about abortion or partisan issues. they told the first circuit that you can't even wear -- that you can be arrested if you wore a cleveland indians shirt while you were just passing through. at this court, they say that people passing through have speech rights. either one is bad. either way the government doesn't have the ability to say who gets to speak and who doesn't get to speak on an open public sidewalk. if i may reserve my time? >> thank you, counsel. ms. miller. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: petitioners can 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 -- i think it -- it distorts it to say that 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 yell and hold up signs from 35 feet.

but what they can't do is try to talk the woman out of the abortion. it's a counseling case, not a -- not a protest case. >> it -- 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. and in point of fact, ms. mccullen -- >> well, it's more than a few feet. you know, 35 feet is a ways. it's from this bench to the end of the court. and if you imagine the chief justice as sort of where the door would be, it's most of the width of this courtroom as well. it's 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 that in boston, for example, the door is recessed. it's a private entrance with a recessed door and 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.

i didn't hear you. >> two car lengths. >> two car lengths. >> that's, i think, a little less than this courtroom. >> we measured this courtroom. >> i'd just like you to go back to justice scalia's question for one second. i didn't hear the -- as he was saying that this case is not a protest case, it's simply about calm conversations. and that is what i want to know if the evidence showed that. >> well, certainly, there's a picture of a calm conversation >> no, the evidence upon which massachusetts based its decision to go to 35 feet instead of 8 feet. there were hearings. did the evidence show that 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. >> what? >> experience showed that there had to be 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. that's at joint appendix 26 through 28. you had the pink group, which is a pro choice organization, pushing and shoving and

jockeying for position. >> well, surely you could have a law against screaming and shouting within 35 feet or protesting within 35 feet. isn't that more narrowly tailored? i mean, 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 that would frustrate their purpose, with the people going into the clinic. >> but, again, experience showed that even individuals who wanted to engage in close, quiet, peaceful conversation were creating congestion around -- >> rather -- i note there's some people who are peaceful, in which case i would accept justice scalia's suggestion this is a counseling case. but you've 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. and the reason that 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? >> they didn't make a fine distinction, your honor, 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 to write such a statute, your honor. >> how did you pick 35 feet? why 35? >> well, again, experience showed that some amount of space around the buffer zones around the facilities needed to be open. so then it was simply a question of looking at past experience, at the prior injunctions, for example, your honor. for example, in planned parenthood v. bell, which is cited at page 2 of our brief, there was actually a 50-foot buffer zone imposed by a district court judge in massachusetts. we knew from, of course, madsen and schenk, that 36-foot buffer zones were acceptable in -- when you were being responsive to that kind of problem, and we knew that a 15-foot buffer zone would be acceptable if responding to a similar kind of problem.

so at some point or another, the -- 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 to allow -- >> to go to -- go back for a second. i see that. is there anything in the record -- the obvious reason for a legislator, i think -- i did work in the legislature for a while as a staff member that you don't write these fine statutes is they won't work. they have too fine a distinction. the activity is commingled. the activity -- all right. now, i knew you were just going to nod my -- your head as soon as i said that. so i was trying to get you to say it in spontaneously if it's true. is there anything in this record that suggests that this is one of those cases where it's just too tough 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 should say yes. >> and i will. >> she can't say yes if it isn't there, because i'm going to ask her where because i want to read it. >> i will of course, your honor. the best description of that is, of course, commissioner evans's description of the space functioning like a goalie's crease. >> well, let -- let me ask this question: assume it to be true that 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 even one after this law. assume that's true. does that have any bearing on our analysis? and does that have any bearing on justice breyer's question about whether or not a law can be written to protect that kind of activity but still to prevent obstruction and blocking? >> i -- i think, your honor, that no one is guaranteed any

specific form of communication. so, there is no guarantee, as a doctrinal matter, to close, quiet conversations. the question is, are there adequate alternatives? and in this particular instance in this record, there are adequate alternatives. take, for example, the situation >> you say there's no -- no guarantee of talking quietly? do you want me to write an opinion and say there's no free speech right to quietly converse on an issue of public importance? >> generally on the public sidewalk. but, of course, that right is tempered by the -- the state's interest in making sure that the public sidewalks function as they should and that there is peace and good order. but i would give you an example, your honor. i'd -- i'd point you >> i still don't know where you're going to -- this -- this goes to justice breyer's question. you -- you cannot write an ordinance that says obstruction, 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 -- for the purposes of this question. >> your honor, we -- we couldn't here, obviously, because that wasn't the problem. the problem with making that kind of a fine distinction is that it doesn't address what the state's >> but in speech cases, when you address one problem, you have a duty to protect speech that's -- that's -- that's lawful. >> you do. as long as your protection is narrowly tailored to your interest, you -- >> but i -- i think what you have to say to this court is that it's impossible to write a statute of the kind that we are 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 find --

>> may i ask you a question about a distinction that is in this statute? now, let me give you this -- 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's 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 that they've expressed a different viewpoint. one says it's safe, one says it's not safe. now, how can a statute like that be considered viewpoint-neutral? >> your honor, i think what the statute distinguishes is based on what those two different 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 -- the buffer zone, which was the reason that the statute was -- was enacted in the first place, then that person could say that. you judge it on what she's doing, not what she's saying. >> well, that's what she what she's doing is what she's saying. she approaches and she says this is a safe facility. the other one says it's not a safe facility. they have a bad safety record. and they're -- they're the only people in the zone. >> right. >> if it's as big as this courtroom, they're the only three people in that zone. >> right. >> the difference is a viewpoint difference. >> the -- what the legislature has done is that it has created a circle around these entrances and has 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 it.

it's 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 -- on what they're doing in the buffer zone. >> but the consequence is just what is described by justice scalia, that is, 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. however, with respect to >> it seems to me that you should answer justice scalia's question, then. >> 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 to go -- move back and forth across the sidewalk, and it allows for even employees, the snow shovelers mentioned in the walter dell brief. >> well, you could have created a completely silent zone. now, i don't know whether that would be permissible or not, but it would be a different question. you could have -- you could say nobody can speak here. people can shovel snow.

if they work for the -- for the clinic, they can sweep the sidewalk, they can do maintenance, they can go in and they -- and out, but they can't utter a word. well, that would be a different statute. but that's not this statute. this statute says that there is 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. >> so 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, your honor, is that speech in that particular circumstance of the employee actually doing her job and not unnecessarily cluttering the buffer zone, what -- then that speech is simply incidental to the permissible conduct. and it doesn't make the statute on its face -- it doesn't make it viewpoint-discriminatory. because as i said -- >> you think it's incidental? what if there's a real question

about whether this is a safe facility? that's incidental speech? >> it's incidental to her performing her job. and, your honor, it -- if there were a circumstance where that kind of speech were habitual or widespread or touched on advocacy in any way, shape or form, then obviously, petitioners would have an opportunity to challenge the statute as applied. but, of course, 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 or the implication that for an employee to say, "we're glad you're here. you're going to be well taken care of. this is a safe facility. it's important for you to be here," 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 are allowed in the buffer zone. and i should point out, actually, that pplm -- and again, this is in the walter dillinger brief at

page 2a -- they actually train their escorts not to engage in that kind of speech. so that's first of all. and second 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. >> well, that raises another question, ms. miller, because i assume that 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, look, if it's at one facility, not all ten of them or whatever it is, and it's only for certain periods of time, not all day every day, you know, why not narrow it that way? >> right. >> so why not? >> because the experience has shown that you do have problems at worcester and springfield, and those problems do center around the driveways. 85 to 90 percent 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 you'd -- that individuals would have in order to protest. and what's happened in the past in worcester and springfield is that you would have pacing across these driveways. that's at joint appendix 41. you'd have individuals stopping and standing 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 j.a. 19. so there definitely was conduct that was a problem, and it wasn't even that there are a couple of lone protestors in worcester or springfield. there are 13 events in worcester and springfield. there are regular protestors there every week, first of all. and second of all, the crowds get much larger at the semi-annual -- >> i -- i object to you calling these people protestors, which

you've been doing here 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. now how does that make them protestors? >> your honor, the problem, of course, that the statute was looking to address was not with protestors, 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. but the result of that was congestion around these doors and driveways. so it wasn't a concern about the protest, it was a concern about people actually being able to use -- >> and i would think, ms. miller, that if you tried to do a statute that distinguished between protestors and counselors, that would be content-based much more than this statute is. >> i would agree. >> i mean, but -- you know, which is not to say that this statute doesn't have its problems, in my view. i mean, 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 or of even violence at the clinics. and we've had law enforcement and others who have viewed that crowd on a regular basis and have described it, 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. >> well, before you sit down, can i ask you this question that's suggested by the afl-cio briefs. 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 -- could a state pass a statute that says there is a 35-foot zone like this around

every location in the state whenever there is a strike and there are replacement workers? could they do that? >> right. well, of course labor actions are protected by federal law, so any state law couldn't directly conflict with the >> all right. could federal law do that? >> well, this court has repeatedly upheld restrictions on labor activity, if given the right record. so there is -- so the answer is yes, the first amendment would permit regulation on the record >> 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, a zone around every place where there's a strike. >> right. well, certainly it would be an easier case to defend if there was a history, as we have here. and you'd have to prove that the solution -- >> you don't think there's a history -- you don't think there's a history of violence at places where there are strikes and replacement workers? >> well, i don't think there has been the kind of history and

sustained violence that we've had -- this almost unique record in massachusetts with respect to facilities. but your honor, i would say >> that's not my understanding of the labor history. >> is there any abortion clinic that has not had -- 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 by naral that reviewed the experience of the ten facilities that were then in existence in massachusetts. and six of them said that they had significant problems outside of their facilities. eight of them said, at the very least, they had regular protestors. there were two who did not report that there was a significant problem. >> this is testimony by the by the clinics themselves, right? >> correct. thank you, your honors. >> thank you, counsel.

mr. gershengorn. >> 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 a public forum to another, in this case away from the small areas -- >> which of our -- which of our precedents do you think governs this case? >> so, your honor, i think that there are a number of precedents that are helpful. madsen, of course, upheld the 36-foot buffer zone that had a no-speech zone very much like this. >> that was an injunction. >> it was an injunction, your honor, but it was upheld under an even stricter standard that -- that is applies here. but even aside from that, i think a number of the pillars of petitioners' arguments here are directly contradicted by this court's precedents. so, for example, the idea that -- that unrestricted -- that you have the right to choose the best mechanism of communication is contradicted by hefernon and by frisby.

in hefernon, there was -- the petitioner said, "i need to be able to talk quietly to people to ask for money, and that's the only way i can get it." and this court said you have ample communication channels -- alternative channels over in that booth. in frisby, what the protestor wanted to do was target a house, and what this court said in frisby was you have alternative channels of communication. you can go door to door. you can mail things. you can make calls. so i think that that pillar of the -- of the argument -- >> what's the alternative here? yelling? is that the alternative? no, your honor. the alternative in this case is the entire length of the sidewalk, quiet counseling, leafletting, and conversation is permitted. it is the last four to five seconds before the petition -- before the counselors enter the clinic that -- >> they don't 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.

>> your honor, the testimony is actually to the contrary, that they get -- that ms. mccullen and others get quite good at identifying who is going and is not going into the clinic. and actually so what we're talking about is the last four to five seconds before they go in. >> is your concern that, absent this statute, there will be physical obstruction to the entrance? is that a major concern? >> so, your honor, let me address that. the answer is -- the answer is yes, but that's not all. what the legislature had before it, and justice breyer -- >> let me ask, if that's your concern, how many federal prosecutions were brought in massachusetts for physical obstruction under the federal statute? >> your honor, i'm not aware of the number. there are 45 face prosecutions nationwide. but face is a very different statute. the criminal prosecutions in face are for -- are for murder, arson, and for chaining yourselves to doorways. they are not for the kind of quiet counseling and -- and picketing that's at issue here. >> but the federal interest that you're the defending is you don't want this physical

obstruction statute to be misinterpreted. >> that's right. >> but 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's at all an answer to the problems massachusetts is facing because, as justice scalia has repeatedly pointed out, these are not the type of defendants who are at issue in the face act. what face act is talking about is murder, arson, and chaining to doorways. what this statute is getting at is something quite different. it is congestion in front of doorways. it is people -- individuals handing out >> 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. >> justice holmes said even a dog knows the difference in being stumbled over and being kicked. you're saying federal prosecutions can't tell when people are deliberately obstructing? this is beyond -- this is beyond the realm of the law? >> i'm saying what's at issue here, your honor, is not that

kind of -- of deliberative obstruction. what the testimony before the legislature was, was that there was a congregation of people and the massing of people. that indeed, there were pro choice protestors in the zone who have -- certainly are not intending to obstruct. and it was -- so what they were dealing with was quiet counseling leading to counter-counseling leading to congestion in front of the doorways. there also was testimony that there were people handing literature to moving cars, accidents and near accidents, which are not intentional obstruction in the least. the kinds of statutes that this court that -- that are at issue in the specific intent crime in massachusetts and the face act do not get at the kind of peaceful, quiet, yet congesting and disrupting conduct that is at issue here. and, justice breyer, i would urge you to look at the evans testimony at joint appendix 67 to 71. the hefernon testimony at 79 to 80. the coakley testimony of ja-51, and the capone testimony at ja-19. there are specific arguments as to why these did not work.

the argument petitioners make here, your honors, 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 that this court, i submit, and that the lower courts have found are -- are needed. >> well, how far do you think -- what do 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? >> take the example of -- i think it's -- it's a real -- real ordinance someplace you can't have, there's a buffer zone around fraternal lodges.

>> so, your honor, i'm not aware of the history of fraternal lodges, but what's at issue here is really >> what would they have to find? or slaughterhouses. or labor -- or sites where there are strikes. >> so i think -- i think, for example, in the slaughterhouse or what they found in around circuses and conventions is the idea that there is massing of people that prevents the orderly ingress and egress to and from the facilities. what the state was dealing with here was not an isolated incident, but the state had 14, 15 years of history of the massing. they had tried other things. they had tried the statutes that justice scalia identified. they had tried a narrower buffer zone, and 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, evaluating what does -- >> what kind of a record do they need? could -- could there be a state law that says no picketing around any -- you can never have a picket around any store to try to prevent people -- to tell people don't go -- don't patronize this store.

could they do that? isn't that thornhill v. alabama? >> right. and what actually, in thornhill, they struck that down. >> right. >> but it was very different from this statute. thornhill's was you can't go anywhere near the facility and it was -- it was only one type of speech. this is content neutral and it is -- it is a narrow buffer zone. justice kagan, i really urge you to because -- >> well, i mean, i understand. stop. i'll ask this one more time. >> yes. >> i think it's -- i understand the -- the desire to create a buffer zone around certain sensitive facilities. what i'm asking is what requirements, if any, does congress or a state legislature have to meet before they can do that? if it is done, do we simply say they -- 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? >> so, your honor, i think in the evidentiary realm, it's hard to have hard-and-fast rules.

i would say you would need a lengthy history of serious congestion and other problems and -- and a some sort of showing that the alternatives weren't working, but that's what's here. this problem has been going on in massachusetts since 1994. this is not something the legislature woke up one day and said in light of one incident, we're going to -- to deal with this. they tried other things. they -- and the evidence, therefore, supported this. what would it take to support a broader statute? it's hard for me to say, but i think this record shows. >> one more thing. what about the example of a strike? there certainly is a long history of labor violence in places where there are replacement workers. could that -- could it be done in that situation across the board? >> so i think that would be a very broad statute and hard -- hard to defend. but if there were before the legislature, as there is in this case, the kind of congestion -- and the solution, i submit, is much narrower than the petitioners are suggesting. it is to clear out an area around the entrance.

>> justice kagan, the testimony is 22 feet from the entrance in boston, 22 feet from the edge of the doorway to the edge of the -- of the buffer zone. it is from me to the marshal. it is not to the back of the courtroom. it is -- it is an nba 3-point zone. >> but i understand you're saying the reasonableness of it. >> but go back to justice alito's first question. maybe we can make some progress here. the regulation of labor is up to the nlrb. all right. now, the nlrb does regulate picketing. it does say what you can do and can't do, and the courts have reviewed that. and you -- 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 there. you can do this, but you can't do that. all of which have speech implications. what standard of review do the courts use? >> your honor, i am not aware of the standard they use, but it is a -- >> are you aware of any case -- i'm putting it -- loading it because -- only because 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 or the other. >> should we create a new standard for reviewing this kind of regulation? i think that's actually a serious question. >> i don't think so, your honor. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rienzi, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. several points. first, it's not impossible to draw a statute to deal with the problems. 49 other states deal with the alleged problems. the next prosecution massachusetts institutes for blocking a door will be its first in at least two decades. >> is that true, mr. rienzi? is massachusetts' statute the only one of this kind? >> it is the only state statute of its kind. there are a few municipal statutes of -- 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. that's their testimony. they know them all. well, if you know them all and if they're congregating in the doors and they need to get out of the doors, you should go to court and get an injunction and say, stay out of the doors.

until they do that, the claim that they have to throw their hands up and put people in prison for peaceful speech is not a very persuasive claim. secondly, all of the evidence that the united states cited -- cited you to from the record, 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 clinics where the sidewalk is empty 16 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 here. the evidence is boston specific. the first amendment requires precision. they need to regulate the problem where it happens and if that means police officers, if that means dispersal laws, if that means actually bringing a face prosecution, which the united states has never done, they ought to do that. but they shouldn't imprison mrs. mccullen for her speech. third, the united states mentions -- >> are you questioning the government's representation? i haven't looked at face. >> is it limited to the three situations, to -- to murder,

arson and chaining? >> thank you, your honor. 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 4, physical obstruction, includes even making entry unreasonably difficult. it is not at all solely for violence. it's for physical obstruction even making it unreasonably difficult. counsel said that they brought 45 cases across the country. that's true. zero, zero in massachusetts. they shouldn't be able to restrict the peaceful speech. lastly, to the extent the court feels the need to recognize that there are some situations that are so extraordinary 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 actually has tried the solutions that it claims don't work. that is not this case. the government does not claim its restriction to pass strict scrutiny. 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 and 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. it is not dragging mrs. mccullen off to prison because 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 willing participants on public sidewalks. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> massachusetts senator ed markey spoke on the senate floor about the supreme court's decision striking down his state's abortion clinic buffer zones. 1973, when the supreme court decided that a woman's right to choose was constitutionally protected, women's health clinics across the country have been targeted by violence and other criminal

activities by extremists. the crimes are alarming. harassment, arson, acid attacks, obstruction, violent threats and even murder. women's safety has been repeatedly put at risk simply for exercising a constitutional right. in the past ten years there have been approximately 75,000 incidents of violence against abortion providers in the united states. and that is unacceptable. we should always remember that each of these victims of violence has a name, a family, a story. in 1994, a gunman killed two people and wounded five others at a clinic in massachusetts. one of these victims was 25-year-old shannon lowny, daughter of a public school teacher, beloved sister and volunteer who worked domestically and internationally with poor families and children. shannon worked as a receptionist

and spanish translator at planned parenthood in brook line, massachusetts. she worked there not for the pay but because she fundamentally believed women had a right to affordable health care. she wanted to do her part to ensure that patients at a vulnerable, stressful time in life were greeted with a smile. five days after christmas in 1994, she was fatally shot in the neck at planned parenthood by an extremist protester. shannon's story is just one of the many tragedies caused by violence against women exercising their rights. in 2007, after the laws on the books provided inadequate, massachusetts ensured that there would be fair and balanced laws that create add buffer zone of 35 feet around the entry of reproductive health care facilities. this law was intended to protect

people like shannon and the thousands of women and staff who visit and work at clinics. the buffer zone law worked. massachusetts women could exercise their fundamental right to health care without running a gauntlet of abuse. according to a survey of reproductive health care centers across the country, a majority of facilities with buffer zones experienced a decrease in criminal activity after the buffer zone was instituted. today the supreme court of the united states took away those buffer zones of safety when it struck down the massachusetts buffer zone law, effectively undoing the historic pro grez we have made in en-- progress we have made in ensuring that women are protected when accessing reproductive health care and exercising their constitutional rights. today's supreme court ruling puts women at risk simply for exercising their constitutional rights. shannon's brother liam visited

me on the day that this case was argued before the supreme court. their family is representative of what has happened across this country in terms of the endangerment of women when they seek to exercise their constitutional rights. so today is a sad day. not just a sad day for america, but in particular for shannon's family, because they put a lot on the line to ensure that this case was brought before the supreme court of the united states. the court's decision makes it more difficult for states to guarantee women's reproductive rights, more likely that acts of violence and intimidation against women seeking reproductive health care will occur. with reproductive rights under attack, it is imperative that we assure the basic safety of all women and

staff at planned parenthood and other health facilities. we should be expanding access to safe reproductive health care for women, not restricting it. and that is, unfortunately, what today is gh going to represent n the history of health care for women in our country. you, madam president, are a national leader on these issues, fighting for the rights of women. and i stand with you and i stand with the other members of the senate but, more importantly, just ordinary families across this country who, along with planned parenthood and all women in massachusetts and this country, who believe that every woman seeking reproductive health should be safe and protected. and i'm proud that all massachusetts law enforcement officials will continue to use

every legal tool available to ensure the safety and the privacy of women and clinic staff. today is an historic day. unfortunately, it is one that our country should not be proud of. of. >> today constitutional law attorneys review the 2013-2014 discusscourt term and the major cases, including campaign finance, cell phone presidential recess appointment powers. live coverage at 9:30a.m. c-span 3. >> coming up on c-span, president obama talks about jobs a town economy at it hall meeting in minnesota. lew treasury secretary jack announces the expansion of federal housing programs. and later, house and senate democrats call for comprehensive

reform.ion are. >> it was august 15 i think on a sunday, very much one of those nixons when richard essentially appeared on national television halfway through bonanza, a great cowboy show, not really my type, but maybe viewers will remember that show and he interrupted the show to say we're not going to allow the dollar to be converted into gold. and this was one of the most mostficant events, the significant things to have happened in the history of money. and it was a very decisive where essentially he shut the goldwyn do, that's what the could notwhere people simply come into fort knox and is $100, i want to get the gold value. and that was as a consequence of big, bad problems that the american federal government got its debt, the vietnam

war and also pay for the great workty, and it just didn't out. there was a deficit, there was a trade deficit. conservative member of british parliament talks about the history of relationship to war, and how the two impact worldwide ate markets, saturday night 10:00, part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. on our an line book club we're discussing "the forgotten man," a history of the great depression. coming up on the next "washington journal," a look at of marijuana in colorado. our guests are ben markus of denver public radio with a history of the law and the state's experiences with pot sales. michael elliott of the marijuana industry council talks about new sales and tax regulations that went into

effect in january. later, smart colorado, a group dog ofrves as a watch the retail industry. axt president obama hosts meeting on the economy in minnesota. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> it is good to be back in minnesota. the last type i was here it was colder. here's a tip for folks who are not from minnesota. and theome here minnesotans are complaining about how cold it is, it's cold. because they're pretty tough cold. but it was so it's nice to be back when it's a little warmer, and i have to begin by congratulating our soccer team, team u.s.a., for advancing next round of the cup. u.s.a. absolutely.

we were in what's called the group of death. and even though we didn't win toughest were in the through. and we got so we've still got a chance to and we could cup. not be prouder of them. they are defying the odds, and earned aa lot of believers in the process, and i want to knowy on the team that all of us back home are really proud of them. let me tell you something. i've been really looking forward d.c.tting out of ( laughter ) but i've also been looking couple to spending a days here in the twin cities. littlenda is still a loose. and i might pop in for some ice a small business. i don't know, i'm just going to i go along.s

with secret service, i always tease them, i'm like a caged bear, and once in a while i break loose, and i'm feel super loose today. [applause] so you don't know what i might do. who knows. but the main reason i'm glad to be here is because i just wanted to talk tohance folks about their lives and hopes and their dreams and what they're going through. some time to spend listening, and answering your questions and just having a conversation about what's going and yourour lives neighborhoods and communities right now, but also what kind of goingles folks are through and what things are aren't.and what things now before i do, i just want to our governor is here.

[applause] and mark gave me an update on fight that's been going on across the state, and i know some folks here are probably by it as well. we made sure that fema is the ground here, the army corps of engineers is a levee.o build up i told the governor that we will as we get some clarity about the damage and what needs be done. and you're going, you should feel confident that you'll have partner in fema and the federal government in the process of cleaning up. [applause] confidentn also feel because if we didn't help out, then i'd have mayor coleman and hodges and congressman ellison give me a hard time, so hold me to it.o they do a freight job on behalf

day.eir constituents every [applause] i also wanted to mention that up the row there's a memorial that manyr a person of you knew and loved and that's oberstar who served so long in congress. to know jim, we overlapped before he came back a good man, he was a good public sevennant, he was thebody who never forgot folks in the, that he was fighting for. and in a lot of ways what he represented was a time when 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. continues.ght we've made progress. remind thing i always people of is just about every

economic measure, we are significantly better off than we office.n i came into unemployment is down. the deficits have been cut in half. markets improved. solid. have gotten more the number of people who are uninsured are down. our energy are up, production is up. so in the aggregate when you whole, the country as a measure, much every the economy is doing better than it was when i came into office cases significantly better. now 9.4 million new jobs over the last 51 months. [applause] the 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. we have got an economy that even when it grows and corporate profits are high and the stock market is doing well, they are still having trouble roducing 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 right thing, are responsible, 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 hard, your kid can go to a good 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. we had on monday what we called 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 -- we talked about paid family leave, says that if a child was sick or a parent was sick, you ould 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 play, 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 workers from and companies end up being more profitable. we talked about increasing the

minimum wage, which would benefit millions of people all across the country. we talked about equal pay for equal work, because i want my daughters to get paid the same as men do. 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 is playing 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. some of them will be, and they 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. and i am going to go boy, girl, boy, girl, to make sure it goes fair. all right? who wants to go first? his young lady right here. tell me your name. >> i am cheryl hill. admire you.

i 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? generally, study abroad programs are coordinated by the universities and colleges that ponsor them. there should be interaction between 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 -- >> 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. >> well, on my way over here i was talking to a mom i had lunch with, who is wonderful, by the way, 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 was newtown, and i described how the day that sandy hook happened was probably the worst day of my presidency, and meeting those families just a ouple days after they lost these beautiful six-year-olds, 20 of them, and then some of the parents -- and some of the teachers, administrators that had been affected as well. i was sure after that happened there is no way that congress is not going to do some common sense stuff. and i thought that the issue of gun safety 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 developed 24 executive actions, things that were in our power, to really try to tighten tracking where guns go, making sure that 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 progress. we have probably saved a few lives. but i will tell you, this is the only advanced country that tolerates something like his. we have what is basically a mass shooting it seems like happening once every couple weeks. kids on college campuses, kids t home, and we are not going

to be able to eliminate all that violence, and there is a strong tradition of gun ownership, and 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 semiautomatic -- so this is 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 olitics in congress are such where even members of congress who know better are fearful that if they vote their conscience and support common sense gun 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. so i will 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 enforcement, and they are going 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 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. i know you are into sports, and 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. >> and is he eligible for the 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. >> look, this 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 because grants, loans, work during the summer, all those

things allow me to pay the bills. but college costs were lower than when i was going to school. i know you cannot tell from my gray hair, but i'm getting a little older now, and so i started college in 1979, and 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 students that you

are describing 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 senate, massachusetts senator 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 xpanded -- a program whereby

you never have to pay more than 10% 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. it will still be a good 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. ok, it is the guy's turn, this entleman right here. >> mr. president, like you i am the father of two beautiful, intelligent girls. and they are both in stem 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.

first of all, stem stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. america became an economic superpower in large part because we were the most innovative economy. we are a nation of inventors and tinkerers, 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, then things like the internet, things like gps that everybody ses every day, things 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 companies who are doing,

let's 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, technology, computer science, and we do have a school system hat 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 omes to girls. and my whole thing is somebody said i was a sports fan. i am. and one rule 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 oftentimes do that or if they 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. and these kids are amazing, except they make you feel really stupid. the first student who i met, she 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 genetic profile and the chromosomes that might have led to this particular kind of cancer, writes up the research in "science" magazine, and now has a scholarship to harvard to pursue her interest n 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.

ok. young lady right here, in the ellow. >> hi, i'm the university of minnesota student body president. i have a question and a softball question. my first question is, the house 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. softball 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. i just did my last commencement 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 anteater. nd gophers are cool. but the invitation is a good place to start. then we will work from there. in terms of 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 ace. and one of the goals of cfpb was to tackle the student loan issue and what we have done is created what we called a 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, here, this is what you know, handed to them at the 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. but as i said 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. and what we have tried to do is leverage the little bit of money that the federal government gives to this to modify how -- to incentivize

eform, and experiment with new ways of learning. for example, can we use online classes more effectively to help keep those 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 embodied in the higher education act.

all right. the gentleman right here in the uniform. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> my name is john, i'm a recent graduate from the freedom house academy in st. paul. >> ok. there you go. >> [applause] . >> currently i'm teaching at the academy and i just got hired. i applied for st. paul fire. my question is, have you considered starting any other organizations such as the freedom house for law enforcement or fire other establishments that could get programs like that going for low income or minorities? >> i'll confess to you, i don't know enough about freedom house so i'm considering it right now. but you've got to tell me more about it since you're an instructor there and a graduate from there why don't you tell

me how it works. >> you go through an interviewing process and the leaders, there's fire chiefs .hat interview the candidates you get paid but it is an interviewing process. it's a strict program de. it's intensive. everything's compacted. all the information that we learn. and you learn skills, all the skills that you need to be an emt. you meet, network, meet fire chiefs, police, i know people going into med school started in 1967. in philadelphia. and -- >> sounds like a great program. and who is eligible for it? is it young people who have already graduated from high school but haven't yet gone to college? if i'm 30 years old and i'm thinking let me try a new

career? who is it that can participate? >> anyone from the ages of 17 to 30 is eligible. you have to meet tin come requirements. and it's open to anyone who wants to get into e. mfment s. or fire -- ems or fire. >> that's a great idea so you gave me a great idea so now i'm considering expanding. [applause] you know, it's a good example, though, of a broader issue which is not everybody is going to go to a 4-year university but everybody is going to need some advanced training. so the question is, how do we set up systems whether it's apprenticeships, whether it's programs like freedom house, that you just described, whether it's through the community colleges where whatever stages in your life, if you feel as if you're stuck

in your existing op pation, you want to do better. or you lose your job and you have to transition to a new industry, that you are able to get training that fits you understanding that for a lot of folks they may be working at the same time as they are looking after their kids. so there's got to be some flexibility. the programs have to be more ex compact. more importantly they have to be job training programs or technical programs that actually produce the skills you need to get jobs that are there. and so what we've been trying to do is -- which seems like common sense but unfortunately for a long time wasn't done. going to the businesses first that are hiring and ask them, what exactly are you looking for? and why don't you work with the community college or why don't you work with the nonprofit to help design the actual training

programs so that you'll have the benefit of knowing if somebody has gone through the program they're prepared for the job. conversely, the person who is going through the training program, they know if they complete it that there's a job at the other end. and that's how we're actually trying to redesign a lot of the job training programs that are out there. but as i said before, you've also got to make sure that you structure it so that a working mom who can't afford to just quit her job and go to school, she's -- maybe she's a waitress right now, she's interested in being a nurse's assistant that has slightly better pay and benefits and then wants to become a nurse, that she has the opportunity to work around her schedule, make sure that we've got the ability to take classes at night or on weekend or on line. that's how in the future we're

going to have to redesign a lot of stuff getting away from thinking that all the training that's going to take place is just for 18 and 19-year-olds who have got all day and are supported by their parents. because that's not the model that our economy is going to be in for the foreseeable future. young lady. n the stripes. >> hi name is erin. i just left a corporation in minnesota, fortune 500 corporation where i had my four-year degree my male counterpart did not and he was making more than i was. what are we going to do so as i grow up and other women grow up we're not experiencing the wage gap any more? well, i've got all kinds of opinions on this. first of all, i told this story

at the working family summit. my mom was a single mom. she worked, went to school, raised two kids with the help of my grandparents. and i remember what it was like for her. coming home, she's dead tired, she's trying to fix a healthy meal for me and my sister. which meant there were only really like five things in the rotation. because she didn't have time to be practicing with a whole bunch of stuff. and sometimes because you're a kid you're stupid so you're like, i don't want to eat that again. nd she's like, really? what did you make? eat your food. but i remember the struggles

that she would go through when she did finally get her advanced degree, got a job, and she would experience on the job discrimination because of her gender. my grandmother, she was rosy the rivetter. when my grandfather went to fight in world war ii, part of patton's army, she stayed home ecause my mom was born at -- in kansas at fort leavenworth. and my grandmother worked at a bomber assembly line. she was whip smart. i mean, in another era she would have ended up running a company. but at the time she didn't even get her college degree, worked as a secretary. she was smart enough that she worked her way up to be a vice president at the local bank where we lived. which is why sometimes when i

atch mad men there's peggy and joan, the two women there. i'm always rooting for them because i imagine that's what it was like for my grandmother working her way up. but as smart as she was, she got to a certain point and then she stopped advancing. and then she would train guys how to do the job and they would end up being her boss. and it happened three or four times. so this is something that i care a lot about not just because of my past but also because of my future. i've got two daughters. the idea that they would not be paid the same or not have the same opportunities as somebody's sons is infuriating. and even if you're not a dad, those of you who have partners, spouses, men, this is not a women's issue.

because if they're not getting paid, that means they're not bringing home as much money which means your family budget is tighter. so this is a family issue and not a gender issue. so what can we do? first bill i signed was the bill called the lily led better act that allowed folks to sue if they found out that they had been discriminated against like you found out back then lily led bether this wonderful woman, she had been paid less than her male counterparts for the same job for over a decade. when she finally finds out, she sues and the supreme court says, well, the statute of limitations has run out. you can't sue for all that back pay. she says well i just found out. well, that doesn't matter. so we reversed that law.

allowing people to sue based on when you find out. most recently what i did was we ade it against the law -- at least for federal contractors -- to retaliate against employees for sharing job or salary information. because part of the problem -- part of the reason that it's hard for equal pay for equal work is most employers don't let you talk or discourage talk about what everybody else is getting paid. and what we've said is women have a right to know what the guy sitting next to them who is doing the exact same job is getting paid. but ultimately we're going to need congress to act. there have been repeated

efforts at us by us to get what we call the paycheck fairness act through congress and republicans have blocked it. some have denied it's a problem. they've said women make different choices. that's the reason why women on average women make 77 cents to every dollar that men earn because they're making different choices. first that's thot true in your case because you're you were doing the same job. but let's even unpack this whole idea of making different choices. what they're really saying is, because women have to bear -- and a company doesn't give them enough maternity leave, or doesn't give them enough flexibility, that they should be punished.

and our whole point is that this is a family issue and that if we structure the workplace to actually be family friendly which everybody always talks about but we don't always actually practice, then women won't have to make different choices. then if they're pregnant and have a child it's expected that they're going to have some time off. by the way, the dad should, too. they should have some flexibility in the workplace. they should be able to take care of the sick kid without etting docked for pay. and there's some wonderful companies who are doing this. as i said before, it turns out that when companies adopt family-friendly policies, their productivity goes up, they have lower turnover. which makes sense. look, if you have a family

emergency and you go to your boss and you say can i have a week off? i've got to take care of a sick child or a dad or can i leave early this afternoon because my kid's in a school play and i really think this is important? and 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? you're going to feel invested in them. you're going to say to yourself, man, these folks care about me which means i care about you. and if i have 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. so this makes good business sense. but the problem is that we haven't done enough to encourage these new models. and this is part of the reason we had this family summit.

we wanted to show companies doing the right thing, encourage others to adopt the same practices, and maybe get some legislation that increnlt vises better policies. in the meantime though if you're doing the same job you should make the same pay, period. that should be a basic rule. that shouldn't be subject to confusion. this young man back here. right there. >> good afternoon, mr. president. >> good afternoon. what's your name? >> my name is quinn. i'm an intern with right track. >> what's right track? >> it's a youth job program through the city of st. paul. >> that's great. what grade are you going into next year? >> i'm going to be a senior. >> fantastic. how did junior year go? >> yeah. >> it was ok?

what do you mean yeah? how did junior year go? >> ok. >> mall la's going into her junior year and i hear it's pretty busy but you looked like you survived it. ok. you want to get to your question. please go ahead. >> i was wondering how you would propose to address the growing issue of climate change. well, as it just so happens -- now, this young man was not a plant. but as it just so happens, last year -- yesterday -- i announced my climate action plan. and let me just set the stage science here the is settled. carbon dioxide -- [applause] carbon dioxide is released by a

whole bunch of man-made activities. when you release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it traps heat. we 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're going up. and this is not just a problem of polar bears. although i really like polar bears. and the ice caps melting. what happens is that when temperatures on average go up, it throws weather patterns into a whole bunch of different directions. caps may mean that snow out untains diminish and

west entire states get their water from snow caps. if you're not getting the same amount of water, you now have the potential for more severe drought, agriculture is impacted which means your food bills go up. california is going through the worst drought it's gone through in a very, very long time. that raises the price of all the fruits and vegetables that are grown in california so it hits you in your pocketbook. wild fires may increase. and in fact we've seen record wildfires. we're having to spend more money fighting fires now than we ever have. it makes hurricanes potentially more frequent and potentially more powerful. so hurricane seandy may not be as unusual as it used to be. you see higher incidents of flooding. coastal states like florida,

there are neighborhoods where now every time there's a high tide there are floods in these neighborhoods. and the problem is it's getting worse because, as folks in china and india and other places decide they want to have cars, too, and they want to have electricity, and the thing that is we've got, they start building more power plants and they start driving more and all of that adds to more carbon dioxide and it starts compounding. so this is something we have to deal with. now, the good news is there are things we can do. so we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. by the middle of next decade cars and trucks are going to go twice as far on a gallon of gas. that's going to save you money but it's also taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. we've invested in clean energy. since i came into office we're producing three times as much

energy through wind power and we're producing about ten times as much energy through solar power and we're creating jobs ere in the united states inaudible] audio. no >> the amount of mercury and arsenic and sulfur that's water umped out. so we said we're going to cap it and we're going to let states work with their private sector and local governments to come up with what's going to be best for them. not every state is going to do

the same thing. nevada might emphasize solar power, south dakota might emphasize wind power. whatever it is that you're going to do, you've got to start bringing down your carbon pollution. ow, this has some controversy. oil companies not wild about it. coal companies not crazy about it. these traditional sources of fuel, fossil fuels we're going to use for a while but we can't just keep on using them forever. we've got to develop new ways of producing energy so that your generation isn't seeing a planet that is starting to break down with all the costs associated with it. last point i'll make. one of the benefits of asking power plants to produce energy that is cleaner is that when they control their carbon dioxide they're also putting less soot in the air. they're also putting less plarts in the air.

and what that means is your hild is less likely to get asthma. and those with respiratory diseases is less likely to be affected so it has a public health effect. we can have an environment that is cleaner, healthy for us, and at the same time develop entire new industries in clean energy but we're going to have to get started now. and that's why despite some of the pushback from some of the special interests out there we're going to keep on going at this because we don't have a choice. this is something that we're going to tackle during this generation to make sure we've getting a good future for the next generation. last question. this young lady in the pink. o ahead. >> good afternoon mr. president. >> good afternoon. >> my name is katie and my

coworkers here and friend, we've been working for the federal government for almost 29 years and we feel really privileged that we've been able to serve that way. >> where do you work? >> for defense contract management agency. >> excellent. >> and but it's been a great career and we love it. but lately as you know there's been a few rough patches with three years of pay freeze and sequestration and furloughs. and we're just kind of wondering what you foresee for the next like fiscal year as for government workers. >> well, let me make a couple of points. folks in the federal government the overwhelming majority, they work really hard doing really important stuff. and i don't know why it is that -- i don't know when it was

that somehow working for the government, whether at the state or local or federal level, somehow became not a real job. when you listen to some of the republican rhetoric sometimes, you think, well, this is really important work. that we depend on. we've got 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 that people get help rebuilding. those are federal workers. if they weren't around after a tornado or a hurricane, communities would be in a world of hurt. when you check the weather, even on your smart phone, that information didn't just come valley silicon

office. that came from the national weather service. we put out the data, developed by the federal government through our satellites that are paid for, and then it's commercialized and people use it to set up things like the weather channel and weather.com .nd web sites the folks who help our men and women in uniform make sure that they've got proper equipment. those are federal workers. fighting fires. a lot of times those are federal workers in the forest service. so it frustrates me when i hear people acting as if somebody

who is working for the federal government somehow is less than somebody working in the private sector. if they are doing a good job and carrying out an important function, we should praise them. the same is true by the way at the local level. the same is true at the local level. i don't know of a job more important than teaching. those are all government workers. in fact, one of the biggest problems we had in coming out of this recession in addition to it being the worst recession since the great depression, was that states and local governments were cutting back on their hiring at an unprecedented rate. we still haven't seen state and local government hiring get back to where it was back in 2007, 2008. so e had, if we hadn't lost

much teachers and teachers aides in communities the economy would be much stronger. so i say this to make a general point which is historicically it's been the private sector that drove the economy but it was also a whole bunch of really great work done by agricultural extension workers and engineers at nasa and researchers at our labs. that helps to create the platform and the wealth that we enjoy. and so this whole idea that somehow government is the enemy or the problem is just not true. now, are there programs that the government does that are a waste of money or aren't working as well as they should be? of course. but i tell you, if you work in any company in america, big company, you know, you will find some thing that is they are doing that aren't all that efficient, either.

are there some federal workers who do bone-headed things? absolutely. i remember the first week i was on the job i talked to my defense secretary bob gates who is older and had been there a long time. i said do you have any advice for me? one thing you should know, mr. president, is that at any given moment or any given day somebody in the federal government is screwing up. which is true because there are 2 million employees. somebody out there if 99% of the folks are doing the right thing and only 1% aren't, that's still a lot of people. so my job as president working with congress is to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. we shouldn't be wasting a dime. and where we see waste where we see things not working the way it should like recently these long waits for folks trying to

get into the v.a. health program we've got to crack down and reform it. but we can't paint with a broad brush and say somehow stuff's not working because even in the v.a. health care system once people get in the quality of care the satisfaction rates for customers is actually better than in the private sector health care. so we can't generalize like this. now, the last point i'll make going to your question. federal worksers generally have not gotten raises and you remember during the government shutdown they were getting pressed having to pay bills like everybody else but not having the paycheck coming in. it's very disruptive for them. what's called sequestration and furloughs meant that they might only be able to come to work three days a week instead of the full five. and this all put a strain on their budgets. we've been able to stabilize

it. but when we go into the budget talks with republicans next year we may go through some of the same problems in part because the other side has said they want to cut funding for education, they've said that they want to cut support for vulnerable families. they want to cut medicaid which would have an impact on the elderly and families that have folks with disabilities. and i've said no. by the way, the deficits come 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 ppaying no taxes when a teacher or secretary are paying taxes hemselves. before i would start cutting education spending are spending on basic research. it will be a tough negotiation because everything is a tough negotiation in washington right now. which brings me to my last point. i don't watch tv news, generally, or cable shows, but i suspect if you are out here going to work, picking up your kids, taking them to soccer, or at night sitting there paying he 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 ast. although i want to be very clear, we are not sending combat troops into iraq. 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 ould do us harm. but sometimes the news that's coming on, these are just washington fights. they are fabricated issues, they are phony scandals that

are generated. it's all geared towards the next election, or building up a base. it's not on the level. and that must feel frustrating, and it 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 struggle, 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 ffice.

i'm not looking for applause. i want to make this point. i grew up 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 and our kids were first born. it's not like i forget. it was just 20 years ago when we 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 side whose only rationale, 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. the green line got built here in minnesota. espite 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.

cynicism is popular these days, but hope is better. thanks, everybody. thank you. national cable satellite corp. 2014] national captioning institute] â

♪ >> president obama is in minnesota for a second day as he kicks off a series of white house day in the life summer trips highlighting the economy. we'll be live with him today at 11:50 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> today the center for strategic and international studies holds a discussion on the 2014 quad renal homeland security review. live coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> treasury secretary jack lew announced the expansion of federal housing programs to assist potential home owners and low income renters. his comments came at the close of the treasury department's making home affordable summit. it's 10 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure and honor to have the secretary of the treasury jack lew with us today to close our conference. please join me in welcoming him and expressing our appreciation for his support of making home affordable. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, tim. being herell for today. thank you to the staff that organized the summit. i am happy to be able to disk us these issues. this summit has been a great caretunity for those who about housing and what it means to families, neighborhoods and andeconomy to come together make our policies and programs more effective. 5.5 years ago, the devastating housing crisis helped ignite the

worst recession of our lifetime. by the time the president took office, the housing market was spiraling out of control. home values were plummeting and tion workers were losing jobs. the number of americans behind on mortgages was at a record high. the president began to attempt to help homeowners, leading to the creation of the mekong affordable program. -- make home affordable. more than one million homeowners have been able to modify their mortgages and save $540 a month on payments. the program is not just helping families keep homes, it is giving families a piece of mind. it is -- i would like to take a thent to congratulate men and women who have made this program a lifeline for so many over the past five years. [applause]

>> thank you for your hard work. a home is where the most important investments a family ever makes. our programs are having a real impact but real challenges remain. these homeowners remain optimistic but continue to worry about what the future will bring for themselves and their neighbors. when you work hard, act responsibly, and play by the rules, you should not have to live in fear that you are going to lose your home. our initiatives have not been a silver bullet. judgedgrams cannot be directly on what they have done for programs, they have set a standard for the mortgage industry on how to restructure loans and help homeowners.