom house for law enforcement, fire, other establishments that could get programs like that going for low income or minorities? don't know enough about freedom house. you need to tell me more about it. since you are an instructor and a graduate, why don't you tell me how it works. >> you go through when interviewing process. there are fire chiefs that interview the candidates. it is anaid but interviewing process. you wear uniform and it is a strict program.

it is a fort teen or 10-week program depending on the time of the year. it is intensive. everything is compacted -- it is a 14 or 10-week for graham. you learn all of the skills you need to be an emt. you network. i know people that are going into med school. it started in 1967 in philadelphia. >> it sounds like a great program. who's eligible for it? people who have already graduated from high school but have not yet gone to college? if i'm 30 years old and i'm thinking i want to try a new career? who is it that can participate? the ages of 17en and 30 is eligible. you have to meet income requirements and it's open to anyone who wants to get into ems or fire. >> that's a great idea. you just gave me a great idea.

now i'm considering expanding it. [applause] it's a good example though with a broader issue. not everyone will go to a four-year university, but everyone will need some advanced training. the question is how do we set up systems whether it is apprenticeships, programs like freedom house that you just described, whether it is through wheremmunity colleges whatever stage in your life, if you feel as if you are stuck in your existing occupation and you want to do better or you lose your job and you need to transition to a new industry that you are able to get that fits you understanding that for a lot of

folks they may be working at the same time that they are looking after their kids so there needs to be some flexibility. the programs have to be more compact. most importantly, they have to be job-training programs or technical programs that actually produce the skills you need to get the jobs that are there. it seems like common sense, but unfortunately for a long time it was not done. going to the businesses first that are hiring and ask them what exactly they are looking for and why don't you work with the community college? write out you work with a nonprofit? with then't you work nonprofit? you have the knowledge that they are prepared for the job and conversely the person going to the training program they know if they complete it that there is a job at the other end.

that's how we are actually trying to redesign a lot of the job-training programs that are out there. before, you also have to make sure that you structure whoo that a working mom cannot afford to just quit her job and go to school, maybe she's a waitress right now, she's interested in being a nurse is assistant that has slightly better pay and benefits and then wants to become a nurse but she has the opportunity to work around her schedule, make sure that we've got the ability theake classes at night, on weekends, online. that's how in the future we have to redesign a lot of this stuff getting away from thinking that all the training is just for 18 and 19-year-olds who've got all day and are supported by their parents because that is not the

model that our economy is going to be in for the foreseeable future. ok? young lady in the stripes. >> hello. my name is erin. i just left a fortune 500 corporation where i had my four my partner did not making three dollars more per hour. what can we do so that other women are not experiencing the wage gap anymore? [applause] >> i've got all kinds of opinions on this. [laughter] i told the story of the working families summit. my mom was a single mom. school,ed, went to raise two kids with the help of

my grandparents. i remember what it was like for her coming home. to's dead tired she's trying fix a healthy meal for me and my sister. that meant there were only like five things in the rotation because she does not have time to be practicing with a whole bunch of stuff. when you're a kid, you are stupid. you don't want to eat that again and she's like -- really? what did you make? [laughter] eat your food. i remember the struggles that she would go through when she did finally get her advanced degree, got a job. she had experienced on the job discrimination because of her gender.

my grandmother was rosie the riveter. when my grandfather went to fight in world war ii, she stayed home because my mom was born in kansas at fort leavenworth. my grandmother worked in a bomber assembly line. she was a whip smart. in another era, she would have ended up running the company but at the time she done even get her college degree. she was smart enough she worked to be a vice president at the local bank where we lived. that's why when sometimes i peggy"mad men," there is and joan, i'm always rooting for them. i imagine that's what it was like for my grandmother working her way up.

as smart as she was, she got to a certain point and she stopped advancing. and then she trained guys how to do the job and they would end up being her boss. it happened three or four times. so this is something that i care a lot about not just because of my past that also because of my future. i have two daughters. the idea that would not be paid the same or have the same opportunities as someone's sons is infuriating. even if you're not a dad, those of you who have partners, spouses, this is not a women's issue. if they are not getting paid, that means they are not bringing home as much money which means your family budget is tighter. ais is a family issue and not gender issue. so what can we do?

the first bill i signed was the lilly ledbetter act. [applause] it allowed folks to sue if they found out they had been discriminated against, like you found out. back then, lilly ledbetter, this wonderful woman, she had been paid less than her male counterparts for over a decade. when she finally finds out, she sues and the supreme court says the statute of limitations has run out. you cannot sue for all of that back pay. she said she just found out in that did not matter. we reversed that law allowing people to sue based on when you find out. was wecently, what i did made it against the law, at ,east for federal contractors

to retaliate against employees informationsalary because part of the problem -- part of the reason it's hard to enforce equal pay for equal work is most employers don't let you talk or discourage talk about what everyone else is getting paid. said is, you know, women have a right to know what the guy sitting next to them doing the exact same job is getting paid. so that is something we are able to do. going to need are congress to act. there have been repeated efforts by us to get what we call the paycheck fairness act through congress and republicans have blocked it. some have denied that it's a problem. what they have said is -- you know what, women make different

choices. that explains the wage gap. that's the reason why women make earnto every $1 men because they make different choices. first of all, that's not true in your case because you are doing the same job. you were just getting paid less. wholeeven unpacked this idea of making different choices. what they are really saying is because women have to bear and a company does not give them enough maternity leave or does not give them enough flexibility that they should be point isand our whole that this is a family issue and if we structure the work place to actually be family-friendly, which everyone always talks about but we don't always actually proud this, then women

won't have to make different choices. if they are pregnant and have a child, it is expected they are going to have some time off. by the way, the dad should, too. they should have some flexibility in the work lace. [applause] electability in the workplace. they should be able to take care of a sick kid without being docked pay. are some wonderful companies doing this. as i said before, it turns out that when companies adopt family-friendly policies, their productivity goes up, they have lower turnover and it makes sense. look. if you have a family emergency and you go to your boss and you can i have a week off? i have to take care of a sick child, dad, or can i leave early this afternoon because my kid is

in a school play and i really think this is important? they say of course. nothing is more important than family. how hard are you going to work for that person when you get back on the job? feel invested in them. you will say to yourself these people care about me which means i care about you. a five to take some extra time on a weekend or i've got to do some work late at night when i'm not under an emergency situation, i'm going to do that. this makes good business sense of the problem is we have not done enough to encourage these new models. this is part of the reason we did this family summit. we want to show companies that are doing the right thing, encourage others to adopt the same practices and maybe get some legislation that incentivizes better policies. in the meantime though, if you are doing the same job, you should make the same pay. period.

full stop. that should be a basic rule. [applause] that should not be subject to confusion. let's see. this young man back here. right there. >> good afternoon, mr. president. >> good afternoon peary. >> i'm an intern with right track. >> what's that? tell me about it. >> it's a youth jobs or grantor the city of st. paul. >> weight --what grade are you going into next year? >> i'm going to be a senior. >> haddad junior year ago -- how did junior year go? >> yeah. >> not yeah. how'd it go? well. went >> you wanted to get your

question. please go ahead. >> i'm wondering how you would address the growing problem of climate change. [applause] it so happens -- this young man was not a plant. yesterday, i announced my climate action plan. stage byst set the that the science here is settled. [applause] released by a is whole bunch of man-made act to when you release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it traps heat. are seeing the highest levels of carbon dioxide and, as a

consequence, some of the warmest temperatures that we have seen in hundreds of thousands of years. they are going up. this is not just a problem of polar bears -- although i really like polar bears -- and the ice caps melting. what happens is when temperatures on average goes up, it throws weather patterns into a whole bunch of different directions. mean that's no caps on caps ons -- snthat snow mountains diminished. out west, entire states get snow water from's -- from caps. you now have the potential for severe drought.

agriculture is impacted which mean your food bill is going up. the worst is going to drubbing gone through a long time which raises the price of all of the fruits and vegetables grown in california so it hits you in your pocket. wildfires may increase, and we have seen record wildfires. we are having to spend more money fighting fires now than we ever have. hurricanes potentially more frequent and potentially more powerful. sandy may not be as unusual as it used to be. incidence ofr flooding. coastal states like florida, there are neighborhoods where now every time there is a high tide, there's a flood in these neighborhoods and the problem is it's getting worse. as folks in china, india, and other places the side, they want to have cars, too, and they want

to have electricity, the things that we've got. they start building more power plants and they start driving more. all of that adds to more carbon dioxide and it starts compounding. is something we have to deal with. the good news is there's things we can do. we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. by the middle of next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. that will save you money in your pocket book but it also takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. [applause] invested in clean energy. since i came into office, we are producing three times as much energy through wind power and producing about 10 times as much through solar power and we are creating jobs here in the united states, folks, installing wind turbines, solar panels. it's good economics and it's

also good for the environment. most recently, what i've done is i said about 40% of the carbon that we e-mail comes from power plants. what we've said is through the environmental protection agency we will set standards. we set standards for the amount of mercury, arsenic thomas byfur that is pumped out factories and power plants into the air and water. right now, we don't have a cap on the amount of carbon pollution so we said we were going to cap it. we're going to let states work with their private sector and local governments to come up with what will be best for them. not every state will do the same thing. nevada may emphasize solar power. south dakota may emphasize wind power. whatever it is you're going to do, you have to start bringing down your carbon pollution. this has some controversy.

companies are not wild about it. coal companies, not crazy about it. these traditional sources of fossil fuels we will use for a while, but we cannot just keep using them forever. we have to develop new ways of producing energy so your generation is not seeing a planet that is starting to break down with all of the costs associated with it. .ast point i will make one of the benefits of asking power plants to produce energy that is cleaner is that when they control their carbon dioxide, they are also putting less so at in the air -- less so ot in the air, less particulates. that means your child is less likely to get asthma. those with respiratory diseases are less likely to be impacted so it has a public-health effect that is good as well. we can have an environment that is cleaner, healthy and at the

same time develop entire new injury -- industries in clean engine -- energy but we have to get started now and that is why despite some of the pushback from some of the special interests out there we will keep going at this because we don't have a choice. this is something we have to tackle during this generation to make sure we are giving a good future for the next generation. [applause] quick question. last question. last question. this young lady in the paint. go ahead -- this young lady in the pink. afternoon, mr. president. my name is katie peterson. my coworker here and friend, we've been working for the federal government for almost 29 years. we feel really privileged we been able to serve that way. >> where do you work? >> the federal contract

management agency. career and weeat love it. lately, there's been a few rough patches with three years of pay freezes, sequestration, furloughs. we are wondering what you perceive for the next fiscal year for government workers. >> let me make a couple points. folks in the federal government, the overwhelming majority, they worked really hard doing really important stuff. i don't know why it is 0- [applause] i don't know when it was that somehow working for the government whether it's state, local, or federal level somehow .ecame not a real job when you listen to some of the republican rhetoric sometimes

you think this is really important work that we depend on . we have floods right here right now. the federal government is coming in and it's going to be working with local communities that are overwhelmed to try to make sure rebuilding.et help those are federal workers. if they were not around after a tornado or hurricane, communities would be in a world of hurt. weather, even the on your smart phone, that information did not just come .rom some silicon valley office that came from the national weather service. we put out the data developed by the federal government to our satellites that are paid for and

then it is commercialized. people use it to set up things like the weather channel, theher.com, and websites folks who help our men and women in uniform make sure that they have proper equipment those are .ederal workers fighting fires lots of times those are federal workers in the forest service. it frustrates me when i hear people acting as if somebody who's working for the federal government somehow is less than someone working in the private sector are. if they are doing a good job hearing out an important function, we should praise them. [applause] the same is true, by the way, at

the local level. i don't know of a job more important than teaching. [applause] governmentll workers. in fact, one of the biggest problems we had in the coming out of this recession, in addition to it being the worst recession since the great depression is that states and local governments were cutting ank on their hiring at unprecedented rate. we still have not seen hiring back to where it was in 2007 and 2008. if we had not lost so many teachers aides in a lot of communities, the unemployment rate would be much lower and the economy would be much stronger. asay all of this just to make point. historically, it has been the

private sector that drew the economy but it was also a whole bunch of really great work done by agricultural extension nasa,s, engineers at researchers at our labs. it helps create the platform and the wealth that we enjoy. this whole idea that somehow government is the enemy or the problem is just not true. now, are there programs the government does is a waste of money or not working as well as they should be? of course. i tell you if you work for any company in america, any big company, you will find some things that they are doing that are not all that efficient either. are there some federal workers who do boneheaded things? absolutely. i remember the first week i was on the job i talk to my defense secretary, bob gates, who has been there a long time.

he said one thing you should know, mr. president, at any given moment on any given day, someone in the federal government is screwing up. areh is true because there 2 million employees. somebody out there, if 99% of people are doing the right thing and only one percent are not, that's still a lot of people. so my job as president, working with congress, is to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, efficiently. we should not be wasting one dime. where we see waste and things not working the way they should, like recently these long waits for folks trying to get into the ba health care program, we've got to crack down and reform. we cannot paint it with a broad brush and say somehow stuff not working. carein the v.a. health system, once people get in the

quality of care, the satisfaction rates for customers are actually better than in private sector health care. generalize like this. the last point i will make, going to your question him a federal workers have generally not gotten raises--going to your they have not gotten raises. they were having to pay bills like everyone else but not have a paycheck coming in. for them.disruptive what's called sequestration, and furloughs, meant to they might be able to come to work three days per week instead of the full five. this all put a strain on their budgets. we been able to stabilize it. when we go on to budget talks with republicans next year, we may go through some of the same because thepart other side have said they want to cut funding for education.

they've said they want to cut support for vulnerable families. they want to cut medicaid, which would have an impact on the elderly and and i've said no. comee way, the deficits down by more than half since i came into office. it hasn't gone up. federal spending has not gone up . if you want to do more to reduce the deficit further, why am i going to take it out on the most vulnerable in our society, and programs we need to grow, when we've got operations taking the advantage of loopholes. in some cases they are taking -- paying note taxes when a teacher or secretary are paying taxes themselves. start cutting education spending are spending

on basic research. [applause] negotiation tough because everything is a tough negotiation in washington right now. which brings me to my last point. i don't watch tv news, generally suspectle shows, but i if you are out here going to work, picking up your kids, taking them to soccer, or at night sitting there paying the bills, and you just turn on the tv, sometimes it must feel kind of discouraging, because it doesn't feel like what's being talked about in washington has anything to do with what is going on in your lives day to day. and it must feel as if sometimes your are just forgotten. and sometimes the news that's

being reported is really important. what is happening in iraq is relevant. we've got to pay attention to the threats that are emanating from the chaos in the middle east. to be verywant clear, we are not sending combat troops into iraq. [applause] we have done that, we have given them an opportunity, and they're going to have to contribute to solving their own problems here. although we will protect our people and we will make sure we are going after terrorists who would do us harm. but sometimes the news that's are just, these washington fights. , theyre fabricated issues are phony scandals that are generated. it's all geared towards the next , or building up a base. it's not on the level.

and that must feel frustrating, and it makes people sent -- mu makes people cynical and turned off from the idea that anything can get done. and if i've got one message today, it's the same message that i gave to that young mom that i mentioned who i had lunch with before i came here. she wrote me a letter, just talking about how she had done everything right, her and her husband, she is working hard, raising two beautiful kids and she has a great life, but it's a and wondering if anybody in washington knows it. what i told her is the same thing i want to tell all of you, which is i know it. you are the reason i ran for office. i'm not looking for applause. i want to make this point. not in tough

circumstances, but i was you guys. somebody out here is going through what my mom went through, what my grandma went through. somebody out here is going through what michelle and i went through when we were first married anarchism or firstborn. -- and our kids were firstborn. it's not like i forget. wewas just 20 years ago when were trying to figure out how to buy our first home. you guys are the reason i ran. just because it's not reported in the news, i don't want you to think i'm not fighting for you. i'm not always going to get it done as fast as i want, because right now we have a congress that is dysfunctional. we have a party on the other rationale,only

motivation, seems to be opposing me. but despite all that, we are making progress. despite all that, some folks have health care that didn't have it before. despite all that, some students are able to afford their education better. folks have jobs that didn't have them. got built here in minnesota. despite all that, we can make life a little better for american families who are doing their best, working hard, meeting their responsibilities. and i don't want you to ever forget that. and i don't want you to be cynical. days,sm is popular these but hope is better. thanks, everybody. thank you. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

>> president obama at the beginning of a series of day in the live summer trips, starting out. minneapolis. he will be in minnesota again tomorrow, continuing his focus on jobs and the economy. meanwhile back here in washington, a supreme court decision concerning the president making news today. the court rejecting the president's decision to appoint people to agency positions during a pro forma session of the senate. the court declared that was unconstitutional and a number of members of congress have been reacting on twitter and other platforms. senator roy blunt tweeting, anyway you look at it, the obama administration has had a bad habit of ignoring the law and the constitution. from senator orrin hatch, i applaud the court's willingness to stand up to president obama's for -- flagrantly

unconstitutional power grab. representative jack kingston tweeting, glad to see the supreme court make the easy and obvious call. coming up in a few moments here on c-span, the oral argument that preceded today's decision. but first, we learn more about the supreme court's decision from the capitol hill reporter. the supreme court has ruled in a case dealing with president obama's freedom to make recess appointments. what did the court decide? the us about the details of ruling. >> a centrally they said that president obama overstepped when he appointed remembers to the national labor relations board in 2012, while congress said -- the senate said it was in a recess. basically the court and all nine justices believe that was a violation of the constitutional recess appointment clause. >> leaders have responded to the decision. we have reaction from harry reid

and minority leader mitch mcconnell. i would like to get your take on their comments. senate has been confirming qualified nominees at a steady pace. and then this from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. a unanimous supreme court has rejected this brazen power grab. all americans should be grateful for the courts rebuke of the administration. what is your take on both of those remark? think they both have a point. mr. mcconnell is right this was a rebuke to presidential authority. it essentially boils down to a dispute between the legislative and executive branch come and the legislative branch won. but leader harry reid is right that at least for the time being, this may not have

practically a big effect on nominees, because as he knows, in senate changed the rule what was known as the nuclear option. that allows most nominees to with basically a simple majority, rather than a larger number of senators backing that nomination. the president's party controls the senate, the president is likely to have his way with nominees. >> has there been reaction from the white house? next not yet, but the national labor relations board did issue a response just a few minutes ago, saying that it would now be reviewing the decision and any decisions that it would have to revisit. some suggest there are hundreds or even thousands, but more likely hundreds, of decisions that were made by the court when it was unconstitutionally structured, so those would have to be revisited.

have anyl this ruling impact on past nominations, including the ward members who were the subject of the supreme court case? or is it only going to affect future nominations. but that remains to be seen, but likely the latter. at least in the case with the been those members have reconfirmed in the traditional fashion by the senate. so there is no issue there. interestingly, the conservatives on the court would have gone to limit presidential recess powers to only between sessions rather than during recesses during sessions of congress, and the majority led by justice breyer suggested that if the conservatives, led by mr. scalia, had their way, there would be countless numbers of nominations and appointments in the past that would now be

thrown into question. >> you can read his work at the hill.com and you can also tweak him. thanks for your time today. >> national labor relations board. theay it please the court, interpretation of the recess appointments clause that respondent urges would repudiate constitutional legitimacy of thousands of appointments are presidents going back to george washington. going forward it would diminish presidential authority in a way that is at odds with the constitutional establishment that the framers have established. the case -- this would be needed to strip presidents of their authority to make appointments and to field pre-existing vacancies. >> you see that it would repudiate the constitutionality of appointments.

you do not suggest that the actions with be invalid going back how far you want to go back. >> i do not. it certainly would repudiate their legitimacy of those appointments. >> how many board decisions would have to be redone, how is the board coping with that problem? >> there are many hundreds of poor decisions that are under a cloud as a result of the d c circuit's ruling in this case. the board will have a considerable amount of work to do if the decision were to be affirmed. there would be issues about waiver, issues about whether there is authority sufficient to justify what the board did under other circumstances. that would have to be sorted out with respect to the ruling.

>> what would happen if under the reasoning of this case, what would happen to the decisions of appointed judges of which there have been quite a few. >> there has -- that would be a serious question and it does point up the difficulty. >> you would argue the de facto officer doctrine. of course you would. you would apply that in innumerable cases. you think we're going to go back and rip out every decision made? >> it casts a serious cloud over the legitimacy of those actions and it does point up the fact that the racist power including appointments during intrasession recesses has been used to fill offices of great importance. -- the recess power. >> you started off by saying it would repudiate so many actions that have been taken. i have a start question.

suppose i agree with the court of appeals that the only interpretation of the constitution is that the vacancy must have arisen during the recess by hypothesis. i agree with that. ok? what do you do when there is a practice that flatly contradict a clear text of the constitution, which of the two prevails? >> the practice has two prevailed. ask if you ignore the constitution. often enough its meaning changes. >> in the situation the meaning of the clause with respect to the timing of the vacancy has been a matter of contention. >> you're questioning my hypothesis. you have to accept my hypothesis. the text is clearly against you.

should i say, it says something else but the practice for over 200 years has been something different and is -- it is the practice -- >> yes or no. >> practice gives meaning to the constitution. >> you are questioning my hypothesis again. i am assuming a clear text and a practice that is contrary to it. >> it is extremely unlikely that would arise. >> i am answering. i think given the practice going back to the founding of the republic the practice should be -- govern but we do not have that here. this provision has been subject to contention as to its meaning since the first days of the republic. >> let me ask you about the premise.

it begins at a particular point in time and a continues for some time. i was trying to think of some other things that might fall into the same data gory. one would be an appointment to federal office. you are appointed as solicitor general at point in time and the appointment continues. another example might the a marriage. it happens at a particular point in time and continues for some time. would we say that your appointment as solicitor general is happening today and will happen again tomorrow and happened yesterday, is that the way the english language is used? >> the word happens might not always be an apt phrase. it is a natural use. if i may i will give you a counterexample. if count -- congress had enacted a statute in the summer of 2008 that said the federal reserve is invested with all the powers necessary to deal with any

financial emergency that may happen in 2009. at emergency first arose in november 2008. i do not think anyone would interpret that statute is denying the federal reserve the authority that congress conferred. may happen might not cover every situation but it is a natural reading that cover some. it is susceptible to being interpreted -- >> we're kicking off the standing point. what constitutes a recess? your position is that an process -- [inaudible] if we look back historically congress met and they met continuously. and then they were away for six months, even nine months.

there is nothing like that, the intrasession recess could be an hour. what do we do with the division of a recess running for months and today the intrasession recess might be momentary. >> i think two points to make in response to the question what to do. the first one is that with respect to the original understanding, we do think that the term recess and the phrase the recess certainly at the time of the founding did encompass recesses that occurred during a session of congress, during a session of the legislature, and not just in between sessions. i would point the court to the jefferson's manual of parliamentary procedure which

describes a resource -- recess i adjournment as occurring within a session. i would appoint to the adjournment clause itself which says if one house of congress wants to take a break of bloggers -- than three days during the session, it needs the consent of the other house which indicates that the framers contemplated the possibility of a break longer than three days. i would point the court to the parliamentary practice of the house of commons were the speaker of the house of commons had authority to call elections when a member died during the recess. >> of course, justice ginsburg's question points out that your argument is, it seems to me, in search of a limiting principle. a lunch break, a one-day break, you have thought about this. a three-day break, a one-week break, one month break. how do you resolve that problem for us? >> i think the way we resolve that problem is by looking to the adjournment clause. we think that if it is a break that is sufficiently short, that it would not require the one house to get the consent of the other, but that is a de minimis

recess and that is not a recess in which the president would have authority. >> is that three days? >> what about the pro forma session? they do not require the consent of the other house. >> the problem with the pro forma sessions, i think, is in taking about the link of the recess. the recess, we would submit, and this is based on the formal action very definition of recess at the time of the founding and now, which is a suspension of business i'm a recess was from january 3 when the session started until january 23 and the reason i think -- >> you think there is no recess during a row form a sessions? >> there is a recess. the reason is because the senate has issued a formal order that no business shall be conducted and that is a formal -- >> let's focus on that. what -- instead of saying no business shall be conducted, the order said it is not anticipated

that any business would be conducted. does that suffice to illuminate that as a recess? >> i think that is a different case and i think, concededly, a significantly harder case for the executive -- >> it is difficult and harder but it suggests you are talking about a couple of magic words that the senate can change at the drop of a hat. maybe the point is not that significant. >> i think it is. it is a formal action by the senate by rule saying that no business shall be conducted. there are other formal actions at the senate took during this time that are compartment -- that are confirming. the senate passed the resolution that gave committees the authority to submit reports and report bills. it passed a resolution giving the president pro tem for -- >> you're not answering the reald thrust of the chief justice's question.

we could be back here if we said they did not phrase this in the right way. or they will phrase this differently and we would be back here with the same essential problem. you're asking us to pick this on a formality that the senate could obey. that suggests -- suggests it is the senate's job to determine if they are in recess or not. >> there has to be a limit to that. -- to that point. what we're talking about is a power that the constitution gives to the president. the president has to make the determination. >> you're making an assumption is that the senate has to take the recess. the senate could choose it wanted to and i think there might be some citizens that would encourage it to to never recess create and to work everyday. >> that is true. lots of people do. >> they could decide not to take a recess. it seems to me that is the choice of the constitution.

>> what do you say about the 20th amendment that says that january 3 was a meeting, are you saying they violated the 20th amendment? this is the congress of the january 3. this says the congress of the united states shall meet on january 3 every year, unless they appoint a different day. >> yes. >> and they haven't. and, therefore, they met in pro forma session. or do you think it wasn't a meeting? and what do you think about the other part of the constitution which says they can't adjourn for more than 3 days without the approval of the house, which they didn't have. so are you saying that the senate violated those other two amendments of -- the two parts of the constitution, or are you saying that they have different meanings in the three parts? >> i think our view is that it's hard to see how the -- what the senate did with pro forma sessions complies with either and -- >> ok. so you're saying they violated. >> but if they have pro forma sessions on january 3, they violate the 20th amendment to the constitution. you are saying that if they had a pro forma io