tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 23, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
those and are in clear violation of the resolution. there is widespread report indicating the libyan ground forces are engaged in fighting in a number of cities. they are threatening a number of others and putting innocent civilians in grave danger. in misurata, and regime forces continue to clear opposition, increase combat operations, and target civilian operations in the city. as a result, we are pressurizing gaddafi's forces that are attacking those civilian populations. yesterday, the joint task force, commander odyssey dawn, provide you with a strategic outlook on our current operations in libya. i would like to give you an operational a bit on the operations of the joint task
force within the last 24 hours and others have affected forces loyal to libyan leader gaddafi. first, let me reiterate our mission, which is to conduct military operations to protect those civilian operate -- populations from attacker the threat of attack. we're doing that with a number of coalition partners. let me point out, this operation is a fully integrated coalition operation. coalition ships, aircraft, and staff are focused on a single mission, which is the enforcement of the u.n. security resolution 197 -- 1973. we started out small and have now established a no-fly zone. we obtained maritime superiority, put in place embargo operations, suppress enemy air defenses, and are allowing for humanitarian assistance. all as a coalition operation. let me give you an overview of the air picture.
a coalition air force is making a significant and vital contribution to this mission. i cannot underestimate the impact or overstate that impact and continue to make in efforts to protect the libyan people. libyan air forces have been interjected, and those aircraft have either been destroyed or rendered inoperable. we have no confirmed flight activity by regime air forces of the past 24 hours. as of yesterday, again, i said we started off small and developed this coalition. coalition air forces are now flying 55% of the entire sorties of this " -- of this coalition. we populate those, and as of yesterday, there were 175 aircraft sorties, 113 which for u.s. and 63 coalition. the number has increased just from three days ago when we were
flying at 15% coalition sortie rate. air defense activities, we have degraded the libyan strategic surface to air missile systems. we believe the air defense system elements are severely degraded or destroyed and have been by these coalition forces. we have seen no related surface to air activity associated with target acquisitions since strikes began on march 19. we will continue our focus on the regime's air force network that continues to pose a threat to coalition air operations enforcing the no-fly zone. but as i reiterated before, as i mentioned before, we are putting pressure on gaddafi's ground forces that are attacking civilian populations and cities. and while those ground forces are engaged in fighting in al- jabiya and misurata, they are threatening others.
there is pressure from joint task force and odyssey dawn partners will continue. i am glad not to take your questions. >> this is bob from ap. i would like for you to the library on your comment a minute ago about putting pressure on gaddafi's ground forces. i wonder if you can be more specific about progress to have made on that? for example, can you quantify in any way the amount of his ground forces that have either been disabled or destroyed or have been affected are have been stood down deliberately and how much of his capability remains in terms of ground forces? >> let me tell you, i will just mention the city's. benghazi, which we now believe to be under opposition control,
we have moved west to al-jabiya. and al-jabiya to misurata, our target priorities are mechanized forces, artillery, those mobile surface-to-air missile strikes, interdicting their lines of communications which supplied their bullets. their command control and in the opportunities for sustainment of that activity. >> hello. i am from nbc news. on the sorties imagine, the 175, what is the time frame for when those flew how many were actually air strikes versus just flights? -- on the sorties you mentioned. >> that is over a 24-hour cycle,
so that cycle would have ended at 0600 our time here this morning. again, the total was 175. 113, u.s., and 63 coalition. that air cycle consists of defensive counter air, suppression of enemy counter air defenses, interdiction of those ground forces, and a number of electric warfare flights. but the number is not necessarily broken out by attacks. >> if i can follow up, you mentioned the various targets, including mechanized forces and artillery. can you talk a little bit about the targets that include armored tanks and what-not? are you surveiling those tanks and those forces before they are struck to make sure that they are, in fact, attacking the
civilians or is it just if they're there in the region, they are considered a target of opportunity and are taken out? >> i will tell you that part of that era plan to europe -- that air plan includes intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. the initial preparation for the environment of our forces. so those aircraft that are used for either suppression of those enemy air defenses or interdiction of those mechanized forces or that artillery, that is done as part of an entire era plan -- air plant and as part of those coalition air operations. >> can i sum up follow up on that more specifically? barbara stark from cnn. how are you communicating to
libyan forces to tell them to position themselves to avoid attack? there's a good deal of information out there indicating that you have used commando solo or other airborne communications or methods to tell them to position themselves in a nonthreatening manner. one, how are you communicating to pro-about the forces? two, how and what are you communicating to rebel forces? -- one, how are you communicating to pro-gaddafi forces? >> thank you very much for your question. as part of our coalition operation, we have methods which i will not discuss, and we have the ability to pass that information and those communications that we have told both the opposition forces of how to maneuver, and we have
also told gaddafi's forces of what they were expected to do in accordance with the unscr. again, our view and our mission is perfectly clear of what we have asked those forces to do. that is the cease-fire of all attacks against civilians must stop. the forces must stop the dancing. i mentioned benghazi be pulled back from al-jabiya, misurata, and zawiyah, and humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of libya. that has to reach the people of libya into gaddafi's forces. >> what is your assessment of the current positioning of pro- gaddafi forces in both misurata and al-jabiya? >> i will tell you that the imposition in both of those
cities is under attack. and the civilian population in both of those cities attack, and as i mentioned, in misurata and al-jabiya specifically, gaddafi's forces are to talk -- tart be being population centers specifically. >> to go into those cities with your attack, how do get them out of their? the pro-gaddafi forces? >> what i would like to do is go back to our mission, which was clearly stated by the united nations security resolution, which was mentioned specifically in the president's speech. that is that our mission is to protect those civilians and civilian population centers.
>> i am from the "wall street journal." you describe it benghazi at this point of being under opposition control. has there been any attempt by the coalition to reach out to the leadership of the opposition or the leadership of rebel forces? >> no, there has not. >> hello, david with the "l.a. times." i want to try to understand as best i can the nature of your operations within misurata and the other cities. are you at the moment carrying out tactical air strikes in a kind of urban environment where you observed libyan ground forces attacking opposition-held areas, are obviously civilians? in other words, are you undertaking targets of opportunity in an effort to stop active combat operations by the
libyan forces? >> in protecting those civilians in accordance with what we're doing with our coalition partners, in our air plan, yes, we're interdicting in putting the pressure on gaddafi's forces that are attacking population centers. >> the nature of those strikes -- are they primarily against fixed positions, armor, as you describe, or are there also attacks against units that may be on foot carrying out attacks? is it artillery and mechanized units or other sorts of attacks? >> again, as i mentioned a
couple times, what has been expected of all forces, whether they be mechanized forces or all to hillary -- or artillery or air forces, they are to cease fire all attacks against civilians. they must stop. and those forces that are advancing on the cities of benghazi, ajdabiya today, in misurata today, must stop advancing. and humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of libya. >> i am with the christian science monitor. i read the follow up on operations, and in urban areas like misurata, to what extent can you go in there to protect the population? you know, given the close urban situation. i mean, can you talk a little bit about the challenges of operating in an urban
environment? >> thank you for your question. it is an extremely complex and difficult environment. and our primary focus is to interdict those forces before they bear on the city. again, i said there were targetting population centers in the city. interdict those forces before they enter the city, cut off their lines of communication, and cut off their command and control. >> do you have any evidence that libyan forces are standing down, that they're responding to your information? >> we have no indication that the gaddafi forces are adhering to the united nations security
resolution 1973, and that is why we continue to pressurize those forces. >> jennifer from fox news. how many were combat air patrol missions, and of those, what percentage were american fighter planes involved in the ca missionp ? further, ap reports from the ground that it off the forces have pulled back from misurata in recent hours. are you saying those reports are wrong? finally, do you consider yourself at war right now? >> welcome to enter the first question, i do not have that information on the number of sorties that are broken out that way. second of all, our indications here are that gaddafi's forces that are not adhering to the
security resolution -- and again, your last question? >> the consider yourself and for right now? >> -- to do you consider yourself at for right now? >> we are carrying out the mission of u.n. security resolution 1973 under the direction of the president and his speech. >> if kamofie does not respond to the 1973 u.n. resolution, do you have a plan b to counter his ground forces? are you confident that other countries within the coalition will not send special forces on the ground? >> it is my primary focus today
to discuss the current operations that we are in, and i would not project or discuss future military operations. >> can you give us a timeline, when the think the u.s. is able to transfer the command to other countries within the coalition? >> from a joint task force odyssey dawn, i know there are a number of discussions going on and a number of political levels, both national and international, were the decision will be decided. and we had joint task force odyssey dawn, we will move to forward all those news decisions. >> i am with aviation week. i would like to ask about hardware. i am curious what impact, if
any, could emerson each -- the emergence of the sa24 have in that area? second, can you give us the definitive answer on why the f- 22 was not used in any of these operations? >> i would not want to get into the specific technical details, and it cannot have that second answer. >> i am withcbs. i thought i heard you say that you were telling opposition forces how to maneuver. did i hear you correctly? and what are you telling them? are you telling them not to go down such and such a row because we are attacking their? and how does that sort with the
general's statements that there are no official communications with the opposition? >> that is true. i misstated that. the message we're providing is a message to the regime forces in telling them what they need to do to comply with the u.n. security resolution. >> [inaudible] >> yes, that is true. the answer that i had given was we are providing that to the regime forces, and that is the message. >> i am with usa today. coalition attacks within cities, have the cost any civilian casualties? -- have they caused any civilian casualties? >> there have been no reports of
civilian casualties. our mission here is to protect the civilian populace, and we choose our target -- targets and plan our actions with that as a top priority. >> i am from india. statements coming out of bric countries are calling for a cease-fire now. when you think will be the time for that? >> to achieve our mission, the innocent civilians in the population centers must be protected. gaddafi's forces must cease fire and attacks against civilians must stop. the forces of gaddafi must be pulled back from ajdabiya, misurata, and zawiyah. our efforts have been going well. i cannot speculate on conclusion dates, but i want to stress this is a multi-phase operation
designed to enforce the u.n. security resolution and denied the libyan regime the ability to use its force against its own people. our coalition partners continue to make great contributions to the mission and assume that more and more responsibility. >> just to clarify something, you are asked whether or not there were civilian casualties as a result of your attacks inside libyan cities. just to make sure we all understand, are u.s. forces or coalition forces, in fact, now attacking inside cities? second, do you have any communications with opposition or rebel forces? >> i do not want to discuss specific locations. again, there have been no reports of civilian casualties. our mission is to protect the
civilian populace, and we choose those targets and plan our actions with that as a top priority. >> tony with bloomberg news. can you quantify for the public this pressurizing on gaddafi's forces? how many bombs but did you drop in the last two or three days? you have those statistics? >> no, i do not have those statistics. >> the second question. to what extent are gaddafi's premiere units, the 32nd commanded by the sun and the ninth brigade, involved in the attacks on the cities that you are trying to quell? >> those forces are fully engaged in this conflict that is attacking those civilian populations.
>> [no audio] aggressively? >> if you could please repeat that question. >> are you attacking aggressively the 32nd brigade, commanded by gaddafi's son, and the ninth brigade, his two premier unit question are those being attacked with some vigor? >> i would not discuss the specific targets, and we do not call lout specific units for attack. >> is there a boundary for the no-fly zone? where are you flying?
>> in the joint operation area that has been established for this operation. as i said, we started out small, and as the coalition has grown, we have explant -- expanded the no-fly zone from the east over benghazi and have moved that as forces have reported on station, removed -- removed that to the west. >> offer to the west? we have been -- how far to the west? we have heard that the no-fly zone is in place, but is it over all the coastal areas? >> the no-fly zone established over libya, and we have no indications of air traffic in the last days.
>> boundary-to-boundary? >> boundary-to-boundary on the coast >> i am from cnn. he mentioned that you have very good intelligence and surveillance of what gaddafi's forces are doing on the ground. what specific armament have you observed his forces using on civilians? is he using tanks, mortars, what sort of artillery and capability have you specifically observed? >> thank you for the question. tanks, artillery, rocket launchers. >> and is that outside of the major cities, misurata, or are
you noticing those being used inside the cities? >> it is outside, and they are making incursions into the city in targeting the population centers in those cities. with that equipment. >> secretary clinton said yesterday that there were reports that gaddafi's son may have been killed. can you confirm those reports? >> i have no information on that. >> last question. >> thank you. mr gaddafi is saying that he will not leave until you leave. he is still killing his own
people on the ground. what i am asking is how can you take him out without putting ground forces inside libya? there is the resolution, as he said. what is the next step for you to get him out? >> thank you for the question. the coalition is not targeting gaddafi. the focus on our mission is to uphold the u.n. security resolution, which includes protecting libyan civilians and enforcing the no-fly zone. >> can you give your mission that you entered the council 1973 without ground forces? -- can you do your mission without ground forces? >> i lost you there.
can you see the question again? >> can you achieve your mission of 1973 resolution without ground forces? >> our mandate now is to enforce the no-fly zone. and to allow humanitarian assistance to be available to the libyan people. >> [unintelligible] >> i am with bloomberg. can you characterize the level of the violence against the civilian population since the allied campaign began on saturday? has it intensified or remained the same? the impression we're getting is it has gotten worse since the allies started bombing.
is that accurate? >> our intelligence today is that there is no indication that gaddafi's forces are pulling back from misurata or ajdabiya. >> has it intensified since saturday is what i am asking, not what they're doing right now. >> the u.n. security resolution is clear, and that is that there is a cease-fire and those forces must stop all attacks against civilians. and the forces must stop advancing on those cities. and that humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people in libya. >> ok, admiral, we're out of time here, and i will send it back to you for any closing remarks. >> thank you.
it has been a pleasure talking with you today. you brought up some tough questions, but that is why i am here, to ensure you have a clear understanding of what the coalition forces are doing. in my opinion, at the coalition has accomplished quite a lot together. we will continue to work together to ensure the protection and security of the people of libya from the violence at the hands of the current regime and the pilots and attacks against civilians must stop. while using ground forces, there should be no mistaking our sincere commitment to protecting the libyan people. thank you for opportunity to talk with you. thanks to the press to tell the story of the efforts our forces are taking. as military and civilian leaders have said, we're working
day and night to plan for this operation. we're doing our best to move ahead expeditiously and a main concern for the people of libya. i'm proud of the work we're doing together and look forward to future achievements. again, thank you so much for the opportunity. >> this evening at the newseum in washington, a look back 30 years to the attempted assassination of president ronald reagan march 30, 1981. "washington post" clinton wilder has a new book about the near assassination of ronald reagan. he will be joined by the secret service agent who pushed president reagan into the waiting limousine, and the doctor who operated on him. it will be moderated by judy woodruff of pbs, and we will have it for you this evening at 7:30 eastern on c-span.
and a look at our prime-time schedule on c-span, remarks from anthony winner on why he believes the obama administration needs to do more to highlight benefits of the health care law enacted one year ago today. then more about health care with a discussion on the elements of the law and parts are still waiting to be enacted. after that, morocco's foreign minister talks about unrest in the foreign world and why his people have taken to the streets with anti-government protests. finally, the century foundation releases a report on the prospects for peace in afghanistan with a group calling the war there a stalemate. >> tonight on c-span2, we hear from chicago's longest serving mayor, richard daley, in one of his last speech as before he leaves office. reflects on his legacy to his successor. >> started writing about the
japanese. the japanese are going to take us over. we thought we defeated them in the second world war. they are taking us over in 1970. what will happen to us in america? they are going to own our country. that is it. we will lose our jobs. then we start whining about the mexicans. losing all the manufacturing to mexico. we cannot compete. we cannot do this. we cannot do this. now we are wining about the chinese and the indians. we are a bunch of whiners. that is what we are. we should have enough confidence that we can compete with people if we all sacrifice a little bit for the common good. >> watch this event from wheaton college in illinois tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> earlier this week, the ninth circuit court of appeals took up the issue of the labors' first amendment rights -- the issue of day laborers' first amendment rights.
a ruling that allowed redondo beach, california, to resume a resting day laborers pure last week, a circuit panel ruled in favor of the city of redondo, of holding a city ordinance that regulates the solicitation of employment on city streets. from san francisco, this is an hour. >> the united states court of appeals of the ninth circuit is now in session. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. we are here for the hearing of comite de jornaleros de redondo beach vs. city of redondo beach.
we will hear from the appellant. oh, i acknowledge judge gould. >> [inaudible] >> how are you? >> just fine, thank you. >> very good. council may proceed. >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, your honor, and may it please the court. 24 years ago, city of redondo beach -- >> city of redondo beach, attorney, appeared on behalf of the appellant. the 24 years ago, the city of redondo beach, trying to deal with after several years of extreme difficulty dealing with traffic issues caused by persons soliciting the employment from the highway road lay or selling certain products and in trying to deal with it in a constitutional manner, a word for word an ordinance that had
been approved by this court some eight months before. here we are now 24 years later, pushing our seventh year of litigation in the city defending itself on a challenge of the very ordinance that this court approved and that has been approved several times even -- >> was the order in its amended at any point? >> yes, it was. it was subsequently amended to add a section to make certain that applied equally to both the employer and employee of solicitation. it also made some non- substantive changes. >> but it went out in a of the court, so it's fairly irrelevant, actually. >> in terms of the court has even as recently as fewer than 18 months ago recognized the validity of the decision, and the acorn decision was quite possibly decided that this is a
proper time, place, and manner restriction. >> that was quite different, though, wasn't it? the acorn case? that was a situation where people were running after the cars asking for contributions. the driver had to reach in his or her wallet, get the money, give it to them, take any change that, and the like. moreover, it was applied as a challenge, was it not? >> it was both. they also ask the court to determine if the appointments were unconstitutional. specifically indicated that it was not this court, and indicated that it was a content- neutral ordinance. >> you content, i gather, this is content neutral? >> absolutely. even the district court at a lower level agreed that it was content neutral. acorn has indicated a proving
that it is content neutral, speaking in june 2009. >> r a n be any different -- are a and b any different? the language -- b is not an entire flick said. it is more limited as to certain activity to the employer. >> the city was trying to address the actual problems that the city was having. it was an equity situation so that the employee was violating the ordinance, and the employer is as well. >> when the traffic -- would and the traffic is to be completely dealt with by subsection b? in other words, people could chat all they want on the sidewalk, but nobody could stop and parked their car, then there is no traffic problem, correct?
>> you need both, actually. >> why? them for two reasons. one is it is limited more specifically to the employers who are reacting to the solicitation -- >> what difference does that make it the problem that the city is experiencing is a slowdown of traffic, people stop in, blocking the streets, then why is it not a complete answer to tell them not to stop and block the street? >> the original memo from the then city attorney that addressed not only the issue of the employer -- employees soliciting work, and also talk about people selling items from the media and other areas of the street, that's it would not cover the subsection. again, we are trying to address the actual concern we have. we do not have numbers of cars going to look for people to give donations to -- >> but how is there a problem at
all if somebody pulls up and parks a car legally and comes to talk to somebody? in all manner of interaction aside from these. >> it has never been enforced or interpreted that it applies to people who are parking illegally. >> first of all, it does not say that. second of all, b certainly seems to apply that. >> it has the record of showing it was never ever applied to people who are parking legally as a practical matter where these things have occurred. they are areas where this is very easy -- >> one of my overall reaction is to this case is why did you not write the ordinance to cover what you want this to cover instead of all manner of other things? >> we did write it to cover specifically what the issues were -- >> but you are covering people who are part areparke -- who are
pakred -- who are parked legally, covering the whole city. when you were to cover people standing on the sidewalk saying go around the corner and buy something, covering all manner of things that are not what you say your problem is. >> if i could address that in two parts -- first, we are not covering the people will say go run the park -- >> why? it is not soliciting to say you have taillights over there, come by when? >> it is that interaction, that immediate exchange that is the solicitation, and again, it is not that we pass the ordinance first -- >> if i get the mailing in my house that says, "please send me money for my charity close " -- that is not a solicitation? >> it is not. as ordnance word for word is to address the first part of your question. the reason we adopted this
ordinance is because we were trying very hard to follow and make certain we addressed the issue -- >> but you did not adopt the ordinance would for word. you added the second sentence, which was taken elsewhere in california law, but that was not part of the arizona law. that says that street or highway includes sidewalks. >> i would make two points. one is that the acorn decision specifically indicated that sidewalks were part of that definition in rejecting the special challenge to the arizona statute. it did also talk about the fact that the plaintiffs in a corn had preserved the challenge, so what we were trying to do was -- putting it in they did not change anything. it was with the definition of street or highway would have been, what it was in arizona, what it is in california. it was given greater notice to people what it covers, but it had no change here specifically
in footnote 9, the last page of the acorn decision, it specifically presumes, for purposes of rejecting the challenge, that it is included. >> the idea that it is content neutral, when it banned some type of solicitation and permits others. you ban solicitation involving employment or contribution, but you do not ban moral support for people asking for your vote for people asking for directions. specific content-based ordinance rather than a content neutral ordinance? >> [inaudible] >> you do not ever want to do that. >> [inaudible] this court indicated that this is a content-neutral. even the below court indicated it was content neutral.
we're looking at access to solicitation, unlike the aclu case, which this course record distinguished the ordinance of seattle from here -- in which this court distinguished in the ordinance of seattle from here. >> but on the ordinance that was approved in a corner, now bidding on bonds, a corn is up for grabs. is there any interpretation, and a narrowing interpretation of the ordinance that the city has done or that a state court has done, other than just your declaration or other declarations about how it is interpreted? >> again in terms of how it has been, it only meant in areas that traffic specifically -- >> i understand that, but is there any sort of formal interpretation like administrative guidelines or agency guidelines? >> no, there are not specific agency guidelines.
again, what we were following is the precedent in terms of, to address the earlier comment, the reason is it does not cover -- why it does not cover holding up the sign or even passing out the specific handbills is that specifically, that has been termed by this court not to be included within this ordinance. >> so if acorn were strongly decided, where does that put you? >> we believe acorn was properly decided, but under the same standards, still a proper time, place, and manner restriction. it is content neutral, clearly addressed to a substantive -- >> how would it be narrowly tailored, though, in terms of that, including the sidewalks? that concerns me. >> it is only the sidewalks in
the manner in which it affects traffic. holding up the signs, handing fliers of the vehicle clearly uncovered -- but why is that? the language is very broad. you have broad language that would cover and the solicitation anywhere in the city from the sidewalk to legally parked cars. there's nothing in the text that limits this. help me understand how i find the narrower interpretation that addresses the traffic disruption issue. >> again, we rely on a corn and the analysis in a corn in terms of what was covered -- >> as was said about four times, aside from the not being terribly helpful, that was dealing with a certain situation. that was not circumstance in which people were going into
traffic to solicit for money on the spot, and therefore, that is what the case covered, but while you think it is said that is what the statute is limited to, that is what i do not understand. >> in terms of the analysis, we want to look at specifically what we're talking about is the need for an immediate exchange. different holding up a sign saying, ", talk to me" -- >> that may be a perfectly balanced statute, but it is not the ones you had here. >> based on what this court said, that is what it meant. it is not like we created an ordinance and a lower court said, "here is the way to be interpreted." we took what this court said this ordinance men. we have enforced this ordinance in the manner which does corp. said it was to be enforced -- in
which this court said it was to be enforced. >> you may not have gotten a chance to totally as a question, but it is of some interest to me that this really is not the same statute. b was not in the acorn statute, correct? >> that is correct. >> and b is not anywhere any place where we talk about business or contributions. we're only talking about employment, correct? >> that is correct. >> so it is really regulating only one particular activity. >> if it was regulating the activity that was -- >> no, answer my question. it really only regulates one activity. hire or hires for employment, correct? if that is so, and having trouble why i should not throw b out based on what the supreme
court said in kerry v. brown, which again dealt with employment, dealt with this time an exemption for informant, but the supreme court suggested that it violated the equal protection clause because it discriminated between lawful and unlawful conduct, accorded preferential treatment to the expression concerning one particular subject -- labor disputes -- which seems to be exactly where we are here, employment. only one particular issue, so why is then b not unconstitutional? >> again, the city was trying to specifically address the realistic concern that was presented in terms of you do not have -- we were trying to make
it -- >> i understand what the city was trying to do, but that is not the issue here. the issue here is now content neutral, and now the city has not acted -- which is limited to several different things, like business or contributions or employment, which may pass under hill, but now as to the b part, it focused in only unemployment, and kerry seems to be right on all fours. >> i would think that given the fact that we are focused on the act of the solicitation and focused on the actual practical matter -- the city, i did not believe is required to come up with every single situation presented to it. it was trying to come up with a specific way to have in force in an equitable manner between both the employees and employer. >> but the bottom line is you do
not ban all solicitations. you ban those related to business. you do not ban it for voting or girl scouts or girl scout cookie solicitations. you do not ban somebody soliciting for people to come join a book club. under those circumstances, is this not a content-based ordinance rather than a content- neutral ordinance, for constitutional analysis purposes? >> i think that the -- underhill you could go through broad grounds like that, and you're looking at the action we are regulating. i believe they were able to do that. i think also, when you look at it, it is not the mere hypothetical situation -- >> but it does have to be practical, doesn't it? in berger, we indicated that acorn was to be narrowly
construed, right? if you take that as narrowly construed and take that to the point that judge smith pointed out and others, you get this part b which is new and not part of the acorn situation and you added to the a part as well, and that in and of itself changes the ball game because you have the employment focus, and you deal with the sidewalk issue and the like. i know that in acorn, there was an assumption about the sidewalk, but this really kind of changes the ball game. you have people running out to the car right in the middle of traffic and exchanging money, whereas here, so many things -- i know about redondo beach. very nice town. people are friendly. a lot of things happen on the sidewalks that have absolutely nothing to do with what they had in acorn.
i am puzzled as to why this city is so adamant in its refusal to accept that this is a content-based ordinance. it is a restrictive ordinance. it bans some solicitation but not all solicitations. do you agree with that? >> i do not agree with it, specifically as to the a section because of the fact that this court has held that content- neutral. the court talked again specifically about the immediate exchange. in berger, it cited concurrence from just -- justice kennedy, and it talked about the nature of how that immediate exchange -- >> if the interpretation, if you are regarding what we said in acorn and berger as solicitation, is the major circumstance not that you try to govern outside of it? you're trying to deal with people who are trying to get
themselves hired. there is no money exchanged, right? >> it was both. when you look at the original memo from the city attorney -- >> but in fact, the enforcement that triggered this lawsuit involve people who were not in fact exchanging money. is that right? >> again, this is a facial challenge. this has been forced many times over the years. >> it would help if you answered my question. is that true? >> it is not true because of the fact that i did not relieve the immediate exchange necessarily has to be the immediate exchange of money. >> they all talk about the fact that physically transferring the money is what makes it content and not speech, right? >> it is the needed exchange that -- because the problem is -- >> why is the exchange? >> it is a negotiation. it is why the leaflet is
perfectly appropriate, why you can go up to a car and say hire me, here is my cell phone, whatever is that is protected. it is just that exchange, in terms of whether it be in employment where is that negotiation, you'll pay a certain amount for this amount -- >> so if someone gives them a car and says here is my cell phone number and what to work for you, that is okay? >> yes, it is absolutely ok. again, that goes back to it is similar to that immediate exchange of money. is the exchange of negotiations, as it applies to solicitation for employment or the solicitation -- >> how did these normally take place? there would be a bunch of guys hanging around, and somebody who needs a day laborer for a number
of their labors swings by, and what happens next? >> ordinarily, you would have a group of the laborers congregating. you have a car that would pull up. this stops in traffic. the day laborers approached the vehicle and solicit employment from the motor vehicle. that is than the typical -- from the enforcement, you have the solicitation -- >> what happens next? they get in the car and drive away? >> you strike a deal appeared one or more people get into the car, and you take them to do work for you, right? >> yes. >> you have a question earlier, and either you did not give an answer or i just missed it. why is that entire transaction
not simply regulated by cops standing there saying any time anybody stops, they give them a ticket? >> it is very labor intensive. it clearly did not work. that is what the city first tried for several years, and even at the lower court when that question came up, there was a common from council that -- >> it must not be any more labor intensive to arrest people on the sidewalk and to give people tickets when they are pulling up in cars. my guess is it is easy to get the car than on the sidewalk where people run away. it is much harder with a car here you have a license plate. i'm just not sure -- >> for years, the city did try -- >> and redondo beach, when it comes to parking?
>> it was not so much the parking. it just did not work to enforce the ordinance. it was very labor-intensive that if you did not stay there, that the people would continue to congregate. you would have employers continue to come to that location, and the city tried several things. it is not a hypothetical as the other side has post that this would work. it did not work. the city tried several different attempts. >> standing on the sidewalk by a legal parking space and having the employer's stock at a legal parking space and having someone come up and talked to them, is that a violation? >> that is not a violation of the ordinance. has never been enforced that way. >> so therefore, all you have is a bunch of people who are illegally stopping their cars. or going out into the middle of the street. how is it different to enforce that ban to enforce the rule
against people asking them to do the? i am really baffled. >> again, part of it is -- >> standing on the sidewalk is not a problem? >> standing on the sidewalk is not a problem. >> how is this enforcement any different than simply enforcing not stopping in an illegal place? >> as a practical matter, they are different in terms of sentencing, and a terms of how you can get probation for the one, stay away orders for the one, have a situation where it can be controlled. the city has no control over the vehicle code issues, notwithstanding being a charter city. >> but you also have an ordinance that prohibits people from standing in the roadway if it interferes with the movement of traffic, so you already have an enforceable ordinance to deal with the employee side, don't
you? >> again, in terms of looking at a facial challenge, it is not the least restrictive means that the city could come up with. it is a question of whether or not this was something that was narrowly tailored. we believe it is narrowly tailored to promote that significant government issue, and as a practical matter, given the fact that we have had 24 years of history, this was the one ordinance that was successful. it was enforced by -- in terms of complaints from citizens. it would be in force. the problem will disappear, and then, you would have a few years later a new round. the only thing that was different here was in 2004, you ended up with a facial challenge to this ordinance that is before the court now. >> [inaudible] >> yes.
we want to point out the lake forest case this court has decided, and it is virtually identical to this case. >> but you really did not make that argument that is out in the 28j letter to the district court, did you? >> it was prior to the lake forest decision. we did object to the standing throughout -- >> object to the standing, but i did not see any place, reading the record pretty carefully, that he argued to the district courts or to us anything about the fact that you should not be able to talk about standing in civil judgment if you did not put it in your complaint. >> again, that is an issue with the plaintiffs have the burden of proof -- >> way, just a minute. i understand they have the burden of proof. but weak are talking about procedures to get to whether you can challenge standing, and i
understand that in order to have a procedure, somebody ought to make it through the 40 day, and said that -- and he ought to be able to rule on it. if the district judge did not get a chance to look at it and neither did we before this case comes out, then why should i make that the issue here? that is the question. not whether they have standing or not, because they have enough in their declarations for judgment to make standing. >> but we did object standing throughout. they did not plead the type of standing that they propose to submit to this court or district court in terms of improved standing, so since we forest case says he cannot act at a later date fix and proper pleading --
>> the case after what we did that now supports us, we are going to throw that at you, even though we did not make the argument? >> but we did make the argument. we have tried throughout to preserve the issue. we clearly objected to the district judge in terms of the issue of standing, that the standing was not prove -- them of frankly, you are suggesting that if i find standing based on the declarations, that i really have not got to address any other question related to standing? because the three-judge panel look very good at the declarations that have been filed, and they look at the complaint, and based on the declarations and the complaint, they found standing. now, you are throwing in occur at us, which is it is not enough to say and in summary judgment. you have to say it in your complaint. but i did not argue that to anyone else, but you should still throw somebody out
understanding based on this new idea. >> we fall back on the fact that plaintiff has the burden of proving standing. they have the burden of filing the complaint. we objected to standing throughout this case and preserve that issue. >> [inaudible] >> we will hear from apelles. >> good afternoon, your honor. i represent the plaintiff's appellees in this matter. it relates to redondo beach ordinance that was adopted some 24 years ago. as this case went along, of redondo beach added a contention that despite the plain language of this ordinance, it's only effort was to bar that solicitation that resulted in a
car stopping in traffic. that concern which they brought up in this litigation could have been easily addressed through existing laws against jaywalking, obstructing traffic, illegally stopping, but instead, they put together and adopted an ordinance -- >> it is my sense, the target is not adequate. that is what they say. >> but that nothing in the record that would indicate why it is not adequate. one of the tests they have to satisfy to render this ordinance constitutional is that it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. first test that has been articulated for determining -- >> but narrowly tailored does not mean that it has to be the narrowest way of doing it. >> that is correct. you have to be able to demonstrate prove, because it is the burden of the city, that its aims could not be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. or they have asserted that, but
i do not think there is anything in the record or anything in logic to explain why -- >> [inaudible] >> i have to say, 24 years later, there are still day laborers on the streets of redondo beach, so it appears this ordinance does not work either. the question is could they have achieved their objective without regulating speech? >> i do not know what is in the record. i did not see anyone. i drove through this morning. >> there are day laborers there. they have been there. they are the ones who brought this case as a result of enforcement action that was brought by the city of redondo beach. they are still there. they are there because there is a demand for the services that they provide. this is an exchange between both a willing employer and a willing employee. -- hypothetically, let's say that i think that the case was correctly decided by the three-judge panel if acorn
is good law. tell me why acorn is not good law, and how with the u.s. supreme court decide this case? should we take acorn off the table? that makes it better for you? >> i think it is a decision that is no longer good law, and i think this court should say that. nonetheless, i think there are distinctions between this ordinance and at one that even if it remained good law would render this ordinance still unconstitutional. >> acorn [inaudible] >> i think the ordinance, both in acorn and in this case, in covering solicitation of business, is broader than what was directly addressed by that panel. they were dealing with the solicitation of money and tagging. >> as to the particular effects of acorn. >> i think the supreme court has made clear, if you're talking
about solicitation for the meat -- immediate exchange of money, that is kind to neutral. >> in the middle of the street where there really were traffic problems? >> what is so different about having someone stepped into your car? there seems to be a transaction there as well. you do not actually put out cash, but surely, cash was not the key in acorn. it was the fact that you had an immediate transaction, an immediate change. the way these transaction work is that you have a negotiation, and somebody steps into the car. why is that not equivalent? >> bears no negotiation. you say you need workers, they get into the car, you tend to negotiate at the worksite. it is fairly immediate you get into the car and drive on. >> there is. how is that different from falling out money and handing it to having someone gets in your car? both of them involve having the need for this -- involve being
stationary long enough for this to occur appeared both of them require sensitive communication between the parties. i did not see what the difference is. >> two differences are important. the supreme court has discussed that exchanging money often is a long way transaction. the person standing in front of me is asking me to donate, too. >> i bet you if we have a race, i could pull out $1 a lot faster than you could load a couple of people in your car. >> they did not strike me as being that different. >> i would take that bet, but the second extension is if they were really that different -- >> but it would be close, anyway, wouldn't it? >> but of course, with the supreme court described is that that is not typical. ordinarily, the person has to decide if they support that cause, if they have the right change or want change back, will
they write a check or give a credit card. that is what was described by the supreme court. >> are you discussing this because of the content neutrality issue or because of the narrow targeting issue? because with regard to the second, it seems to me that you are leaving out the key factor of acorn, which is that it was in the middle of traffic flow. >> i am discussing it right now with respect to content neutrality. with respect to narrow tailoring, there are significant differences. but i think the other critical distinction is that if the city of redondo beach in this case were interested in stopping anything that involves an exchange, it could have done that more explicitly. because there are solicitations that involve exchanges in the roadway that are not barred by this ordinance, and that is because they have limited to employment, business, and contributions -- >> if i could just follow up.
he asked how these transactions take place, and from what i understand, the people in the cars come there for the express purpose of hiring drivers. is that correct? >> that is correct. member that is what that part of the ordinance is for, and that is not part of acorn. >> there are two parts to this ordinance that were not in acorn. the b portion that has to do with employers who park, and the definition of streets and highways in a the cover sidewalks. >> at the very least, acorn is distinguishable for the b part. this is every bit as much the fault of the employer as it is of the proposed employees, is it not? >> that is correct. >> what i mean is these people
voluntarily come to the place for the purpose of hiring. >> yes, there is it willing employer and employee both involved in exchange. they are both at the site when it occurs. acorn i is distinguishable even if it were to remain good law. >> that is an interesting distinction. it seems to me it works against you. >> i'm sorry, why is that? >> it seems to me that that makes it much more of a business transaction. when a guy is driving along, and somebody stops and says, "give me a dollar because of hundred," really, you're just dropping at traffic lights. when you have both sides, they have to engage in commercial transaction. this suggests that this is a marketplace, a kind of activity where there is commercial intent on both sides, and therefore, the ability to regulate is much
higher. but a potentially cuts against us. couple of points, first. the city of redondo beach has never attempted to defend this other regulation of commercial speech. it been difficult to do that because their own law includes contributions -- >> it is a commercial activity. it is a marketplace. which raises all the problems you have when you have an organized marketplace. you have traffic congestion. you have a competitive behavior. i do not know how the people on the sidewalk decides who gets the next potential crime, but my guess is there is some of that. >> this would be an entirely different case if we were talking about a regulation of that marketplace. we are talking about regulation of speech that covers not only this transaction, but any
solicitation of business, and a solicitation of contribution. we are talking about an attempt by a city that is not trying to regulate this marketplace. >> if anybody has been stopped for this ordinance could that was not a ball in precisely this type of transaction? have there been a lot of political -- i mean, you know, is there any indication that this has been applied and practiced for anything except this very kind of commercial transaction? >> there's nothing in the record that indicates there has been a force met as to any other kind of speech. >> but the analysis suggests it is ok for us, but there are all these other people being regulated, and that is a very dangerous, precarious position to take. >> of course i think that there are strong arguments for why delivers a speech, in this case, as we have been discussing -- this regulation is unconstitutional specifically as
to that speech, but it is certainly true that there is a danger -- >> this could be conducted in a parking lot, right? off the street all together. >> it could if the owner of the parking lot permitted it to occur there. >> what if someone paid him to? this is not something that inherently has to be done -- it is not like a parade or a demonstration or anything like that where you inherently have to use a public street or park. this is something that could easily be done is just enough money is thrown at it, begun in an inky stadium, a basketball court when it is not being used for that purpose. it all could be done there. the message in the and so could demonstrations and so could parades -- >> for rates are different because they are supposed to be
in your face, and demonstrations are supposed to be in your face. the point is to have them be seen when people go about their daily business. there is nothing about this transaction that would be diminished in any way if the location of the transaction were not in the middle of traffic, if it were in a parking lot a couple of blocks away. >> with a parade in a demonstration and with day labor, it is a matter of reaching your intended audience, folks who you want to get your message to. >> what would you have us do, the fact that the actual enforcement patterns seemed to be quite limited, although there is no written interpretation or limiting construction. >> what we would have the court do is direct the city of redondo beach to write the ordinance that it wants to enforce, then it indicates it has been
enforcing. >> what about the chief judge's suggestion that you then have to meet all the standards, and how do you do that exactly? does it matter that they have not actually enforced it otherwise? >> the danger comes in reading what the ordinance says. i do not know why girl scouts are not on the streets selling cookies in redondo beach. they may be there and not being enforced. they may not be there. we do not know. >> i would point out the bigger price to all of redondo beach. if you read the ordinance itself, it would apply in those standards. >> there were some girl scouts standing on a street corner selling cookies before the ordinance. >> i honestly do not know, but it is certainly not in the record that they were there before 1980.
>> ok, this is another hypothetical. if the court were to find that the language was content neutral, but that it was not narrowly tailored, with this court have to revisit acorn and berger? >> i do not believe so. if you look at the standards for narrow tailoring, started with what i mentioned previously, can the city's objectives be achieved without regulating speech, the answer is clearly yes. >> what resolution would require revisiting berg3re -- berger and would create attention? >> i did not see anything in its dispute with respect to all elements of the test, i think it is consistent with this case, except to the extent that it is over read as saying that acorn actually blesses an ordinance that goes beyond what it
actually said by covering sidewalks appear with respect to narrow tailoring, it is correct, and the standards that are articulated their apply here and would render this ordinance unconstitutional. with respect to alternative avenues of communication, that is an independent reason why the redondo beach ordinance should be held unconstitutional. >> exactly why do you think this is not content neutral? because you do not think solicitation is limited to the exchange of money? because it is not the exchange of money? because it is limited to employment, business, and contributions and not other things? exactly what? >> it is all of the above. you start with the fact that when you look at it, it does not cover all speech. at a certain level, all speech is solicitation. by performing, and asking for your approval. if i'm asking for your vote, and asking -- i am soliciting your vote. every kind of speech is a solicitation. with respect to the broad category of speech, this single out particular content.
that solicitation seeks employment, business, or contribution. by the test, it is content discriminatory. now what we deal with a case like hill, which said that approaching three different categories of speech was content neutral or was susceptible to intermediate scrutiny. >> i will be completely candid -- i think that is a difficult case to explain. sometimes first amendment jurisprudence is like a block with the skeletal structure underneath it, and as you start to reveal some of that, other parts become obscured, but i think phil deals with the situation with a specific context of a specific timing, specific parties involved telling you that there is a violation, so you do not actually have to look at what is the content to determine that there is a violation. >> we have never held that the officer must read a test is a problem. we have never relied on that. this is content neutral.
it is pretty clear on that point. >> what you have said is, and incorrectly, that that test is evident but not as positive as to content discrimination, and that is why in distinguishing what happens in hill where it is not closely attending to what is said, not picking one up three categories out of dozens, as occurs here -- >> it is not? >> it is only one specific kind of speech in a specific context involving specific parties. that is the only way i can explain that to you. >> you are saying we should confine hill to its particular facts? that if you have an alternative situation where you can tell from the context, from the parties, the timing, the place that there is a violation, i suppose that would be an outcome dictated by phil. other than that, i think phil is fairly unique when you look at all the jurisprudence from the supreme court about content discrimination. >> if we change just a little bit from the content and the --
we go to the narrowly tailored situation, if i look at what the supreme court says on facial challenges, it seems to me that the supreme court is saying that no set of circumstances exists under which the challenge or the nets will be valid, or that the statute lacks any plainly legitimates week. seems to me that your argument is about plainly legitimate sweep. would you agree? >> yes, and in the first amendment context, the specifically means if it is chilling speech that is legitimate. >> ok, so how do i look -- i look at washington state grange and washington state republican party, where it suggests that we generally do not apply this strong medicine of over brett analysis where the card is failed to describe the instances of arguable over bread that
contested law. does not seem to me that in this particular situation that whether we are talking about somebody right in the street or on the sidewalk that it differs from that particular situation. just a hypothetical example of how the government could theoretically apply it and therefore, why is it then not absolutely narrowly tailored? >> i do not think it is entirely theoretical, your honor, first of all. >> what is not theoretical? when examples from this record evidence do i have that was not narrowly tailored? >> if a day laborer is standing on the sidewalk, never enters the street, they are in violation of this ordinance. >> so? if they do the same thing day laborers do that they are supposed to be not doing, why is that a problem? >> if the day labor is doing with the city conceits is
permissible under this ordinance, under this ordinance, they still would be violating it. the city contends that a day laborer could stand on the sidewalk, and as long as they somehow indicate, "do not pull over illegally, come into the parking lot, and i will meet you there," the city argues that that is not a violation that they would in force. but under the terms of this ordinance, that is a violation. that day laborer, regardless of how they indicate ways: to the parking lot, is still guilty of violating the ordinance, as this city has construed it if the driver stops in the street. >> i have never seen anybody do that. >> i have seen it. i have seen delivers this it will over into a parking lot. it does occur. >> how do they communicate this to a moving vehicle? >> if they are not always paid attention to, sometimes ignored.
folks are in a hurry to hire folks. >> let's assume for just a moment that this ordinance is content neutral and that it is narrowly tailored, and whether i agree with that is not really relevant here, but we have this second issue, which is where the city has met its burden as to whether there are ample jowls for communication. that is probably the thing that troubles me most about this matter. what is in the record to indicate that there is an alternative means for these folks to express themselves in the city of redondo beach? >> there is nothing in the record to indicate that there is an alternative means. >> whose burden is it under the constitution -- >> the city's burden. >> i guess i'm puzzled. do we have to show ample challenge to this group of daily burrs, or do we have to say are there any ample alternative channels for soliciting business
generally on a facial challenge with our jobs? >> i wish i had a clear answer to that because i have the same question in my mind as i review the record. it seems as though both sides focused on alternative channels for day labor speech. that is why we are confined to what is described, but i think the city would have a burden of demonstrating that there are alternatives for others as well. >> that depends on what level we are operating on. if we are only looking at the day labor situation, for alternatives, we would look at the daily problem. >> i agree. i think the city should be required to show that there are alternatives available -- >> but on the other hand, if we are going to look at overbreadth in general, one would think that you would get to narrow tailoring before you get to the alternative. >> that is correct, but if you get to the alternative and focus
on day laborers, there's nothing to demonstrate an actual alternative channel. i think the channel they relied upon is inappropriate. relying on private property owner to hypothetically provide an alternative channel is not allowed under president. >> there are other municipalities that have attempted to create their own alternatives. >> yes, by creating higher incentives -- hiring centers for day laborers. >> those that were referred to in this record were nowhere near the city of redondo beach. is that correct? >> that is correct, and i think the city of redondo beach's burden is to show alternatives within the city itself, and that is why i think is inappropriate to rely on private property owners because that is in essence like a different city. they could no more point to manhattan beach and say that as an alternative as they can point to a private property owner and say it. >> there was an ordinance that
said that certain street corners were off limits, but just certain street corners. >> that would leave the alternative of the other areas in the city, and the question would be whether those were a realistic alternative for the speech that is involved. but there was obviously no demonstration of that here because this is an ordinance that applies to every part of the city of redondo beach. >> do you have standing? >> yes, we have organizational standing, representational, organizational standing. >> my understanding was it was alleged in your complaint. >> the organizational standard was not. deposition and standing was. i think that was a mistake. the distinction here is, as you pointed out, that decision came out after the district judge acted. in this case, unlike in the forest, the district judge did find that there was organizational standing. >> [inaudible] lake forest correctly decided? >> i did not believe it was.
i think that if the district judge reed's declaration of summary judgment and concludes there is organizational stunning, that gets you past the lack of pleading, but in this case, because lake forest happen afterwards -- >> what difference would that make, given the standing goes to our article 3 powers? >> you have indication that the judge would have allowed an amendment of complaint. >> even if that were not the case, within our committee and send it back to the district court give you an opportunity to amend an address like for us? >> yes, i think that is the appropriate resolution, to let the district judge decide whether she would allow an amendment of the complaint to then consider the evidence that she did consider in concluding on summary judgment that there was organizational standing, but i do not think you get there because we also have representational organizational standing as well. the only argument that has been
put 45 the city of redondo beach about the legal right to work is both a deposit and wrong on the law -- the only argument that has been put forth by the city. >> how is subsection b -- and i guess this is what the chief judge was asking -- how is that a restriction on speech? >> it is a restriction on the willing listeners. as the supreme court has stated, essentially takes away their right to free speech. section b applies even to a legally parked vehicle, whether that is on the major street, a side street, anywhere on the streets of redondo beach. it therefore takes away all listeners except those potentially who pull into a private law >> e think if they just got to hear what this person said, would that be how attempt to hire them? >> it said -- i have to confess,
i struggle to see how those would remotely comply given the construction and the city offers up. this is only about those who cause someone to stop in the street. i don't know how you get an attempt to solicit if you require an actual stop of a vehicle before you conclude is a violation of the ordinance. it's too late and inconsistent with the plain language. as this court has repeatedly concluded -- >> there have been enforcement policies that were written up. in the street -- only if you have a transaction in these two intersections only with regard to employment, would that be
valid? >> i think this would be a different case. there would be concerned about how consistent is with the language of the ordinance. the plain language is a concern in the first amendment context because of the danger of chilling. what you have described it goes beyond excising certain words and adding a certain words, particularly their restriction to particular intersections as their replies to the city of redondo beach would be problematic. if that were to be put into the ordinance itself, that would be a different case. we might still be here arguing about narrow tailoring, whether the city needs to do anything to regulate speech given the fact its concerns could be easily answered by adequately enforcing laws against jaywalking, obstructing traffic or jaywalking -- we have a plainly worded ordinance applying to the
entire city of redondo beach that recovers alleyways and parkways, that covers only solicitation of employment, not solicitation or contributions. we have an ordinance that is content discriminatory by not covering all solicitations. all solicitations that would require a car to stop. this would not stop someone soliciting signatures on a petition, whether a petition to qualify measure for the ballot or to have the rock-and-roll hall of fame andy lee introduce brittany spears. if you are seeking the petition, it is not blocked by this ordinance, but it's the kind of exchange they have indicated they have problems with. they have singled out a particular solicitation. this could easily be a direct concern -- a >> that does not happen very
often. >> it's understandable. i do think people circulate petitions about all kinds of matters, both serious and inane. sometimes they do that in the modern era and to drivers. they have singled out solicitations of a particular kind along with solicitation that has an equal chance that leads to a car stopping. the narrow tailoring problem, the lack of alternative channels in the case this court should conclude the district court was right, that the redondo beach ordinance is unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment. >> [unintelligible] >> i want to ask about the alternative channels. i hope you can answer the question -- do you agree that
burden is on the city, assuming content neutrality and assuming the narrow tailoring is close enough we don't have to worry about, what real apple alternative channels for communication exists under this ordinance for these day laborers? >> all the ones this court identified -- the exact same ones, that you can leaflet a car, all of this court addressed in holding their proper alternative channels are in effect because it is exactly based on that -- >> you get to import a corn into your record? >> the record shows we have always enforced it consistent with acorn. the record shows it was
specifically identified we were seeking to copy this law -- >> acorn was dealing with contributions to a charity in which the audience is random and they're trying to reach iran of audience. here, you are dealing with wanting to reach particular people, those people who want to hire day laborers. is at an entirely different thing in terms of alternatives? >> some of the alternatives recognize are still appropriate. leafleting the cars, and the st. -- >> it would be ok to go into the street with a leaflet and staple over here? >> and st. this ordinance does not prohibit that because the court instructed us before we adopt it. one of the things talking about first amendment law in terms of being a blot on top of a skeletal system, the city tries
to do exactly what this court said was ok and -- >> the ordinance literally applies to someone standing on the sidewalk holding the sign. >> but this court said that in a corn and said it rejecting the over brett analysis. us putting it in their did not change whether it applied to a sidewalk. the only difference is we took the of vegas challenge away by giving additional notice. the city should not be punished for giving additional notice for something specifically in a corn. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in about 50 minutes, we'll go live to a look back 30 years to the anniversary of ronald reagan being shot outside the hilton hotel here in washington. this evening, and -- a discussion on that with a washington post reporter. on the panel is the secret service agent that pushed the president into the waiting limousine. panel will be moderated by a judy woodruff, live here on c-
span. the prime-time schedule looks like this -- we will have remarks from a congressman anthony wiener talks about what the obama and administration needs to do more to highlight the benefits of the health care law enacted one year ago today. then more about health care what the discussion on the elements of the law and parts that are still waiting to be enacted. after that, morocco's foreign minister talks about unrest in the arab world and why people take into the street. and prospects for peace in afghanistan, all of that getting underway at 8:30 eastern. this morning, the british labor weeder as the prime minister for an update on british military operations in libya and talked about military contributions from the arab world in keeping to the terms of the resolution. here's a portion of that now. >> can i join the prime minister
in paying tribute to private daniel prior? he demonstrated great bravery and all of his family and friends -- i am sure the whole house will want to think about armed forces personnel in action in military operations in libya and pay tribute to the outstanding work they're doing. following the overwhelming vote in that house, can we get an update on the actions of british forces? >> i would like to thank the gentleman for what he said and his speech in the debate on monday which i thought was extremely powerful. in terms of updating the house of a military operations, a no- fly zone is in place over libya. there are 11 organizations contributing aircraft. there has been an early and good effect in terms of regime forces having to retreat from benghazi, but there is clearly great
concern about what the regime is doing. and the idea of the second ceasefire was any more meaningful than the first, we can see that is complete nonsense. we made good progress in terms of turning some of those forces back and protecting civilians, but this is the early stages and a lot more needs to be done. >> thank you. we support the un resolution to protect the people of libya. the support of the arab league was a key factor in securing the -- what conversations have had with arab leaders about their continued role in the enforcement of that resolution and the plan of action? >> first of all, the arab league met yesterday and reinforced their view that a no- fly zone is right and they
support the un security council. in terms of concrete assets, i can confirm the first contribution was confirmed in terms of mirage aircraft and other aircraft. we will be getting logistic contributions from countries like kuwait and jordan. i hope for their support will be forthcoming. but because we had to act so quickly on saturday, it was not possible to bring forth as much arab support as would be welcomed, but the clear support is there from the arab nations. i had a meeting with the saudi foreign minister yesterday and i believe support in the arab world and amongst arab people for saving lives in libya is very strong. >> let me emphasize something the prime minister said on monday which is the importance of the contribution -- he said there was going to be a regular, more formal process with the
arab league. it's very important that process takes place. let me ask one other thing about our action. can the prime minister clarify our position with regards to the targeting of carla khaddafi? it's important stick to the terms of their resolution as we seek to maintain the coalition we have built in relation to the un resolution. >> i'm grateful for the chance to set this out to the house. all of our targets must be selected to be in line with the un security council measure. that allows us to take all measures to enforce a no-fly zone and put in place and take action to protect civilian life. all targets should be in line with that, but i do not propose to give a running commentary on target for say anything beyond that. >> you can see all of the prime minister's questions online at
our video library. from london, we take you now to ottawa and the canadian house of commons. earlier today, cabinet members who make up the government of the conservative prime minister took questions. the finance minister presented at the budget but soon after that, leaders of the opposition parties announced they would oppose it. with the prime minister leading a minority government, you will need support least one of the opposition parties to get the budget passed. right now, at looks like the debate will lead to a parliamentary election in canada. this is 45 minutes. >> the hon. leader of the opposition. [applause] >> mr. speaker, spending billions of dollars on stealth fighters for tax cuts and mega prisons means you have to
shortchange the canadian family. there is nothing in this budget on affordable housing. there is nothing here on child care. there's nothing to support the health system. these are the priorities of canadian families. why is this prime minister out of touch and out of control? >> the hon. government house leader? >> the budget presented yesterday focused on the priority -- focuses on the priorities of canadians. whether it is support for volunteer firefighters to do an extraordinary job -- there is support for them. whether it is support for health care which will have risen by 36% -- and president commitment, the liberal party -- they will not know -- [inaudible]
[applause] >> the hon. leader of the opposition. >> canadians spend more of a single day at that g 20 than they spend on seniors in a year. they are about to spend a thousand times more on jets than on helping students get a college or university education. no canadian can understand those priorities. why is this prime minister so out of touch? [applause] >> the priority of the liberal party is to bring canada into a reckless collection and -- that is not in the interests of hard-
working canadians. what canadians tell us is seniors need help and it's in there. volunteer firefighters need support and it is in there. the men and women who work at our hospitals need -- the liberal leadership put aside its own narrow partisanship -- [inaudible] >> the hon. leader of the opposition. >> we cannot support this budget because these priorities are bad for canadians. 1000 times more for prisons than used crime prevention. nothing for affordable housing or day care, but billions ford jetfighters, make up prisons, and gifts for large corporations. why is this prime minister so disconnected from the priorities
of canadians? >> the liberal party cannot find billions of dollars for these at what-- let's look canadians are saying about the budget -- [inaudible] the canadian labour congress, this is a win for every senior -- [applause] these are good benefits for canadians. should set aside his own ambitions and step aside for canada. >> the hon. leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, we have another problem with this government -- there is an investigation of the former chief of staff of the
prime minister for the prime minister's closest advisers may end up in prison for electoral fraud. the government is a breath away of being bound and contempt of parliament. will they finally admit their responsibility for their abuse of power. >> the hon. government house leader. >> we will not tolerate anyone breaking the law. we believe in those reforms. we brought in the event -- when these allegations were brought to our attention, we immediately informed authorities and that was the right thing to do. another right thing to do is for this leader of the opposition to put aside calls for the government to raise taxes and get behind our job creating plan contained in the budget. >> the hon. leader of the
opposition. >> the problem here is the conservative government is on the edge of being found in contempt of parliament. four of the closest collaborators of the prime minister face allegations of election fraud. after the content this reveals for further institutions, is it any wonder this government will be rewarded with contempt in return? [applause] >> the hon. government house leader. >> of the leader of the liberal party is showing contempt for voters treaty does not show the fundamental idea that the person who wins the most votes wins. now, mr. speaker, that coalition is back again. that shows the other -- that shows the utter contempt for canadians.
more hope and more opportunity -- [applause] >> the hon. member -- >> mr. speaker, the conservative budget tabled a budget yesterday which is indifferent to the needs of people of quebec. this confirms what people of nova long time now. conservatives have let quebec down. does the prime minister realizes bad budget combined with many instances of contempt for parliament and democracy confirm one thing -- people in combat and longer trust a government. >> the hon. minister of foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, my colleague, the minister of finance tabled a budget yesterday that perfectly matches the aspirations and priorities of people in quebec. in economic recovery, job
creation, a low, acceptable level of taxation and, in each case where we table a budget that seeks to support the economy of quebec, they are against it and vote against it. >> what he is just -- what he just said is false. in 2006 and 2007 we asked for $3.7 billion. we got $3.3 billion and we supported it, said he continues to spread lies. this government is mocking the people and the house of commons has spent millions of taxpayer money in pre-election campaign. it may table a budget that would be acceptable for the opposition parties. the prime minister has the gall to repeat once again he does not want elections. does he not realize by acting like this has lost the
confidence of the people in the back. >> the hon. minister of foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, for the past 20 years, we have heard the same gnashing of teeth and speechifying by this party. what did they deliver for quebec in the last 20 years? nothing. 0. [applause] >> order, please. the hon. member for shall i guess -- >> mr. speaker, we don't live on our knees. we live standing up. this conservative government couldn't care less about quebec. nothing prevented it or -- for several months, they are just fooling around here in ottawa. if the government wanted to
avoid elections call all it had to do was compensate quebec to the tune of $2.2 billion. doesn't the prime minister realizes will provoke elections and as the finance minister says, people in quebec will decide. >> the hon. minister of finance. >> we had good discussions with the government of quebec, the minister of finance of quebec regarding the hsp. we will continue our talks. >> the hon. member -- >> mr. speaker, they have been fooling around with this for 20 years. they continue to help the wealthy. tax cuts are maintained for oil companies. the banks can continue to stockpile fortunes in tax havens, but government refuses
to pay its debt to quebec. how can the finance minister explain he cannot do justice but can help cronies in the banks and oil companies. either he can are he is acting in bad faith. >> mr. speaker, the mask will fall. this member of parliament was part of the government and there were other members who are part of the pq government. never did they ever stand up for the people of quebec. the eight were industrial league doormats. -- they were industrial league doormats. [applause] >> the hon. member for toronto. [applause]
mr. speaker, this government and every canadian knew where we stood. we wanted to make sure this budget would be addressing the needs of middle class families and give them a break. too many people are out of work. yesterday, the conservatives presented a job-killing budget that sucks are more out of the economy that puts back in. they missed their own job target by more than 240,000 jobs according to their own figures. why is this government putting the needs of main street and head of those who need work? >> mr. speaker comment as the leader -- if the leader of the fourth party a body to read the budget, he would know that over 480,000 net new jobs have been created in this country. this is the best job creation record in the advanced economy
of the world. this is the best place to invest in a next five years. look at our financial system and say this isn't just the best financial system in the g 20 orgy 7, is the best financial system in the world. >> the hon. member of toronto. >> the minister knows he is not telling the truth because one of his own ministers was in the break out room when we were studying. he knows full well he is not telling the truth. >> the prime minister knows full well that part-time jobs are at a record high. there are 150,000 all time jobs fewer than before the recession. they do nothing to help the unemployed, but the banks and
accompanies are still receiving big guests. why does the prime minister prefer to go into and election than help into class. >> once again, there is a tremendous benefit to reading the document. as i said yesterday, it is not that long a read. it's one of the shortest budget that has happened in the last 20 years. there is a wonderful shot -- wonderful chart that shows job creation and it shows the opposite that 70% of those 480,000 jobs are old-time jobs. >> the hon. member for toronto. >> it just proves my point they have not replaced all time work that was lost in the recession and the middle-class is suffering as a result. maybe he better read his own
documents. [applause] now the government is preventing canadians from investing in the best retirement savings plan, the canada saving plan. the governor wants to come up with their own schemes of these three can get a slice. that is their plan. i want to build a canada where canadians can retire in dignity. why wouldn't they deliver? >> the hon. minister of finance. once again, the leader of the fourth party is demonstrating his uncanny ability not to let the facts interfere with his argument. we have negotiations on going with the provincial government. as the member should know because he's been in this place long enough, he ought to know the federal government cannot unilaterally alter the canada pension plan. there are rules, they are
constitutional, you need two- thirds in terms of population. we are continuing to work with the modest improvements that we seek. >> the >> on april 28, 2009, the minister of the environment had a bilateral meeting in washington with the energy secretary. 11 people attended, seven american senior american officials were there, and so was bruce carson, not a private citizen, but introduced as special advisers to the minister. they claim to have privileged access at high-level discussions much after he was supposed to have left the government's employed. >> mr. speaker, there have been
serious allegations raised. it is a law that is of high priority. i believe everyone should face the full course of law. >> mr. speaker, five months later, they set another international climate change summit. mr. carson was there as the representative of the prime a jober, but mr. carson's was to advise the oil and gas industry on climate change policy. every canadian knows this is a conflict of interests.
the prime minister owes canadians an explanation of why, when, and how mr. carson was given this kind of access in the first place. >> order. the hon. government house leader. >> is not unusual to invite a variety of speakers representing industry, labour groups, but i remember when i was minister of the environment even inviting a member of an apartment complex as a speaker. the difference is with these delegates, which generally send them there for the whole meeting. >> the conservatives are saying that bruce carson left his office in 2007 and escorted
conservative members. in 2009, the united states department of ministry listed him as the minister of the environment. mr. carson is such a good escort. the president did not even take part in multilateral state department meeting. carson went without him. when did mr. carson leave government again? >> order. >> he has an interesting use of a vocabulary, a different set of words that i would have thought about in relation to this. during the allegations that were raised, he did the right thing, the proper thing, and brought in the immediate relevant authorities. i hope there's an investigation into the matter and i hope they will bring the full canadian law to anyone who violated it.
>> mr. speaker, the canadians created conservative energy environment on $13 million, not nothing. said seat enjoyed the canadian school of ministry, he has approved a number of laws, with the current and foreign minister. the cat is out of the bag. do these ministers feel the need to confess to the house and the rcnp? >> mr. speaker, these slanders made by the members will not help a senior or volunteer firefighter or health care
worker. and the liberal party should get behind that. >> the hon. member. mr. speaker, the conservative government, true to itself, is continuing to ignore the energy needs of the unemployed and has set out new measures in its budget to help them. worse still, instead of improvements to the unemployment insurance program, the conservatives will take money from the fund in order to subsidize those who are better off. it is its indifference to workers in quebec that could provoke an election. the hon. minister of human- resources. they have taken the time to read yesterday's budget, if they did, they would have known what was proposed in the budget is an
extension of a number of things. for example, the pilot projects. for example, the targeted initiative for long tenured workers. for example, the improvements to the program of work sharing. which is going to help 280,000 people, but they decided to vote against it. >> it is because we read it that we will vote against it. the government claims that the reforms by the unions and allow people to have a year of benefits for 350 hours of work,. that is not true. an unemployed worker who qualifies would only be assessed 32 weeks of benefits. with regard to workers, will
the government stopped taking from the fund and instead it improve the plan? >> the hon. resources and skills development. >> mr. speaker, yesterday in the budget we had a proposal to improve and extend benefits in order to help the unemployed throughout canada, but, mr. speaker, like usual, block said they would vote against it. they have already voted against it. they voted against the program to help long tenured workers, the targeted initiative for long-term workers. there will always vote against the interests of the people. it is scandalous. >> the budget has nothing to help the sector. barely $60 million for research when the conservatives were able
to find $10 billion for the automobile industry. the communication center union has presented immediate assistance. i notice the government has chosen to throw them a few crumbs. it fails to meet the urgent needs of workers in the region affected by the crisis. >> the hon. minister of state. >> mr. speaker, this mp is trying to make canadians believe that they are just spreading this information in the automobile industry. we are partners with american companies, working in partnership. in the forestry sector, however, we are competitors. when will they understand that?
>> the conservative budget does not meet the needs of quebec's producers. it fails to adequately compensate to specified risk materials and imposes cuts on the agricultural sector. how could the government have tabled a budget that completely ignores the needs of producers in quebec? >> the hon. minister of veterans affairs. >> mr. speaker, they said no tax increases. the conservative government said that. what government said no tax increases? the conservative government did it. which government invested $50 billion to help farmers? this government. mr. speaker, we have presented a
budget that meets the needs of canadians in their daily lives. we're helping caregivers, families, helping all kinds of other people. there are other measures in the government. >> we now know how the conservative government will pay for the corporate tax cuts, american doctors, and american fighter jets. they're cutting services. hey're cutting $7 million, cutting $32 million to alcoa, cutting $80 million to fishes and oceans. my question, how did the conservative mps allow this to happen. >> the hon. minister.
>> my question for the member is how the small business people would feel about her not supporting a credit for hiring new employees. how would the volunteer firefighters in her region feel about her not supporting a credit for the hard work they have provided. how will they feel for her not supporting the sacrifices we made in marine atlantic and the great work being done to promote the economy in her region? >> i can tell you how they feel about the increase in payroll taxes, mr. speaker. not only is this government slashing and burning funding for atlantic canada, now we find more abuse of power. the conservatives are under investigation by the public service commission for stacking the atlantic canada
opportunities agency with political appointments. is there no end to what this conservative regime will do to reward their own? have they no shame? >> a bit of news for the hon. member. we are the first government to commit stable funding to funding programs like the atlantic canadian fund, where the first government to invest where her government failed. we delivered on this side of the house. will continue to deliver. we will support her constituents even if she will not. >> order. >> mr. speaker, this regime will
never learn. everything they don't like, they lie it or ignore. at least we would have that opportunity to see what was happening if we had the diagnostics. will they choose to spend billions on fighter jets instead of investing in the bridge? mr. speaker, do the workers in montreal have to go to work by swimming across? >> the hon. minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, the champagne bridges extremely important for business people and people in the montreal region and canada. we have invested a lot of money in the corridor because the bridge is extremely important. at the same time, mr. speaker, i have spoken with the quebec minister this morning and we are talking about the situation.
the safety of the bridge and the future is clear. we must talk with the quebec government for the future. >> mr. speaker, i am asking him for the result of the diagnostic evaluation because we doubt it. he does not seem to understand it is the most important infrastructure, rhode construction project, but they don't care. billions for fighter jets is a problem, but when it comes time for people to go home every day and to work in the morning, they are happy with the old bridge. this is nonsense. stop playing with people's safety. when will the new bridge be built? >> the hon. minister of transport. >> that is why when we spoke with the ceo, the bridge authority, when i talked with the engineers and month ago in
quebec, they said the investments we made it in the bridge will keep it save the next 10 years. at the end of the month, there will be another report. we will know when the bridge needs to be replaced long term. mr. speaker, what we cannot do, does it contain light rail, rapid transit office, does it contain a bus option? we will make those decisions working hand-in-hand with the quebec government. >> mr. speaker, the ad hoc coalition headed by the liberal leader has finally found the pretext to reunite and try to defeat the government. another reason, can the minister of veterans affairs tell us what is in the budget to help all the regions of quebec?
the hon. minister of veterans affairs? >> mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague for that question. of course we have a budget that takes into consideration the needs of canadians in their daily lives. anyone taking part classis or other types of courses, there is a tax credit for that for the seniors who need more money, if they're getting a guaranteed income supplement, there is additional money. there are additional measures, no increases in taxes. we are responsible government. >> mr. speaker, canada is one of the richest countries in the world, and yet we have hundreds of thousands of seniors living below the poverty line. during our meeting with the
prime minister, they insisted this was a priority to us. it is unacceptable to us in a country as rich as canada seniors who built this country are being allowed to live in poverty. why does the government preferred to provoke an election rather than help all of those who live under the poverty line? >> the hon. minister of state. >> the government is committed to supporting low-income seniors. we're proud of the fact our interactions have played a part in cutting the lead and come up rate among canadian seniors 21% in 1980 to 5.8% in 2008, one of the lowest rates in the world. we have increased benefits, cut taxes for seniors, introduced spending, the income supplement, and we will keep working hard to deliver for seniors.
>> order. >> mr. speaker, we have to ask what priorities their thinking. is this a tough on seniors policy? is it more important to give money to the chartered banks that at last year? they made $22 billion in profits and used have for executive bonuses. next year the conservatives want to get a further $3 billion of corporate tax cuts. for every dollar they came up with for impoverished seniors, they found $10 for canada's richest corporations. their proposal would leave hundreds of thousands of seniors below the poverty line, and that is not acceptable. >> mr. speaker, this is coming from the party who has consistently voted against any seniors help. it is shameful. " we have done in our budget yesterday is elevated the poverty line for seniors.
there will be 680,000 seniors across the country will benefit from yesterday's budget. >> mr. speaker, in a letter published by the press, the minister of transport continued to deny reality. engineers have stated the champagne bridge could collapse. the minister continues to claim the bridges safe and building a new bridge can wait. doesn't the minister of transport realize that it is his indifference to the needs of quebec that could provoke elections? >> the champlain bridge is extremely important. that is why we have invested almost $400 million in aid over the next 10 years to mature that it stays safe. i am not an engineer, so could we ask? we asked the engineers to inspect the bridge. we ask the ceo who runs the
bridge. mr. speaker, of course the bridge will have to be replaced longer-term, but people should know that bridge is safe and will remain safe and we will work closer to make a long-term plan for the replacement and the years to come. -- in the years to come. >> they manage to find the funds to build a new bridge in windsor, ontario. however, when it came to replacing the heavily trafficked. in canada located in quebec, they are not able to find the funds needed. when will the needs of quebec did the same attention as those of montreal and michigan? >> that is a good question. how much money will we spend on the new windsor bridge? no taxpayer dollars. perhaps the reason we're not
seeing that for the champlain bridge is we're waiting for the report to be tabled in the house. when that is tabled, we will have options presented, and those will be designed ideas. whether it should include a railway, rapid transit, a bus route, there are lots of options. but we certainly are not going into this willy-nilly while the bridge is safe and we're working with the quebec government to design an option. >> mr. speaker, on both sides of the river, yesterday's the confirmed everybody's worst fears. instead of building on the economic recovery, the conservatives are creating uncertainty about job security, as thousands of family in the region. the conservatives are in the habit of laying off public
servants who are doing their jobs, but don't they think this is getting to be a bit too much? >> the hon. president of the treasury board. a >> mr. speaker, as we said yesterday, 11,000 jobs each year need public service. and my colleague mentioned the fact that there are times when there are jobs that have left the public sector. the high numbers, in fact, there were many jobs that were cut under the liberals. it was extraordinary. >> we see that the conservatives are very keen on firing public servants who did not follow their ideology, but this is getting a bit much. on both sides of the river, tens
of thousands of families did not sleep well last night after the conservative budget confirmed that over 20,000 jobs would be cut from our hard-working, dedicated public servants. why are conservatives were laughing up the chain salt and threatening our public services? >> the hon. president of the treasury board. >> mr. speaker, this is taking things to an extreme. it is bad enough that the budget that was tabled gives the highest level for health care, for seniors, for research, for education, along with lowering taxes. now what they're trying to do it is frightened public servants. mr. speaker, we have been very clear that you and no way, shape, or form will replicate with the liberals did, cutting overnight tens of thousands of
public servants. >> the hon. member for halifax. >> because every canadian deserves a fair access to health care, we tried it to work with them to get results. 5 million canadians have access. the conservative budget had no money for doctors. they decided that global needs are more important that the needs for canadians. can the minister tell us why she has left 5 million canadians without access to doctors? >> mr. speaker, the member claims to care about the health of the canadians, but will be voting against the budget. that means there will be no funding for neurological and health research. it means that additional funding for doctors and nurses will not be funded. it will also be a vote against transfers to provinces and
territories. mr. speaker, that is a vote against canadians. >> mr. speaker, in yesterday's budget this government had the opportunity to address families, but they chose not to. nothing for education, nothing to support centers, nothing to provide clean water, nothing to provide safe access across canada, especially to the north. their answers are products that only reduce the government possible liability, like replacing fuel tanks. -- reduce the government's own liability, like replacing fuel tanks. >> the hon. minister of northern development. >> they are delivering strategic investments that will help improve the lives of canadians. they delivered on education, housing, water, economic development, and human rights.
it is going quite well, thank you. northerners are long experience, while the ndp voted against the investment. we are the party that delivers. >> order. >> mr. speaker, filipino canadians it worked hard to build this country. we know that nannies have substandard living conditions and have had their immigration status threatened and passports complicated -- passports confiscated we have learned that one of the nanny's was coerced into a gag order. alarmingly, this all happen to remember who sits across the floor in the liberal caucus. can the parliament and secretary
for emigrations tell us what the government's position is on emigration abuse? >> mr. speaker, immigrant women enjoy the same rights and protection under provincial labour laws as canadian workers. if they're being abused, they should report that abuse to relevant agencies. we are ensuring that immigrant women know their rights, whether it is abuse or exploitation. the real question is, what the liberal leader not take a stand on this and treat them like this? it is wrong and unacceptable. >> last week i had the opportunity to visit aircraft facilities in london. the company is still waiting for a decision on a $35 million long-term contract. the ontario government came through with its portion a year ago. meanwhile, hinging on this
minister's decision are 500 jobs and the possible layoff of 200 existing employees. why has this minister loaf around for a year, leaving hundreds of canadians facing possible layoff? >> the hon. minister of ministry. >> this government has already given this particular company $20 million toward aerospace program. to have asked for an additional $35 million more. it is our responsibility as keepers of the taxpayer interests to make sure that we do our diligence on the books of a company like this, and we are working on those, mr. speaker. >> the hon. member for quebec. >> concern that the conservative government is trying to disqualify from an important request for proposals, the national assembly of quebec unanimously passed a motion to
be equitable. conservatives have to stop sabotaging the recovery. why did the government to man the request for people so as to give less time? >> the hon. minister of public works. >> mr. speaker, the policy at the department was not changed at any time in the process. for a company to be softened is par for the course for any -- for a company to be solvent is par for the course for any company that does business with the government. we supported a loan to help this company along. the truth is, mr. speaker, they are. qualified -- they are qualified. we hope they will support it if they are solvent. >> we have drawn to a close to
our questions this afternoon. >> next up, we are live at the newseum for discussion on the attempted assassination of ronald reagan on march 30, 1981. next wednesday marks the 30th anniversary of that. there is a new book about the near assassination of ronald reagan. be author of that booke will one of the palace this evening. >> also on the panel, who operated on the president at george washington university hospital. it will be moderated this evening by pbs news hour correspondent. the secret service agents
to the museum. theater.in the walter an it is hard to believe that next month the museum will be three years old. during that time we have had more than 2 million bidders come to the museum. i am most pleased that the reaction when people get here is so positive. i was heartened to see on trip adviser -- a lot of you are familiar with trip adviser, it is the no. 2 washington experience. that deserves applause. [applause] #1 is the lincoln memorial, so we do not feel bad about being number to. the museum presents the big stories of history in an
informative and interesting way. we do that through photos and videos and interactive exhibits and programs. so in essence, the museum is an interesting history museum. tonight's program is an example of the museum presenting history in an interesting and informative way. the shooting of president reagan on march 30, 1981, is retold in several galleries throughout the museum. it is in photos, print, and on television. at the museum's pulitzer prize dollar, we began to tell the story this way. on march 30, 1981, ap photographer waited for president reagan outside of the hotel. john hinckley jr. joined the
crowd. both men intended to shoot the president. one held a camera, the other a gun. photographer edwards said, "i put my finger on the cotton. the shots rang out. through my lens, i saw the president grimace. it was awful. just awful. i have always believed in keeping my car out. you never know what is going to happen until it does. fortunately, i pushed all the right buttons. " those events are told in ridding fashion might d otherave wilber of the washington post and his new book "the near assasination of ronald reagan."
it provided a generous gift to the museum to help make a nice program possible. before we began our program, i want to introduce dale's literary agent and longtime friend of the museum. he represents leading journalists, historians, columnists, and intellectuals. welcome to the museum. [applause] >> good evening. it is a real special pleasure to be here this morning at the museum. i would like to take a few minutes and pulled back the curtain and the talk a little bit about how i and dave wilbur and all of us came to be here today. i will talk a little bit about what i do for a living. he tells me in the spring of 2009, told me the story he tells in the book. he was at an fbi official's
descanted this fbi officer pulled out a gun from his top drawer. it was hinckley's gun that he had used to shoot reagan. he was stunned that it was in this test and not in a museum. he then went off -- and that was a spur that did this research. he dedicated to me -- he then came to me and asked me if this would be a worthwhile book -- the assassination of britain. he spent the next few months -- the nearest fasciation of reagan. then in the fall if you months later he came back with one of the most compelling but proposals i have ever read. and 30 pages, he had laid out a story of an account of that one day, march 30, 1981. it was one of the wild moments
that agents in this business. a fresh book idea in the hands of a skilled reporter, a proposal that left us wanting so much more about how the story unfolds. it soon enough i submitted the book to publishers, we had an incredible book auction. after four or so rounds, it came between a tug-of-war. what sense did was the editor at -- someone name sterling. we have worked together with a notable writers in dav colludingid simon, the creator of "the wire." as it happened, rick and david were two of his riding he rose. he even followed david on the police beat at the ball to mow son. -- baltimore sun. astra said, he was sponsoring
this evening in part tonight with the museum. i am only here because, could not make it to washington dc. he asked me to say a few words instead. i asked john if he would like to write me a notice and tell me about what it was like to work with him over the past year. he did, i am glad to say. i would like to share a portion of what john rowe in that note, which i "with his permission. this is john. >> he made a decision early on. the book should tell the story of a single day, march, 30, 1981. it should cover about 21 hours from the time read in a world that morning until the time he finally fell asleep in the recovery room at 4:00 a.m. the following morning. but would make eight dramatic ticktock.
it constructing the book so it was a single day would present some technical challenges, it would let him run what is called a non -- a thriller. the other point he made in his notes which i quote, "the responses have been very enthusiastic. take for instance -- "open the box at amazon at 6:05 p.m.. starting reading at 6:20 p.m.. just finished at 9:23 p.m.. could not fit -- put it down. my heart was beating rapidly. i felt like i was a fly on the wall at the entire event. pour dale and all of us that
believe in the book -- this is john still writing to me. what is worth while is that it does read like a thriller. it is built detail by detail, scene by scene, on a foundation of absolutely first-rate reporting. that emma's on reader may not have noticed, but the book includes 47 pages of notes so you know he has covered every source, every rock to get to the bottom of this remarkable story. that concludes john's portion. i would like to say we got some breaking news about an hour ago. it happened once they late in the day. dd york times best-seller list reported that delaware's book on its first week is now 14 on the new york time's bestseller list.
[applause] back to you. [applause] >> thank you very much. the museum is a museum of history as seen through the eyes of news people. this means that visitors get to see the first draft of history. our moderator tonight is to be. she has spent her entire professional career providing to viewers with first draft of history. you know her today for her work as a regular co-anchor of the pbs "news hour." she was nbc white house correspondent for five years, and senior correspondent for cnn for 12 years, and has held top
jobs at pbs for 20 years. judy has a special connection to tonight's panel because she was at the washington hilton hotel reporting for ens -- nbc news when the assassination attempt occurred. ' the magic of videotape from 30 years ago, you will later get to see how timeless into the is as a news professional. please welcome judy. [applause] >> thank you. we may need some rose colored glasses to all along the way. i am delighted to be here tonight. i am a trustee of both the museum and the freedom forum. it gives me great pleasure to be part of this remarkable program. as everybody knows, there is a lot going on right now. it is not as if the world is
quite. it would take something extraordinary to put together a crowd like you to come to an event. i can tell you that knowing what these gentlemen have to share with us tonight, you are in for an extraordinary hour to come. as everybody knows, we are nearing the 30th anniversary. as hard as it is to believe of that assassination attempt of president reagan. i am going to get right to the panel and introduce them. i am going to begin with the gentlemen in the middle. he is the former united states seeks researchj thiserry par. during his tenure he protected for vice presidents. he was in charge of two presidents, jimmy carter and ronald reagan. before retiring from the secret service, he was an assistant director and since retiring, he has become an ordained minister which raises an entirely other set of questions that perhaps we
will be able to touch on this evening. please welcome jerry car. [applause] next to your right is dr. joseph, formerly a chamber of the department of surgery at the george washington university medical center with a special interest and vascular disease. he was the founder of the trauma team at the george washington medical center, the team that saved president reagan opposes life in 1981. he has spent -- he now spends much of his time volunteering for partners for surgery which is a non-profit group dedicated to providing medical care to impoverished guatemalans. please help me in welcoming him. [applause]
and you have already heard a little bit about our author who is sitting right here, dale wilbur. he is a reporter for the washington post. he is the author of the book we are here to talk about. before joining the post seven years ago, dell reported for the baltimore sun. he has covered mainly law enforcement and in sensitive security issues. he has won a number of awards including been a finalist for the pulitzer prize. please call, -- please welcome dale wilbur. [applause] i was invited to moderate this discussion because light jerry carr i was there on march 30, 1981 when john hinckley tried to assassinate president reagan.
i was a white house correspondent at the time for nbc news. i was part of the travel pool of reporters who stay with the president. we take turns among reporters -- print and television reporters following the president wherever he goes. as a television network pool course on that day, i rode to the washington hotel early that afternoon on march the 30th and one of two bands that were carrying reporters, photographers, and a television camera crew. i watched the president's speech inside the hilton to a group -- part of the -- i walked outside to be in a position to watch him exit the hotel. i tried to ask him a question efore he would then bclimb into his limousine and was rushed back to the white house. i never got to the question.
that man did not go back to the white house. to set the scene, i am going to come to you first, doctor. please tell us quickly what was going on at the hospital that afternoon before this all began. >> i think it was a typical day in the hospital. i had a couple of cases in the morning. i went upstairs to the 64 because i had to help out with a muscular diagnostic procedure which i sometimes did. it is my specialty. i got a space over the loudspeaker -- >> i am not going to let you go any further. he said that the trauma team. tell us what that means. >> in 1976, i was hired as an attendee to go to gw and work. the german said to me, by the
way,, is a mess. fix it. badid not think it was so because i had just finished my training before that. then i started reading about it and things were happening. physicians were returning from vietnam and were saying what many trauma cases for resulting in. that was not happening in 99% of the hospitals across the country. having read more about it, i spent a month and shock trauma in baltimore and my goal was to bring a g systemw which i did. >> and you made some changes? >> yes. >> terry, how was your day going before all this happened it? >> it was a nice day [laughter] . [laughter] >> actually i was supposed to work that day.
i was supposed to ride with another assistant. it was a routine trip. but i wanted to go with them so i could get to know him a little better because even though i was -- even though i participated in the art -- inaugural ceremony with him in 1981, i wanted to do something -- a management course. the always try to get you to take a management course or so. in the first two or three weeks, i did not see him very much. i wanted to base -- i wanted to have an ordinary trip and talk to him about things that were going on in the white house. one of the things you have to do is make sure everything works smooth and everything between the staff is all -- there are always problems and issues that
have to be ironed out. well, that is the reason i decided to replace johnny guy. so i go there and we arrive and of course john hinckley is in that crowd. where we stopped, we were made billy -- we were maybe a few feet from him. >> at the arrival. >> at the arrival. to the president gets out and goes to the vip entrance. it was built for that. he goes down on the elevator and the agents go down the stairwell. we go to the holding room and were introduced in the presidential ballroom. >> he makes a speech. it is fairly brief. and then he comes out. and that they'll, you have talked to over 150 people about this. terry mentioned john hinckley. just fill us in quickly about who he was and why he happen to be there. >> john hinckley was a very
troubled 25 year-old from evergreen, colorado who had an obsession with jodie foster that he had developed in 1976 after seeing the movie"taxi driver." she left hollywood to go to yell and cheat -- yale and he went to yale too. he tape-recorded these calls. i read the transcripts. it is so bizarre. he can't get his name right. then he feels bad when he hears rebates laughing about him in the background. his life is falling apart this whole time. he believes that if he shoots and kills the president of the united states, he can impress this woman into knowing who he is. he goes to a dayton rally when he is running against reagan, and he is at arm's reach --
reach with jimmy carter. it was a test run for him. he left his gun in the luggage at the bus depot. he was literally probably two or 3 feet from you. >> he has just arrived the day before from a cross-country trip from outlay. -- from la. he is going through cheyenne and all of the towns in the west. he goes out that morning, he stops in d.c. -- >> kill foster? >> tilt foster. he was talking reagan and carter, the pieces i am going to kill myself and foster. i am going to go on my way to new haven, connecticut. that morning he goes to get end at muffin -- he to sandwich and
picks up a newspaper. he looks down and seize it and does not seem -- think much about it. maybe i should take my little gun that i have with me and go to the hilton and see how close i can get. little did we know he could get within 15 feet of the president of the united states. >> jerry, take us back to the scene. we have come out the door -- >> i came out the door, i turned left, somewhat down the sidewalk, some walked down the road. the reason we parked there is that was the quickest way to get away from the hotel. >> it is a curve? >> we did not want to get back in the cul-de-sac. that is what we did not want to do.
tim mccarthy, he opened the door. it is a rainy day. when we were about five or 6 feet from the door, i here to get quick shots and then four more. it is all over. in that split second, i grabbed the president, i grabbed him by the head, and i start pushing him down and twisting him so he can go in the car. he does exactly what i am doing. there is not a sound from him. but we are very rough with him because we have to move fast. that is what our trainee told us to do. there are a lot of agents out there that know exactly what government evacuee means. but i was standing -- i can tell you i was standing about 15 or 20 feet on the other side.
i heard the pop. i did not know that that was -- you knew it was a gun but you did not want to believe it was a gun. everything happened very quickly. you got him in the car and drove away. tell us what happened on the way -- you were heading to the white house? >> yes. the first thing i did was after he shut the door and i push my feet and, we did not open the door anymore. we did not want to open it because to open it would make it vulnerable to anybody across the street if there had been anybody over there. so there is much unknown stuff going on. i did see as we pulled away three bodies on the sidewalk, and then a little hole in the window. as we make the turn to go south on connecticut avenue, i began
to examine him. there was obviously a bullet hole in the window, three bodies on the sidewalk, and assassination attempt. i wanted to check him over. i did check in. i ran my hands up under his coat, around his back, his armpit area, his head and everything. there was no blood on my hands. that is what i radioed back, i said at rawhide is ok. i assumed he was ok because i did not have any blood on my hands. he was not feeling too bad debt. between that location there on connecticut avenue, he said i think i have cut the inside of my mouth. he reached inside of his pocket and it was covered in blood. i looked at that blood, and i knew from my training that it was oxen a jaded. it had been in his lungs and it was now in his mouth and there
was a lot of it. it was spilling down on him and my coat. i made a quick decision -- i said i am taking you to the hospital. that is what i told my driver. so that is why i made the decision, i thought it was life threatening. >> over the span of just a few blocks when the decision changed -- >> it was very quick. a quick decision. the front seats are already up against the back seat, it gave me a lot of space to look him over. i felt, he was in a bad way. i do not know how he felt. >> and then the car had gw into, because you knew that was the hospital -- >> all we had to do was make a right turn. >> meanwhile, what was going on at the white house?
>> at the white house they are just hearing what is going on. at this time they do not know. they are going on their normal day. they eventually overtime here that the president has been shot. in fact, there is a wonderful scene where some aides run into -- there are three advisers, and there is a great scene where he is in the office said one of the lower aids walk in and say something happen. there is a thing that tracks the president's movement , if"saysin route to gw hospital. >> he takes out chambray, the police officer, he shall sit behind a car, the third chacos high, the fifth shot hits the
bulletproof window, and the 61 crossed across the driveway. nobody knows where that six went. only later we find out it ricocheted. he had an effective range of t 20o 30 feet. if he does not make that call to go to the hospital, we later learn how dire the situation really would have been. getting that out of hand took a lot of energy. >> [applause] >> by the way, at the moment when it happened, it was not clear that there was just one shooter. it sounded like somebody got off a lot of shots. i was one of the reporters wondering if there was more than one shooter. just confirm for us, how much just confirm for us, how much difference did it make