ural residents were involved in 2015 plans? >> i have not looked at this in-depth 42015, but there is data available from hhs by zip code. what we did analysis for 2014, enrollment in rural areas did like behind urban areas. there are a number of reasons for that. a lot of the people's signing up for coverage, especially those for the first time it needed the help from the sisters. sisters are easier to access in urban areas. i think they were efforts put in place during the second open enrollment. -- enrollment period in rural areas, so it is possible will be

analyzed into an thousand 15 there will be an increase in rural areas. -- analyze in 2015, there will be an increase in verbal areas. but it is much more of a problem in rural areas. >> thank you. >> we only have about five minutes left, so i would ask if you can pull out the blue evaluation form and start filling it up. to write. >> is the federal government wants to offer -- encourage employers to offer health insurance to employees, why would include the cadillac tax under the aca? what is the harm of offering coverage exceeding 20 -- 20,500 per family? >> employment coverage is also

benefited from beneficial tax treatment in the sense that employers pay toward coverage on behalf of workers and it is not included in worker income and the amount that workers pay through payroll deductions. that reduces their taxable income. the concern is that because one dollar of health insurance is not subject to taxes and dollar wages is, workers prefer health insurance over wages to some degree or increases in compensation in a form of more generous health insurance. we know that more generous health insurance results and more use of health care services and some of those are good for people to be and some may be unnecessary, therefore, people may be over insured to some degree. there has always been an interest as far back as the reagan administration in changing the way health benefits in the workplaces are taxed.

this cadillac tax is one way that, coming from the top down, to address those high-class health plans that often are associated with plans that provide very generous benefits. remember in the summer of 2009 i think the poster child for this tax was goldman sachs, when it came out that they were spending about $40,000 per executive for their health benefits. it is a crude way of going about it. there are some issues with it and things we have not seen and how it will be addressed, but the intent is to reduce these very very generous benefits or at least find the revenue to pay for the provisions in the bill like taxing these benefits.

>> the last question here is really about the value of having health insurance coverage and i asked if they can speak about cost-benefit or cost avoidance by more people having coverage and eliminating cost but preventing medical conditions from becoming worse or people getting care a lower cost environments. i think this question speaks to the purpose of the purpose of affordable care act which was to recognize that the uninsured population uses the health system very differently than people with insurance coverage. they often delay care, postpone care, and duck in many cases sister, and when they arrived for care -- and ended up in many cases, sicker, and when they arrived for care, they have a worse disease when they could have been prevented and held earlier because it was not

treated when it was responsive to treatment. in the sense of those issues came the need to move more people into the state of having insurance coverage, especially with the big move on affordable care act and early access to primary care and to preventive services and preventive services being available without cost-sharing. we will get into that in the medicaid and medicare section and then in the health care costs section about all the effort to try and restructure the way the delivery system works to change the way the payment policy work and to try and provide for more incentives to move the system in less costly settings but also to pay and reward care for performance and value. so that is the advertisement for the fact that the next three 101's are going to do with all of these issues and away that we can only skim the surface today. >> that is a perfect segue.

it gives me the chance to say thank you to you for providing a rich background for questions to illuminate the number of physicians and provisions in this law. second, for showing up in the first place in a difficult set of circumstances. thank you to the kaiser family foundation for cosponsoring and contributed so richly to the discussion. i would like to ask you in joining me on thinking the panel for giving us so much progress. [applause] don't forget the evaluations and as diane said, we will see you in a couple of weeks to talk specifically about medicaid. thank you.

>> new jersey senator bob menendez said the justice department is preparing to bring criminal justice charges against him. it centers on his relationship with the florida ophthalmologist . senator menendez is a democrat and elected to his third term in 2012. here is a portion of the statement. senator menendez: let me be very clear. very clear. i have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law. every action that i and my office have taken for the last

23 years that i have been privileged to be in the united states congress has been based on pursuing the best policies for the people of new jersey and of this entire country. anyone who knows me knows that i fight for the things i believe are important, like making sure victims of superstorm sandy had the tools they needed to rebuild their lives or making certain that iran never never achieved the ability to produce nuclear weapons. i have always worked to keep new jersey families safe, keep our ports secure, and keep the promise we made after september 11 to keep our first responders fully equipped and staffed. there may be no member of congress who fought harder than i did to get the 9/11 commission recommendations into public law. i fight for these issues and the people of our country every

single day. that is who i am. and i am not going anywhere. >> tonight, american indians discussed the to the stereotyping. the lead plaintiff against the washington redskins, a native rights advocate fighting to eliminate native american mascots and the director of smithsonian institutions national museum of the american indian. here are some of his remarks. >> this is a well intense tonal teacher somewhere who was teaching her kids about thanksgiving. it is required content in almost every state in the union. teachers are expected to teach about things in some way. this is what they have been teaching. now, this is innocent play,

isn't it? these are kids and they are pretending, which is what kids do, and it seems innocent enough. but a couple of things. first of all it is rather unlikely they would pretend to be people of any other race and what they are. that would be understood almost immediately as inappropriate. but now it comes to indians. the other thing is that is, that innocent play turns into a group of sorority girls turning into indians or frat boys dressing up as indians, or a little later, hipsters dressing up as indians. these guys, i mean, i do not know what that is all about. [laughter] but, what is this thing was dressing up as indians? and then it turns into this and becomes commercialized, victoria's secret, everywhere.

and of course, this. so what starts out as innocent play, eventually becomes ignorant and racist. >> american indians and the stereotyping of sports and culture tonight on c-span. >> this c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life this weekend, we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people swarmed to the beach. it drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these had to beat structures. at that time, we had what it back houses on the gulf of mexico and we also had peers and we even had a huge civilian --

pavilion. as storms increase in intensity these structures were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck the galveston saturday, september 8. this was in 1900. the storm began pouring in increased in dramatic intensity and finally, a tapered off. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states >>. watch all of our events from galveston today at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history on c-span three.

>> next, president obama at a town hall meeting with college students in south carolina. after that, the supreme court oral argument in king v. burwell . live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on washington journal. >> president obama was in south carolina for a town hall with students at benedict college. he talked about education, the keystone pipeline, and police and race relations. this is the president's first trip since 2008 to south carolina. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] president obama: hello, south carolina.

thank you. it is good to see everybody. it is good to be back in south carolina. if you all have a seat, take a seat. [laughter] if you do not have a seat, i am sorry. i want to see -- i want to say thank you to benedict college. [applause] i want to thank tiana for the great introduction. give her a big round of applause. we have all kinds of luminaries and dignitaries and big shots here today, but i will mention a couple of them.

one of the finest gentlemen and finest legislators in the country, your congressman jim clyburn. your outstanding mayor, steve benjamin. the president of this great institution, dr. david swinton. go tigers! [applause] president obama: it has been awhile since i was in south carolina. in fact it has been too long. , it has. i'm not going to lie. you know, i love you and i have been loving you, it is just i had a lot of stuff to do since i last saw you. [applause] [laughter] but it was wonderful to be back stage because i got a chance to see so many of the wonderful people that i worked with back in 2008. if it was not for this great state, the palmetto state, if it was not for all of the people who at a grassroots level had

gone door to door and talked to folks and got everybody fired up and ready to go if it hadn't been for all of you, i might not be president and i'm truly grateful for that. i'm truly great grateful for that. [applause] i hope that you don't mind, i also brought another good friend, the attorney general of the united states, eric holder. [applause] president obama: we decided to take a friday road trip together because eric has not only been a great friend but extraordinary attorney general. he is going to go enjoy himself and retire from public service. i know he will still be doing great things around the country. i'm really going to miss him. i'm not here is to make a long speech. i'm here to make a short speech.

because what i want to spend most of the time interacting and get questions and hear what you guys are thinking about. this is a good thing for me to get out of washington and talk to normal folk. [applause] president obama: i thought it was appropriate to come here because tomorrow i will be visiting selma, alabama for the 50th anniversary of the march across the edmund pettus bridge. one of the things that might -- one of the things that might talk about, and i'm still working on my speech, but it might come up is the meaning of selma for your generation. because selma is not just about commemorating the past, it is honoring the legends who helped change this country through your actions today in the here and now. selma is now. selma is about the courage of ordinary people doing

extraordinary things because they believe they can change the country. that they can shape our nation's destiny. selma is about each of us asking ourselves what we can do to make america better. and historically it has been young people like you who helped lead that march. you think about somebody like john lewis who was one of the key leaders and will be joining us tomorrow. he was 23 when he helped lead that march that transformed the country. think about the children's crusade in birmingham for the 12-year-old boy who was elected head of the naacp youth chapter who grew up to be jim clyburn, you know, it was young people. it was young people who stubbornly insisted on justice. stubbornly refused to accept the

world as it is that transformed not just the country but transformed the world. you see that spirit reflected in the poster in the 1960's. picture of a young june lewis kneeling in -- john lewis kneeling in protest against an all-white swimming pool and it reads come let us build a new world together. come let us build a new world together. that is the story of america. that is why immigrants came here. the idea of building a new world together. not just settling on what is, but imagining what might be. insisting we live up to our highest ideals. our deepest values. that is why i want to come here

to columbia and benedict college because we all know we still have work to do. we have got to ensure not just the absence of formal legal oppression, but the presence of an active dynamic opportunity. good jobs that pay good wages. good start for every child. healthcare for every family. higher education that prepares you for the world without crippling you with that. -- with debt. a fair and more just legal and criminal justice system. [applause] president obama: now the good news is we are in much better shape now than we were six years ago. this morning we learnd that our economy created nearly 300,000 new jobs last month. the unemployment rate went down. [applause]

president obama: unemployment rate ticked down to 5.5% which is the lowest it has been since the spring of 2008. [applause] president obama: our businesses have now added more than 200,000 jobs a month for the past year. and we have not seen a streak like that in 37 years. since jimmy carter was president. [applause] president obama: over the past five years business has created nearly 12 million new jobs and what is more, the unemployment rate for african americans is falling faster than the overall unemployment rate which makes sense because it went up faster, too, during the recession. but it is still too high. the unemployment rate across the country and here in south is still higher than we want

which means we have more work to do. and we got make sure those are good jobs that pay a living wage and have benefits with it. so we can't let up now. we have got to do everything we to keep this progress going. this community i know is doing its part to prepare students for this new economy. programs like youth build are giving young people who may have gotten off track a chance to earn a degree and get the skill they need for the 21st century. americorps, i see the jacket. they are working with the public schools to increase graduation rates. the benedict college community is doing outstanding work beyond your walls. [applause] president obama we put you on : the higher education community service honor roll. you earned that honor. [applause] president obama: so as long as i'm president we will keep doing everything we can to make sure that young people like you can

achieve your dreams. we can't do it for you, you got to do it yourselves but we can give you the tools you need. we can give you a little bit of a helping hand in the sense of possibility and direction. you got to do the work but we can make it a little easier for you. that is why one year ago we launched what we call my brother's keeper. an initiative that challenges communities to bring together nonprofits and foundations and businesses and government all focused on creating more pathways for young people to succeed. and this week we put out a , report showing the progress that has been made. that progress is thanks to the nearly 200 local leaders who have accepted what we call my brother's keeper's challenge , including mayor benjamin and the mayors of johnson and holy hill. they are doing great work

mentoring young people. giving them a new path for success. i'm hugely optimistic about the progress we can make together this year and in the years ahead because ultimately i'm optimistic about all of you. young people in this country make me optimistic. the future we can build together. this new world that we can build together. i'm proud of it but we have got a lot more work to do starting right now because i'm about to take your questions. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [applause] president obama: got to make sure the mike works. here is how this is going to work. raise your hand. if i call on you, then wait for the mike so everybody can hear your question. if you could stand up and introduce yourself and try to keep your question relatively

short. i will try to keep my answer relatively short, that way we can get more questions and answers in. the only other rule is we are going to go girl boy, girl boy, just to make it fair. so it is not always just, you know, the boys thinking they know everything. [laughter] president obama: who wants to start? she says it is her birthday so we will call on her first. all right. [applause] wait for the microphone. go ahead and stand up. we got to be able to see you. happy birthday. what is your name? audience member: i'm darijay hamilton. i don't have a question, i just wanted you to talk to me. president obama: she doesn't have a question. happy birthday. all right.

next time you got to have a question. but it is your birthday so we are going to make an exception. the woman right there in the back. we are going to go -- i know i said boy girl, boy girl, but that didn't count because she didn't ask a question. right there. you had your hand up. right. yes, you. go ahead. audience member: hello. president obama: hello. audience member: i'm a native chicagoan and i welcome you . president obama what you doing : down here? >> i love it. i am here to protect the environment and i wanted to thank you. thank you for vetoing the xl pipeline.

do you think that will stop the xl pipeline? president obama: for those of you have not been following this the keystone pipeline is a , proposed pipeline that runs from canada through the united states down to the gulf of mexico. its proponents argue that it would be creating jobs in the united states. but the truth is it is canadian oil that is then going to go to the world market. it will probably create about a couple thousand construction jobs for a year or two. but only create about 300 permanent jobs. the reason the environmentalists are concerned about it is the way that you get the oil out in canada is a dirty way of extracting oil.

obviously there are always risks and piping a lot of oil through nebraska farm and other parts of the countries. -- other parts of the country. i vetoed it because the congress was trying to short circuit a traditional process that we go through. i haven't made a final determination on it. i said that we are not going to authorize a pipeline that benefits largely a foreign company if it can't be shown that it is safe and if it can't be shown that overall it would not contribute to climate change. now, a lot of young people here , you may not be worrying about climate change, although it is very cold down here. you can't attribute a couple of days of cold weather or a couple of days of hot weather to the climate changing but the pattern overall is that the planet is getting warmer. that is undeniable. and it is getting warmer at

faster rate than even the scientists expect. and you might think well, you know, getting warmer, that is no big deal, folks in south carolina, we are used to dealing with hot weather, we can manage. but understand that when you start having overall global temperatures go up, even if it means more snow in some places or more rain in someplace, not going to be hotter every single place, but the overall temperature is going up, that starts changing weather patterns across the globe. it starts raising ocean levels. it starts creating more drought and wildfires in some places. it means that there are entire countries that may suddenly know longer able to grow crops and people go hungry and creates conflict. it means diseases that used to be just and tropical places

start creeping up and we have a whole now set of insect-borne diseases like malaria that we thought we had gotten rid of and now they are sudden fly places -- and now they are suddenly in places like the united states. we start running out of water. it puts stresses and strains on our infrastructure. hurricanes become more powerful we the water is where when the -- when the water is warmer which means coastal cities and , towns are put at risk. say all that because it may not be what you are worried about right now. right now worry about getting a job or is your girlfriend still mad at you or right now thinking about getting through classes and exam time. what you have to appreciate, young people is this will affect , you more than old people like me. i will be gone when the worst of this hits.

and the disruptions, economic, social, security disruptions that it can cause can make your life and the lives of your children much harder and much worse. and if you don't stop it at a certain point, you can't stop it at all and it could be catastrophic. and i'm -- i just want you to understand what i just described it is not science fiction. it is not speculation. this is what the science tells us. so we have got to worry about it, which is part of the reason why we invested in things like green energy. trying to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars. trying to make sure that we use more solar and wind power. trying to find new energy sources that burn clean instead of dirty. and everybody here needs to be supportive and thinking about that because you are the ones

who are going to have to live with it. and i'm very proud of the fact that we have doubled the a clean energy produced since i have been president. we are increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars which will save you, by the way, money at pump. don't think that just because gas prices are low right now that is nice. that puts more money in your pocket but that is not going to last. don't go out and say i will buy a big gas guzzler now because the trajectory of the future is that gas, oil is going to get more expensive. harder to extract. we will have to transition over time to a new economy. and there is huge opportunity. we can create a lot of jobs in those areas if we are focused on it and planning for. all right. thank you very much for the question. all right. it is a gentleman's turn.

we got to -- we got the mike? i just want to make sure. let's see. this young man, right here in the red tie. looking sharp. always wear a tie or just wore it today? audience member: i wear it often. president obama: all right, good. i like that. looking clean. audience: i'm brandon pope. majoring in business management. my question is, tuition is very high in the united states. president obama: can i make it lower? is that the question? audience: in other countries it is free. what are your plans to assist those that are having trouble paying for school? president obama: okay. well, let me -- [applause] president obama: let me just say

this is a cause near and dear to my heart because michelle and i , we weren't born into wealthy families. so the only way we got our education was because we got help, loans, grants, work study programs. if we hadn't had that available to us we could not have pursued the education we did and couldn't have achieved what we achieved. and even with all of the help we got we had so much debt when we got married, that we had negative liabilities, we just joined our together our net negative liabilities and it took us like 10 years to pay off our debt. for the first 10 years of our

marriage, our loans were more expensive than our mortgage. it was only about two years or three years before i was elected as a u.s. senator that i paid off my loans. now, the truth is that historically the reason america succeeded so well is we have always been ahead of the curve in educating our population. we were the first country to say , let's have free public high schools when folks who had fought in world war ii came back, gave them a g.i. bill. middle class, help to get built because people got new skills. and through much of the 1960's and 1970's and 1980's our public university system was hugely important in giving people a

pathway into the middle class. now here is what happened -- typically state legislatures started cutting support for state universities. those state universities and colleges then decided well, we are going to have to jack up tuition to make up for the money that we lost because the state is not giving us as much and that is how tuition started to get higher and higher and higher. what i have done since i became president a couple things. we significantly expanded the pell grant program with the help of people like jim clyburn. [applause] president obama it used to be : that the student loan program was run throughout banks and the banks take a cut. they were making billions dollars on student loans. we said let's just give it directly to the students and save the money and give to more students and increase the size of the pell grant.

and we initiated a program that many of you still take advantage of and that is we capped the percentage of your income that you have to pay in repaying your student loans so that if you decide to become a teacher or you decide to become a social worker or get a job just starting of that is not paying you a lot of money but is in the field that you want, you don't have to say no because you can't afford it. it is only going to be 10% of your income. so it makes your debt payments manageable. but what we still have to do is to deal with the question you pointed out, which is how do we just keep tuition lower , generally? the big proposal that i put forward this year is let's make community colleges free for those who are.

[applause] president obama: it would be conditioned you would have to keep up a certain g.p.a. you would have to put in some sweat equity in the thing but the point is the first two years were free. the advantage is, first of all a lot of young people start at community colleges and may not want a four year degree but can get a two year degree that gives them the skills they need to get a job and not have any debt. even if you want to go to a four year college it may be a good , option go to the community college for the first two years and then transfer your credits and you at least saved half of , what you would other wise spend on your four year degree. and we can do this just by closing some loopholes in the tax system that gives companies the ability to avoid paying the taxes that they owe.

so far, at least i haven't gotten the kind of support i would like from some of my republican friends in the senate and house of representatives. but we will keep and working on it because it is a smart die. -- because it is a smart idea. i want ultimately -- ultimately i want at least the first two years of college to be just -- just like public high school is now. it is very hard nowadays to find a well paying job without some form of higher education. without some form of higher education. even if you end up working in a factory these days, you go into a modern factory and it is computerized and you to know math and you have to be able to function in a high tech environment.

so it is a proposal whose time has come. we may not be able to convince republicans to get it done this year, but we are going to just keep on going at this ultimately this is what is going to keep , america at the cutting edge and if we are able to do that, then we will be able to save you a little bit of money and you won't have the same kind of debt that i had to take out when i got my degree. all right? thank you for the question. [applause] president obama: all right. it is a young lady's turn now. that young lady in the orange right there. it is hard to miss. got the yellow and orange. did you wear that just so i would call on you? audience: thank you for being here, president obama. i'm renea jamison a public relations consultant and community organizer. i'm most proudly the parent two of young black males. sit down for a moment because i have an 18-year-older and i have

recently birthed a one year older. president obama uh-oh. : that is a big spread. audience: 17 years. president obama: took you that long to forget what it was like. [laughter] audience: i have a question about my 18-year-older. a scholarship student athlete at south carolina state university. i'm proud of the fact that he is there but as i'm sure you are aware, south carolina state security facing a bit of uphill battle at this moment. i have a question for you for a students like him that are there , others across the world, that are facing situations that are insurmountable and challenging. how do you stay motivated and what particular advice do you have for me to take back to lenard to tell third baseman -- tell him to stay encouraged and keep the hope alive?

and to continue to do his best. thank you. president obama: the main thing you should tell him is listen to your mom. i hope you recorded that. so you did. look, the -- i'm trying to remember what it was like being 18 and 19 and 20. it has been awhile. but the one thing that i always say to young people coming up these days is you should be wildly optimistic about your possibilities and your future. so often when we watch the nightly news or read the papers, all you are hearing about is bad stuff going on. it just seems like man, there is war and you know, strife and folks are arguing and yelling. conflict.

but the truth is, is that today , right now you are more likely , to be healthier, wealthier less discriminated against, have more opportunity, less likely to be caught up in violence than probably any time in human history. the opportunities for you to get information and to get an education and expose yourself to the entire world because of technology is unmatched. it has never been like this before. your ability to start your own business or carve your own path has never been greater. so my first and general point is do not get cynical about what is possible.

you know, the second thing you got to work really hard. and there is no free lunch and you can't make excuses. and particularly when i'm talking to young african american men, sometimes i think the sense is cards are stack ed against us and discrimination is still out there and so it is easy sometimes just to kind of pull back and say well, you know, it is just too hard. and you know, this is part of why it so important for us to remember selma tomorrow. it is not as hard as it was 50 years ago. it is not as hard as it was when jim clyburn was coming up and he is now one of the most powerful men in the country growing up right here in south carolina. so there are no excuses not to put in the effort. there are no excuses not hit the books. if you want a good education in this country you can get a good

education even if you are in bad school. i will be honest with you, we need to do work to make schools more people in south carolina. there are schools that were built back in the 1800s that have not been repaired, do not have decent restrooms -- [applause] president obama: don't have proper books, so we still got to fight to make sure that every traveler, not just some, have an equal opportunity. that is a worthy fight, but you can still learn even in that school. even in the most rundown school if you are putting the effort, you can get a good education. you cannot make excuses, even if you advocate or justice. you've got to make sure you are also taking advantage of the opportunities in currently have read but that brings me to one last piece of advice for young people and that is, think about

more than just yourself. think about how you can have an impact beyond yourself. the people who i know who are really happy and successful as they get older, it is because they have an impact on something other than just their own situation. they are not just thinking about , how do i get mine? they are thinking about how does everybody get their fair share. when they do that, like gives meaning to your life, that gives purpose to your life, that gives you influence, and a sense of purpose. you've got to have a sense of purpose and not just almighty dollar. look, we live in a free-market society and one of the things that sets america part is business and entrepreneurship and hustle. some folks are out there just trying to make a new product or create new service, and the

motive is strong. that is good, that is important. but if i were thinking about and you are not thinking about how you can also have an impact of your church or if you are not thinking about how you can treat your employees right when you do get a business, if you are not thinking, once you do with it, what am i getting back? making sure i'm giving a helping hand to those behind me, if you do not think that we, you will not be able to get through the tough times. what gets you through tough times is the sense of purpose. that purpose cannot just be about yourself, it has to be about something larger. all right, so -- we got a young man. he is standing tall. go ahead. audience member: my name is

traced adams. president obama: hi, trace. how old are you? audience member: i am in fourth grade. president obama: you are talking. what's going on, trace? trace: i am 10 years old, i was wondering when you were interested in being a president. president obama. president obama: it wasn't when i was 10 years old. are you thinking about it? trace: a little bit, sir. president obama: all right well you are definitely ahead of me. now just remember, you have to wait until you are 35. that is in the constitution, so you have at least 25 years to prepare. you know, when i was 10, i was not thinking about being president. when i was 10 years old, i was interested in being an architect.

i was interested in the idea of building buildings and i thought that was pretty cool to read -- pretty cool. and then i thought maybe i would be a basketball player, it turned out i was too small, i couldn't jump, and so i stopped taking that. -- i stopped thinking that. so that i became interested in becoming a lawyer. and i did become a lawyer. but, what are you interested in right now? what subjects are you interested in school? trace: social studies. president obama: so are you starting to read the newspapers and things. is that your dad behind you? do you discuss the issues with your dad? trace: oh, yes, sir, definitely. president obama: oh, i can tell you do. the important thing is to make sure you work hard in school. i think it is really good if you get involved in service projects , help out people in your community, whether it is through

the scouts, church, school, some other programs, so you can get used to trying to help other people. make sure you graduate from college and then, who knows? i just might be warming up the seat for you. if you become president, i want you to remind everybody how -- when you talked to president obama, he said go for it. all right? not forget me. [applause] all right, that was traced. he is 10 years old. he is already thinking about public policy. i want all the folks in college to just noticed he is reading the papers and talking public policy, so if all you are doing is watching the ball game, don't

let 10-year-old trace embarrass you now. it is a young ladies turn. -- it is a young lady's turn. i will call on one of the young ladies there. did you do paper, scissors, stone, is that what happened? they are wearing the city gear. [laughter] all right. you all did that fast, too. you will do that for everything where are we going to lunch? teresa: i am a native of illinois.

it is good to see you here. i'm an americorps member at hyde park elementary school in columbia. president: so there is a hyde park over here? there is one that, chicago. teresa: yes, sir. president obama: it is all it hey! teresa: my question is how will americorps help with my brother's keeper? president obama: well, they want to serve before they go on to graduate school and in some cases, they want to get involved before the go to college. americorps programs are in -- are an astounding way to help fund college educations. cd year is one of the great americorps programs.

they end up being placed in communities all across the country, working in schools working in communities in need, working on housing programs, all kinds of different stuff and we are very proud of them. my brothers keepers, the idea that this dunces came after the tape on martin verdict -- tr ayvon martin verdict. there was controversy about how the case was handled. eric holder, by the way, has done an amazing job getting our justice department to state focused on the equal application of the law. at local and state, as well as federal levels. you realize is also part of the goal of making sure that young african-american succeed young

latino men succeed, young white men who do not have opportunities to succeed, is to make sure that everybody has a path that leads in a positive direction. you cannot wait until somebody is in trouble before you start intervening. you got to start when they are younger. because the statistics show that if a child by the time they are in third grade reading at that level, they are far more likely to be able to graduate and succeed. if a child doesn't get suspended or disciplined in school they are far less likely to get involved in the criminal justice system. -- if a child gets suspended or disciplined in school, they are far less likely --

there are points where we know that if you intervene in a timely way, it will make a difference. what we have done is to get pledges from foundations and philanthropies. we have recruited businesses. we have gotten the nba involved every agency in our government involved, and we got cities, and your mayor is participating in this. so, colombia's participating in this, with coming up with local plants for how were we going to give opportunities, pathways for mentorship apprenticeship, afterschool programs, job search , college prep, you name it, and each community is coming up with their own programs and plans and we are partnering with them and helping match them up with folks

in the area who are interested in resourcing these initiatives. americorps i think is a key part of this because where a city or state or local community has a good plan, there is an opportunity for city year or any americorps program to the plug-in to the plan. and become part of that plan and my hope is that over the next several years and beyond my presidency, because i will stay involved in this, that in every city around the country, we start providing the kinds of help that is needed to make sure our young men are on the right track. now, i want to point out by the way, i am not neglecting young women. as you might expect, michelle would not let me. she has initiated programs for mentorships and we've got an

entire office for women and girls that focus on some of these issues. there is a particular challenge that we face for african-american and latino men young men of color. we've got to be honest about that. we are losing a large portion of our generation, a big chunk of this generation and the previous generation. we have something called the council of economic advisers and even though there have been good job growth, really strong job growth and unemployment has come down, we have gotten through the recession the labor participation rate, the number of people who are actively seeking work still is local printer what it was 10 years ago. we are asking ourselves, why? part of it is that the population is getting older and people are retiring and not working. but that is not the only reason. in the african-american

community, a big reason is that you've got young people with criminal records who are finding themselves unemployable. now, that is not just bad for that individual, that is bad for the children community, so this is part of the reason why it is so important for us to rethink how we approach nonviolent drug offenses which is responsible for a lot of the churn of young men of color going to the criminal justice system. we have to re-examine how sentencing is working and make sure it is done equally, by the way, because we know statistically it has been demonstrated that african-american men are more likely to be arrested than their counterparts, more likely to be searched, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to get super sentences despite the

fact that they are no more likely to use drugs or deal does the general population and that is a problem. so we are going to have to look at reforms there, but for those who are already in the pipeline, we have to also think about how do we help them get the kind of help that they need. this will be something i will be devoting a lot of energy because this is just not a black or hispanic problem, this is an american problem. if you've got a big chunk of your workforce that is not working and that is the youngest part of your workforce, and they are never could to reading to the economy -- and they are never contributing to the economy, not paying taxes, not supporting social security, then the whole economy grows smaller. everybody is worse off. so this is not an issue just for one group, this is an issue for everybody, all right? all right.

it's a young woman's turn. i'll be happy to sign your book. yeah i know. you've been waving a lot. but that's not going to help. it's a young woman's turn so let's see. this young lady way back in the back, right up there. i'm going to make the mike person get some exercise. >> thank you, mr. president. good afternoon and welcome to south carolina. my name is simone martin, i'm an attorney in this area with the rutherford law firm. in fact, my boss representive todd is sitting over there probably wondering why i'm not at the office. but, nevertheless -- president obama: are you advertising if

him? >> no, i'm trying to keep my job. president obama: you going to give the number? if you need representation, call rutherford and associates. all right. go ahead. >> i have two questions hope you'll indulge me but addressing both of them. the first is what can criminal defense attorneys like myself and mr. rutherford do to increase the number of federal pardons that are granted? the second question is to whom do i need to speak to improve my chances of being selected as a white house fellow? can you help me out? president obama: oh, ok. so the -- let me address the nonself-interested question first. i just had a discussion about the criminal justice system. one of the extraordinary powers

that a president has is the power to commute sentences or to pardon somebody who has been sentenced. when i came into office for the first couple years, i noticed i wasn't really getting a lot of recommendations for pardons that -- at least not as many as i would expect. and many of them were from older folks, a lot of them were people just looking for a pardon so they could restore their gun rights. but sort of the more typical cases i would have expected weren't coming up. so i asked attorney general holder to work with me to set up a new office, or at least a new approach inside the justice department because historically what happened is the president would get a big stack of

recommendations and he could sign off on them, because obviously i don't have time to go through each request. so what we've done now is open it up so that people are more aware of the process. and what you can do is contact the justice department but essentially we're now working with the naacp, with various public defender offices and community organizations just to make people aware that this is a process that you can go through. now, typically we have a pretty strict set of criteria for whether we would even consider you for a pardon or commutation. eric i assume that's available somewhere on the justice department website correct? >> yes. president obama: my first suggestion would be go to the

department of justice website. if the person doesn't wall phi because they may have served time but there were problems when they served time or if it was a particularly vialent crime or they may just not fit the criteria where we would consider it, a lot of what we're focused on is nonviolent drug offenses where somebody might have gotten 25 years and she was the girlfriend of somebody and somehow got caught up and since then has led an exemplary life but now really wants to be able to start a new career or something like that. that's the kind of person typically that would get through the process. now, in terms of the white house fellows program, there's a whole white house fellows committee, and it's complicated and i don't have any pull on it. i do not put my thumb on the scale because if i did, i'd get into trouble because then people would say ah, he just

put his friends on there. so you got to go through the process. but you seem very well qualified so good luck. >> thank you. president obama: how many more questions do i got? i like to -- it looks like i'm ok. all right. you know what, i'm just going to call on this gentleman. he's been waving and i've got to make sure he's not waving because out of his periphery i just saw him the whole time. let's make sure the question -- >> i have two questions. firstly, would you sign my book. president obama: yes, i will sign your book. >> i'm a student studying at the university of south carolina. president obama: go gamecocks. >> i see the president is in the house. president obama: you're sucking up to the president, huh?

>> my question -- well, i guess it relates to the michael brown case. and i've just recently seen a report that suggested that there's been grave injustices going on in ferguson. and i'm trying to figure out why the attorney general, eric holder refused to press charges against the police officer. why didn't he face the federal charges? president obama: i will answer that question. that's two questions right now. no that's it. hey! you don't get a third question. sit down. i called on you. sit down. see, this is how folks will get you. my reporter friends here, they're famous for doing that. they'll be like mr. president i've got a four-part question, so you only get two. i will sign your book.

with respect to ferguson, keep in mind that there are two separate issues involved. the first is the specific case of officer wilson and michael brown. and that is typically a charge that would be brought and dealt with at the state level the local level. the federal government has a role only if it can show that there was a significant miscarriage of the justice system and had clear evidence -- now, i'm not being overly technical. but basically the federal jurisdiction here is to make sure that this wasn't just a

completely wrong decision. they don't retry the whole thing all over again, they look to see whether or not at the state level due process and the investigation was conducted. and the standard for overturning that or essentially coming in on top of the state decision is very high. the finding that was made was that it was not unreasonable to determine that there was not sufficient evidence to charge officer wilson. now, that was an objective thorough, independent federal investigation. we may never know exactly what happened, but officer wilson,

like anybody else who is charged with a crime benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard. and if there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can't just charge them anyway just because what happened was tragic. and that was the decision that was made. and i have complete confidence and stand fully behind the decision that was made by the justice department on that issue. there is a second aspect to this, which is how does the ferguson police department and the government of ferguson, the municipality, treat its african-american citizens when

it comes to law enforcement. and there the finding was very clear and is available for everybody to read. what we saw was that the ferguson police department, in conjunction with the municipality saw traffic stops arrests, tickets as a revenue generator as opposed to serving the community. and that it systematically was biased against african-americans in that city who were stopped harassed, mistreated abused, called names fined and then it was structured so that they would get caught up in paying more and more fines that they couldn't afford to pay or were made difficult for them to pay

which raised the amount of additional money they had to pay, and it was an oppressive and abusive situation. and that is also the conclusion that the justice department arrived at. the steps that now are to be taken is that the justice department has presented this evidence to the city of ferguson and the city of ferguson has a choice to make. they're basically going to have to decide, do they dispute the findings of the justice department -- and i shouldn't comment on that aspect of it, although i will say what's striking about the report is a lot of this was just using email from the officials themselves. so it wasn't like folks were just making it up. but the city of ferguson will now have to make a decision, are they going to enter into

some sort of agreement with the judd -- the judd -- the justice department to fix what is clearly a broken and racially biased decision and if they don't, the justice department has the capacity to sue the city for violations of the rights of the people of ferguson. here's the thing that -- here's the lesson i would draw from this. i don't think that what happen ed in ferguson is typical. i think that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers here in south carolina or any place else. young man, sit down. i'm in the middle of talking. all right.

thank you. the overwhelming number of law enforcement officers have a really hard, dangerous job, and they do it well and they do it fairly and they do it heroically. and i strongly believe that. and the overwhelming majority of the police departments across the country are really thinking hard about how do we make sure that we are protecting and serving everybody equally? and we need to honor those folks and we need to respect them and not just assume that they've got ill will or they're doing a bad job. but as is true in any part of

our lives, as is true among politicians, as is true among business leaders, as is true among anybody, there are circumstances in which folks don't do a good job or worse, are doing things that are really unlawful or unjust or unfair. and what happened in ferguson is not a complete aberration. it's not just a one-time thing, it's something that happens. and one of the things that i think frustrated the people of ferguson in addition to the specific case of michael brown was this sense of, you know what, we've been putting up with this for years and now we're talking about it, everybody is just pretending like it's our imaginations. we're just paranoid. we're just making this stuff up. and it turns out they weren't just making it up this was happening. and so it's important for all

of us, then, to figure out how do we move together to fix it? how do people of goodwill in law enforcement and the community, everybody, work to fix it and find concrete solutions and have accountability and oversight and transparency in terms of how law enforcement works. and one of the great things that we did out of a tragic situation was we were able to form a task force made up of law enforcement, police chiefs, and community activists including two of the activists who got the ferguson marches and protests started, and they came up with a consensus document that was presented to me last week that was very specific in terms of how we can solve some of these problems, you know how we can make sure the police departments provide data about who they're stopping in traffic and data about how many people are killed you

know, in confrontations with the police and how are those cases handled. and how are we training our law enforcement to respect the communities that they're serving and how do we make sure we've got a diverse police force and how do we look at new technologies like body cameras that may be helpful in this process, and how do we make sure that when something happens that may be an unjuffered shoot that people have confidence the prosecutors are independent? and there's a legitimacy to the process that they can trust? that's did not just for the community, that's also good for the police department. so that they feel that they can get out from under a cloud if in fact the officer did the right thing. and if the officer did the wrong thing, that department should want to get rid of that officer because they're going to undermine trust for the good cops out there doing a good job.

so the point is that now our task is to work together to solve the problem. and not get caught up in either the cynicism that says this is never going to change because everybody's racist. that's not a good solution. that's not what the folks in selma did. they had confidence they could change things and change people's hearts and minds. so you've got to have the ability to assume the best in people. including law enforcement and work with them. and the flip side is the larger community has to be able to say, you know what when a community says systematically that it's having some problems with its law enforcement, you've got to listen and pay attention and engage constructively to build trust and accountability so that it gets better. so often we get caught up in

this and it becomes a political football instead of us trying to solve the problem. our goal should be to stop circumstances such as ferguson or what happened in new york from happening again. that should be our number one goal and it's achievable but we've got to be constructive in going forward. all right. [applause] president obama: i've got one more question. it's a woman's turn. men all put down -- men got to put down their hands now. i'm looking around. it's not going to be a guy. all right. we'll call on this young lady right here. oh. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i'm also a native of chicago. president obama: i did not mean to call on three chicagoans. i guess this is where everybody in chicago moves to because it's too cold in chicago.

go ahead. >> i'm a senior majoring in psychology. one of my questions is, as you know, chicago struggles with gun violence. so my question is how -- what organizations and programs are you guys designing to keep the youth off the streets and into better conditions and how can we as a community help you guys execute those programs and designs and organizations? president obama: i already mentioned my brother's keeper which is is a major focus. each community is going to have its own -- this is an example you have to work with the police department effectively and build trust. while we know things like community policing really work where you're partnering with law enforcement, law enforcement gets to know young people when they're still in school before they're in trouble, people have confidence that law enforcement is there for them not just in tamping down stuff but in lifting people up.

my brother's keeper and other initiatives are going to make a big difference in giving young people an opportunity. now, you mentioned gun violence and that's probably the hardest issue to deal with. we have a long tradition of gun rights and gun ownership in this country. the second amendment has been interpreted by the supreme court to mean the people have the right to bear arms. there are a lot of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who use it for protection or sport. they handle their weapons properly. there are traditions of families passing down from father to son or daughter, you know, hunting and that's important. that's part of our culture. that's part of who we are. but what we also have to

recognize is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries. i mean, by like a mile. and most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns. now, the courts and state legislators, and i'm sure this is true in south carolina, have greatly restricted the ability to put in place commonsense -- some commonsense gun safety laws like background checks. i personally believe that it is not violating anybody's rights that if you want to purchase a gun, it should be, you know, at

least your responsibility to get a background check so that we know you are not a violent felon or that you don't currently have a restraining order on you because you committed dough mystic -- domestic abuse. right now we don't know a lot of that. it's just not available. and that doesn't make sense to me. and i'll be honest with you i thought after what happened in sandy hook that that would make us think about it. the hardest day of my presidency, and i've had some hard days, but nothing compares to being with the parents of 26 -- 206-year-old kids, beautiful little kids, and some heroic teachers and administrators in that school just two or three days after they had just been

gunned down in their own classroom and you would have thought at that point, that's got to be enough of a motivator for us to want to do something about this. and we couldn't get it done. i mean, there was just at least at the congressional level -- so what we've done is we have tried as much as we can administratively to implement background checks and to make sure that we're working with those states and cities and jurisdictions that are interested and willing to partner with us to crack down on the legal use of firearms, particularly handguns. but i'll be honest with you, in the absence of more what i would consider heroic and

courageous stances from our legislators, both at the state level and federal level, it is hard to reduce the easy availability of guns. and as long as you can go on -- in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it's easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that's the case, we're going to continue to see unnecessary violence. but i guess i'll end by saying this, despite those frustrations despite the failure of congress to act, despite the failure of too many state legislators to act -- in

fact, in some places it goes the opposite direction, people say well we should have firearms in kindergarten and we should you know, have machine guns in bars. you think i'm exaggerating, you look at some of these laws that come up. despite those frustrations, i would say it is still within our control to reduce the incidents of handgun violence by making sure that our young people understand that that is not a sign of strength, that violence is not the answer for whatever frustrations they may have or conflicts they may have and work diligently with our young people and in our communities to try to put theam -- put them on a positive path. and the people who are going to lead that process are the young people who are here today. you are going to have more

impact on the young people coming up behind you than anybody else. and the kind of example you set and the willingness of all of you to get involved and engaged in a concrete way, to remake our world together that's what's going to determine the future of america. and looking out at all of you, you're what makes me optimistic. thanks very much benedict college. appreciate you. all right. >> new jersey senator bob menendez spoke to the news media that say reports of the justice department is going to bring charges against him. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp.2015] >> let me be very clear, i have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law. every action that i and my office have taken for the last 23 years that i have been privileged to be in the united states congress has been based on pursuing the best policies for the people of new jersey and of this entire country. now, anyone who knows me knows i fight for the things that i believe are important, like making sure victims of superstorm sandy have the tools they need to rebuild their lives, or making certain that iran never never achieves the ability to produce nuclear weapons. i've always worked to keep new jersey families safe keep our ports secure and keep the promise we made after september 11, to keep our first responders fully equipped and

staffed. there may be no member of congress who fought harder than i did to get the 9/11 commissions' recommendations into public law. so i fight for these issues and for the people of our country every single day. that's who i am. and i am not going anywhere. >> the labor department has announced the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.5%. employers added 295,000 jobs in february, better than economists expected. after the announcement, house speaker john boehner issued a statement that read in part, while it's welcome news more americans found work last month, middle class families continue to be left behind by the president's policies. by vetoing the keystone pipeline, the president put his political agenda ahead of the more 42,000 workers who would have had a shot at a good-paying job. it is time for the president to put down the veto pen and work

with us to get these commonsense measures signed into law. >> you will see what they used to call when i was a put and jeff combination or a stick ball set. washington was a large man, six foot, very robust, terrific natural athlete. and madison is a skinny little guy. >> this sunday on "q&a" historian david o. stewart an founding matter james madison and the partnerships he made that aided in the success of our fledgling nation. >> his gift i write most about is his ability to form remarkable partnerships of really the great people of his era, but it also alludes to his gift to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first

self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. and this weekend we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

these structures were literally turned into match sticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8, 1900. the storm began at noon and increased injured matt aitken intensity and then finally tapered off at midnight that evening. the server can was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our thence from galveston at noon eastern on c-span 2 book tv. >> next, the supreme court oral argument on king versus burwell on the constitutionality of the health care law. live, your calls and comments on "washington journal."

the future of the federal health care law rests once again with the supreme court. justices heard oral argument wednesday challenging whether tax subsidies could give to people who buy federal exchanges or those established by states. the challenge rests on six words in the more than 1000-page law stipulating they are available in an exchange established by state. only 16 run their own. the federal government runs the exchange for the remaining 34 states for those who opted out of setting their own. the court is expected to rule before the end of the term in june. this is one hour, 20 minutes. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 14114, king v. burwell. mr. carvin. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, this is a straightforward case of

statutory construction where the plain language of the statute dictates the result. >> mr. carvin, will you please back up, because before we get to a question of statutory construction, as you know, each plaintiff, or at least one plaintiff, has to have a concrete stake in these questions. they can't put them as ideological questions. and we have as four plaintiffs. as to two of them, there is a declaration stating "i am not eligible for health insurance from the government," but there's a question of whether they are veterans eligible for coverage as veterans. >> yes. one of those is mr. hurst who would have to, if i would refer

you to joint appendix at page 42, where this is the government's recitation of facts where they make it clear that mr. hurst would have to spend $750 of his own money as a because of the irs rule. mr. hurst was a veteran for 10 months in 1970. he is not eligible for any veterans service because if you've served such a short health services. if you serve such a short -- >> i'll ask the government if they agree that -- >> and i should point out that the government has never disputed this, and i'd also like -- >> but the court has an obligation to look into it on its own. >> that's true, but of course there has been fact-finding by lower courts in an adversarial system. i don't believe the court does its own -- >> i don't think it was ever brought up in the lower court that these two people were veterans. >> if i could just make one further point on this, justice ginsburg.

even if he were technically eligible, which he is not, there is an irs rule 26 c.f.r. 1.36b2(c)(ii), which says -- >> ah, yes. >> with the usual clarity of the irs code, making clear that you are only disabled from receiving subsidies if you have actually enrolled in a veteran's health services and it's undisputed that -- >> that's the government that's -- >> mr. hurst did not. >> that's deposition to. and then there were the two women, i think one of them was going to turn 65 in june, which would make her medicaid eligible. >> she will turn 65 in late june. she's obviously subject to the individual mandate well in advance of that. by virtue of the irs rule, she would have to spend $1800 per year for health insurance by virtue of the irs -- >> per year? >> excuse me? >> but you said she will turn 65 in june. >> late june, yes. >> so that takes care of 2015. >> no. right now she is obliged, under the individual mandate, to have insurance. you have to have insurance for 9 months of the year and so as of april 1 -- >> then --

>> she will be subject to the penalty which will be alleviated only by -- >> again, i'll ask the government if they agree with you on that. and then i think for the fourth plaintiff, there's a question whether she would qualify for a hardship exemption from the individual mandate even if she received the tax credit, in which case the tax credits would be irrelevant. >> that's true. again, i'll refer you to the joint appendix at 41. that was the government's argument below. we didn't want to get into a factual dispute about it because we had such clear standing with respect -- >> yeah, but you have to -- >> but you would have to establish the standing, prove the standing. >> well, as -- >> if this gets beyond the opening door. >> fair enough, your honor, but it's black-letter law that only one plaintiff needs standing and for the reasons i've already articulated, both plaintiff hurst and plaintiff levy have. >> ok. i don't want to detain you on this any more but i will ask the government what their position is on standing. >> thank you. returning to the merits, the

only provision in the act which either authorizes or limits subsidies says, in plain english, that the subsidies are only available through an exchange established by the state under section 1311. >> if you're going to elaborate on that, i would appreciate your in your elaboration, i've read that, and this statute is like the tax code more than it's like the constitution. there are defined terms, and the words you just used concern a defined term. as i read the definition there's a section, definitions and it says, quote, the term "exchange" means, quote, an exchange established under 1311. and 1311 says, an exchange shall be a government agency, et cetera, that is established by a state.

those are the definitions. so then you look to 1321. and 1321 says, if a state does not set up that exchange, then the federal, quote, secretary shall establish and operate such exchange. so it says, "the secretary is to establish and operate such exchange," the only kind of exchange to which the act refers, which is an quote, "an exchange established by a state under 1311." that's the definition. so the statute tells the secretary, set up such exchange, namely, a 1311 state exchange. >> correct. >> and there's nothing else in this statute. >> correct. >> so that's throughout what they're talking about. so what's the problem? >> as your honor just said, it tells the secretary to establish

such exchange. >> yes. >> and what 36b turns on is whether the state or the secretary has established the exchange. >> no, it uses the same terminology that it's used in 15 times in this statute, namely, the terminology in the definition is "an exchange established by a state." >> under -- >> that's the phrase. >> well, under 1311, that is the phrase. and if 1311 created some the definitional section created some ambiguity as to whether hhs was establishing a 1311 or 1321 exchange, that is immaterial because 36b does not say all 1311 exchanges get subsidies, it says exchanges established by the state under section 1311 -- >> mr. carvin. >> not established by hhs under section 1311 -- >> mr. carvin. >> so it eliminates any potential ambiguity created by the definitional section. >> can i offer you a sort of simple daily life kind of example which i think is linguistically equivalent to what the sections here say that

justice breyer was talking about? so i have three clerks, mr. carvin. their names are will and elizabeth and amanda. ok? so my first clerk, i say, will i'd like you to write me a memo. and i say, elizabeth, i want you to edit will's memo once he's done. and then i say, amanda, listen if will is too busy to write the memo, i want you to write such memo. now, my question is, if will is too busy to write the memo and amanda has to write such memo, should elizabeth edit the memo? >> if you're going to create moneys to will for writing the memo and amanda writes the memo and you say, the money will go if will writes the memo, then under plain english and common sense, no, when amanda writes the memo -- >> gosh -- >> but now -- >> you run a different shop than i do if that's the way --

>> because in my chambers, if elizabeth did not edit the memo, elizabeth would not be performing her function. in other words, there's a substitute, and i've set up a substitute. and then i've given i've given instructions -- elizabeth, you write you edit will's memo, but of course if amanda writes the memo, the instructions carry over. elizabeth knows what she's supposed to do. she's supposed to edit amanda's memo, too. >> and in your chambers, you're agnostic as to whether will, elizabeth or amanda writes it. but the key point is here under section 1311, congress was not agnostic as to whether states or hhs established the exchange. it's -- >> well, mr. carvin, if i had those clerks, i had the same clerks --

>> and amanda wrote the memo and i received it and i said this is a great memo, who wrote it? would the answer be it was written by will, because amanda stepped into will's shoes? >> that was my first answer. [laughter] >> he's good, justice alito. >> justice kagan didn't accept it, so i'm going to the second answer, which is you are agnostic as between will and amanda, but this -- >> ah, but that's -- >> but congress was not agnostic as between state and federal exchanges. >> yes. that's a very important point, i think, because what you're saying is that the answer to the question really does depend on context, and it depends on an understanding of the law as a whole and whether they were agnostic. i agree with that. so it's not the simple four or five words because the four or five words in my example, it's obvious that elizabeth should edit the memo. it's the whole structure and context of the provision that suggests whether those instructions carry over to the substitute, isn't it? >> we implore you to examine

these words in the context of the act as a whole because our argument becomes stronger for five reasons. to respond to justice breyer's point, he says such exchange connotes that it's the same person doing it. but look at the provision on territorial exchanges. it says, territories can establish such exchanges and then it says, "and shall be treated as a state." so -- >> yes, it does. but you say connote. no, it's not a question of connotation. it is a question of denotation. now what does that mean? it means that the federal government, the secretary, is establishing a thing for the state. and what is the thing? the thing that it is establishing for the state is defined as an exchange established by the state.

>> to -- >> now, that person from mars, who's literal, which i usually am not, but a literalist, i think would have to read it that way. but if you're not a literalist, well, at least you could read it that way. now you want to go into the context if you want to go into the context, at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker. >> well, two points. >> the exchanges fall apart, nobody can buy anything on them. you know the arguments. you've read the briefs. nobody can there are no customers. employers don't have to pay penalties as long as they use just people from virginia, but one maryland person comes you know all those arguments. so how does the context support you? >> well, again, under the literalist or nonliteralist interpretation, saying that hhs will establish such exchange doesn't suggest that the state has established such exchange if there was -- >> but the state, if made the -- >> if there was ambiguity in that regard just if i could finish my answer to justice breyer you look at a parallel

provision where they use precisely the same language, and they said, "and shall be treated as a state," that language which is notably omitted from 1321 -- and it's a basic principle of statutory construction that you interpret the same phrases the same way. and it shows that congress knew how to create equivalence between non-state exchanges and exchanges if and when it wanted to. sorry, justice sotomayor. >> take a breath. [laughter] >> i'm a little concerned with how you envision this provision working. you're saying that the hhs exchange can't be for the state so that it's established by the choice of the state. the choice the state had was establish your own exchange or let the federal government establish it for you. that was the choice. if we read it the way you're saying, then we're going to read a statute as intruding on the federal-state relationship

because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges. and you say, oh, no, they can't be coerced, but let's go back to what justice breyer was talking about. in those states that don't their citizens don't receive subsidies, we're going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid. states are obligated, insurers are obligated to make sure that in their states, whether they're part of this program or not, that they have guaranteed coverage, that children are covered till they're 26, and that they base their costs on community ratings. so if they have to do that, then costs are going to rise on every insurance plan offered in the

country in those 34 states, 3 or 6 of or of your states will have tightened their medicaid eligibility requirements in contravention of the act, so they're taking money by breaking their compacts. they would have to lose all of their medicaid money. tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way? and if it is coercive in an unconstitutional way, in bond just i think it was last term, we said that is a primary statutory command, that we read a statute in a way where we don't impinge on the basic federal-state relationship.

>> this court has never suggested outside the very unusual coercion context of the nfib medicaid that a funding condition somehow invades a state police power. obviously -- >> oh, we did it we said it last year. >> in an nf no, no. in bond, there the federal government was taking away a police power. here, all the federal government is doing is saying you want billions of free federal dollars. that's hardly invading state sovereignty and it's the kind of routine the funding condition that this court has upheld countless times. >> let me say that from the standpoint of the dynamics of federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the states are being told either

create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral. we'll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on the subsidies. the cost of insurance will be sky high, but this is not coercion. it seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. >> two points, justice kennedy. one is the government's never made that argument. number two, i'd like to think -- >> sometimes we think of things the government doesn't. [laughter] >> well, i certainly hope you do in this case, but not on this question. what i'm trying to, quite seriously, justice kennedy convey is if this was unconstitutional, then the medicaid statute that this court approved in nfib would be unconstitutional. >> mr. carvin, what would the consequence of unconstitutionality be? very often you have an ambiguous provision, could be interpreted one way or another way. if interpreting it one way is unconstitutional, you interpret it the other way.

>> correct. >> but do we have any case which says that when there is a clear provision, if it is unconstitutional, we can rewrite it? >> and that and that -- >> is there any case we have that says that? >> no, your honor. and that was really my point justice kennedy. think about the consequences when of the medicaid deal as being coercive. 22 states have said no to the medicaid deal. that has created a bizarre anomaly in the law. that if people making less than the poverty line are not available to any federal funds to help them with health insurance. >> i fully understand that, but i think the court and the counsel for both sides should confront the proposition that your argument raises a serious constitutional question. now, i'm not sure that the government would agree with that, but it is in the background of how we interpret

this statute. >> your honor -- >> it may well be that you're correct as to these words, and there's nothing we can do. i understand that. >> there are many -- >> a, there's no savings construction to echo justice scalia's point, but, b, the point i want to make on the straight-up constitutionality is, if this is unconstitutional, then all of the provisions in the u.s. code that say to states if you do something for no child left behind, we will >> but this is this is quite different. >> in south carolina v. dole where the matter of funding for the highway, suppose congress said, and if you don't build the highways, you have to go 35 miles an hour all over the state. we wouldn't allow that. >> no. well, there, of course, you would be interfering with a basic state prerogative as to establish their limit, and they are the condition is not related to that. here the condition is perfectly related to it. >> mr. carvin -- >> we want to create something new >> mr. carvin, here's a -- you refer to the medicaid example. that's a familiar -- a grant in aid says to the state, here's

the federal money and here's the conditions, take it or leave it. that's one pattern. you can you can have your program if you want it, and if you don't, there's a fallback. there's the federal program. i mean, that's a typical pattern. it's the pattern of the clean air act. you can have a state implementation plan, but state if you don't get up your plan there's a federal implementation plan. i have never seen anything like this where it's if you take what the statute says you can have in 1321, then you get these disastrous consequences. >> that's why this is much less risky a deal for congress. and what distinguishes it from medicaid as the dissenting opinion in nfib pointed out. in medicaid, congress is playing all in, take it or leave it. if they turn down the deal, then medicaid is completely thwarted. here, if they turn down the subsidy deal, they still get the valuable benefits of an exchange and there's not a scintilla of -- >> what are those benefits? what are the customers that can buy on it? what are the insurers that will

sell on it? >> well, three points. one is we know textually that they thought exchanges without subsidies work, because again, they have territorial exchanges, but the government concedes no subsidies. >> that's not -- >> we have legislative history which -- >> mr. carvin, that's not what you said previously when you were here last time in this never-ending saga. >> you said without the subsidies driving demand within the exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through exchanges. and then you said the insurance exchanges cannot operate as intended by congress absent the subsidies. >> that is entirely true. they wouldn't have operated as intended because congress intended all 50 states to take this deal.

so eliminating -- >> so why create 1326 at all? obviously, they thought that some states wouldn't. >> well, they thought it was possible and -- >> very possible. >> and then -- >> because they set up a mechanism for that to happen. >> and then they what happens? you still get the exchange. it's not like medicaid where the entire federal program is thwarted. you get the benefits that were lauded. >> but nobody no one's going to visit the program if there are no subsidies because not enough people will buy the programs to stay in the exchanges. >> that is demonstrably untrue and not reflected anywhere in the legislative history. many senators got up and said there are very valuable benefits to the exchange, one-stop shopping, amazon, as president obama has said. the government came in the last case and told you these two things operate quite independently. we don't need exchange without subsidies. in contrast, there's not a scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral. not a word. >> wait a minute. that was the whole purpose that drove this bill because states had experimented with this, and those that didn't have subsidies

or other provisions of the act didn't survive. >> they didn't have -- >> you said it yourself in the prior case. >> no. the prior case was about the individual mandate. the government came in and said the individual mandate is necessary to affect death spirals. no one, in the findings in congress or anywhere else, suggested that subsidies were available. will subsidies reduce the number of people available on the individual -- >> my problem my problem is that the reverse. you're talking about congress, how hiding, borrowing the phrase of one of my colleagues, a huge thing in a mousetrap. ok? because do you really believe that states fully understood that they were not going to get their citizens were not going to get subsidies if they let the federal government? what senator said that during the hearings?

>> the same amount of senators who said that subsidies were available on hhs exchanges which is none. they didn't deal with it in the legislative history just as they didn't deal with medicaid because the statute was quite clear. let's talk about it in context again, justice sotomayor. the context is the only provisions in the act establishing any limit on the subsidies is found in 36b. so it's not a mouse hole. it's the place you'd expect to find it. it's the only place in the act that limits subsidies to purchases made on exchange. >> but it's a -- >> i don't know think that's quite right, mr. carvin. >> justice ginsburg. >> it's a tax code provision that's an implementation provision. it tells you how you compute the individual amount. >> it -- >> it it's not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find this. >> no.

your honor, if that's true -- >> and if it -- >> sorry. please. >> what justice kagan just read to you, you had the idea that the subsidies were essential -- >> no. >> to have the thing work. that's what you told us last time. >> what i told you was it wouldn't work as expected, and that's because they thought this deal would work just like the medicaid deal where all 50 states would say yes, so you would have both of congressional purposes. >> then why in the world would they set up this whole extra thing if they didn't think anybody was going to take it? >> well, that was my response to justice sotomayor. that is completely unsupported empirical observation made post hoc by amicus. >> mr. carvin, we've heard talk about this other case. did you win that other case? [laughter] >> so maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today? >> i'm really glad your honor said that. >> and if i could return to context because i think -- >> i mean i'm sorry, mr. carvin. please. >> just very briefly, justice kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond, we've already talked

about context. section 1311 is a key part of this context. it says in the strongest possible terms we want states to run these exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course there is absolutely no incentive for states to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. whereas if you condition subsidies, congress accomplishes both of its goals. widespread subsidies, plus state-run exchanges. in terms of terms of art, again, there is language in the statute which says "exchanges," "exchanges under the act." those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and state-established exchanges. and, yet, the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a rational, english-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on hhs exchanges use the phrase "exchanges established by the state." he cannot provide to you any rational reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formulation. >> mr. carvin, why don't you take an extra ten minutes and

maybe we'll give you a little bit more of a chance to talk. >> ok. fine. >> well, then, i'll ask a question. [laughter] >> well, if you're going to ruin my 10 minutes. >> no. i mean, let's go back to this question of where congress put this thing because putting aside constitutional issues, i mean, there's at least a presumption as we interpret statutes, that congress does not mean to impose heavy burdens and draconian choices on states unless it says so awfully clearly. and here and this goes back to what justice ginsburg was saying there's really nothing clear about this. i mean, this took a year and a half for anybody to even notice this language. and as justice ginsburg said it's put in not in the place that you would expect it to be put in, which is where it says to the states, here is the choice you have. it's not even put in where the statute defines who a qualified individual is or who is entitled

to get the subsidies. rather, it comes in this technical formula that's directed to the department of the treasury saying how much the amount of the subsidy should be. and that seems to be it both makes no sense from congress's point of view, and in terms of our own point of view, in terms of interpreting statutes, that's not the clarity with which we require the government to speak when it's upsetting federal-state relations like this. >> i must respectfully disagree for three reasons, justice kagan. in the first place, of course, you where else would you expect a tax credit except in the tax code? that's where this was. you wouldn't put it in 42 u.s.c., which has nothing to do with taxes. it's the only place where exchange is limitations placed. you have three audiences here, not just states. you have to tell taxpayers what they're entitled to. you have to tell insurance