contacts the concept of excessive use of force but the question of what constitutes a reasonable seizure under the fourth and it is essentially the court has said it's a very factor down in greater where you have speeded stop anyone for anything. >> walking fast, walking slow come into work we have a wandering come you can stop people for wandering. ..

i'm what constitutes a reasonable -- >> let me respond to that is that leadership within the department is really the most important ingredient in delivery services to the street. and there are different forms of leadership in the department could go a long way and accessing all the information available. most times when there is a criticism of the police department. one of the things i always do is look at the internal affairs or inspectional function within that department. almost universally it is weak and inappropriate and as the disrespect not only in the tv programs by disrespecting the department. basically the best training really is a seamless collection

of data not only from the courtroom but also what is the suspicion. i've sat in on reasonable suspicion talks, but very accomplished people. it's not just a question of reasonable suspicion, go and do it. it is let's look at these cases. let's see how the judge analyzes the situation. let's apply to what happens on the streets of new york the streets of baltimore and what it means to you. when you act like a cowboy you'll be sanctioned quickly and no longer be in the department. >> there is also this issue which is i ride my bike in new york city. when i ride my bike to work, i break the law. i stop at red lights. i don't run red lights because i used to do that but that is crazy and reckless. that there are a whole bunch of

guidelines about how i buy can operate in an urban environment and i cut a lot of corners. i could be stopped by a police officer, but i am not. i suspect if i looked different and if i were in another neighborhood i would be. walter scott -- what was walter scott's infraction? he had a car. it had three brake lights, two of which were working. one of which was out. by the letter of the law i ended up spending time in the south carolina brake light statue, by the letter of the law it was a legitimate stock because if you have a brake light, you are supposed to have at least two. if you have one and its outcome of that is a violation. the point is this entire category of stops of policing of contact between police that might be legitimate, might be justifiable, but folks suspect and are probably right, are being driven by essentially a

cloud in racial i suspicion. >> the minutia of the law, the really good ones i used to do that. for example if in d.c. it is illegal to play in an alley or street. it is a 5-dollar fine. and i was working in an area in 1998 that had a significant amount of violence. the people i had to work with them were perpetrated ended up going to jail on federal indictment. in order to deal with the elements in the things they did every day they were an alley one day playing basketball. it is against the law. believe it or not it is and you can't play the game this way. they challenged me and i went to take the ball.

he started playing and say you are under arrest. whatever. i ended up arresting him, went to court and i sublet me understand what you're telling me here. it is illegal to play basketball in an alley. yes, sir. it's in the books. i said okay let's proceed. the issue as you can get frustrated with what is on the boat. the police officer didn't write it. >> kaman that is a copout. >> it is not a copout. >> this is a perfect example. >> these individuals -- we did a long-term investigation. those individuals ended up being indicted, the largest in d.c. at the time. one of the largest groups involved in all kind of violence in the community. >> they were playing basketball at the time. >> yes, they were.

that was a tool in my toolbox. >> we are saying the same thing. you did not arrest them because they were playing basketball. you arrested them because these were guises you wanted. >> had he picked up his ball and walked away he wasn't arrested. he refused. >> you didn't have suspicion at the time they were involved. >> yes, we did. i arrested them for playing ball in the alley. when i arrested them for playing ball in the alley i was on patrol still. i asked them to stop. that's not illegal. yes, it is. he said picked up the ball and continue playing. i arrested him. >> it seems to me there's nothing wrong with targeting police resources where they should be targeted. you knew this is a dangerous and high crime area if you had a basis to make that stop and it did in fact result in a

prosecution and all the rest. here is what i found a lot. one of the common things written down in a high crime area. this means they had no suspicions before the stop that these people are done anything. and then what happened is that escalated. there is the danger. it is okay to target their resources. it may be okay to make the stop when you have the technical basis to do so. that is what seems to have got lost in the barracks corridor case. this is not a huge crime. this is at most an administrative violation. they say he was resisting arrest. apparently the video shows a man walking backward insane don't arrest me. if that is called resisting that is sort of a strange idea. to go from there to a chokehold and take down and all that followed, that is the problem. the lack of comment on how to

follow it. the statistics which i could go back to when a black person was not too is twice as likely to be stopped. the seizure rate is actually higher because they had your suspicion. they were a fact is what their perception of cause. with the black guy they stopped them more lightly as a cottbus contraband, less guns were dismissals. the mac in this discussion would look at the community in this police and we are not bringing in the human element of it. unfortunately in a lot of the communities, a lot of the police don't come from those communities, do not have interaction other than policing in the communities. there is a huge chasm between understanding what is reasonable

in a video culture. if you put me somewhere in asia naturally i don't understand and know how they interact and how the culture is and what should be perceived by some stranger dvd. i think that is a problem we don't address that unfortunately a lot of the police officers that are police in this urban environment that we feel i've been over police aren't naturally from those communities and don't naturally have the conductivity. >> but in the conversation that the racialized suspicion and fear of the police racialized admission by the police is all part of the element of the encounter between the police and the community. there is research on implicit bias that informs who is deemed to be suspicious. why we think people who are walking down the street might be suspicious of a crime. i want to go back to walter's

point about accountability and the culture of the police department. there's enough into the room which is about the role of the police unit in this conversation. at least from where i sat, all i see for the police union is stored as a defensive approach to this problem. is there room for police union says they look we have very good officers in our midst. irresponsible officers, officers of integrity. can we help the police department the chief within the police department create systems of accountability so we are not all with this broad stroke. >> yes there is a role for the police union to do that. if you look at the history of the d.c. police union i can't

speak to any other police union but we've been out front and aggressive in demanding quality and internal affairs, very good review. we bought a more robust review. just recently there was a huge debate in washington about our camera program. we supported that. i was there at the chief of the rolled it out. the new mayor doesn't want 80 and wants to make access through foia not permitted. what is the purpose is spending $5.5 million to buy more cameras than put them on the members ever record all interactions with the public because it's for accountability and then turn around and not let anybody access the film. it would defeat the purpose because the members of the union i represent and other police are vilified right now. it is absolutely incomprehensible or mayor would do that. police unions understand we are partners at the managers of the leadership of the police department. one of the things i want is

always to have the best. not just the best candidates officers leadership equipment. in order to do that we have to cooperate and interact and try to make the police department better. in manchester union leader. i'm a police man. >> let me just comment because at least in my experience when responsible for internal affairs, police unit were an impediment to finding out what happened on the street. there were ongoing cases be made on what was called obstruction of justice in which police union representatives were encouraging officers to get together with the story and explained what was there, to give them something that would withstand internal affairs inspections. so it does vary from department to department. clearly in a system that results in a failed or not his investigative result needs to be

changed. >> let me say this. there is this the perceptual problem. i understand you don't want to speak to other ones but let me say i've been covering this. they are 100% an obstacle in other places. >> excuse me. some police unions may be obstructionist in their view that this is what happens. you've either grow and move with the paradigm shift or you will get overrun. labor in this country for a long time was a bit part of the private sector. they did an adaptive changes things in the country change. progressive police unions do. i think what is disingenuous -- let me finish this point row quake. when we characterize all unions and public sector unions as obstructionist to the process, my job just like when he

defends someone is to ensure their due process rights are not violated. that is the role of the union. to characterize them i think does a disservice when we were here at the american constitutional society convention to talk about people's rights. >> let me say this. the tone of statement that it comes from police unions have been remarkable to me. >> i think we are talking about new york. >> i think is talking about the n.y.p.d. a lot. >> i'm talking about a statement released by the police benevolent association two days ago in cleveland to refer to the people who filed an affidavit to bring the case before the judge there to define a probable cause in the shooting death of 12-year-old samir rice. they refer to the people who did that is having miserable lives. >> i can't support that

statement. >> let me finish my point, please. the unions that strikes me are an animation of the way a lot of police officers feel, which is a lot of police officers feel at this moment in battle. they feel vilified. they feel like every single thing they do with now going to be subject to criticism by people watching the videotapes who have no idea what happened before him. they feel like -- i've been talking to police officers for nine months off the record and on the record. they tell me over and over again they feel persecuted. so the point is there is a perceptual gathering, a profound one. people may watch the videos and say we have a problem. police say like we have a problem that we are being paid down.

there's not an agreement. we shouldn't fool ourselves to thinking there's an agreement between these two. >> i want to join the conversation that in my case one of the things that was improper for the police that they would be pressured to have a number of spots. they did not like those goals resourcing them into bad police work. to return to an earlier topic which was racial balance of the police force and how the police force should reflect the communities they police in our city, the police force is becoming more and more minority and percentage. ours is getting towards 50%. it doesn't necessarily do away with problems. what about the supervisory level. while the police officer racial makeup is changing, though setting policy and thus at the top they not be changing and that is still a problem. so it's very.

>> that's right. >> just because i'm a black man police in west baltimore doesn't necessarily mean i connect with the community of west baltimore. the african-americans and minorities are on olympic like any other demographic. it's important when we look at the police force i remember of the national news in freddie gray at cap say what is the makeup of the offices. race is always the underlining driver at how we look at a situation. at the end of the day the institutionalized and normalization generating the response is absolutely nothing to do with race but to do with the particular individual. that is what i mean about individuals to connect with the community. a white officer who knows what's baltimore is a great police officer in his post in west baltimore and do an effective job as opposed to someone who's

african-american from idaho who cannot connect. >> the white officer has won her shoe to become a total racial divide. he's not evaluated on the good work he did. to go back to the constitutional behavior the judge was referring to. the unconstitutional pressure the leadership plays on the members of the n.y.p.d. to get these numbers. i don't know if you guys remember we had the trinidad check point. the people that object to the most and screams the loudest were members. this is not legal. this is not constitutional. you cannot do this until a federal court told the police department that this was illegal. going back to the fact unions are obstructionist in terms of getting to the point of constitutional policing is just inaccurate. we should be very, very careful how we use language and character is one group of people like the councilmembers that is

monolithic. police department specifically of 18000. >> i'm happy to acknowledge some progressive police unions and your union may be among them. counselor mosby might be of the speech of this better than i can. am i correct in understanding their sister bill of rights the police have. so there are mechanisms built into the love which protect the police. so if there is excessive use of force the police don't have to speak to investigators right away. there is a window of time. >> what about self-incrimination. that is a criminal offense. the law enforcement officers brides do not come in at all. >> see how as a cashier at a local convenience store and my boss came to me and said did you take money out of the cash register. i don't have to tell you.

i'm not going to talk to you until i get a lawyer. there's a good chance i'll be fired. so we can talk about -- >> at the police came and asked the same question, what right does they have not to say anything? apples to share his comparison. >> i'm saying my boss and my boss being the mayor. >> we are talking about constitutional rights. we are not talking about where you work. i don't check my constitutional rights at the door when i become a police man. >> you with some rights in the police department for internal investigations. you can also be let go. you have waived that right and agree to cooperate in an investigation as part of the job. the >> if we are talking about

something that's criminal overtones or potential criminal charges if the police department wants to compel me to answer the question, they will give me a warning vis-à-vis garrity versus new jersey. i must answer the question. until they do that i still put his criminal charges. my constitutional rights attached and nothing to answer the question unless you make it. >> i want to return to bodycare mess. >> so we had this big topic i was just touched on for a minute. some police departments coming your support the idea. this kind of protective of the police officer. a contemporaneous reporting helps that he said she said were that the judge now lives in. we weren't there. once i said this happened, one said the student. the other police departments are completely opposed and will listen to reason.

they just think it's another way to spy on the police officer. the whole issue where we are heading with today's technology he is going to be there anyway. so the police might as well get on board because there's videos from both directions. the cops could focus on the so-called perpetrator. i don't see why the police department doesn't see it in their interest. there are lot of issues and a great article in your material this morning. a good article of materials about what we will do with the videos. how we store them, who gets access when can the police officer turn it on and off. this privacy issues. it's not easy. it's not a panacea. everyone will put on body cameras and there will be no more interactions. it won't be that simple. we need to talk about why some police unions are so opposed to putting on cameras.

>> they haven't recognized the paradigm shift. they don't sit down and be part of the solution. the decisions will be made and excluded and force whether they like it or not to use the systems. my advice is that i watch is to be at the table informing the policies the u.k. and protect members. if you don't it's happening anyway. we went from using revolvers to semi automatic pistols. over for not wearing body armor to body armor. computers in the car -- manichaeans. the people who oppose cameras made similar arguments they make now. the big issue we have to worry about is storage, access, foia. other than not you can work out the policy within your agency. >> let me also state and the unlike department will take the view that there is no doubt they

don't want in terms of assessing the investigative result. they will take it from anywhere, any source. so basically if what your goal is evaluating police performance all data available and data available and that is a police officers that can control proper training. >> the bill is not to protect the police. it's to protect the public. >> protecting the public is department coming out correctly on an investigative issue. protects both sides. you have a real record that you wouldn't otherwise have. >> i understand. i was responding to sergeant burton's point that the body camera is protected that the orientation is obviously her job to protect your members but also protect the peace and safety for the public.

>> what we found in our discussion is remembered the original proposal or premise was police accountability. once we said yes we will have bodycare mess than the law of unintended consequences that we have advocacy groups ancient police officers encounter sexual assault victims turn the camera on and off. they don't want their face on the cameras recorded. should domestic violence victims be interviewed or talked to while it's recording. with the interviews and the detectives then activate them that guns advocates of course not. we want that part should be private. the initial encounter should be recorded. >> i'll take a few questions here. maybe you can talk about this a little. what is the role of implicit bias and is there a rule to implement training specifically

on bias? >> there's a tremendous amount of research coming out. philip thought that harvard has a lot of research about implicit bias in policing. i think what we know is implicit bias is a real problem. we all have it. in the context of policing it becomes a real problem because it informs who is perceived as a suspect, who is perceived as suspicious. there are training mechanisms available. i can't speak to them specifically but it's an issue we have to address. >> sergeant burton, how about this one. can you address disproportionate military type it such as overreliance on s.w.a.t some with a lot of attention recently. particularly coming out of ferguson. >> we have had riot for decades and i've heard some people say the riot started because of military equipment.

militarized equipment, for example, we use them here in washington d.c. in certain circumstances the only vehicle that could go in certain places and safely extract someone with some of the armored personnel vehicles because they withstand the bricks and everything being thrown. the idea police departments have become militarized i disagree with the characterization. the uniforms we wear may look military, but the police department and cells have not become militarized because the mission of the military and the mission of the police department is completely different. like walter i happen to spend some time in the marine corps. our mission to close and destroy the enemy. my community is not my enemy in policing. my job is to help people. my job is to protect property

and do it in a way that i don't treat people disrespectfully. it's not always easy. i'm not here to tell you police officers don't mistakes and don't screw it up royally sometimes. i think the characterization police forces have become like the military is a mischaracterization. >> there is a detail i always think about and the department of justice and the cleveland police department which is one of the things noted by investigators in a particularly impoverished neighborhood in cleveland and the police department, there is a sign of the caught at forward operating base, which is of course the term taken straight from the military operating base has been might be protected bases in the middle of sort of enemy

territory. this was pointed out by investigators that's exactly what this target of saying about the wrong kind of thinking. >> that sends a message. one of my biggest struggles is facebook and social media. they have a tendency to post things that if the brilliant attorneys in the room was defending him on could you hang them out to dry in the stand? i give you an example. shooting in aurora colorado i had a number of the facebook page. i don't know what's wrong with you white boys away shooting. i got on the phone right away. have you lost your mind? take that down right now. five years from now someone that is doing research on you will find it. you'll be in court and testify. you will be asked to be a bias against white and boom there it is because you posted it. we try hard to get people to

understand the imagery and words in a very important way. >> judge will courts be more willing to visit the constitutionality in light of recent police brutality and unreasonable cases? >> to speak for all courts across the country federal and state a lot of course. we just got that indictment from the judge based on the citizen's complaint that bypass the prosecutor. some judges would decided, some wouldn't. with depression issues all the time. some judges are willing to suppress and some aren't. i don't think it's a question that can be answered. i think everybody sensitivities are heightened. i want to take a minute on the last question about the military equipment. if you aren't people to the teeth they will use the arm. if you have a taste their and

you have it available the tendency is to pull it out and use it out and use it. one of the worst ones in new york was a stairwell inspection. called the burly case. these new cops brand-new cops come his supervisors, kids essentially doing a stairway patrol with their hands on the gun and they are so nervous they take out the gun and shoot the couple. it did make a bit of sense. the couple did nothing to deserve being shot. you are carrying it. it is fair. he pull it out and use it. i thought after i read that you don't even need to have the gun. just go up and down with the baton and do your patrol. they really shouldn't be violence. if you are armed, the danger of overuse of the weapons is there. [applause] >> i don't know how to get past the second amendment. number two i don't know how u.s. police officers to go police and the second amendment

exists without being armed. number three, the use of equipment like chasers is a response and request in the community. so we're police officers carrying a lot of things and having to make decisions about which less lethal option to use. that is absolutely tragic. >> a quick comment. i say as are almost all questions, it's a leadership issue. there will be times somewhere in new york city where you want to have military equipment. how often does that happen? roving patrols all over new york city. the reality is 95%, 96% of policing should have nothing to do with that. you do not take your weapon out of the holster. unless you intend to use the weapon.

no longer with the department was acting inconsistently with firearms training. >> maybe he thought he was in fear of his life. that is the racial aspect. but made them so scared? basically if we bumped into. >> he had his weapon now. again disregarding his training had his finger on the trigger. the bullet ricocheted off the wall and start young man coming down the stairway. a tragic set of events because he did not follow training in terms of keep your finger out of the trigger mr. intend to shoot some pain. that is consistently all firearms training. the mac is a tragedy a man lost his life and i hear you acknowledging that. the gentleman's point is let's look at the set of rules the weapons we allow the police to

carry under circumstances where they may not be needed to pay to those incidents happening. candidly, it disturbs me a little bit to hear an indication of the second amendment rights. what about the due process rights of the man who was gunned down in the stairwell. >> my point about the second amendment and answering questions about the police officer in the stairwell. america is a society are into the teeth. it is impossible to send police officers to face the threats on the streets and the kinds of weapons people can legally carry without having the police officer being armed. >> would need a lot more gun control in this country. we really do. [applause] >> maybe you can sort of address this. a major city or the panelists comment on the role of fear

causing encounters to escalate minority communities and police and people living in those communities. >> again, and natural gas cannot add the individuals who are called to police communities. when you have unfortunately incidents we have seen play out throughout america because of the role of social media and because of access to cameras the chasm is widening as we speak. it is critically important to develop the training around implicit biases but also ensure we provide opportunities for folks in those communities to eventually patrol the communities. i think that is one of the biggest disconnects. a place at baltimore city again we have offices coming as far as pennsylvania, west virginia to work every single day. not to say you can be in pennsylvania or west virginia but you look at it and have close to 30% of the offices living in baltimore city and the

other 60 plus% living elsewhere. it is critically important again you provide folks the opportunity to manage and release their own. >> talk about fear for a second. it always strikes me the point you made about guns. it would be very different to police in tokyo or bell jones then it would be in america because the odds of anyone you encounter in tokyo being armed or essentially vanishingly small. that is not true in america. there is a real genuine chance. >> how much do you think that affects police psychology? >> if you hear in a police officer say they went through an entire career without being afraid of telling the truth there instances where fear plays a factor. the metric set aside one level of fear person next to us as

individuals and it all depends how comfortable you are with where you are. i think to the councilmembers point if you are not from the community, your level of fear may be higher and this is not a white or black issue. if you grew up in the suburbs than that you are now police in west baltimore that is not an environment you're accustomed to. there is a level of fear and its individualized and i'm sure it plays a part somewhere. >> your assumption may be wrong about everybody being armed. the four-point or that stops over nine years remember one point i% were seized. that's an insensible number of 4.4 million stops. >> 1.5%. if you are a police officer, 1.5 out of every 100 stops in over

the course of the month you'll encounter a gun. that's my point. >> the concerns are nice screwdrivers. anything can be a weapon if someone intends to harm you with it. i can take this pen in his japan are my teeth or anything else as a weapon. in terms of protecting yourself as a police officer against weapons, equipment is important. i just had the good fortune of talking to a bunch of kindergartners and first graders about police work two days ago. i asked all of them what they thought might be just what was. none of them, kindergartners got it right. all this stuff on my ballot -- the biggest tool i have is my brain and how i deal with people. the next most important tool is the law and the way i enforce the law. if i do it properly i leave the encounter with not all citizens

but as a citizen. >> the human element, the skills and common sense to bring to the encounter sounds like you would agree with me to say somebody had a pad or a knife. the first response should not be to shoot that person. the first response should be to de-escalate. >> or tissue. >> of a person has a knife in the account was calm would put that down while we talk and when we finish a good eager nice back if it is legal. if you have been knife in your hand look at the film at a philadelphia taken this week with the gentleman had a i found already. he had to back up and back up and back. fortunately he had space to retreat because he would have been severely harmed. the other thing about knives as weapons. they were designed to stop

bullets at high velocity. they don't do very well. that is why police officers are concerned about edged weapons. distance is our friend. one of the things they teach in the police academy is the more distant the more options that allows you to employ. the closer you are, the more danger to both of you because you always bring the gun to the encounter. >> are there any alternatives such as citation and summoned viable as a way to reduce conflict in cost? >> i would say sure. arrest leads to bail. i don't know if you saw the article yesterday about the protesters in baltimore city. the protesters fail to satisfy as the cops who did the murder. they are being set at $250,000 which the folks don't have said they spent a month or 10 months in pretrial incarceration without being conveyed it. this can't be right. arrest is a terrible thing if you can do such as a ticket or

some and then i think the police department does not and is trying to not do her best. >> is a major study right now going on in the city with recognizing the summons program has been a complete failure. the idea of the broken windows concept i think enlightened policing there are minors riding a bike and running into somebody and killing them. about three months ago there are situations where an arrest is necessary or severe summons is required. riding on the sidewalk they can be a just by much less intrusive types of means. the republican national convention in new york resulted in hundreds of arrests. the bottom-line result was millions of dollars in settlement. i didn't do any good for new

yorkers. >> we can look at arrest. there's lots of interaction. if you are a young african-american man growing up, the likelihood you will have a consistent interaction with police whether vested or not is much higher than other folks tended satirist to give back to the caps-on of the citizens of the police department. how can we develop ways that the police officers been there to protect and serve in being accountable and friendly and a good relationship with the community. if i'm doing something wrong, i understand that interaction. some of the things disproportionately applied in urban areas to folks walking on the street. >> you now have an arrest record. you have to disclose the employment application. fingerprint or there.

a lot of collateral consequences to being arrested that are just partially born. >> the summons in lieu of arrest in terms of the escalating situation is not always going to because of the person believes they didn't do anything wrong the summons and some jurors diction it quite a mess. when you pay you have to be both been fingerprinted. there is no difference other than you don't go to jail that day. the issue here is the legislative six. you can only be preventively detained if you commit a crime of violence as defined in the code. this is where the state legislature, city council in congress must make a determination. you show up at trial for use people in jail. that is something the legislature needs to fix. unless it's crime of violence on us to have a conviction or on probation, you will be released.

the encounter and the successful conclusion of the encounter all depends on the demeanor and behavior of the police officer commit demeanor and behavior of citizen to make sure we leave them in a better place we found and it's not always easy because of their labors for tickets he won't be happy with me. if i leave you with the summons he won't be happy with me. or i leave you with the summons and then you might be happier. >> final question here. is there an obligation part of leadership to distinguish between negligence and criminality in force cases? >> i would say it is a requirement of leadership to have within the department and macinnis said that connect timely, thorough and professional way analyze every encounter and come to a conclusion as to what was the conduct of the officer to go

when the criminal context going criminal way and if the conduct is such that there are violations of administrative firearms arose and what have you that there can be a concurrent administrative function to apply an effective way. frequently the public focuses on what is the public prosecutor doing without a real meaningful ability to assess whether the department is acting expeditiously within to hold the officer accountable. >> it seems like such a black fox to those of us watching. >> a black box at times new york was close to solution. you've got to get them to agree because they are a wizard to do their criminal case should trump anything the department is doing. the commissioner has to stand up and say look, i cannot afford to have an officer who was acting

inappropriately, i'm professionally. i have an obligation to the public to remove the officer and put them in a situation where i can remove them and possible. >> on that note, a round of applause for panelists. [applause] >> all right. [inaudible conversations]

>> what is going to happen today? >> well, it looks like it will vote on three bills today, the two huge boats we are looking at. the trade adjustment assistance, which is a democratic priority. then started to revolt on that yesterday. they just weren't happy with what was going on and they are seen as a way to potentially stop the trade promotion authority bill which is probably

the second voted today. if they pass ca they can move onto tpa. if either one of the bills failed it would pretty much for right now stop all the trade bills. >> now in the hill this morning you go through all the members of congress to enlist how they are voting. currently, ms. needham, what is your count? >> we are still at about three dozen or so democrats undecided. right now we are really looking at democrats. we are expecting everybody, calling it in niagara falls of those. we are starting to see everyone come out in support or opposition. there is a group of democrats who will probably wait until they are on the floor and watching the vote counts to cash their boat and there may be a handful who wait and decide on

the floor after they see the results pileup how they will vote. it will absolutely be close. i've heard reports there could be up to 30 democrats who support trade promotion authority. as if any of these type votes on trade it kind of depends on what happens. >> what is the reason that numbers the public hasn't been able to see the transpacific partnership agreement as rich and then members have to go into a deeper grew and take notes or cell phones do not the only place. >> share, trade deals 12 nations including the united states involved in this agreement. the kind of understanding or explanation not at the white house and from the other trading partners includes japan, australia, new zealand is they

prefer a certain level of confidentiality so that they can put out word their authors on what they want to see in the trade agreement. it is kind of this living document constantly changing and they are always trying to nail down chapter by chapter. if congress does pass trade promotion authority the expectation that this has been said especially nations like canada would actually put down their best deals. so basically they want to negotiate and kindness continually change their offers and that is what they've asked for. it would be available to the public if the trade promotion authority bill passes for 60

days before the president signed it. most democrats of foes argue that it's too late they can make changes to it. but that is that the explanation of the white house and trading partners has been. they expect more confidentiality in negotiations. >> what has been the role of nancy pelosi? >> minority leader in the house has basically made sure the white house and her members have an open channel with each other. and most of the house leadership including steny hoyer and jim clyburn. a lot of officials have come up to capitol hill. yesterday a big flurry of activity with secretary jack lu on the hill in chief staff. they basically said you guys can come up saw the trade deal might democrats decide how they

will vote down the road. they basically left the door open and guide you guys can come up here and talk to everyone and i will let the members decide. she has not taken any position yet. they just sort of let members go through the process and make it their own minds. >> john boehner and the republicans have been whipping their members to vote for this? >> yes. in fact, ways and means chairman paul ryan who's one of the co-authors on the tpa bill with orrin hatch is the finance chairman in the senate and the top democrat on that committee, ron wyden wrote the bill. he has taken aggressive role along with his ways and means committee has really helped. they've held up the trade meetings lately with republicans

to answer questions and a very good number of republicans have shown up including one who was tactical, who haven't voted for trade in the past. they've taken an aggressive stance tried to make sure members are educated and understand what is in tpa in the transpacific partnership in answer any overarching trade question and members have been in the assessors zaniness helped them review what is and all of these bills. the trade is very complex. it's a very open process. >> finally trade for bill what should we watch for? >> that's a great question. it has to be trade adjustment assistance.

that bill needs to pass in order for trade promotion authority to come out. there's a lot of democrats including sandy levin who's the top democrat on ways and means. he's going to oppose it. a lot of liberal democrats who have come out against fast track authority see that as stopping taa, which is a top priority for them that help so few who've lost their jobs because of trade and it's been included in the package. it's not working as well as getting the votes in the past. to move the bill along with tpa so we are really going to be watching how many democrats go for it and vote against it. we have been hearing some folks will go for two yeah. it's a really interesting mix. a slow boat like we saw the ruling yesterday potentially

with certain ones coming in and helping out. it was a little more optimism on the side of folks who wanted to see it pass. republicans don't like it but they may need to throw out a few more votes that way to ensure tpa gets a vote today. >> vicki needham is with the hill newspaper. thank you for your time this morning.

>> the committee will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess on the committee at any time. the hearing is entitled the future of housing in america oversight of the department housing and urban development. i recognize myself for three minutes to give an opening statement. as we approach the 50th anniversary of the founding of the department of housing and urban development been struck by president johnson's boldness as he launched the great society with these words. we have declared unconditional war on poverty. our objective is to love it to read. i do is establish one year later in 1965 to become the main weapon in combating poverty rebuilding cities in making housing more affordable for all. they nearly every official

measure, poverty and its consequences are as bad as they were 50 years ago. poverty rates is essentially unchanged from when hud was founded. billions more americans fall below the poverty line today including an unbelievable one out of five children. this is shameful. i've saved the mission is to create quality affordable homes for all. according to inflation-adjusted figures to the census bureau since i was establish the median price for a double and medium risk has gone up more than one third. in other words it's not just the border find the cost of housing soared beyond their means. it's almost everyone. this is unacceptable. to make matters worse to achieve the unenviable record how to spend one point extra dollars in history. it is asking for 9-cent budget increase. 1.6 trillion is more than $13,000 for every household in america equivalent to the cost

of feeding a family of four for an entire year. meanwhile one of the greatest drag continues to spin out of control namely the national debt. given the obama economy the last six years clearly attacks care subsidies for the poor need it. it's also an open question whether housing vouchers and public housing projects are long-term solution is simply helping create a permanent underclass. he clearly has not one war and poverty. on the economic growth in equal opportunity can do that. in other words the greatest housing programs in america remains a good career path and a growing economy and not a hud program. if we truly care about the least of these among us we can no longer measures success by the number of dollars appropriated to hide. that should be obvious. success must be measured in the number of fellow citizen who rise in the poverty and

dependence and the lives of hope, self-sufficiency and pride. that is true success. time to bring the new focus and ideas on how to best help the poor in our society. on this purpose which is a moral purpose there should be no debate. i've been been encouraging or witnessed been encouraging her witness, secretary castro states he believes in evidence-based management dialed. directed to the goal of giving every person new opportunities to drive. to get these opportunities again it is time to think anew, not to reflexively add 9% to programs that i failed again in the words of president john than to not only relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and above all, prevent it. i now yield three minutes to the ranking member for an opening statement. ..

hud provides critical rental and homeless assistance for our country's most vulnerable populations, makes important investments in local community development and affordable

housing initiatives, and helps millions of families achieve the american dream of homeownership all while ensuring fairness for historically disadvantaged communities. safe, decent and affordable housing is critical to ensuring that our young people are healthy and successful. studies have shown that children who lack stable housing often fall behind their peers in school. and today hud is more important than ever. in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, our nation is facing a significant affordable rental housing shortage. although private capital has an important role to play on this front, it cannot be leveraged without reliable federal funding. to truly address the acute need for affordable rental housing and the epidemic of homelessness it is absolutely critical that we fully fund and expand the housing and homeless assistance programs that have been so successful at hud. this year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of hud.

and as i think about the next 50 years of housing in america, i believe that if we are truly serious about ending poverty and uplifting all communities, we must reinvest in hud. mr. secretary, i believe that these same principles also underlie your vision for the future of housing in america and i look forward to hearing your testimony today. thank you, i yield back. >> the chair never agonizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, chairman of our housing insurance subcommittee for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome mr. secretary. glad to see you again. i want to start by thinking for traveling to jefferson city a few weeks ago to meet with myself and every housing advocates and area represented a commoncommon theme was representatives. the common theme was a bizarre need of writing toward relief. that was true in the conversation we have with public housing. i think the longtime executive

director of jefferson city housing authority put it best when he described the current state of oblivious of the funding situation is in changing and that you, esther secretary takes initiative reduce unnecessary burdens so people can do their jobs with the resources they have been given. in the last two weeks i visited sites run by two different public housing authorities. last week mr. cleaver and i had a tactic held a roundtable talk about the immense challenges facing low-income housing organizations. when it comes to public and low-income housing the status quo isn't acceptable to anyone who says there isn't a need for reform for changes isn't listening to the advocates administrators or residents of public housing. mr. secretary, hubinette job for nearly a year. the most significant action you've taken at this point to be a cut of one of revenue from the federal housing administration. as i stressed with your staff earlier this week when we met a move widely continues to

jeopardize homeowners and taxpayers. i have yet to see the changes necessary for the american people. i know you and i have some discussions and ideas are looking for and about those as the committee continues to go on. but again i look forward to your testimony, talking with you shortly. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman you expect the chair recognizes another gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, ranking member of our housing and insurance subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ranking member waters, and members of the committee, mr. secretary, good morning. secretary visited the fifth congressional district of missouri not long ago actually visited both the other side of our state with mr. luetkemeyer and came to the better side of the state and spent time in kansas city. and so we are here today with a hearing entitled the future of

housing in america oversight of the department of housing and urban development. i think it's always important to look to the future and hopefully this hearing will be with the future more than the past or otherwise if we are like somebody trying to drive a car looking through the rearview mirror. i think we've got to go to the future, they got some things we can do that would be important to critically look at at the past i think it is important for us to think about the fact that when the economy teetered on the brink of cataclysmic collapse in 2008 the housing market was decimated. some families loss of generations of wealth and unemployment skyrocketed. home sales ground to a halt. and in the seven years since our economy has slowed improved. last week as they did of him at the bureau of labor statistics announced the economy added

280,000 new jobs and the 63rd consecutive month of private sector job creation. hiebert sector employment world take the rose -- scorecard cited the nation association of realtors stating sales of existing homes including single-family homes rose 6.1% from february to a pace of 5.9 can low-income the best since september 2013. i think there are some things that certainly we can do better but i'm very pleased, mr. secretary, that the department of hud is infecting a lot of things well. i get back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time it is my pleasure to welcome the honorable julian castro back to our committee. this sector sworn in as the 16th my secretary for july 28 2014. is been introduced before. needs no further introduction.

at the secretary's request before i recognized him, to give an oral summary of his written testimony, the secretary has asked to be yielded a minute in order to offer a statement of honor on behalf of a hud colleague who passed away this week. so for the purpose, mr. secretary, your recognized at this time. >> thank you very much, chairman hensarling, ranking member waters, the members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to appear before you today and for giving me a bit of extra time to talk about one of our hud family who passed away earlier this week, our chief financial officer. brad really took the gold standard during his career to public service over a bridge that spanned three decades. he was a leader whose intellect allowed into master complex

subject matter, policy and his integrity became a champion for everyday folks who often count on an effective government the most. after decorate economic development career that included time of u.s. department of commerce in the world intellectual property organization, brad came out of retirement in 2014 to join us at hud and although he was only with us for a short period, he made large contributions to our departmentdepartment and to his work on behalf of the american people. he was an administrators administrator, a man of integrity, told that all of us respected, had confidence in. and his passing is an incredible loss for the field that he did so much over his career to contribute to. and chairman, i just want to say that our thoughts and prayers at hud i went brad huther's family

and wanted to acknowledge him in front of this committee because i know you the opportunity to work with many of you as well. >> mr. secretary, on behalf of the house financial services family, we issue our sincere condolences to your colleagues as part of the hud family. on the gentleman's passing. at this time, mr. secretary, i will recognize you for an oral summary of your written testimony. please know that your written statement, your complete written statement will be made part of the record. again, welcome and you are not recognized for your testimony. >> thank you again. mr. chairman, we gather today at a very special moment for hud. issue marks the 50th anniversary. i think all of us would agree that much has changed since 1965, but one thing hasn't. the important role that quality housing and strong communities play in the lives of the

american people. where a person lives often shapes how they live the jobs that are available to them, the education that their children receive, and the overall quality of life that they enjoy. that's what all of us at hud come to work everyday knowing that we can make a difference for others. and i'm proud to say we are making an impact in a number of ways. for example, much along with our federal and local partners continues to make progress towards achieving the goals of president obama's opening doors initiative to prevent and end homelessness. from 2010-2014 we've seen a 21% drop in chronic homelessness after 33% drop in veterans homelessness. we will keep working until we reached that day when every person who needs housing can find it in our great nation. we also continue to make important strides in helping families of all income level secure a decent place to call home. one example is our innovative

rental assistance demonstration which has helped communities leverage nearly $1 billion in private market construction investments to address long overdue repairs in public housing. and with an additional $5 billion coming down the pipeline, it's clear that we are going to help ensure that public housing is quality housing for years to come. we are also helping more responsible families achieve their dreams of homeownership to our federal housing administration. fha serve as a stabilizing force bring housing crisis and to provide access to credit for generations up underserved borrowers. we build on this legacy earlier by making responsible homeownership more affordable by lowering our annual mortgage insurance premium has a percentage point to encourage another 250,000 new borrowers to enter the market over the next three years. all while continuing to strengthen fha's financial health. muddies make a tremendous difference across the board. and almost continue working to do more. in fact, under hud to budget we

are able to serve only one out of every four people who were eligible for our assistance to is whether examining our own operation to see a we can deliver results faster and more effectively to those that we serve. i have charged hud's deputy secretaries making operational efficiency her topper to be. and she's hit the ground running. the deputy secretary has said her first six must lead an operational and management review that we call deep dive. with many of these findings in hand we are not taking action to improve how we do business, to build on what's working and to adjust what needs improvement. one area of focus is our procurement process which can take over nine months to complete from beginning to end. these delays are unacceptable which is why we've embarked on an effort to transform this process and reduce virtue but days by 30%. in addition by october 1 we aim to reduce -- 10 10 after the 11th

victory weaknesses outlined in our fiscal year 2014 annual financial review. we are using shared service providers to minimize are unanswered back office functions so we can better serve our nation's families and communities. at the end of the day we know our work isn't about program names or statistics or charts. it's about people. no matter what side of the aisle you're on i'm sure we can all agree on one thing that our nation is at its best when every person has an opportunity to thrive. and the work that hud does does give folks the opportunity to thrive. working with our partners we've given this opportunity to those experiencing homelessness who wanted a fresh start, to veterans who need a little support adjusting to life after service, to older americans who deserve to live in comfort and dignity, defamatory looking to buy their first home, put down roots and build wealth for themselves and their children. and we continue to look for new ways to extend these

opportunities to all americans. our partnership with congress as essential to this work and with afford to working with you to secure funding to invest improving housing proven housing initiative to build a better and stronger hud and help more families achieve their own dreams. through the strength of our partnerships the power of our policy ideas and/or hard work i'm confident that we can ensure that the doors of opportunity are available to americans today, tomorrow and for the next 50 years. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the chair yields himself five minutes for questions. mr. secretary, i'm sure you are well aware this doesn't just mark the 50th anniversary of hud. cough syrup since the 50th anniversary of the moynihan report which many historians actually provided the impetus for the creation of hud in first place. recently the urban institute published a report, the moynihan report revisited. are you familiar with the report

or have you had an opportunity to view it? >> i have not had an opportunity to read the entire report. i did see some press about it, yes. >> mr. secretary, in that report it states after alluding to the alarming statistics of 50 years ago in the original report it goes on to say about those statistics quote, they have not only grown worse, they have grown worse not only for blacks than for whites and hispanics as well. so you weren't even born when hud was first created, but after 50 years $1.6 trillion, you requested 9% increase. specifically what is the evidence that statistical evidence that night has made progress in achieving its original goal of eliminating poverty? >> and you very much for that. let me give you two examples,

chairman hensarling. thank you for bringing up that report. let me begin by saying that i see it differently. i deeply that we have made tremendous progress in the lives of americans because of investment that night has me. in fact, if we need proof of that we can look at some of the committee members who are here who grew up in public housing who have been very clear that the fact they grew up and had a place to live in public housing is one of the reasons that they were able to achieve success. >> mr. secretary, i'm aware of of these stories and they are certainly inspirations to all but the statistics i see show that poverty is essentially unchanged after 50 years. so let's just start off with a statistical evidence. we have statistical evidence that hud has played a role in eliminating poverty. >> i did a couple of examples. one of the examples i mentioned in my opening statement is veteran homelessness. we have seen a 33% reduction in the veteran homelessness that a

large part of that is because of hud vouchers that have been funded by this congress and the president has led the effort to effectively and veteran homelessness. another example -- >> over what time period it? >> we've seen a 33% reduction in veteran homelessness between 2010-2014. another example is our jobs plus initiative. there's been research done on jobs plus that is shown to individuals who went through jobs plus which congress has also funded in the past and which we are requesting a significant increase because of its effectiveness, we've seen that individual to go through jobs plus 10 to earn 14% more than individuals who do not. >> what is the poverty level essentially unchanged in 50 years? >> mr. chairman, i believe the answer to that is much larger than hud and its programs. not only that -- >> let me ask you in a limited time i have.

you and i have had private conversations and again i've been encouraged by many things you and i've i have spoken about but i'm still somewhat unclear. at the end of the day, as secretary, how do you measure success at hud? how do you define it and how do you measure it? >> we measure success in several ways. you and i have had conversations that we need to continue to get better but not just measuring input, how much investment we make but also measuring outcome. one outcome is the fact that somebody has a roof over their head. that makes a tremendous difference in their lives. we've seen that, for instance, on the policy of housing first that tries to give veterans' housing for so they can stabilize themselves and address the issue to get on the right track in life. however, i believe that we need to continue to measure them invest in things like jobs plus, family self-sufficiency, the

extent to which those individuals that go through those programs go on and get good job training and get a job the extent to which they get a good education and that they're able -- >> transport my time is winding down. let me ask you three specific questions. in tracking people's right to rise, their ability to succeed number one currently does hud in any way of tracking winning individual needs the assistance of one ph eight and moved to another? >> does hud have any way to track it? >> hud does attract who was on the roles of speed they have a track if one leaves one and goes to another i believe it would have the opportunity to track that, chairman. >> i would like to have you share that with this committee because i haven't seen those. do you have a way of tracking when one leaves a pha and becomes almost?

>> when one leaves housing authority and becomes almost? >> do we have been way of knowing whether they become almost? >> i believe that we have a way to track within a continuum of care how many individuals are homeless. asked whether that person was -- >> if you would share that with the committee -- >> or somewhere else to -- >> and last but not least as i'm way over my time come is there anybody hud today contract when people become self-sufficient and stay that way, say three years, five years later? >> i would be glad to share with you the evidence we have of that, sure. >> so you can track that? >> we have done some tracking of self-sufficiency, particularly on the family of a strategic program. >> transport i haven't seen us on the fortitude syndicate i am way my time. i went out yield to the ranking member five minutes. >> i think it very much mr. secretary. we are delighted that you're here with us this morning and we thank you for the way that you

have come into your possession and the leadership that you provided thus far, and i'm very pleased to have him members on both sides of the aisle how generous you have been in visiting their communities, and how you've been so very very helpful. i think i want to ask you a little bit about the rental housing and homeownership crisis that would have. and the current rental housing crisis rent is to get a lot larger share of income and families are facing greater challenges in saving for a down payment and being able to own a home. this could have serious negative consequences for the housing market. just this week, again the urban institute released a major study that predicts that the homeownership rate will continue to decline through 2030 and then a major rental surge that we are

truly not prepared to meet the homeownership rate will decrease for nearly all age groups and african-americans will fall further behind all racial groups and homeownership. what is your vision for how we solve this problem how can hud given the proper resources enable more families in this country the opportunity to own a home of affordable he read one? >> i.t. very much for the question, ranking member waters. you are correct that what we see up there in the united states right now is an affordable housing rental crisis. a good example of this good demonstration of this was in our latest worst case housing needs assessment. what i found was that there are 7.7 million low income households who either are paying 50% or more of the income in rent or living in substandard

housing or both of those things. and those families by the what are families that are not in government assistance right now. another report was released last week by the low income housing coalition that was fascinating in what it found. it said that in no decent sized city in the united states could you afford a two-bedroom apartment, a decent two-bedroom apartment, working minimum-wage full-time. and that in the vast majority of communities you can't even afford a one bedroom apartment. so what is hud doing? that's why we've requested additional section eight vouchers, for instance, because we lost 67,000 section eight vouchers through sequestration. it's why we seek to stretch our resources as far as we can to initiatives like brad it's why we believe improperly funding

both capital and operating for public housing -- rad but look to the innovative and committed with initiatives like choice neighborhoods and promise zone's. we want to take a holistic approach to making more of horrible housing opportunities possible for americans. and as i mentioned early on right now we are only serving one out of every four people that qualifies for hud services. so we see there is about tremendous need and want to do something about it. [inaudible] >> very much. national housing choice underground a deficit of over seven an affordable ability units. and we all know that barney frank worked very hard. i worked with him to get the national housing trust fund. we don't seem to have much support from our friends on the opposite side of the aisle. we must find ways to fully

capitalize trust fund and defend against republican attacks to abolish the program, including the latest attack in the house funding bill. can you speak to this issue quickly? >> yes. i was glad to see director want flip the switch on the national housing trust fund. this is important and will be a powerful tool in greg moore afford housing opportunities because it focuses on extremely low income individuals. these are individuals who are making 30% or less than we can. sheila crowley would result in front of chairman luca meyer at that is the segment of the population would receive the biggest gap in terms of affordable housing opportunities we are disappointed in the recommendation that is the essentially wiped away and that homes take this can those two programs have separate identities. >> thank you so very much.

ideal to. >> that you recognize the gentleman from the jury pashtun from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome secretary castro. thank you for stopping by our district the jewel of the midwest and the support area in missouri, contrary to my good friend from kansas city's comic. but i can just kind of curious we had a meeting last week ranking him and i with a bunch of industry and housing officials, and they came up with a lot of different concerned by the same message we heard is the same message i heard last week regulation is strangling their ability to deliver services. let me give you an example of some of the things they were talking about. i see one of the advocates here and i will give you a couple of his ideas. number one recognize that you do the same amount of funds that you like math and figure out how you can use which have more efficiently.

moving to work program works, expand. regulation is costing too much. figure out how to minimize it. raise the minimum rent. another one talked about the flexibility. flexibility will be very important for them to be able to utilize their assets they have and be able to store the people they are supposed to. another comic they had was there's an inconsistency between regions of hud's officers, special with regard to transportation issues. it's hard for one agency, one area to look at another area c they're getting to do something that you are not. that's a problem within your agency. so i guess my question to you is either our discussion you are looking for ways to improve services and so these are some suggestions we have. are they something you can work on with his? >> absolutely. let me say i also enjoyed the opportunity to visit jefferson city and there from folks

interested industry and also some of the advocates including the pha representatives. it was a very insightful to hear particularly the concerns of smaller, of a smaller pha the economy say unequivocally that as i mentioned that day to you personally we are ready to work with the and with the entire committee and congress on some of these issues. i'll give you an example. one of the things mentioned was this issue of the administrative burden related to income verification. why do we require income verification every year for certain residents who are making the same income basically year after year? that is a good question because 56% of our household that are hud assistance are elderly or disabled. we are supportive of a change to that that would only require income verification every three years for folks were at least 90% of their income is fixed income sources. with regard to the other issues you mentioned, we are working on

that in this budget for instance we proposed an increase of 15 agencies and went to look at these other issues as well. >> thank you for that we look forward to working with you on those issues. unity, there were 67000 hud vouchers use of a cut out of the budget. in my discussions with a lot of the integration initiative to talk like there was 200000 that went unused, is that true? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> there were restrictions somehow they couldn't utilize all of them. >> that may have been true some time ago. what we saw is that folks out there can pha have to pull vouchers back instead of letting up on the street. they had to inform those families you can use that voucher to return to get back to where we were spent these are people on the ground using these at this thing about the are left

unused because of the problems that have to do with from the restriction, the lack of flexibility, whatever it is that's causing the not be able to get a. i think it's something that you need to take a look at because if we've got them going unused we need to -- next question. we have a long discussion with one out a group of your folks with regard to the income that was cut back in january. and again it really concerns me because according to your report, which i have right here you are continuing to take in or land to a group of folks -- linda to a group of folks are probably more problematic from the standpoint you are not going to the 64679 credit scores which is fine. but by doing that it exposes you to more risk which needs more possible loss. if you look at the losses i

really have some problems with some of the lost information for people and places it should lost $7.5 billion the first half of the year. which means you lose $15 billion issue. i misplaced it says that your boss ratio probably will go down which is great but that number doesn't jive with his of wind farm concerned about that. the bottom line is this seems to be a continued problem in my mind with regards to a build of income to cover expenses and we will watch it very carefully. i hope this all works out. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri mr. cleaver for five minutes, ranking member. >> thank you -- [inaudible] thank you. spent i think it's the other button to the gentleman's right.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i don't know how they're going to be able to erase this stereotype or the misinformation that seems to be the eternal it out here in the world that people who live in public housing move in and there goes to state for a lifetime. the facts don't match the stereotype. if you have children living in multifamily property, the state is about 5.4 teen just about the time my family lived in public housing. and that's just so dramatically different than what people seem to want to believe and how it is perpetuated. did you have any ideas how we

can erase that misinformation that seems to be all over the country? i think there's always some resentment from those of us who come in my case saw my father worked three jobs to save enough money to buy a lot to get a house. and other families were doing the same thing. but i don't know how we get that out. my father is 92 entities is on c-span is probably watching, so thanks for everything, daddy. but i don't know, it's an insult to him and a lot of other people. how can we erase this? >> it's a great question, and let me say as well i enjoyed visiting with chairman luca mire and his bishop toshiba i also enjoyed visiting with you in your district ranking member cleaver. you asked a great question and what we see every day is that whether it's public housing are focusing a section eight

voucher, we see folks who want to work hard and want to get on the track to a better life. and we understand that our investment in public housing and in hud assisted housing is way to get them on the track. i reject the notion that somehow folks who are living in public housing are lazy or that it creates a culture of dependency. the fact is that 56% of the households that we serve are headed by someone who is totally or disabled to begin with. and arrest them a significant number of the folks are under the age of 18 they are children of folks are working aged decent number of those folks are working to get if you're not working dinner required to do some sort of community service for the in scope or go through job training to answer this is very much an opportunity for folks to get on track of a

better life that they want to get on. >> thank you. i agree obviously with everything you said. it's so frustrating to hear the country. let's talk about fha for just a moment. because fha plays a major role for first-time homebuyers, and fha has helped almost a half million people get into homes since 2014, and about one half of them are brown and black americans. is fha deeply fha as we talk about the future, one of the agency's an absolute must be preserved so that we can continue to provide this kind of assistance to first-time homebuyers, as well as others? >> fha plays an invaluable role in creating upward mobility in

our nation for people of all income levels the it has been the primary vehicle for first-time homebuyers to get into home. people of all different backgrounds. as you mentioned for the african-american and latino community today, about 50% of those homebuyers have and fha insured loan. over the last couple of years we have seen the mutual mortgage insurance fund rising by $21 billion. it is on the right path. so yes we need to everything that we can to continue to strengthen h. date and ensure that it's there to provide that opportunity for folks to reach the american dream. >> thank you. it may also be important to realize those individuals qualified for the loan that they were not just -- >> i know there's a few seconds left. we have to distinct between issue of affordability and access. what we did was we load the mortgage insurance premium so we made it more affordable.

that did not anyway change who qualify for olympic we still have historically a high average credit score for fha insurance score. average credit score is 687. to give a sense of closeness of those numbers. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, something we can agree on. fair housing act makes it unlawful to refuse to sell corporate going to any person because of race color, religion, sex or national origin. and that is the law as it should be. however, hud disparate impact rule that allows you the government, to alleged discriminatory practices based not on intent but sold on statistical outcomes and not as a sony discriminate intent of disparate treatment.

the results of that are the cost of litigation is strangling the market, their credit is cut back to potential voters, the same potential homeowners we hear you say we are trying to help. therefore, what it does is to reduce the supply of new afford the housing as a backward from the projects that are vulnerable to litigation. they're basically punishing people that we are trying to help. let's take a look at your agency. into 2014 fh and report to congress regarding financial status of mutual mortgage insurance fund it says fha indicated a single, endorsement for the year was what? 61-point to as you put in your report to 70% hispanic, 10% for blacks. statistically is that not disparate impact? statistically is that not your agency discriminating? are you doing anything about

that? is that disparate impact of? >> i reject that premise. thank you, congressman, for the question. i think it is misguided and -- >> let me ask you is that a disparate impact -- >> that is not at all the weight disparate impact has been analyzed or used it as you know this is in litigation and i will say that i believe in disparate impact analysis and that if we look at the legal rationale for the and other entrepreneurs out i have confidence in what it's been used -- >> let me ask you is a 40% disparate impact disparate impact? population of the black community is around 13.5-14%. your lending or endorsing to only 10% speak with this issue had never come up in the context of you are taking it completely out of context. it would never come up in that context and thus off the context that it is being litigated about either. >> you our litigating against lenders and the like for people in housing industry i'm asking about what you are doing it is what you are doing disparate

impact? should be used the third against you? is it not fair against you? >> what we need to do is preserve disparate impact analysis because it's important in determining where there is a discriminatory impact and where other tools can be utilized to have a better impact. in fact, speed is what is disparate impact? >> i reject that notion, congressman. >> well, there is no -- [talking over each other] i reject the notion of a hypothetical that would never come up in the first place to try and analyze such a serious topic. >> so you cannot define force what percentages are disparate impact even though your agency brings those losses speak with you know very well the definition of a disparate impact is changes in different scenarios in different industries and if that is applied to different cases. >> exactly and that isn't that

the problem of? >> that's part of the strength of the tool that is not a one size fits all took it as a sensitive dual that analyzed in the context of individual cases. >> if i'm a lender or a builder a homebuilder, i don't know what your charge against me is going to be because as you just need right now it changes from circumstance to circumstance. >> not at all. >> there is no clear -- >> disparate impact law and the burden shifting that happens if it is litigated actually gives of the defendant and opportunity to show that there's a legitimate business reason for why those statistics are the way they are. and then when they demonstrate that it forces the plaintiff to have to come back and show that no, you should be doing it a different way that would be more effective and have not so much of a disparate impact. >> by your own testimony -- >> it protects the defendant. >> the defendant only after he has been brought to court, hires

attorneys, gone to the extent of this and having to put up a defense fund something you just told me and told this hearing that you do not have a definition of what it really means. >> that's not true. there are plenty of lawsuits better throw out summarily and i'm not sure what what you are talking about the are plenty of lawsuits that are thrown out summarily, dismissed student only after the defendant has to defend the charge of -- >> i would encourage you look at the track record of disparate impact it has a good track record spent what i see is disparate impact by your very own agency. [talking over each other] >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york ms. maloney, ranking member of the capital market subcommittee. >> make it so much ranking member, and chairman for this important hearing. and thank you and hud for all you do for a formal housing in america. two programs that i am

constantly asked about his section eight and section 202 program which does so much to provide housing for seniors. according to your own study seniors with low incomes are the most likely to pay more than they can afford than any other sector in our society. this program is very important not only to new york but i would say the whole country. i'm concerned that we don't have enough funding to meet the rising demand for affordable seniors housing. the capital advance company construction understand has been frozen and is very little in it. and according to the aarp for every section 202 unit that becomes available there are well over 10 seniors on a waiting list. can you describe what mind is doing to meet the demand, the rising demand for affordable housing for seniors under section 202 program? >> thank you very much. i do appreciate the chance to

speak to this, particularly because as much fuss is made over the idea of young people in cities are chasing these millennials, we all know that the fastest-growing segment of the population are actually our baby boomers are turning 65, who are elderly and are spread out in every single community and are a focus of the section 202 program. we are requesting an additional investment in section two through two, particularly for a demonstration project in this budget. this project will allow us to show the linkage between our investment in housing for the elderly and a reduction in health care costs. because we believe it's important to show that that that does exist and hopefully that will inform policy in the future because i spent a little bit for housing and supportive services on one end you can actually save money in the health care system on the other that is the hypothesis. but more broadly as i mentioned

a few moments ago 56% of households that we serve are actually headed by someone who is elderly or who is disabled. that goes across hud assisted housing. our service to elderly americans is by no means limited to 202. it's also public housing. it section eight, and it is part of the reason that we are requesting greater levels of voucher in funding for our traditional housing programs. >> thank you. the other hud programs that i'm interested in supporting additional support for is section three, the art income disregard in public housing and the families self-sufficiency program. these are important tools for the department and local housing, providers to families earn more income and achieve more economic mobility. can you talk about the importance of these programs and

policies and how we can work with you and the administration to strengthen and expand been? >> i can. what we want is that we want the folks that we serve, whether its section eight vouchers for public housing, we want and they are working age come we want them to be able to have gainful employment and eventually not need our public assistance. i agree with folks on that point. and one tool that we can use is section three. section three says that when an investment is made, let's say there's construction pha does that the contractors make best efforts to hire low income individuals in that area, including public housing residents. so this gives folks an opportunity to get a good job keep up to provide better for the families and hopefully to use that to move up and out

eventually. recently we promulgated a new row on this to give communities stronger guidance on the use of section three. this is about investing in economic opportunity for low income individuals and we look forward to working with you, the committee and congress to ensure that we can make the most of section three. because the fact is frankly the track record is checkered for housing authorities out there and how much they have utilized section three, and we want there to be consistency in the utilization of section three. >> my time is expired. >> gentlelady yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary thank you for being here. 20 years ago this month president clinton announced a national homeownership strategy. he said and i quote i want to say there's one more time. our homeownership strategy will

not cost the taxpayers one extra cent that it will not require legislation and it will add, it will not add more federal programs to a growing federal bureaucracy. i think we can all agree that that vision turn -- vision didn't turn out that way. if you recall back in february you and i had a conversation about the fact about you lowered your guarantee fee by 50 basis points and the fact that you were still not meeting the federally mandated reserve ratio for the fund at fha. i guess, and i think back then the number was .41%. the mandate is 2%. i wonder if you could tell us today, mr. secretary, what is the current status? >> thank you very much for the question. i cannot give you information because that will not be visible until the next annual report. that's done by an independent actuary and so we do not do that

analysis. that is done by a neutral third party. we expect to have that 2015 report in november of this year. >> mr. secretary, i want to make sure i understand. so didn't know until the end of the period how you were doing? i mean mr. secretary, you were the mayor of san antonio and i can imagine the director of finance if you asked him how are the sales tax receipts come in line with our projected budget it is i will be able to do that for a year. would that be an appropriate answer speak with what i would say this y'all can change the. that is set by congress, not by me. change it if you want to change it go ahead and change it. >> intern i think you would have -- spent let's be clear. as mr. luetkemeyer simply put out a quarter report and to his credit he asked us to have to go into the quarter report within the we would be glad to do that with you. however, your question is what i

have an update on that capital reserve ratio, the answer is no because congress has an independent actuary that does this once a year. >> another question on the premium revenues you projected to meet the standards, i believe what you told instead what is by the end of 2015 that you be at 2%. so you have any idea what he will be at 2% at the end of your? >> i can just to correct the record. record. what i said when i see on february 11 was that we expected that in two years within two years that we would reach the 2% capital reserve. that's what i said in february. >> well, i mean, here's i think the problem a lot of us have is your money and organization that has a $42 billion budget, has a trillion dollars plus contingent liability and we don't have come would have you believe to track progress other than on an annual basis. i don't know -- >> that's not true at all. in fact, we provided to chairman

luetkemeyer our annual, our quarterly report. we do track several statistic there however you asked specifically about that speed let me ask about the revenues. are the revenues on track to meet that goal? >> the answer to that is that they are encouraging so far. let me give a precise example spent i don't want to know whether they are encouraging or not. are the on track, are you going to meet the 2% at the end of the? >> are encouraging right now spent encouraging is not -- >> a wiki an example of what i say that, okay? when you look at march 2014 versus march 2015, for instance, there were 8000 more borrowers to fha insured loans. that's just a month-to-month comparison. we have seen as the quarter report indicated a significant uptick in refinancing. so you've got to understand this thing took effect january 26.

with a limited early data that we have we believe that we are on track. however, we will not get official number on this the assessment until around the thanksgiving timeframe when an independent actuary gives us a report. >> the thing that's troubling as i want my code on the other side of they'll talk about safety net. to me a safety net is something that provides, keep you from failing or falling or hurting yourself. so the safety net that we have today is made out of string and think you would agree that if i.c.e. agent i would rather have one made out of rope. when you have $1 trillion of the taxpayers on the hook and you only have point for 1% equity, the taxpayers are at risk. >> that's apples and oranges but you are conflating two things. i don't think -- >> i'm sorry. mr. secretary how is that apples and oranges? >> the capital reserve ratio is

not a simple ratio of how much money we have to pay claims. we have more than enough to handle the claims, the losses that we have in front of us. >> economic present value of your liability. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> the chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, this hearing could not come at a better time as the house unfortunately just passed fy '16 spending bill. which if enacted if enacted we will severely underfunded virtually every hud program and jeopardize the housing stability of vulnerable americans. the shortage of affordable

rental housing is a huge problem in new york and a new analysis released this week brought the severity of the problem home. between 2002-2014, reins in new york city rose by 32% citywide, even after the effect of inflation when we moved. my question is mr. secretary, what will happen to working families, like in new york city if we did not have public housing? the new york city we have 615,000 people who live in public housing and section eight. these are hard-working people. and if we don't provide that type of resources, where will they go? and people, you know i don't suffer from multiple personalities. i understand that we want to

tackle the issue of poverty. it takes investment. that if we want to tackle the issue of homelessness among veterans, it takes the role of the federal government. and by the way i am proud to report that in new york city a number of homeless veterans in new york dropped by 40% last year, and declined 75% since 2012. why? because of vouchers and homeless assistance grants, and because of the city is putting also resources. that's what it takes. and so we want to tackle the issue of poverty in our country and then we ask about what is it that mr. hud ensure the effectiveness of the agency.

it takes investment and the understanding that for the last 20 years, there's one issue that really is impacting americans. they are working harder working two and three jobs, but there's one thing, and that is wage stagnation to love 1% is doing extremely well arrests, 99% are working harder and getting less. so mr. secretary, if the funding bill that passed the house is enacted how will this impact translates efforts -- mr. secretary,'s efforts at? >> if the bill becomes law it was seriously injured, seriously damage our ability to meet the needs of their capacities as i mentioned earlier would only serve one in four people right now to qualify for hud service

for a couple weeks ago chairman luetkemeyer had in his subcommittee a group of individuals to discuss public-private partnerships which i think is a very fruitful discussion that ought to be had. it was very clear in that testimony whether it was a public or nonprofit sector, public sector private sector that said if hud doesn't do these things come who else is going to do them? it is no private market to serve people who are extremely low income. and those of the vast majority of the people that we serve. and so whether its traditional public housing for section eight vouchers are rental assistance, we need to make an investment. if we don't what he needs is more people out on the street or mothers with children that are homeless or doubling up. more veterans who don't have the chance to other place to call home. those are the human consequences of the budgetary decision that are on the table.

>> so, trying to mr. secretary i would like to ask you about section three. i've been working on section three for many, many years your when secretary donovan was here, i introduced legislation and i'm happy to see that some of the provisions that were contained in my legislation are being reflected in the rules that you're putting out. but my question is a tool that could empower residents in public housing is section three. without the proper oversight and without the proper training and investment, it's not going to work. >> thank you for that. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> secretary castro come over here. sorokin unkind hidden behind one of my other colleagues.

i had a different line of questioning but something that my colleague from missouri, mr. cleaver have brought up about the short time and, versus longtime for a lifetime myth that existed people utilizing hud and housing through you. 5.4 years of families with teenagers. i don't know if that's accurate already got the. are usually without at all? >> yes. that sounds about right in the five year range. i think come and i guess ranking member cleaver is not here right now, however. what he was probably referring to is working age individuals recall that for the majority the folks we serve, these households that are elderly or disabled our goal is not to just get them in an epic so that you have a longer period of average stay but -- >> that sounds correct. ..

the answer to that is no. >> assumes a wiccan pilot down to 5.4 years, we are to be a buddhist figure out how might you want to figure out how you are going to make sure that people are utilizing the services more of my concern and

opportunity economy that eliminates poverty and breaks the cycle that may exist. i was a former licensed realtor, started my career in that. some of my proudest moments i was involved in. a two family house that was very transitional. hispanic family on top shared a one-bedroom apartment. luis emily are still friends today and helping them transition to buy their own plays. one that i talked about in this committee before if someone else who still remains a friend, jill, whose has been had left the family and she moved from a trailer park into her first home and i was able to explain to her kid why and how important i was. sitting here 20 years later i am

getting emotional and choked up because that really is what you exist. you don't exist to make sure we take care of people temporarily. you exist to make sure we take care of people long-term. i don't mean getting into your system and saving your system. what is the opportunity? as i look at the report it seems the solution typically has been to throw more money at it. it is not only subsidizing the market with section eight or other things. it is how do we make sure as my colleague was starting to go out, the people providing it had some assurance and understanding about the ground rules are and what the guide posts are so they are not going to get sued and they will not have questions as they linger over there. that to me is vital.

quickly i want to hit and miss remaining minute on page eight page nine i want to highlight a couple things. the evidence-based jobs plus program come a proven model for increasing employment and earnings. are you tracking not continue please share -- provide the matrix on that as well? is this just web-based? is this physical presence people are having? that's $100 million. that can provide a whole lot of housing. >> thank you for the question from a representative. i agree with you on the premise for folks who are working age this is what the law requires. if they are not working neither do community service or job training or pursue an education. we want folks to basically be on a path to self-sufficiency.

jobs plus does track. we do have numbers would be glad to provide on how we do. however, with this opportunity agenda, head needs to get better at measuring outcomes there. >> amen to that. i hope you would get much better and provide that to the committee. >> the time of the children has expired. the chair recognizes mr. hinojosa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that my opening statement and questions be made part of the record and i am late for a meeting anonymously. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york mr. meeks for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary let me ask you. first let me identify myself as

a proud product of public housing in my whole family, all of whom who are doing fairly well now, don't know how well we would have done or how my parents would have been able to do what they did without public housing. when i think about my friends some attorneys and doctors and engineers and pharmacists all product of public housing that had it not been for the assistance said they could move forward i don't know whether any of us would be in positions we have ran. i personally know the critical need and importance of housing giving individuals an opportunity, giving families an opportunity to come together and be successful in life. i can't think of a greater investment that we as a country can make especially talking about the average everyday

person and the poor person making sure they have a quality of life. nothing better than making sure they have a decent roof over their head switch out can get an education in a place they can grow and become productive members of society. in new york i am concerned because when i look at the budget end of funding packages that the republican party is putting forward where i see it as failed to restore funds to lhasa sequestration, investment and a national housing trust fund and the assistance program but the low income households. resell me mayor deblasio released a new ambitious plan to release a housing authority and

bring it back into a stable financial footing and expand and preserve public affordable housing. converted to section eight and subsidies counseling two thirds i wonder how it had coping with such increased demand from communities across the country and how can cities like my city of new york played for the future with the uncertainty around increase federal assistance in affordable housing stocks. >> you are correct. we need a certain level. brad has been one day by doing what folks have suggested that we engage with the other in this

case so they can renovate the public housing units because the fact is we have a $26 billion backlog in renovation needs in public housing and we lose 10,000 units every year to disrepair. in new york you see that in states. that is why we are requesting a couple things in this budget. $50 million for the program. we also request additional resources in terms of salary and expenses because the cap is lifted and fiscally or 15 to 185,000. we want to ensure we can meet the demand. by the way we have applications that are around 180000. is a successful effort and on top of that what we see as we leverage for every 1 dollar of public money would leverage $19 of private investment. we need to do it right and we ensure the resources are there,

which are public resources that we treat tenants right and that is still fundamentally public housing even though you have the public-private partnership. >> i'm not sure what the budgets are looking like. i see them move forward and the underfunding continuing for the air because if we get in a scenario similar subsidies to keep them affordable, what happens to the public housing. can you tell me -- >> i agree with you for your not careful the public sector one of the strength to engage the private sector the private sector so they can fruitfully renovate or create new housing. that was a point made in the subcommittee hearing that the

private sector needs the public sector for affordable housing. >> the chair now recognizes gentleman from wisconsin mr. duffy, chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, mr. castro. homelessness doesn't just exist in urban america. it also exists in rural america appeared in places like my district. for the last two years with how they homelessness and hunger summit trying to bring in stakeholders from across our community, trying to figure out how to address the problem more effectively. trying to figure out the bright spots of what small agencies what they do to more effectively tap into resources and government resources. if they probably think we have to address.

my comments are in no way trying to undermine the problem of homelessness across the country. added note that your lot about rules and regulations especially for small writers in our community. if you are a one or two-person organization, it becomes incredibly difficult to navigate the rules and regulations. i want to move beyond not. you are asking for more money. a 9% increase of the president's budget. why do you need more money when you would improve the homelessness in america. why do you need more section eight housing money when we've had improvements in the economy and in this space? >> the fact is let's take our vouchers.

we lost 67,000 vouchers always. we have to conserve one out of every four people. >> cap we had an improvement? >> we've seen an improvement. >> we dedicated more resources to it. to commerce is credited and the leadership, the main reason we seen a reduction in veteran homelessness is because we actually invest. >> i appreciate your comments on better implements a nice number. >> let's talk about folks who live in rural areas. what success have you had about getting people not just in the system of public housing and public housing infection may put out of the system. it goes back to what the chairman asked in mr. huizenga asked. you say at this end this is what we are doing.

we are bringing people in. we all want to help them. >> that's not true. >> you are the facts and numbers of how we move people out of the space of public assistance and into self-sufficiency. if you don't track people, you don't know the numbers together are people from assistance to sustainability themselves or to another public housing authority. you can't actually give us the right numbers and you're asking for more money. >> i gave an example earlier. a good example of what we've seen is the jobs plus initiative. >> let's talk about jobs plus. it's a 9% increase asked for by the president going to the programs and jobs plus? >> we are going from $50 million to $100 billion.

that's what the request is. >> a few program -- >> if you have programs that work. i'm not arguing your stats on that. why are you saying congress, listen. let's talk about programs that work will take people off assistance and into sustainability. >> that is what i'm talking about. >> you're giving me a small section. the funding that is asked for his across the board. not to be driven into jobs plus and programs that move people to sustainability. i think you assess how much money we spend. you can't give me the numbers. >> tell me the number. -- tell me the number. >> there is a group of veterans -- >> hold on a second. >> the time belongs to the gentleman from wisconsin.

please had 10 seconds to the club. >> some of the percentage people who go into public housing and move out into self sustainability. >> we would like to get you the information. we have a waiting list -- >> if you are judging -- >> they getting people off assistance and into self sustainability you would be telling us those numbers. this is not how you judge success in your agency. that's part of the problem. >> you can't give me a number. you don't even know it. >> at time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california mr. sherman. >> mr. secretary, i want to recognize with you section eight and other housing programs are successful and every one of our districts and housing program has to cheaply be evaluated based on whether it provides housing getting people off the

street and in housing is a good thing. whether they get a well-paying job is a little bit outside your department and i look forward to working with the last gentleman to defeat fast-track so we can get the high-paying jobs that will lead not only successful housing programs, but successful economic futures for those who benefit. i think it is wrong for us to say we are going to cut back on section eight until you give us perfect numbers and until you establish providing housing means somebody gets a good paying job. >> one outcome is an important outcome if somebody has a roof over their head. that is what the department of housing is for. we are first and foremost about

housing. however for the second question, do i believe we should also make investment and we are making investments that seek to get folks to a stronger track so they can achieve the american dream? of course i do. should we look at the outcomes of that? yes, we should. but you say it doesn't count at all the somebody has a roof over the head. >> i now want to move to fha and a couple technical areas. a rule or policy that clashes with another federal rule and hope that fha lives in the direction of the other federal rule. first example is that property subject to transfer fees. 99% of transfer fees are terrible. thank you for working to

prohibit them. if they just say which oversees dan and freddie have done is fight a more nuanced job instead of prohibiting all of them they've only prohibited 99% better bad. 1% that are helpful are those that benefit the property that are key to the business homeowners associations and find homeowners associations by a reasonable amount and the property is transferred. i wonder whether you would look at technical tweet to the fha regulations and see whether cfh sa similar regulation bill a little more rouen's entrée nuanced for federal programs. >> thank you for the program. after fha are primary concern is to make virus credit.

and on top of that we are interested where it makes sense and policy that encourages neighborhood stability. we are looking at matching fhs say on the issue brought up so we would love to follow up with you and your staff and give you an update on the revenue. >> and similar agencies try to carry out the same policy. they ought to have identical or close to identical rules and in this one case a sister agency of the more sophisticated rule. federal statute generally acquires to have to start paying mortgage insurance once you have a 78 situation. you've got a situation where borrowers have to keep paying fha forever except they don't have a refinance. if they had to pay forever i

would say maybe you need the money. if you're not going to get money, they'll just refinance and i was a adventuresome refinance. it's a lot of paperwork. would be easier to compare fha insurance with private insurance if you are offering the same product to save some and canceled a 78%. will you take a look at that? >> we are always of course looking at how we can be sensitive to the conditions out there. as you know the length of loan issue came to pass during the last two years where there was the need to do everything we could to ensure that we built up our reserves and we want to do what is proven. always want to look at the issue. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york,

mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning mr. secretary. i regret i was not here for the opening statement. i was across the hall with a hearing held on the reauthorization of the 9/11 health care act. thank you for being here today. gentleman asked the the question it's not written out but this i will read as it's written because of the specifics involved. westchester county new york, which is not in my district but the implications of what is owing on in westchester well impact my district. if you can answer today fine, if you have to get back and writing i greatly appreciate that. in 2009 had reached an out of court settlement settle in a thousand six lawsuit that they fail to consider race as an impediment to fair and affordable housing and an analysis filed with todd when seeking block grants.

it is my understanding from talking to county officials including mr. mr. reno and i don't see this as been a partisan issue with the original settlement of the democratic county executive now implemented. i don't say this is in a partisan issue. talking to the county executive he believes the county has had ahead of schedule and the settlement terms. 469 of the 750 units were financed 424 have permits in the county spent $37 million in my fridge to other sources in at least 51.6 million agreed-upon for 37 and 112. get county police hud is not recognizing progress. in response to a head request the county included in the analysis impediments examination of 853 local zoning districts

were exclusionary practices based on race and ethnic city and found none. since then seven more analyses each time including consideration of more data as requested by hud. the most recent was for 700 pages finished on the county has found no evidence of exclusionary practices and has been supported by an independent authority. in 2011 with the housing grants which i believe is $20 million today. two questions. can you say why hud has rejected the analysis by westchester county in the past six years and the requirements and also all entitled that grantees such as westchester county must apply they are affirmatively affirm and fair housing and to meet the obligation grantees must conduct the analyses. how often are they reject it and

what criteria does hud used to determine whether or not an a.i. is acceptable. as i said come in the case as it goes forward can have implications to my district in other districts in the region. >> i appreciate very much the opportunity to address this briefly. i would love to get back to you in your staff with specifics on westchester. let me begin by saying of course we take the issue of fair housing very seriously under the fair housing act of 1968 it requires the secretary of affirmatively further fair housing. as you know the issue of westchester has been with us for a while and there has been a tremendous amount of work hud staff has done in conjunction with local community to resolve these issues. what i have told my staff is of course there was the time when we are punitive and this is one of those cases that develop in

when it's in litigation. but we often seek what i call mission driven flexibility to work with communities to meet the goals of the programs but also ensure they can undertake feasible actions to get in compliance. having said that i would like to get back with you on the specifics and an update on where we are wrapped with regard to westchester because my staff has been working hard on not. >> and again i don't reside in westchester. they believe they are attempting to comply in good faith. they don't feel hud is acknowledging that. i'm not getting in the middle of this. it is important we can set parameters because there's other pending actions. you are right fair housing is essential. the governments have to comply and it's very expensive and can be complicated.

i truly appreciated. thank you for the testimony this morning. >> the time of the gentleman has required a request of the secretary of the committee will stand in recess for five minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts mr. capuano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back mr. secretary. to be clear and correct. as i understand it not a single penny a general fund taxpayer dollars has been spent to help the fha. is that correct? >> that is right.

>> as i understand it, by the way, happy birthday, 50 years old and all of that. and that's 50 years there's been five republican president serving 28 of those 50 years. in any of those five presidents mr. nixon mr. ford, mr. bush and mr. bush, did any of them shut down hud? >> now come up horse not. >> did any of them admit defeat? >> no. >> today we hear how we hear hud is a failed agency and we should close it down. .com is a surprise to mr. reagan and others. prior to hud was there any programs anywhere to help seniors find decent affordable housing? >> with the advent of hud that led to the assistants --

>> without hud there'd be no not less, but no senior housing programs in this country whatsoever. >> that is right. if not hud, then no one. >> so i guess i've heard a lot of criticism. i believe in giving elected officials what they want whenever possible. i've heard several officials say they think they are failing the program. buy what they want your money. they are doing a pretty good job and i suggest you give them exactly what they want, which is nothing had to spend your money into my district is i think you're doing a great job. [laughter] i'm not saying that out as anything than the spot and i hope is a former mayor you appreciate that approach.

i guess now i want to move onto something else. i do want to take a little stab at the dacs program, my least favorite program that had participates in. not because i don't like the program. i don't like the focus. my concern is basically a big reselling these to the richest people in the world and that is okay. not a problem. except for me part of the mission was to actually create strong sustainable inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. without mission, i always ask myself who is in the best position to know what that means in a given community. so i looked up to november 2014 sales and i'm not, there is some

housing, some foreclosed housing in a county i actually never heard of before, but maybe you are familiar with bedside county. >> this is the county that a san antonio. >> that is what i read. 42 properties and miss -- averaging $10600060 on foreclosures sold to a company called management llc. i looked them up in their subsidiary of american homes headquartered in angora hills, california, which is wedged in between thousand oaks and simi valley. do you really think do think they know better what to do with 42 foreclosed properties in san antonio that they may be the mayor of san antonio by a person

named walter martina who runs the san antonio cdc with headquarters on el paso avenue by someone named oscar ramirez who runs the guadalupe association with headquarters on waterloo bay ave. what do you think is in a better position to know what is in the best interest of the people of san antonio. those people were somebody in california? >> at the point well taken. thank you for advocacy on this. to configure advocacy, the accuracy of others and nonprofits who made the very point the part of our responsibility is to understand the effect the policies neighborhoods. we believe it has been a powerful tool to help stave off foreclosure in some instances. we would like to get back to you on the changes to the

improvement. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. on behalf of the secretary's ears and for the sake of the gem in the north of the mason-dixon, it is bear county. >> we need to have another lesson. i am happy -- >> not for a texan. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. i'm sorry. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california mr. royce chairman of the foreign affairs committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me ask you about of line of questioning where you and i may be in concurrence, the last week we had an opportunity to talk about a subject or publicly endorsed moving forward with the built in black housing finance

reforms and the reforms would increase private sector participation in the secondary housing market and decrease taxpayer exposure to future losses and what over time limit disruption of market. i wanted to get your take on this. the things we discussed for an increase in private or credit risk sharing by the gse including a timeline to ramp up the offers. the creation of a truly common securitization pop or which allows for issuance of mortgage-backed securities and the development of a common residential mortgage-backed security by fannie mae and freddie mac. i thought i would just give you the floor right now to discuss how this might bring private sector capital back into the market and how we might work together to achieve these goals. >> congressman royce i of course appreciate your efforts

on the issue of the housing finance reform. the housing finance reform has a long and winding road i think it is fair to say. the administration is supportive of housing finance reform. in fact there is agreement on some of these issues. the president has made very clear he does have an interest as all americans do and taking taxpayers off the hook in the event god forbid we did experience the same housing crisis we just went through agreed we can find ways to introduce more private capital into the market. my hope is in there we will find a way to ensure people of modest means who are responsible are able to get access to credit. with respect to proposed legislation, there is some common principles that are the foundation to build on and we

look forward to working. >> the question i was trying to drive to his gse increasing the risk sharing activities in the form of volume knob offerings and percentage of risk sharing would be a big step to bring private capital in. certainly the common securitization platform and the idea you are familiar with but making that available for the private sector to come in as well would be helpful. >> i am very willing to have conversations about that and build on legislation. we are hopeful the ball within congress' court. >> let's go to another question, mr. secretary. that is the headline i saw. links feed market share to thinly capitalized on banks. we do have a situation where the fha market share for large banks is recently cut in half from 61% to 43%.

that is a concern. mom bakes have increased 24% a year later 51%. for several years later. is this troubling and using legal uncertainty is maybe part of the problem in terms of getting the traditional lenders more involved here and what about the need for greater certainty about the framework here. looking at that as a way of bringing capital back in. >> the answer is yes we are looking at that. we believe that makes sense to take reasonable steps to create more business certainty for lenders. i know this is something the director as fhfa is working on now is something we work on some aid. we hear from lenders about the uncertainty that does exist in regarding potential liability

and so we're working on that and we look forward to being able to create greater certainty that will help open up the credit box reasonably responsible americans to get access to credit. >> one of the cei is i know if you want to stick with the program of putting back anytime anywhere, whatever, that is fine. we are just not going to make these loans in nairobi a whole bunch of americans that are underserved. that is the part of this that is concerning. there have been some ideas put forward in terms of how to adjust this and handle it. given the percentage of the revolution here in market share in the fact that it's thinly capitalized on banks coming in it needs to be addressed. the thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has

expired. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank reagan number waters as well. thank you for helping the committee with his work. good to see you again. mr. secretary, i'm one of the members of congress he referred to that grew up in public housing like mr. meeks of new york with the colony housing project. five sisters. it has been described as one of the poorest predominately white census tracts in the nation. we consider ourselves very, very fortunate to have at home. listening to the debate about questions posed earlier. does the hud affordable housing program work? i guess from listening to the debate if your family has not struggled, no explanation is

possible. if you have actually lived in public housing, no explanation is necessary. do you understand what that means? we talked a little bit earlier. i had an opportunity the last couple weeks to cut a ribbon on one of my big veteran housing projects coming out. we just broke down. the new england center for homeless veterans. it is going to provide dirty new permanent supporters housing units for veterans including the dedicated just for women veterans. they've got a lot of them. it'll renovate 59 existing housing units for veterans and create 165 new units. it's got everything. if you've got substance abuse problems with psychiatric problems, the whole city together. i want to give credit to marty walsh who is part of it and

governor baker who is a republican. there's at least a dozen different agencies city state and federal combined on the project. i've got another project that is an old police station in my home neighborhood of south boston where they convert the old police station to single unit occupancy units for veterans. so like most communities we love are we love our battery of them i want to make sure their service is remembered, is respected and rewarded. but i have to say it has really been a collaboration of a bunch of different projects in trying to figure out all the different aspects of what hud is doing on behalf of our veterans. you alluded to it a couple times, but can you drill down

and explain what the obama administration is doing on veteran housing in this country today and what your most successful models have been in creating the housing. >> i am glad to do that. this is a real american success story because president obama in 2010 became the first president to say we are not just going to reduce homelessness. we are going to end it started with veteran homelessness. what was seen since that time is a 33% reduction in veteran homelessness through collaboration with congress that funded vouchers. you ask what works. why are we here? strong coordination between hud the pa and providers on the ground to quickly get veterans and housing, the adoption of smart policy and how they basically say we will not make our veterans jump through hoops

or transitional living. we will again end to permanent housing right away because the research is compelling if you get permanent housing with supportive services, that is a real stabilizing influence on their lives so they can address it there some other issue in their life perhaps an addiction issue or a mental health issue or other issues having housing is the key to stabilizing address issues. what we see now is communities like new orleans that announced amount and a half ago they had effectively eliminated veteran homes. i joined congressman green the other day. houston has put in place the system to get the functional zero. this is a real success story we need to continue to support. >> i only have 10 seconds left. we've had 2.5 million sons and daughters of america since the

first cold war -- gulf war. a lot of them have done multiple tours of duty. obviously they need some help. i have not mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, chairman of our financing task force. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for the time spent with the committee today. i want to finish a veteran housing and homelessness among veterans. you said in your opening statement that you reduce homelessness among veterans by 33% and that is not an insignificant number. we should celebrate that a little bit recognizing us while there is a lot of work to be done. if the subset population of veterans in the country 67% are still without homes and you mentioned president obama has

made this commitment to and veteran homelessness. one veteran homelessness to many. i remember in november 2009 as private citizen. my home in levittown pennsylvania, watching the news and it has been reported general shin seki was the secretary of pa had articulated the commitment. she put a timeframe on it. he said five years. november 2009. the goal was to end veteran homelessness in the united states. my thought at that point in time as that's a pretty aggressive goal and i love aggressive roles. i had concerns on how we would get their resignation. in my community, levittown is a town that was built for veterans returning from world war ii. many who would've never had the opportunity to own a home had it not been for the va and for that

commitment. tucked between the city of philadelphia, housing prices skyrocketed. many of the population found themselves over time to be described as house rich and cash poor so housing prices have gone through the roof. in addressing the issue in my community, housing costs are very expensive. my second concern is homelessness is a symptom of other problems. problems like substance abuse problems that behavioral issues of ptsd and tbi come back. there's a community next to my hometown tickets to the issue of bringing a private or solutions. they proposed a 60 unit for so veteran housing project. the mayor has committed to donate the land. there are private developers involved in an opportunity to work with todd so you could be

the last dollar in the project rather than the first dollar. i would like the opportunity to work with you and the undersecretaries on that. i think this is an issue in housing authorities that other congressional district and members of congress are dealing with. this have to do with the recapture of a sweeping account that occurred before your secretary. housing authorities received a letter where washington wanted to recapture what we're reclaimed reserves in their accounts back to washington to redistribute broader programs. the housing authority which i'm proud of which does a good job and manages well the housing that built up significant reserves and uses reserves for new projects to get individuals on the road to self-sufficiency. they received the letter they

were going to lose millions of dollars they were prepared to reinvest in the community. it is well known for the problems they had. they had no reserves. they mismanaged authority. they settled lawsuit unrelated to housing paid for millions and millions in legal fees. the message that was sent is if you are a well-run housing authority and the build up cash reserves to reinvest in your community, the mismanaged housing authority are really not penalized because they look at the dollars we distributed. i was wondering if you could comment what message he think that fans to housing authorities and districts working hard to do a good job in managing and investing in the community so we can and things like veteran homelessness in the country. what message does that sound?

>> on the first issue i look forward to working with you. the second issue on her public housing authorities to succeed. you are right this does predate me a little bit. however, it was the subject of an ig audit and the money is being held by hot but that does the law to the tha spirit we want them to have the resources to be successful and we look forward to working with you and others. >> two of reinvest and managing authorities. i ask you to consider that. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman in texas, mr. green, ranking member of our oversight and investigations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have literally had tears swell in my eyes as i've heard some of what has been said regarding people who are in

need of help. mr. chairman, i want the record to reflect that i., personal pronoun, will not live silently by while the tools that are needed to fight discrimination and help those who are in desperate need of assistance are eliminated. these tools have been hard on and hard off for. we cannot allow the evisceration of the program, the decimation of the housing trust fund. we cannot allow disparate impact should be eliminated.

these tools have been recognized by court. they have made a difference and i applaud you for standing up and standing your ground this morning. somebody has to take a stand. i applaud you and all of your colleagues doing so. mr. chairman, mr. secretary more specifically, under disparate impact, statistical analysis alone will not bring as it reaches a plaintiff. the plaintiff has a further obligation to go on and show that there is a black discriminatory alternative. absent that the plaintiff will not prevail. disparate impact is not a theory. it is a standard that the 11th circuit courts have approved and

it bears methodology by which one who is accused improperly can defend and win. the fair housing initiative program. this is the most efficacious way that we know of that has empirical evidence of discrimination. it is proven to be the best way. if there is another way i defy i can pass the name of person who which rarely happened. which is why you have to disparate impact standard. people don't come fast. they have facially neutral policy, but an application it is invidious discrimination. we cannot allow what we have thought hard for over the decades to simply evaporate

because some people don't understand. i know what discrimination has been like. i've had to sit in the back of the bus. i've had to sit in the balcony of the movies. i know what i'm talking about. i know what it sounds like. i know what it looks like. i've had the plan to protest. i am going to make a stand and i wanted very well known that we cannot allow people to go without advocacy to the congress of the united states of america. now who is so that the general assistance program? elderly with children? the elderly themselves to disable the children disabled

adults. more than 50% of the people on federal assistance are disabled, elderly and children. are we saying that america no longer wants to help the disabled the elderly and the children? have we gotten to a point where we have to cut through the bones all the way through to the disabled? is this the america that we have fought hard to create? i stand with you and i promise you especially those who are listening that don't have the advocacy you need in congress. and there are some among us who will not sit silently by. we will not acquiesce. we will not give our consent. we will fight. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from virginia,

mr. hurt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you secretary castro for being here. i'm interested to hear the comments we've heard from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. there are accusations that people on our side want to shut down and hide folks that believe there's anything but full support for the fair housing act. so what interests me to hear that. i don't think that's what i've heard and i don't think anybody certainly that i represent in virginia's fifth district believes that. people i represent believe there should be a safety net and how it plays an important role in providing not. i think we also recognize the people i represent recognize that we have do have federal programs that work that are efficient. i know you believe that as well. need to be efficient not only to serve those who need the

assistance but we also need to serve those who pay the bills and taxpayers. that is the perspective i bring to this. i am concerned about folks i represent that live in rural virginia. i guess one of the things i would like to ask you about relates to the role of hud and its housing assistance as they relate to rural housing service with the usda. i noted in your testimony and i think we all know in 1965 when it was created that it was really primarily geared and may be safe to say continues to be primarily geared towards urban areas. would you agree that is true and how would you say that is changed in the last 50 years? >> certainly we do a lot of work in cities have significant ties.

however you could just as easily say we are the housing and community developer department because we do a lot of work in rural areas and tribal communities. by no means are the investments we make limited to our urban areas. so what is sad there was a gao report in 2012 that confirmed that there is indeed a tremendous amount of work that had us in rural areas. my question is if you are interested in trying to make sure that we are most effect way using tax dollars and the leverage of federal government to provide, most effectively and consolidation between the usda and hud programs. >> we are always willing to talk

about efficiencies. i know the potential consolidation between fha and rural housing service has been discussed recently. just one note of caution there. these are two programs that are distinct. they have different underwriting approaches, other standards that are different. i would say while hud certainly does do a robust amount of work, there is no question the usda has much greater reach in our rural communities than hud does. >> had you say there's not a duplication of effort? >> i think they are complementary. they do have different approaches on underwriting and other things. who would like to take her staffing you to follow up on the analysis. all of that is to say we are willing to explore what is

possible. at the end of the day the conversation should be had as part of a larger conversation about the finance reform. >> mr. secretary, we did have her house and insurance subcommittee hearing in may. the director mr. fernandez did not seem to be very open to consolidation at all and i guess based on the 2014 agreement that the organizational charter which we were familiar with what has been done. have you met with anybody at the usda to figure out how we can consolidate effort between the usda, hud and efforts as well as the da after us. >> is a great question. i know we have had conversations in the past with rural housing service. of course we can get you

details. >> i would like to see them because this is some rain that has been an issue since 2011 when the president started out on the course. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. clay, ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you secretary castro for coming back. before you ask any questions let me personally thank you for the visits he made to st. louis and the state of missouri. we hosted with a newly minted promise on designation. today it is an unfortunate

reality that a child's zip code has huge implications for life outcomes, including access to quality education, health care and transportation. hud is currently working to finalize the proposed rule for the requirement that all recipients of federal housing takes steps to affirmatively further fair housing. can you explain how this will ensure greater equality for children in the future. >> this is a piece of unfinished business in the 1960 or housing act. the fair housing act required the secretary take steps to affirmatively further fair housing. ..

i wish i had that tool when i was mayor of san antonio because as a policymaker it would have helped to understand what more we could do. they will file an assessment of fair housing with their consolidated plan every five years. and we're looking forward to rolling this out. this is still in the rulemaking process so i won't go into the specifics of it, but we're

excited about the possibility of this improving the fair housing landscape in the united states. >> thank you for that response, and for your efforts in that area. you know, studies show that federal rental assistance helps families stay out of poverty achieve stability and ultimately better life outcomes particularly for children. can you elaborate on the positive impacts that hud's rental assistance programs have on our most vulnerable households across the country? >> it's tremendous. the impact that we have provides stability, for young people. it provides comfort and dignity as was mentioned to the 56% of households that are headed by someone who is elderly or disabled. it gives individuals who are working age the chance to get on a stronger path to prosperity.

in fact, 43% of our working age adults in hud aassisted housing do in fact work, so the rental assistance that we give is in and of itself successful in putting a roof ore folks heads giving them stability and putting them on a path to the kind of prosperity they wouldn't to work for. >> how does the brook rule that caps tenants' rents at 30% of income help families maintain housing affordability while still having enough room in their budgets for other basic necessities? >> what that rule ensures is that of course they have the responsibility to pay 30% of their income in rent so they have skin in the game. they are putting something forward at the same time it does shield them to some extent from increases in rents. what we see out there is that

the rents are going through the roof in many communities and this is impacting everybody. the fact is that so many households today are paying 50% or more of their income in rent as i mixed earlier, 7.7 million low income households that don't receive any government assistance are paying at least 50% of their income in rent. >> thank you for your response. i yield back. >> time of the gentleman expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm glad you're hear, secretary. thanks for your call last week, offering to work with me on a lot of issue we share a passion for, and i want to read from hud's mission statement and ask you about four are areas. this is the summary of your mission statement. talks about your -- you want to work to strengthen the housing market. you want to utilize housing as a platform to improve the quality of life, build clues and if

sustainable communities and transform the way hud does business. that's my summary of your mission. i hope you believe that's an accurate summary but it's excerpts from your mission. >> sure. >> i'd like to talk to you about four areas. moving to work, which you talk about. homeless youth definition, which we talked about individually. housing finance especially involving condominium rules and then the fair housing initiative if we could. i'd like to start with moving to work. it's a bipartisan issue. it's a flexible and holistic program that uses housing to build people's quality of life and transform lives. so i guess i just want to get you on the record as saying you're going to work with us on this bipartisan bill that hopefully will expand the program and allow it to be used to help a holistic program that look ted total needs of the aren'ts and make is more

flexible for the agencies to administer. >> we absolutely are. we're looking to do what we can do -- >> i'll take yes as an answer. >> the budget propose saturday more. >> thank you. second on the homeless youth. you may be aware that the 2014 annual homeless assessment report to congress said they homelessness among families declined by eight percent between 2007 and 2014, yet the numbers reported through our department of education actually said that they went up 85%. so since the 2007 school year. it's a big disparity and hadiths do with the hud definition, leaving out homeless children. i guess my question -- i don't want this to be a loaded question but kind of is. how are we going to solve the problem of homeless youth if we don't count them correctly. >> believe we are counting them, and i believe -- first of all look forward to working with you. we had a good conversation about

this issue. as you know we have some concerns about this legislation. one of those concerns is that it injures hud -- in fact may take away hud's flexibility prioritize or emphasize -- >> , gee want to make with you. you have to count people before you can help people. if you don't know their homeless. so the hud definition excluding a whole category of homeless folks under 18 i want to work with you -- >> i will say -- >> give you the flexibility but it's important we count them and your definition excludes them. >> i would say authorization more overlap that handbeen commonly given credit for but let work together. >> there's a disparity in the report and i want to help solve thaws because we can't help those people until we counsel them. they count in my opinion, and i want you to help count them. so i appreciate your willingness to work on that. third of, with regard to con condominiums you may know that the process with regard to fha

funding for condominiums really is complicated and if fha would simply move to risk based pricing for condominiums only. i'm not asking you do do it everywhere you have had the ability to do risk based pricing since before i got congress. clearly conned minimumuppums have a higher risk than single family homes. i'll stipulate to that. you could move away from a model that excludes so many condos. in fact only between 10 some 20% of condos are eligible for fha financing weapon got to fix it because -- we got fix it because it's an affordable way for some people to get housing big way that urban people get housing housing and to exclude fha from them is a travesty. i want to quickly get to fair house initiative. did you by any chance -- since you've been there you came long after it happened. did you happen to look at your

ig's report from 2014-i guess issued in 2015, recently -- this is your -- wait a second. the wrong one. it was issued in 2014. have you had a chance to see this -- 2013. i'm sorry. >> yes i'm familiar with this report. >> great. i appreciate it. >> i brought with me, too. >> have you implemented the recommendations? >> we have implemented those recommendations. and we have issued a directive emphasizing the need for on, site monitoring and our fheo has implemented a tracking system as well. >> i'm out of time but can you also tell us have you updated your conflict of interest standards? because they're really low and don't include having board members that compete against the folks that are subjected to

these lawsuits. >> i look forward to following up with you. >> i'm sorry the gentleman is correct he is out of time. chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger. >> mr. chairman, mr. secretary good to be with you. mr. secretary, i'm a businessman. i served in the north carolina senate. i led an effort for efficiencies and restructuring our government and looking for abuse, looking for fraud looking for waste working with the democratic legislature, came up with a billion and a half dollars of savings. the amounts weren't contest evidence. work with the speaker to consolidate our health and human services. medicaid fraud was pervasive throughout our government, and as such, around the country about 20% of it. i think the pushback that maybe you have sensed from this side of the aisle today is wanting a

recognition that there is a concern for some abuse. even you referenced several times that the individuals that you serve come from the very poor or the disabled. the disability insurance has increased the last decade from 88 billion to $145 billion. that's a lot of money. a lot of people. seems that a lot of folks have been able to gain access to that. i've worked with our secretary of health and human services in north carolina on addressing food stamps. there's very little eligibility requirements. i've heard on the phone our majority leader and our staff trying to create the eligible requirements requirements and incentives to address it. i think the overall concern is the bows of -- the abuse of the system and what is being done.

you have made a clear compelling statement of a great american success story in addressing the needs of veterans and their homelessness. i think what we're looking for is that great american success story in creating a accountability. inside the system. and looking for real metrics. looking for what you're doing to make sure that only those who really need assistance are getting it. if you have 56% of your folks that you're servicing a good portion of those disabled. >> have enormous access to disability, where does that fall in line in terms of people being able to access not just disability but that then being able to get federal housing? all of this is a real concern to all of us. who want -- i reject the

statements made to imply some type of racial concern here. i've been involved in federal housing in my community for 25 years. you can talk to civic leaders pastors african-american pastors and i understand the need and i'm responsive to the need. at the same time i represent individuals who want a fiscally accountable government and we don't see a dome mon straighted ever how that's been manifest. i would really appreciate your response to those concerns. >> i appreciate the question and the concern. and early on in my tenure, we set out a vision for hud and one important part of that vision was to create a more accountable and transparent department. one of the first think is did was i co-authored a joint letter with our ig that went out to all

employees, telling them that folks ought to cooperate with ig investigations and reviews. we have gotten our departmental enforcement center to work closely with our ig. we work with our ig to implement the recommendations on audits and reports so we improve performance out there. we're looking at ways to improve monitoring off our grantees, one challenge, for instance, is that we have over 8,000 grantees -- . >> mer sect, could i interrupt you? i don't have much time left. would you agree there's abuse of the system in. >> that abuse happenness the system sometimes? >> yes. >> i agree with you on that. >> i think that's what we want is a -- if you want to come back to us with real measured results, not what you have given to your staff and what to look for, but measured results and what you have done to bring accountability inside your system, that would really demonstrate to us that we're putting our tax dollars where

they really belong. we care deeply about those in a safety net that need our help. we care deeply, though, as well about the american taxpayer, and what -- how they're being exploited time and again. >> i share that concern and we'd love to follow up. >> time is -- of thetime expired. the chair now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you mr. chairman. a couple of quick ones to build the box. for the agency, what do you think the thing you do or the agency does very best where you do it efficiently you actually affect people's lives and the costs, the dollar outcome as you measure it, is something you're proud of. >> there are several things that fit that category -- it's fair to say the thing many of us are

proudest of is the progress we have made working with the virginia and others on veteran homelessness. >> your veteran homeless program. what is the thing that most concerns you where the dollar per life affected or helped or changed is unacceptable to you and what is that? >> what is your question? >> same thing just the opposite the mirror image of the first question. what in the dozens and dozens and dozens of programs and initiatives you are managing -- look you have inherited much of this. is the dollars spent -- is unacceptable to you the quality of the outcome in affecting and helping people's lives. >> it's fair to say every day i read the clippings from around the country and i see one of the grantees that is not spending money the way they ought -- >> no, no. i beg of you i don't want to go the anecdotal direction. i want this to be your math

brain side. as a manager of a multibillion dollar agency, what program is unacceptable to you that the dollars being spent on the number of lives you're actually helping. >> i don't believe there is a program that hud has -- >> so, no program -- >> i guess what you're calling is basically a useless program. >> no, on the contrary, we all have those that work the way they designed -- >> is your question what program we need to improve in terms of its eefficiency? you just told me your very proud of your veterans homeless so you came up with a methodology and mechanics there you thought was effective per dollar. but the flip side you can't tell me anything -- >> no no. >> out of all the -- >> if your question is, what program or programs can we improve the efficiency on, what programs concern me about the efficiency on -- >> if you had a target right now where it was time for a

technology revolution, cost revolution delivery revolution in what you do to use that money to affect people's lives what is that program that is time to have that management revolution that you -- >> there are many. i'll disyou an example. >> number one. >> well, one of them that i think we can make more progress on is bdbg. i'm told by me folked that administer mr. this that a lot of the work on dbbg is centered around essentially just routine -- paperwork -- >> what is the technology you can bring to that to bring that revolution about so the dollars per life affected is acceptable to you? >> this is why we're requesting it upgrades so we can improve our i.t. system to enhance monitoring and cut down on the amount of time hour people have 0 spend doing paper work and provide the efficiency that would cover those costs.

>> that's a program you're going to -- >> that is one example. >> to help more people's lives and accomplish it through the efficiencies and pay for out there the efficiencies. >> your characterization is off it's one program. it's not one program. >> but you do initiatives at the program level. >> sure. there's no question, congressman, there's efficiency we have yet to achieve mitchell message is, it's going to take us improving the systems. that often takes an investment, and we need that investment from you. >> you actually have a misnomer there because if you look at the rest of the world particularly the private sector, the adoption of technology and efficiencies is supposed to save money and a low you to -- >> congressman -- >> let me finish. >> invest in my program -- >> mr. sect, met -- >> room with the carpet and goldening sin nia. >> second -- >> come on would make the

improvements. >> mer sac. >> the time machinings to the gentleman from arizona. >> you shocked me with that rudeness. >> that's a fact. >> shall we try again mr. secretary? come on, you're better than this. you are much better than this. your brother is one of moyer favorite people here. so -- as we try to help you policy-wise, to find those efficiencies where you believe you can have the most impact, through your testimony you keep repeat over and over, investment inveshen in the same breath, you tell me that these technology dollars are going to provide you efficiencies why aren't you also telling us these efficiency are going to pay for technology investments? with that i yield back. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us today. i'd like to talk about hud's

continuum of care program. which i understand is set up to engage local communities and providing transitional housing and services to individuals and families. your staff has been talking with my office and a constituent provider in my district about challenges with hud regulations they've run into as a single sex provider. this provide ever does great work in the north hills of pittsburgh helping women with children avoid homelessness. most of the women there have been in poverty. many are domestic violence survivors. and many have experienced mental health or substance abuse issues. despite that the outcomes achieved have been tremendous. with more than 80% of clients increasing income and education level and finding permanent housing. each of these figures exceed hud requirements. however, the regulation as they currently stand prevent the provider from continuing to serve females with children and i can't national they're the only ones experiencing this issue. in thinking through these issues

i question whether it makes sense for every program to be all things for all people. this provider serves a unique population that seems like a key user of the program is to empower folks on the ground. tailor programs to meet specific needs of their community. it can't be one size fits all. instead could serve under the continuum of care program for different gender be proceed i at different locations. that's what the community deems to be the most appropriate. >> thank you for the question, congressman. i'm not familiar with this particular case. i'm glad my staff has been working with your staff on it and would love to follow up with you on it permanently. we always strive to allow local communities to meet their own needs, and sometimes it becomes a challenge when those local needs clash with other dictates. however, we would like to work

with you and with the community to see what is possible on that. >> would you agree that you can work with different genders depending on the context of the situation? for example if you have a resident that has been helping with domestic abuse survivors that maybe there should be a particular sensitivity there to the resident? >> no. i agree with you that does exist in different places, sure. >> should washington, dc come down and say, no no, you can't do that? you have to open up the program when you have a specific population there -- >> again is, i don't want to speak to the specific case. i am not familiar with the details of this particular case. hough in general what we like to do is, as i mentioned earlier, have mission-driven flexibility so we can meet the mission that hud has working with local communities and effectively serve those people that our programs are meant to

serve. >> do you know whether there are waivers in a program that hud would be able to grant. >> in many programs there are way veries and under certain circumstances we have granted waivers on a whole number of things in order to meet the fundamental goal of that program -- >> we'd like to follow up with you and ask you to consider any way verse that would be appropriate -- waivers that would help this population inch meeting with the housing authorities throughout my district there is frustration with the -- can you tell me how often hud is doing a retrospective review of regulations. >> a good question. when the few years ago the president asked each of the departments to look at all of their regulations and to eliminate at least five percent. that was the goal. of those regulations. in that time, roughly over the

last three or four years, hud has eliminated i believe the last thing i saw was 11% of those regulations. and we'd be glad to get your staff a followup on which regulations those have been. we share a goal, think and we heard this from congressman and others we hear very loudly and clearly at phas, nonprofits and other grantees, that, hey hud, can you get better about streamlining these administrative burdens? where we can do that, mark my words -- >> any formalized ongoing review of existing regulations so that every two years -- >> oh, sure, there is. there is a streamlining rule that is in development and -- >> the rule is in development right now? >> the rule is in development. >> when can we expect that. >> proposed rule was issued in january of 2015. and our goal is to issue that rule in the summer of 2015, so this summer.

>> thank you mr. chairman. yield back. >> the chair recognize gentle ladyom utah, miss love. >> hello, secretary, how are you doing. >> doing well. >> okay. i just came in so i don't know all of the questions that were asked, but i want you to know that i'm hoping that we have a good civil just back and forth so we can get some information. good? in. >> sure, great. >> i just finished reading an article on the hill and i understand that the administration the obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify america's neighborhoods. you're pushing forward with that. right? >> i wouldn't characterize it that way in terms of diversifying america's neighborhoods. ow talking about the affirmatively fair housing. >> i'm actually looking specifically at a department of

housing -- your hud rule that is coming out that is dedicated to diversifying neighborhoods in the attempt to try and end areas you think are second be gaited, for instance. >> we just had a conversation about this. the rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing. >> okay. i just want to know some quick examples that you have where the government has actually -- the federal government has actually been able to diversify areas or end poverty in local areas where the local municipalities could not do that. >> that's not the way that i'm thinking about it. that's not the way we're thinking about it. >> how are you thinking about it? >> the way we're thinking about it -- i used to be a mayor. you used to be a mayor. >> yes i know thatth that as a mayor you wouldn't want the federal government to come in and tell you've what to do with

your zoning rules. you have more of an incentive to take care of the people that live in your area. you're the boots on the ground. i'm trying to figure out where you think this would be a good idea. >> so the linchpin in -- i'm going to be careful about what i say about the rule because it's in rulemaking right now so we don't want to prejudge all of the contents of the rule. however, i think it's fair to say that the goal is to ensure that local communities have the tools to assess the landscape of housing in their area, and where the investments are where affordable housing opportunities are, and to understand what -- >> you think they don't have the tools right now and you need to provide the tools they need to landscape their area. to have more of a -- more data for their area. >> i believe that through this rule they will be able to get through what we call an assessment of fair housing dish. >> do you feelike you didn't

have the right type of tools to make the right types of decisions in your area. >> i said earlier i wish if had this tool when i was mayor. it would have been fantastic as a policymaker. it truly would have helped to understand how we could ensure that throughout the community people at least have the opportunity for upward mow of mobility. so i'm convinced it could be a fantastic tool. >> i haven't limited amount of time. can i get a commitment you're not going to do anything that preempts what the museumities are doing in their area, that you are not going to go in and make sewning laws or rules that will preempt what cities do. >> i have seen this talk -- >> yes? >> yes ex-this is not about changing zoning laws or anything like that. >> saratoga springs a city i was mayor of, in utah, named one of the most -- one of the belles -- best cities for livability and affordability.

it wasn't because we put pockets in areas of affordable housing. ones but a we said there are people that cannot afford specific housing so we're going to make sure that we do that. it's because we actually lowered the price. we lowered taxes. we made sure our tasks -- taxes paid for public safety and fire, and we gave people too use their own money for them to be able to pick affordable housing in their own neighborhoods. neighborhoods of their own choosing so their kids can go into -- go to school of their choosing. one thing i'm really concerned about, i just put up an article on facebook that talked about utah going from 1,932 chronic include home loss to 178 homeless. that is remarkable. that a state can actually do that. they have their own housing problems. >> with a lot of our money, so i agree. >> no, no, no, listen. they actually did that because

that was their decision. >> with our money sure. >> they came -- what do you mean our money in that's the taxpayer dollars. yourself, think the money belongs to you? it belongs to the people. >> i'm proud of it. i'm proud of what utah has down. >> belongs to the people. what i'm saying i yous should take note from wham we are doing. why not follow what utah is doing so we can end homelessness. every program we have aimed at poverty should be aimed at making poverty temporary not tolerable. >> the time of the gentle lady has spired emt the chair wishes to advise all members that in order to accommodate the secretary's schedule, the chair intends to recognize three more members. the gentleman from colorado, the gentleman from arkansas, the gentleman from kentucky, those who are monitoring the hearing in their offices you are a day late and a dollar short. at this time we will recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. nutter.

>> thank you mr. chair mr. secretary good, to see you. >> good to see you. >> i'd like to talk about some of the sustainability, energy-saving measures that the department is undertaken with local governments with local public housing authorities. i know in colorado, your agency has worked very closely with a number of our local governments and local housing authorities to really to really make sure the residents have very well-built units and complexes that are very efficient in their operations. so, if you could just talk to us a little bit about what the agency's doing nationwide and any specific examples that you want to raise. >> yes. i want to say how much i appreciate representative the chance i got to get out to denver not too long ago and in fact the denver housing

authority is a good example of this. i had the chance to visit north lincoln homes and at north lincoln homes they installed 10,400 solar panels on the buildings, and what we want is we want folks to have roof over their head ex-want them to live in a safe environment and do in a healthy environment as well, and we have a win-win here because it's the healthier it's better for the environment and they're saving money in terms of energy savings. >> i just want to -- for the record colorado is the fittest state in the nation. so just -- utah has a lot of -- >> i won't challenge you on that. you're probably right. >> i want to talk about colorado for a second and i appreciate your -- >> so, we're doing a whole bunch of work on this. that -- those buildings were part of what is called our better buildings challenge and the better buildings challenge includes a push to get multi-family building openers to agree to -- owners to improve

their energy efficiency by 20% and we have already gotten 89 multi-family partners that represent about 400 million square feet of space and serve 400,000 people. so that's one significant advancement we have made there are also other big communities like new york, through it housing authority that is working to do green energy retrofit, and we worked with them to make it economically feasible in conjunction with the private sector so they'll have rein novied and more -- rennovated and more environmentally sound green energy units there in new york and we just think this is a victory all the way around. >> i have seen instances where your department has worked with other agencies within the federal government, whether it's education, or transportation, or energy. to make sure that new complexes

new housing units are near transit, or it's easy for the residents to get from one place to another. can you comment on that? >> i'm confident that one of the lasting legacies of the obama administration is that it has broken through the silos, the sustainable communities would be a good example of this, which was hud dot and epa working together and asking local communities to do the same thing. because we know if we are going to lift up the quality of life for people, it's not just about housing. it's also about access to transit, bat good school, about the opportunity for a good job. how do all of this work together across the silos so that folks have a holistic opportunity to rise and denver is a good example of this. whether it's in investment in transit that connects to some of

the housing there or environmental investments made. the promise zone wes announced the second round of are another good example of this. we want to ensure that we're making an overall holeisic impact on quality of life and economic opportunity. >> there is anything that it haven't turned of touched on you'd like to touch about. >> a million things, but we're very proud of so much of the investments made. we're also mindful as folks know on this side of the aisle have said, that we can continue to work on efficiency, and accountability, and we will do that. >> with that, mr. chair i'll yield back. >> gentleman wheeleds back his time. chair now recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member marx castro go to have you before the committee today. had the measure of being in the great state of texas over the weekend and had dinner in us a tip at the lbj library and i was thinking quite a bit at that

dinner about would the president this many years later be happy or sad about the performance of the great society programs since we really haven't gotten poverty, the percentage of be population down since his time, and i know we have spent trillions trying. to i do welcome you back to the committee, and i've met with my public housing authority twice in little rock, arkansas, and one thing that came up consistently was hud's bureaucratic delays and disposition of property that it was -- i was informed it can take up to literally a year through your chicago disposition office to take a property that has been sold, take it off the books and therefore we can't redevelop new units without putting that cash to work, can't do a real estate closing. seemed like a really long time to me. i wonder what you consider a good benchmark for that

disposition process. >> i believe it's fair to say that according to the history of the property and the size of it, that you see a range. however, i agree with you that we certainly should endeavor to do it in a way that is as swift as possible, and while i'm not familiar with the particular case of the little rockhousing authority, i'd be willing to follow up with your staff. give -- >> my question is not case specific. itself is prospective. i've seat it in a couple of instances now and i encourage you to set a benchmark that it substantially better than that. you talked about your success with veteran homelessness today. we appreciate that. but in preparing for the hearing i was really shocked when i read a crs memo that suggests that of

the 45 billion in new discretionary appropriations provided for hud's programs and activities for fy15, 43 billion, 95%, basically all of it, is narrowly all that funding is apparently disbursed by automatic or computer driven funding and so it's basically on auto pilot. it goes out. they say it's allocated by formula. 95% allocated by formula. so i assume public housing payment or whatever that might be. which means that hud doesn't have a lot of input and this is a real change, i've noticees, since coming back to washington, that our cabinet secretaries don't have a lot of control about mixing programs or changing personnel. we see it at the veterans administration all the time.

i you have been frustrated by it which you choose to mention that here us your business but appears to me how many more houses could be build or how many more lives could be change if we had a reduction in the 7800 employees that you have, if 95% of your spending is driven by formula do you really need that big a head count and could be reduce that head count? what do you think about that snow. >> we're always looking for eefficient simple he met give you that state in january 1981 we had 16,500 employees at hud and today, by last count we had 7,810. >> you also spent a lot less money then, too you were spending probably $10 billion in 1983 or 1984 year wear having to do more with less people, but i think you and i can agree on this. that we are always looking for ways 0 through the use of technology through doing things smarter, that we can become

more -- >> does that number shock you 95%? surprise you that crs says that 95 asker of the your spending is based essentially on a standing formula that flows out to your -- >> does it surprise me? i might want to double-check that percentage. doesn't surprise me that lat of our programmers essentially formula funded. however, there are also a number of them that are competitive funds as well, but it's either form laic or competitive -- formulaic or competitive. that's not much discretionary power -- >> what do the nearly 8,000 people do? >> they essentially administer these programs. we have had a lot of talk about how we can ensure more accountability. they are our front line at ensuring that accountability. >> if you just had a good inspector general and a-get congress to agree a big i.t. upgrade, if youer going to have automated spending wouldn't that

be the way to handle it? where do they get to innovate and -- >> that's why i think we need the investment in i.t. so we can achieve that. i agree. >> i yield back. >> chair now recognizes in the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, thank you for your patience, we're winding then hearing here and i appreciate your time here today. the congressional research services you probably know, reports that hud has spent since its origination in 1965, approximately $1.65 trillion on its programs over the course of these 50 years. yet, since 1965, the percentage of prime age male work north america the work hours has declined from over 90% to only 77% today. also the official poverty rate has remained essentially flat. in 1965, seven percent of american children were born

outside of marriage. today that number is over 40%. that matters because single parent families are four times more likely than married couple families to lack self-sufficiency and to persist in poverty. and finally since 1965, since the advent of your department the number of single parent families in official poverty has important tripled. so we talked about this quite a bit today but how do you personally define success in the mission of the department of housing and urban development? >> we have addressed this, congressman. i define success in several ways. first of all somebody having a roof over their head, veteran that serve our country having a roof over his or her head is success. >> can i stone you right there? -- stop you right there? i agree with you. >> then we agree on that. >> i want to elaborate here. putting a roof over someone's head is success certainly in keeping that individual out of

homelessness. >> for the department of housing. >> sure. but wouldn't you define success with higher expectations that the aspiration of your agency shouldn't just by putting a person who is homeless into a shelter or putting a roof over their head but instead putting a person in a position where they themselves are putting a roof over their head? isn't that the expectation that we would want? isn't that what the american taxpayers expect in terms of the rub on their investment? >> what they expect is that the department of housing will provide safe quality affordable housing first. and then we also, of course, want to work to ensure that people also have the stability to get on to the path they want in life, but let's not suggest that the fact that they have a roof over their head doesn't count. >> it certainly counts. i just think our aspirations need to be much higher out. expect attentions are far too low. the expectation should be that success is murder not just how many people we're moving in to

dependency on the department -- >> wouldn't caught ill depep den sis: if disagree. >> moving out do. >> jo evidence to suggest dependency. what's the evidence on that. >> my time is expiring, mr. secretary. let's talk about your testimony which i appreciate. that you're always looking for ways to become more efficient awful working on efficiency and accountability and you have assigned your deputy secretary to lead an operational and management review, that deep dive. to deliver more eefficiency. let me give you an example where i think the department could liver. in kentucky, i have heard from men of my con it students who are grantees of continuum of care, which is supposed to take care of our homeless population, in one city in kentucky with the homeless rate that is average they're getting $8 million in a similar city, with the same homelessness rate, they're getting an eighth of that money and for those constituents in

that underserved community they tell me hud has been capricious in prohibiting unused funds from being redirected. so, in other words in the city with the large number of continuum care funds the grantee is supposed to by statute have 24 months to expend the funds or those funds will be recaptured. but the statute says that the secretary shall rielle locate the funds -- rielle locate the fund for another -- that meets requirements to be cared out. i have third the request to move unexpended fund inside. from one grantee to another less than an hour away has been denied. so my question to you is, what would you define as a geographic area and why can't we take unspent funds in one area and re-allocate those to another area where there is another

equal and chronic need. >> that it as great question in fact it's a great question bus because this is one thing we'd like to work on, especially in smaller communes to allow them to share resources whether it's on overhead or direct provision of services. so let's work on that. >> mr. secretary, appreciate your offer. i want to work with you on that colony make good on your commitment to make these dollars go further for the american taxpayer. thank you. i yield back. >> time of the gentleman has expired. i'd like to thank the secretary for his testimony today. without objection all members -- [applause] >> -- >> the committee will come to order. without objection, all members have five legislative days within witch to submit additional written questions for the witness to the chair. to be forwarded to the witness for his response. i ask the secretary to please respond as promptly as you are able. without objection all members will have five legislative days

to submit extraneous materials to the chair for collusion in the record. this hearing stands adjourned. >> a live look here on the floor of the u.s. house where a vote is about to wrap up on the first of several trade bills on the floor today. this on taa trade adjustment assistance designed to help individuals and communities no loose jobs because of international trade. it looks like this will go down rather easily with only 127 yea votes and 300 nay votes on the much. first of three votes. the next on tpa or fast track trade authority for the president, and another vote on customs enforcement legislation but reports from the hill say if this bill goes down, the whole thing goes down. >> the nays are 302. the motivation is not adopted.

what purpose the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i ask nance consent to speak out of order for the purpose of an announcement. >> the membersard viced to proceed on the remaining two motions. [applause] >> i would advice the members that the world is watching and i encourage every member of the house to vote yes. i yield back. >> without objection five minute voting will continue pursuant to house resolution 305. the third possession of the divided question is, will the house concur in the matter preceding title 2 of the senate made. those in favor say aye. >> those opposed no. gentleman from michigan. >> reported vote.

>> recorded vote is ordered. members record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. >> again live look at the floor of the u.s. house where the taa or trade adjustment assistance bill just failed, and the -- the thought was and was reported in the hill that if that failed, there would not be a vote on fast track. the whole package would collapse however you just heard from the majority leader that the house will go forward with the tpa vote and that is now starting. you can watch the house live on our companion network c-span, and continue to work whether or not the trade bills move forward in the house. live at 4:00 p.m. today here on a discussion on the future of the supreme court

nomination process and whether justices should have a life-time teche. that begins as 4:00. >> here are features programs this weekend on the c-span networks. on booktv, on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, fox news contributor kirsten powers says although they were once its champions liberallers now against tolerance and free speech. on sunday night at 11:00 former deputy director of the cia michael morell, on the successes and failures of the agency's war on terror and its current fight against al qaeda and isis. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night at account -- the impact president nixon had on the court and american politics and sunday night at 6:00, on american art facts we visit the -- national

museum of natural history. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> on c-span's road to the white house, more presidential hopefuls announced if the candidacy for president. live saturday on c-span. former secretary of state hillary clinton will kick off her campaign with a speech that will outline her agenda as a candidate, loom from the fdr. on monday afternoon we're live at miami-dade college where former florida governor jeb bush will officially announce his candidacy, and on tuesday on c-span.org businessman don infield trump announces whether or not he will make a bid for the presidency at new york's trump towers, and you can watch all events online anytime at c-span2.org.

the road to the white house, 2016. >> scotland's national party leader said yesterday that the u.s. would have nothing to fear if scotland were to ever become an independent nation. she also talk about relations with the uk since the may 7th 7th election and the implications for scotland if the uk decides to break away from the european union. the scottish national party wouldn't 56 of 59 seats allotted to scotland in the british house of commons. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. and welcome to the session of the council on foreign regses. i'm judy woodruff, co-an score managing edit or of the pbs news hour and i'm delighted to preside over the discussion with

the first minister of scotland. she was elected deputy leader of the scottish national party in 2004, and in that capacity she went on to become a high profile fig in the scottish parliament, scottish parliament, leading to her history-making election as leader of the fmp in november of last year shep became the first woman to hold the position, fit minister of scotland, but she made further history two months ago after a vigorous campaign when her party won a landslide in the u.k. general elections. capturing 56 or 59 seats designated for scotland in the national parliament. she will begin by making remarks and then i'll sit down with her for a conversation before we take your questions. please join me in mcing the first minister of scotland, nikola sturgeon. [applause]

>> thank you very much, indeed, judy for that warm introduction, thank you for being here this morning. it is a real pleasure for me to be here. a real pleasure for me to be here in the united states, here in washington, dc, and in particular to be here at the council on foreign relations an august and well-respected organization not just in the united states but worldwide. and one thing that has been reminded of often since i arrived on this visit to the u.s. at the weekend is the fact that the bones the very deep bond between scotland and the united states go back centuries. they run from the discussion and the debate between enlighten. think arees to the modern exchange of university graduates and the connections between our

technology companies the relationship between our two countries, cultural, it is social it is historic, and of course it is economic as well and we value those links and those ties very highly, and from what i've seen and observed on my visit this week is that those ties are set to continue and indeed to strengthen for generations to come. so it is a real pleasure to be here this morning at the council on foreign relations an organization that for more than another -- for 90 years has contributed to the exchange of idea between the united states and the wider world. i'm especially pleased to be speaking at this particular time. i'm very aware that there is a strong interest here in political development not just in scotland but across the unite kingdom as a whole and there is

understandably an interest in the implications of the develops for europe and the wider international community. before we begin our discussion, therefore, want to provide a very brief overview of my thoughts on where the united kingdom and scotland stand right now in doing that i'll talk about two referendums and one election. i'll look back briefly at the referendum on scottish independence that took place last year, and also at the uk general election that took place just last month. i'll also look forward to the referendum on the united kingdom's membership of the european union which is expected to take place sometime before the end of 2017. although the exact timing of that referendum is not yet determined. now, as you probably guess or probably able to guess the

first referendum on scottish independence which took place last september didn't turn out exactly as i would have hoped that it would. but while that referendum might not have transformed scott land's constitutional position, it undoubtedly transformed scottish politics and i would argue it has had a transformational effect ounite kingdom politics as well. that referendum has made scotland one of the most politically engaged countries i would argue in the entire world. nearly everybody in scotland last year became intensely involved in a peaceful and passionate debate about the kind of country they wanted to live in. and that debate has had lasting consequences. for example in the uk, general election last month voter turnout in scotland was some five percentage points higher

than it was in the rest of the united kingdom. many people who perhaps previously hadn't had any interest whatsoever in politics or how the country was governed, now understands that their vote and their voice really matters. they feel involved in decisionmaking in a way that hasn't happened before, certainly not in my lifetime. so regardless of the result the referendum itself, the experience of the referendum has been good for scotland. we're more energized more informed and more empowered than we have ever been before. the result of that referendum also provided part of the context for last month's uk general election. to the casual observer, the u.k. election are just a very clear result. it resulted in the election of a majority conservative government and the return of david cameron

as prime minister. ... that labour won the election in wales. that conservatives one in england with 60% of the seats there. and, of course, northern ireland has and always has had a very

different system of party politics. so there was no one uniform result across the united kingdom. the multinational united kingdom voted in four very different ways. and shortly before the election i raised the question of what actually constitutes an electoral mandate in the uk win the four nations are voting in and pulling in very different directions. in practical terms of course simply winning enough votes and seats in england can secure a parliamentary majority. but with a government is achieved only by winning seats in one of the four nations of the uk the question arises what kind of mandate is that because there was a party, of course has the right to form the government in the uk and hasn't he done that. but it was not the biggest party in three of the four nations of the uk far from it in fact.

and so the legitimacy of its actions in those other nations comes very clearly into focus. as i discuss with the prime minister when we met after the election, what happens to the future of the united kingdom now in the years ahead? well at least in part depend upon how responsibly westminster deals with the reality that in political as well as in constitutional terms, the uk does not a unity state. there is no second scottish independent referendum on the immediate horizon, of course but i do think it's a reasonable point to make that if the united kingdom is to remain intact in the years to come, it must demonstrate and must demonstrate very clearly that it can adapt to multinational and multiparty politics in a far more substantial manner that it has often done in the past. but here in the trade of course

they are very used to the idea of 50 different state governments making for different choices about very significant issues. but that's not something the uk government are used to for much of the last century devolution notwithstanding. the uk has been a remarkably centralized state but it's not increasingly clear that for the united kingdom as a whole, one size doesn't fit all and a one size fits all approach is not going to the bill for the future. of course, distinct political identities which seem to be in virginia to the part of the uk are also relevant to the third vote i want to refute talk about this morning, the coming referendum on the uk's membership of the european union, something that is of huge significance within the uk. but as i found in the united states, this can be a matter of considerable interest to people here as well. while many people back in the uk find quite odd about this referent is that the prime

minister says he wants to stay in the european union, both of the biggest uk parties say they want to stay in the european union. there's overcoming support or so it seems, for you -- european union membership and westminster parliament and yet here we are into united kingdom standing carelessly close to the exit door of the eu. and interestingly the prime minister is seeking to appease with our european referendum, the eurosceptic opinion in his own party or the united kingdom independence party are unlikely to be appeased by a renegotiated membership of the european union but what that body of opinion was is for the uk to exit the european union and nothing less. if it seems odd in uk as a whole, as it often does that this referent is now looming the uk government approach seems especially odd to many people in

scotland. in the general election last month across the whole of the uk, parties which want to leave the european union are called around 12% of the popular vote. in scotland that figure was less than 2%. and just this week we've seen an opinion poll of scottish voters showing that 72% would opt to vote to remain in the european union with only 20% saying they would vote to lead. that's perhaps not surprising given the economic significance of to scotland and the uk over eu membership in scotland alone for example, there are some 300,000 jobs that rely on our exports to the european union. so membership of the european union is of enormous importance. so i would argue, for many people in scotland the referendum on the eu simply isn't a priority but nevertheless it does raise the possibility, depending on how the result goes across uk that's

going to be taken out of european union against iowa. that's why the european question is in some ways very directly linked to the question of how the uk is governed. one of the things of the scottish referendum last year particularly often very powerfully by those campaigning against scottish independence was a that scotland is a valued and equal partner in a uk family of nations. and so surely, therefore, as many people in scotland would say, it shouldn't be possible for scotland's voice to be overruled in an eu referendum. that's why scottish government is arguing for a double majority provision in that referendum where the uk could only see the eu if each of the nation's of the uk votes to leave. that sort of territory requirement of course is often used in federal countries like canada and australia. i think it's time to apply to the united kingdom, a

multinational state, to give meaning to the sayings that the uk is a family of nations. i said last week in a speech to the european policy center in brussels that if scotland does find itself take it out of the european union against a vote in scotland to remain in then it could, it could produce a demand for another independence referendum which may be unstoppable. but i would argue and do argue that the uk government has it within their power to remove that possibility by agreeing to the double majority provision that we are putting forward. the referendum legislation that could demonstrate what we are so often thought, that the uk government does see the uk as a family of nations and i would posit that it would be one very clear way in which the uk could do what i suggested earlier that it needs to do demonstrate that it can adapt to a multinational

multiparty system of politics within the united kingdom. searches to conclude my opening remarks, it's clear what i said. i hope i think it's clear from observing politics in the united kingdom, these are momentous very exciting times for scotland and, indeed, for the uk as a whole. that brings challenges but it also brings considerable opportunities. the coming months in the coming years gives us a chance to secure autonomous scotland following is to build a powerhouse economy and ensure a more equal society. they also provide an opportunity to secure better governance across the whole of the uk and they will see a vote which i hope will reaffirm the place of scotland and the place of the united kingdom within the european union. all of these outcomes are possible. none of them are guaranteed. they require positive argument. they require constructive negotiation from political leaders right across the uk. for my part i determined that

the scottish government will take the lead to making this argument and computing to those negotiations because if we achieve these objectives, it will be good for scotland. and will be good in my view for every nation of the uk and it will secure our place in europe and the wider world. and by doing that, of course, it helps to strengthen our friendships and our alliances both here in the heart of the united states and right across the world. so thank you very much indeed for listening. i am really looking forward to the discussion that will follow. [applause] >> so first, minister, begin welcome and thank you. i think you for talking with us. you said in your remarks, he raised the question of whether the conservative party victory in england, as you put it is only one of the four nations. you sent in only one of the four nations that were holding

elections can be considered to have a mandate. that's the question to you. my first question to you is if it's not a mandate what is it? are using the david cameron is not legitimately the leader of the uk? >> no, i'm not saying that. the constitution of the united kingdom as it stands at present means that david cameron is the prime minister. he won the election and got enough votes and enough seats across the uk to form a government and that's what he has done. the point i'm making is a point of real politic, it's a point of political reality. although because of the relative sides in england compared to the other nations of the united kingdom, david cameron is able to form a government. my argument is that he needs to accept any of the three nations of the united kingdom, his party did not win and to fork and how he governs the country, that's something that he should take account of any should respond to the democratic wishes as they were expressed in scotland and

wales and in northern ireland. and in many respects how he had his government response to the political reality will determined at least in part at the united kingdom developed over the coming years. for people in scotland right now, we are watching quite carefully to see a david cameron's government response. if it responds well, then the mass of people will take his westminster is responsive is adaptable company conserved scotland better. if it doesn't then the message will be a very different one. >> are we to understand that there's a new relationship between scotland and the rest of the united kingdom? >> scotland and the united kingdom, the british isles, the arab part in that regard is of what the scotland becomes in the future some point in the future an independent country or not is always integral but we have a reality. the united kingdom is not and never has been the unity state

a multinational family of four different nations. and in recent years we've seen through devolution and asymmetry develop and how the united kingdom is governed. we sing different voting patterns, different priorities emerge in each of these four nations. and that does bring into sharp focus the relationship between a scottish government and the united kingdom government. i think it's a big test over the years to come of the united kingdom, to construct that is the united kingdom. is about adaptable and responsive, can it accommodate the different views into different directions in which each of its nations wants to go in? or will it prove to be unresponsive in which case our hearts and i think we'd say perhaps the united kingdom will not continue as the construct that it is. >> watching from the other side of the atlantic, i think many americans look at what's going on over there and would say if scotland were to break away

were to become into penny penny, that greatly weakens the united kingdom. what do you say to that? >> i've never held that view and one of the things i've been talking about a lot this weekend, the united states is about, you know if scotland had become an independent country or if we ever do in the future i stress the point i made in my opening remarks. there is a second independent referendum on the immediate horizon, so we're talking hypothetically at the moment. but the united states, for example, in that scenario would go from having one close ally the united kingdom to having to close allies scotland and the remainder of the united kingdom. i don't believe that weakens the united kingdom in an international context. scotland would always see as its closest ally defending the security of the united kingdom contributing to the security and the rest of the world as england and the remainder of the united kingdom. in many ways i think that to

strengthen the position and the united kingdom i think can be strengthened by demonstrating how it responds to the will of the people and its different constituent parts. >> well, in the meantime, while there is not an action right now to move toward independent, you clearly are looking at ways to have scotland exert more authority over its own affairs. your deputy leader stewart hosie, said last night and was quoted today in the scotsman essay and the s&p is going to push for full fiscal autonomy which, as we understand it we mean complete control over tax and spending. is this something that the s&p has decided to do? >> that position of the s&p short of scotland being independent, we want the maximum powers in the scottish parliament. i'm very impressed that you managed to read the scotsman before i have.

[laughter] >> i have a feeling that's not so but we will see. >> i can tell you it is so. [laughter] suggest that is the position of the s&p. as a default part of united kingdom there are some restrictions on the devolution of tax dollars and european union for example, would mean vat rates couldn't, value-added tax rates could be set to vote in scotland so there are some restrictions. we want maximum fiscal powers within the united kingdom. why do we want that? not for its own sake but because the more powers we have, the more fiscal responsibility we have, the more it didn't help to shape things like our system of social security, the more able we will be able to grow our economy, to make sure we're doing the things in pursuing the policies to help us to attract investment and create jobs and grow our economy faster and more

sustainably. so it's powers and responsibilities for a purpose and people make those arguments that in the westminster parliament as the debate about for the autonomy for scotland continues over the weeks and months to come. >> so you're not saying it's happening in an imminent way? i mean need to push to have this fiscal autonomy. >> but there is legislation going through the house of commons right now that's just started to extend the powers of the scottish parliament in what i would argue are reasonably limited way. was part of that legislative process, we will seek to make amendments to extend the autonomy that is being proposed to the scottish parliament. i think what you been reading in the scotsman debate is about a particular amendment that we are pursuing an house of commons to get a scottish part of the right to move to fiscal autonomy. >> i'm sure you're aware of the analyses that showed this would cost as much as $10 billion a year, cost scotland that much.

is not a deterrent speak with no, it's not. that analysis looks at the fiscal position of scotland right now and finds that, not surprisingly, scotland is in deficit just as the uk is in deficit. our revenues are not large enough to cover all of our spending. the position of the united states. it's in a position many countries across the world are in. so that's what that analysis is about. countries that are in deficit want to pursue policies that grow the revenues through economic growth so that they can pay down the deficit and achieve fiscal balance. my argument for fiscal autonomy is that it equips the scottish government with greater leverage than greater powers for good responsibility to do just that. to do it introduce and ability for us to tackle the fact that we, like many other countries right now, are in a fiscal deficit position. >> i guess my question is how

much of a priority, is this the first thing you're going to be pushing for in the coming weeks and months? >> in terms of the constitutional debate yes, we will be arguing the case for maximum powers for the scottish parliament. but as first minister of scotland might 40 on a daily basis as the lead of any government will be the economy in scotland, how we grow jobs in scotland, how we attract investment, how we make sure that our public services like our national health service and/or education system are performing at well and delivering quality services. so these are my daily preoccupations. but in terms of how the constitutional future of scotland developed, we will be seeking to argue for as much autonomy for the scottish government as possible. >> is a good thing if scotland has its own foreign policy, the you think? >> if scotland had been an independent country we would have responsibility for foreign policy as part of the. we are not in a position. foreign policy remains the preserve of the united kingdom

government. but if you think it is good for a outward looking international skoucher with an upward looking international government as the one i read is to have a voice and to seek to influence the direction of uk foreign policy and we will seek to do. we will seek to do that in a very constructive way. there are some differences in foreign policy between the scottish government and the uk government but there are many, many areas in which we share of you in which the scottish government would be and are very supportive of the position of uk government. we will seek to have our voice heard and to influence the direction of foreign policy as much as we can. but, of course, it is at the moment the responsibility of the uk government. >> so for an american audience what's most important for us to understand to the extent of support at all? what's important for us to understand about where the similarities and were other differences when it comes to relations with the united

states? you've talked about the eu, your strong you that the uk should stay part of the eu. but what else, how would you flash that a? >> what i would say about my party and my government and how we conduct ourselves in these matters within the united kingdom and the european union and the ways of the world is that we are internationalists and outward looking. we would be and is going to go be independent, would've been absolutely the case. we would consider to be a key ally of the united states. we want to work constructively within the world community to make sure that we are playing our part and resolving some of the complex and some the issues of challenge that we live with in the modern world. we would want to be a continuing member of the nato alliance to play our part in collective security. so the message that we very strongly articulated during the referendum and will continue to

is the international community would have nothing to fear from an independent scotland. we are not going to be in the payment right at the moment but if that happens in the future then the international community would find in scotland a constructive and positive ally in terms of the many issues that we're dealing with and facing today. >> what do you make first minister, all the attention you've been getting since last month? really since last november but most of all in the last few months? >> i think it's good for scotland. there has been more international attention on scotland as a country in the past two or three years than i can ever remember. now, lest you read a wonderful couple incidents of different events. we hosted in the city of glasgow the commonwealth games. a few weeks later we hosted a ryder cup at gleneagles, big international sporting events to put the focus on scotland.

most countries would probably thought that was enough to be going on with for one year but we decided we might get bored between the commonwealth games and the ryder cup swede referendum on independence in between those two events. so all of that combined to put a spotlight on scotland that i think in many ways continues to this day. and my view is a very simple one. we should capitalize on that make the most of that, use that to encourage companies in business to invest in scotland. the message i've been taking around new york and washington this week is that simple one. scotland is a great place to live and come to work and come to do business in, to invest in. if using scotland on the television, reading about it in the newspapers and fancy finding out more and please come visit. come to invest. come to study. we are a fantastic country for all of them. >> before we take questions from the audience, how do you are you getting done on this trip

what you want to get done in this official trip to washington speak with this. i'm extreme happy with how this trip has gone you know. let me just say, firstly we had a fantastic reception from everybody we have met in the united states, both in new york and washington, and we're very grateful for that. but the focus of the trip has been largely trade and economy focused, and that's been very successful. i come in new york met with two copies that were announcing your investment in scotland. so from that point of it was a very successful. but the other practice has been to be very directly to united states audience that scotland sees itself as your friend and your ally and somebody that wants to work with you across a whole range of ways. and in that respect i hope the visit has been successful in getting that message across. >> so the u.s. has nothing to for from scotland. >> nothing whatsoever. on the contrary.

>> all right. first minister, let's take questions now from the pockets. i would ask you to -- i believe with microphones. ares i maybe there's another one. wait for the mic are phobic we would ask you to speak directly into it, stand up, give us your name your association and let's see who wants to go first. i think over here this gentleman. >> thank you first minister. gavin wilson with ifc. we met yesterday at the world bank. the topic was economic and i was wearing a world bank had today. i'm and anglo scott. of us forced to choose a passport on which is a scottish one. i'm also i was born in london and was just a question about political legitimacy. you mentioned regarding the current government of uk. london has a larger population than scotland. the conservatives lost the election in london as well. so one question is are the conservatives legitimate rulers of london in december you mention scotland wrecks and

secondly, my wife's family are partly from orkney. orkney's dismal part of scotland, has a very distinct identity. and if scotland were independent would it be legitimate for orkney to say they would like to be independent from scotland? at issue are covered in scotland the legitimate government of orkney given what you said about territorial differences in terms of votes and the political affiliation? >> okay. thank you for that question last night. >> orkney of course being one of only three parts of scotland that didn't vote snp at the gym election. but i have -- but actually came close so maybe in the future we will be able to change that. at me be very clear about this. a state constitutional says the government of the uk is legitimate in every part of the uk. i to question that i'm making a

political point about the need for any multinational state of different nations voting in different ways a sensible government will be responsive to that and david cameron and his government will demonstrate that they understand that whether they like or not people in scotland didn't vote for his government and will come through the policies and their approach and their demeanor toward scotland, demonstrate that they understand that. but that's the point i'm making. and london of course has its own mayor, its own default the government in that sense. by the way to point it is too late to your point about orkney as well. i make a very sharp distinction and i think both people and the united kingdom would make this distinction as well between nations and regions of the united kingdom. scotland as a nation as a single and, wales and northern ireland. i think it brings up a particular significance and importance to the different voting patterns and the

different constitutional positions of these nations within the united kingdom. in terms of orkney i spent a fair bit of time and both united kingdom and -- orkney and shetland and the runoff to the independent rhythm. i've been there since then as well. there is no great appetite in orkney or shut them. if scotland was to become independent for them to be independent from scotland i'm not saying you nothing anybody there of that opinion the country to its occasionally presented in the united kingdom and particular scottish media, you will not find a great clamor to break away from scotland in either orkney or shetland. what did you find within both of those islands and other islands is a desire for greater autonomy. the scottish government actually right now is in the process of looking at what powers and responsibilities the default from edinburg to our island communities, to give them greater autonomy and and a sense given life to the police we have in decentralized government and power line as close to people as

possible. but to wrap it up, my point here is not to say david cameron is not our legitimate prime minister as for scotland is concerned. whether i wanted to be or not is neither here nor there. anticonstitutional since he is at the political we have made it if he simply acts as if he's got the same mandate in every part of the uk and i don't think he will be acting in a way that is strengthening the uk over the country. i think he will be acting in a way that is ultimately going to weaken the uk in that respect. >> on charlie stevenson. i teach at sais. since you opened the door to what scottish foreign policy would be, what are your views on what the uk policy should be toward ukraine and iraq and syria? >> this is a good example on these issues or the scottish government supports the uk position on ukraine and russia.

we are supportive of the international community position. we are supportive of the sanctions against russia and have been a voice of support within the uk for the government's position and a voice of support wider than that for the international community's position. similarly on iso- and syria, iraq we support the efforts of the international community. they iso- threat is one of the safest threats that not just the middle east faces but the wider world as well because of the implications of that. so do not think that the snp and the scottish government takes a markedly different position from uk government on the vast majority of international issues. we don't. we are of responsible participant and a responsible voice when it comes to these matters. and i both of these issues you will not find any great difference between our position and the position of the united kingdom government.

>> can you foresee a point though when you might take a different -- you mentioned that you do but i mean -- >> my party wasn't in government at this point in our recent history, but my party took a very different view over the war in iraq in 2003 invasion of iraq. we opposed the conflict so the are some issues where we have taken a different view. ..

is how the defense structure would be disentangled and i wonder if he would speak about your vision for how defense would be handled if scotland were to be independent. >> we were in the referendum campaign last year and very significant detail how they would configure the defense and then work and cooperate in the best of the united kingdom and internationally. i would be happy. it would be to establish the defense forces and would have taken a period of years to make that transition but

notwithstanding, the distinct independent scotland would have established and inevitably walked very closely with the defense forces into the rest of the united kingdom. >> scotland it's important and to the defense of scotland and it's inconceivable in any arrangement that they wouldn't work together. the difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united kingdom government and i stayed the fact this is a difference of opinion as well is in the nuclear deterrent. now partly that is an honest

disagreement in principle but in part it's also a very practical concern that we have about the implications for the content they could defense forces to begin you can see all of this event online at c-span.org. going to leave this program now to take you to the white house for today's briefing that began about five minutes ago. live coverage on c-span2. >> these issues are a priori the end of and the fact is as i mentioned, making sure workers have access to trade adjustment assistance is a top priority of the president. the truth is that as a top are you ready of every democrat too. it was on the floor of the house of representatives that wasn't just a situation many democrats voted for. including the 125 members of congress who the democrats were still in office. so, and as i mentioned earlier we are not suggesting that they should nearly review with a

voted four years ago. or four years ago. we are suggesting that they should actually support what the website of package that would significantly change it and almost doubles the size of the cap freeing up additional funds to help workers and would allow 17,000 workers over the last et months and eight months and have their eligibility for trade adjustment united to allow them to have their applications reconsidered again. so that is an indication that this particular program can do a lot for middle-class families and we know that there are a lot of democrats in the house of representatives that ran for that job specifically to benefit middle-class families and make sure they have a voice and somebody fighting for them in washington, d.c.. that's why we feel like we have a strong case to make and in building a bipartisan majority for the trade adjustment. >> the voting today was a little confusing. if you can help us out with what happens if they can't pass. does the senate get back

involved or what is the strategy then? to make it between white house officials and maybe even the president today and over the weekend and possibly next week. figuring out publicly to the procedure will be the responsibility of members of the legislature. but the white house hasn't happened in the past would be involved in the conversations. >> with a meeting this morning backfired in any way? some democrats leaving the meeting and consulted in the integrity when you told them to play it straight is he worried that he may have frayed relationships to another vote? >> not at all. the president had a productive visit with house democratic caucus today and he delivered a very strong case about helping

those members of congress understand precisely why he was strongly supportive of making sure that we are expanding the economic opportunity by opening up access to the overseas markets for american goods and services. he explained how as a young man she left new york and travel to the south side of chicago where she tried to help a community deal with the closing of steel plants. he talked about all the work that he had done to help the community come front powerful forces of globalization. he talked about how he traveled to annoy with the then democratic congressman evans. and while in galesburg the president spent time with citizens of the community that were dealing with the closure of the maytag plant. it's if they plan to move to mexico.

he talked about the impact that have on the community and on middle-class families in that community. and the president said that he began for this office determined to go and fight for the people that he fought for as a community organizer in chicago and determined to fight for the people that he met in illinois. the strategy of passing the most progressive trade authority bill that's ever been considered by the congress is an important part of that strategy. it doesn't however eliminate the need for congress to take a progress on a wide variety of other economics identified from raising the minimum wage to passing early childhood education to investing in infrastructure to getting immigration reform done. those continue to be important priorities because they will also benefit middle-class families and the president is confident that he continues to have partners in the democratic caucus when it comes to those issues. but the fact that we haven't seen cooperation on those

priorities, but on this one we have and the president strongly encouraged democrats to make up their own mind. and when they did, to play it straight. >> do you have any updates on when he's expected to come to washington and whether or not you still expect him to participate and talk on the capabilities? >> i don't have anything on secretary kerry's schedule. you may check with the state department. we are very pleased to see that he is slated to be discharged if he hasn't been already. he indicated that he's looking at his reputation as someone who is determined to get back into his office and determined to get back on the job.

defense secretary is tough. the truth is he probably benefited from a little rest. he's been working himself so hard the last several weeks and more than anybody, you think that he i think that he understands the long list of priorities awaiting him and we certainly are looking forward to getting back on the job and we wish him well as he continues to recover. >> no contingency plans about putting someone in his place or changing the location of the talk? >> it's not clear whether or not it will be necessary. additional scheduling updates will come from the state department. >> you came up with a midwest optimism but in reality, when you look at it he doesn't have anything on his desk and he has an uphill battle to get something to his desk is my understanding and the votes

today was an overwhelming defeat by his own party. isn't your optimism a little misplaced? >> there was a was a lot of healthy step to system about the ability of the united states congress to work in bipartisan fashion to pass something like trade promotion authority that is so complicated and so fraught with a lot of toxic politics. and based on a lot of good work in the senate and in the house those odds were overcome. >> that was going to be the hard won hard-won and the broad assumption in here, i think i don't want to speak for you you i've done it three or four times today, many people whether they are in here or not assumed it

would be easier to pass the trade adjustment assistance than to pass the trade promotion authority. as of the fact so the fact is the hard part has often done when it comes to making the case of democrats why they should support the trade adjustment assistance we have a strong case to make if they don't act on it as early as next week is going to expire at the end of september. we have a strong case to make here because we are not just talking about preventing this program from lapsing. we are talking about significantly expanding. >> the proponents of the bill did they do what they wanted to do which was undercut by defeating the trade assistance bill? that's what was designed to have been. >> i think that's what they tried to do in the united states senate. and and there was, at one point in time a procedural snafu that

complicated the delay and we are seeing a similar dynamic in the house right now. in some ways the house in the easier to resolve because we are talking piece of legislation the last time it was voted on at the unanimous support of democrats and there are a substantial members that voted for it today. i certainly wouldn't rule out the ability of the house to convince more republicans to vote for the trade assessment assistance. we certainly believe that we can convince more democrats to vote for a program than many of them previously voted for in our economists can demonstrate significantly benefit middle-class families all across the country. >> i've asked about the president's reaction to the leader. i would like to ask about what it felt like to have john boehner bailout for president today for the procedural rule.

>> i think that what you have seen over the last week the groundwork has been laid out in the recent months and effective coordination between the white house and the speaker's office to make progress on a shared priority. this is the kind of bipartisan effort but the president has long envisioned. and we haven't seen nearly enough of it but you've got to get some credit where it's due where despite the differences they said let's figure out how we can work together to build a bipartisan majority for a policy that we both believe will benefit our economy and will benefit our middle-class families across the country. >> what i see is that there is a bipartisan majority in the house of representatives standing with the president.

he's willing to step aside his own differences to try to find common ground on this and again, i think the country is very well served by that kind of bipartisan spirit and hopefully this will serve as a template not just for passing the trade adjustment assistance but also making progress on other priorities that have been identified including investments in infrastructure, criminal justice reform and other things. >> helps me understand many of the democrats that oppose did so and i think the former speaker said this in her final remarks as well, did so in the way of stopping which they don't like. so if they've passed and the only thing standing in the way is keeping it dead don't those democrats have even more incentives to continue to be opposed to it next week if you

bring it up again? how can you say that you're going to convince more democrats to vote for it now when it's even more important for them to remain opposed to it. >> they registered their objections. they hope to block the passage and it didn't work. they did pass a bipartisan majority. now we are going to make the case to them that they should support the policy that they have strongly supported in the past. they have the opportunity to significantly expand it. >> but that means keeping on the bigger role from going forward.

>> now they have a question about are they going to support a policy that previously earned the unanimous support of the democrat and are they going to seek to expand it and make sure that they are not in a position where they are eventually -- where they can offer support to those workers are dealing with the challenges of globalization. >> but ultimately if you can't get past -- "-end-quotes true as the president shares -- the president agrees that it's the priority. i would acknowledge there are areas we disagree and this is the hallmark of a snafu. we see it now and clearly that's what we have before us today.

>> so it's not over till it's over. >> i want to put a fine point on this. the president will not sign. >> the president has made clear trade adjustment assistance is a strong priority and if we are going to take steps that's good for the economy and middle-class families to extend access to overseas markets one thing we also need to do is make a similar investment in those workers affected by the broad globalization trends. what we know is we would like to do this now and this is the thing that of a secretary wrote to the members of congress yesterday. but it described what the

benefits are of the trade adjustment assistance proposal. this is essentially a package of the job training grants and other funding that allows the workers to get access to the job training program that will ensure they get the skills they need to get another job. so the package is a very significant one dose of a package to expire at the end of september and this will expand and make the trade adjustment for six years. it will bubble the program in size and it will allow 17,000 workers who had their eligibility denied. it would be 130 weeks of what's called trade readjustment allowance benefits. that means if you're doing the math that is enough to go through a two-year training program to get some good skills

that you know you can use to get a good middle-class jobs. so these programs we know make a difference in the lives of middle-class families and that's the case. >> this isn't a situation we have to persuade them to hold their nose and look for something. this is an opportunity for democrats to support the expansion of the program they previously indicated they strongly support. >> the president will not sign without and those have to be attached together are correct? spin as a matter of legislative procedure that's true that the house of representatives can't based on the road their votes today. they can't just send a bill to the president's desk and hope that the bill follows. procedurally that will not work. i would describe this as a procedural snafu. we have a situation that we have a bipartisan majority in the

house we just have to work our way through the procedures that can work its way to the president's desk. >> why does he wait until the last minute to go to capitol hill at the congressional baseball game last night? and would easy to people in this town who believe that it's too little too late? >> if that were all the president did i would agree with him but he had dozens of conversations with democrats in the house and in the senate to make a case for this proposal. those are conversations that took place over the course of months. often in the course of the skeptical questions about whether a trade could ever get done in the congress, people would ask what is the president trying to do to get it passed and i made reference to the fact of the president was regularly engaged in conversations and that was small meetings the president would convene with three or four members sometimes in a private dining room oval

office having these conversations. >> they were not previously announced. >> why weren't those announced? >> because the president wanted an opportunity to have a private conversation with him and i think there were some members of congress that came out and said that they had conversations with the president about this and it is often in the context of announcing support for the bill. there are other high-profile settings. we saw the president make his case for example four members flew with the president to germany when he took his trip to the g7 just last week it seems like a month ago. >> when you see stories written over the next 48 hours see this vote that occurred on friday contributed to the president's lame-duck status when the white

house press secretary was quoted in the stories he said was? >> the president successfully -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> what i would do is simply observed that there observe that there is hope the skepticism across the united states capital and across the country about whether or not democrats and republicans would be able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass the trade promotion authority. and because of the president's leadership and the effective leadership and republicans on the other side of the aisle are they were ready to coordinate and the president succeeded in that priority. there is still a procedural snafu to work through but that's in the same spirit that has contributed to the success passing through the senate and through the house we are going to use the same strategy.

>> many democrats felt it was a matter of survival for the middle income americans who could lose their jobs to globalization. what do you say about the issue of survival as you are trying to measure trade with people you want to enhance in case there is a job lost for some of these people. >> this is a significant part of the presentation. it is impossible to completely insulated the united states of america and the american people from the broad economic forces of globalization. it's just impossible to do so and so the question is how are the leaders of the country going to prepare our economy and the american people to whether those forces? there are some who advocate

trying to shut the united states out from the rest of the world. the president has zero confidence in its strategy and the leaves our economy and our people are best served if we try to engage the world in a way that we enter into agreements whereby they connect to respecting basic intellectual property laws. raising labor standards, adopting higher environmental standards, respecting and protecting basic human rights. but if we can connect them to doing all that in exchange for doing business in the united states what would the united states be doing that leveling the playing field and we can do business in all those places too. we are talking about some of the most economically dynamic countries in the world. they have some of the fastest growing on the planet and giving american businesses and workers

the opportunity to do business with the level playing field is a tremendous opportunity and that is the right way for us to respond to the challenging forces of a globalized economy. >> when you are calculating what is the white house expecting when the trade bill goes through. hispanic unmasking realistically when you calculate the loss of globalization and you have this trajectory how many people are you looking at that could not be

insulated and lose their jobs? >> but me see if we can get some economic analysis. what i would say to you is this a come of the united states our economy and our people will be much worse off if we just walk in the status quo and we don't do anything. the president believes coming and there is evidence to back this up but if we do enter into these trade agreements that seek to level the playing field particularly those with economically vibrant entries in the world that will create jobs in the united states. as a company with a history of investing in other countries, taking advantage of the economic opportunity that exists in other countries and what they said is

if you pass this deal and we get other countries to start to raise their labor standards and environmental standards and respect basic intellectual property rights, what we are going to do is invest in creating jobs right here in america because we've got the best workers and colleges and universities college got the most clever innovators and ambitious entrepreneurs and that's an environment that they want to be a part of so they recognize that by engaging in the world we could expand economic opportunity right here at home. >> the judge finds the police officers that shot and killed a 10-year-old is charged with a murder trial. how do they feel about that after we watched this after the situation in ferguson?

>> my understanding at this point is it is a case that is in the hands of a local prosecutor and the local prosecutor will take a look at the facts and i'm confident that they will consider the ruling to the judge and ultimately this is a decision for the federal prosecutor, for the local prosecutor to make. the department of justice has been engaged with the city of cleveland to help them implement the reforms that they felt were needed. but as it relates to the specific case i wouldn't have any direct comment. >> did nancy pelosi tell president obama that she wasn't going to support before she went to the house floor? >> prior to addressing the caucus on capitol hill today the president did have an opportunity to huddle with house democratic leaders, not just leader pelosi with other members of the democratic leadership. they had a private conversation before the president addressed the broad democratic caucus and

that was a private conversation that they had. i'm not going to be in the position to talk about the details of that conversation. >> this is a question based on that meeting that she isn't going to support is that what you're saying? >> they had an opportunity to discuss it at length this morning, and i'm not prepared to talk about the details of the conversation. >> they seem to be all smiles. what was the impression i'm leaving that meeting? >> they have a warm relationship had a warm relationship that has yielded a lot of benefits to the american people and there's so much of what the president has accomplished that wouldn't have been possible without the leader but again i'm not going to get into the details of the conversation. >> were they surprised coming out onto the floor? >> the president had an opportunity to speak to her before the caucuses. did he watch? >> i don't really be dead but

he's aware of it. [laughter] >> were describing his relationship with democratic lawmakers. i have to go back to this question, the perception coming out of the meeting, i'm going to review his quote and then end here and interviewing their integrity and i don't think it was a very effective tactic. i know you are arguing the opposite you felt the tactic was, but clearly it didn't get through. does he need to change the strategy or the message? >> we succeeded with passing the bipartisan support and passing through the senate with strong bipartisan support and through the house with strong bipartisan support. it's an indication to me that our strategy has worked. >> that the president didn't win today. >> i don't think that is an accurate assessment of what happened. six months ago and even the last

couple of months we could find questions from you asking about the capacity of the united states congress and the ability of the president to work to try to pass and yet that is exactly what happened today. there were also questions about how much democratic support the president would be able to build for this priority. some are saying are you going to call it a win if you can only get 15 or 18 democrats? from that standpoint i think if you consider the results it is a strong endorsement of the strategy but clearly our work isn't done yet. >> the message isn't getting through when you hear that type of feedback. >> more broadly to follow up on the question yes it's too little too late, some lawmakers say the president has begun to foster relations with them years ago and he would have had more success. what is your reaction to that?

>> i find it hard to believe that the baseball game contributed to today. >> if the president of god to the congressional baseball game before this kind of thing. >> i think that the president takes much more seriously the than members of congress and their concerns and some analysts do, and they are considering how they make decisions about a significant policy issue. mark? >> did the white house know that there would be a vote on tpa even though taa was defeated? >> i will say i think that there were some indications that there was a possibility today. but just in the short period of time that i've been observing

activity on the floor of the house of representatives you don't know except when what's going to happen until it happens that there was indication based on pre- the conversations we had with republican leaders that i was a possibility. that was a possibility. >> since it was defeated, were you surprised that it was passed? >> to be blunt no. there was confidence that there was a bipartisan majority that had been built to pass through the house of representatives. >> at last night's game that the president actually bring up the members of congress on the field? >> i wasn't there so i didn't overhear conversations that he may have had with members on the field. mostly they were there to have a good time to read i don't know if he had the chance to twist any arms. but you know again i think that is a pretty good illustration that goes back. i know military members would say it is that they changed

their vote on this issue. >> it was announced or hinted that the president was going to the game. can you tell us how he decided? >> i think the president did this as an opportunity to get out of the white house which is something that he looks for the chance to do periodically but i do think that he also thought it would be an opportunity to sort of show solidarity with members of congress even if they are out having a good time on the baseball diamond that he could also sort of demonstrate that he is paying close attention to the work they are considering on the floor of the house of representatives these days. >> it was on relatively short notice but thanks to your colleagues in the press corps because most members of the white house in time to go. >> i'm sorry, go ahead.

>> changing subject to the cyber intrusion at the office of personnel management i think you said it was 4.1 employees who were potentially subject to this intrusion. i think they've reported today that the number may be much higher so two people have been briefed on the matter as high as 14 million. >> at this point i don't have additional details about the ongoing investigation to this particular matter. you will recall that our law enforcement professionals did make an announcement at the end of last week about their preliminary knowledge that they have accumulated so far about the scope of this particular intrusion, but that investigation continues. the thing i mentioned yesterday talking about this is that sometimes our investigators are reluctant to talk about what exactly they've learned because it can give some helpful insight

to our adversaries about what types of techniques are used to investigate and mitigate and detour these types of intrusions so i know that our investigators are, however, committed to making sure those that have been affected by this particular intrusion are advised as soon as possible and that they get the resources and information they need to protect themselves. >> i had a couple experts tell me that this is the biggest intrusion since the edward snowden affair and i'm curious given the massive size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the cumbersome nature of turning around an aircraft carrier that size whether the federal government is nimble enough to address these kind of attacks when they can be changed so quickly and the federal government cannot with its

procurement policies have competitive bidding on the protection for these kind of things. >> you're right. protecting the computer networks and the federal government is a daunting challenge and it does require the federal government to been involved in the something that's difficult when you're talking about an organization that is large. there are a number of steps the administration has taken to address those concerns. we can give you a pretty good rundown but there's clearly more that needs to get done. these are the kind of challenges -- this challenge facing the government is not dissimilar from that which is facing the private sector and large organizations and that is one of the reasons we have been pretty forceful calling on congress to pass cybersecurity legislation the president has already sent up to congress. there are some steps that we could implement that require congressional authorization that

could make not just the federal government also the private sector born in in bold and effective in communicating with one another to nick sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the computer network and the data of the american people. let me give you one example one of the priorities when it comes to dealing with these matters and being nimble is information sharing. one of the things we can do is one private sector entity has been the object of an intrusion or the attempted intrusion sharing information about how that was attempted with other industries and with the federal government can be an effective way to make sure other networks including the federal government can be be sure that to protect against a similar intrusion. so that is one of the reasons that we are aggressively advocating for congress to pass this piece of legislation and it

would have a tangible impact on the stability of the country to protect the data of the american people. >> they probably have access to background checks and security clearances now. therefore they know who american contacts are in china with chinese people, friends, family associates in that country. do you think it might be necessary to remove people from embassy positions in china who have close contacts who are themselves chinese? >> we haven't discussed publicly what we know right now about the extent of the cyber intrusion. we've acknowledged the potentially sensitive data about a substantial number of federal employees was breached or is at risk. but we haven't talked publicly about the details of that. i am not aware that the state department has made a decision

to take any actions in response to this specific matter. but if they have come and you coming you should ask them about it. >> one last question on this where people as high as cabinet officers having that [inaudible] background check information? >> i don't know the answer to that. there's a substantial amount of data that is maintained. we will see if we can get more details about what's there to be at this point we will not be able to discuss in much detail about what data or how much data may potentially be affected in this particular incident. >> [inaudible] they haven't had a chance to meet either. have you decided to advise the organization? >> no. there's been no change in the policy with respect to the muslim brotherhood. the obama administration in the united states routinely engaged

with representatives across the political spectrum in all countries around the world and members of the obama administration have in the past met with muslim brotherhood representatives including as recently as earlier this year. so it is true that no one from the white house or the administration met with the current delegation but that doesn't reflect the change in the policy towards the muslim brotherhood. >> [inaudible] >> again i don't have a detailed explanation to share with you other than to say we are going to choose when is the appropriate time to meet with these foreign interlocutors and we've obviously met with some in the past as recently as earlier this year, but no one from the administration will be meeting with them. >> harry reid said the chinese were behind this attack. how do you view that

characterization? >> we have declined to offer our own unofficial assessment about who may be responsible for this particular intrusion. i don't have any information to share with you on that. >> it wasn't that long ago the president made a new policy by green lighting use of economic sanctions against people tied to cyber intrusions such as this one. there was one before this. how close are you to announcing if you plan to announce the the republic three steps against individuals or the nationstate? >> it's correct the president did sign an executive order earlier this year authorizing the secretary of treasury to make some decisions about designating for sanctions individuals who may be responsible for specific cyber intrusions or just benefit from those cyber intrusions. talking about sanctions in the past you know that we've often said it's not in our interest to

telegraph in advance any decisions that we may be making related to sanctions. primarily because it gives those who may be targeted the opportunity to move her out of their assets to try to escape the sanctions. i don't have much insight to share with you about where we are on the decision-making process other than to confirm that this newly available option is one that is on the table. >> to other things. first how concerned are you that this is going to chase qualified people out of government or dissuade qualified people from joining the government if they worry that there is confidential information and to some of some of these forms go into a lot of personal information. how concerned are you about that? >> while the reason i'm not particularly concerned about the matter is that this is a challenge facing the private sector as well and i know that

those individuals that are being recruited by the private sector entities as well also have to turn over significant amounts of personal information. and the need and the strategy is something that both the private sector experts and federal experts grapple with. in fact the president spent a lot of time encouraging those in the private sector to coordinate with federal government experts so they can share knowledge and best practices and devise strategies that will bolster the public and private computer systems. so trying to facilitate that kind of coordination will benefit everybody. but there is no doubt that this is a significant challenge and one that is a priority for many of the companies. it's also a priority for the president and every federal government agency. >> a lot of employees have received e-mails telling them their information was

compromised and offering them support with credit monitoring. have you received that message? >> i have not received that message at this point. my understanding is the notification process is one that is willing. >> [inaudible] on the hacking, it sounds like you're not willing to give a number in terms of what we are hearing as high as 14 billion but if you don't want to go that far are you at least going willing to say that during the investigation the fbi has expanded beyond the initial estimates and qb leavitt is more than i was when you first announced at? >> i don't have any beatles to share about the investigation at this point but as the investigators at the fbi gather more information as they are comfortable they reach a point they are comfortable sharing more information i'm confident

they will do that information will come from them first because they will be making the decisions consistent with what is in the best interest of the investigation. >> that number last week is that the number that you are sticking to? >> that is the latest member announced and i don't have any updates for you beyond that. >> and also, last week he were asked whether or not federal contractors were part of this and you said you didn't think so. is there an update to that? >> i don't know the answer to that question. we will see if we can get an answer to that. you can also contact them to see if they can get you an answer but if we both try i think we can get you an answer. >> of the issue came up actually i think back monday or tuesday and it seemed like the speaker was onboard. she worked out a deal with john boehner to take it off the table and then she voted against it. were you surprised that after

being on board she switched to come out against it and should the white house have done more to attack the issue since you knew about this much earlier in the week and the president didn't show up on the hill until friday? >> a couple things about that. the president has been engaged in having a number of telephone conversations and in person conversations over the last several weeks on this issue. so, i am not sure anybody can question the president commitment to engaging on this issue to build important bipartisan support for the legislative priority of his and i think there is tangible evidence to indicate that was successful because of the passage with a bipartisan majority in the legislation. we have additional work to do on the taa bill. when we were discussing this earlier this week, i

complemented them for effectively coordinating through us all the concerns that some had raised the pay for and in the days ahead again i hope that the democrats and republicans will summon a similar bipartisan spirit to build a bipartisan majority for this legislation that again in the past has earned strong support from democratic members of the house. unanimous consent last time. there's also reason to consider the piece of case of the discussion. we saw a substantial number boat for it today including the speaker of the house and we are hopeful that house republicans will continue to lend support to a program the president believes is critically important to supporting middle-class families particularly those that are dealing with the challenging forces of globalization.

>> to the new strategy what is the new tactic are you going to focus on getting democrats to be cheerful and as the program going to end in september or are you going to try to get republicans to change their position? >> would have served us well in the process so far in successfully passing through the senate in bipartisan fashion again, passing the tpa through the house bipartisan fashion today, that is an indication that our strategy has worked and we obviously have more work to do but our strategy has been to make the case to both democrats and republicans about why they should support this legislation. there are certain arguments that republicans find more persuasive and other arguments democrats

find more persuasive. i would submit that means there's a whole lot of other reasons. the same applies when it comes to the taa. and again there's also is not about trying to scare above trying to scare people. this is actually about raising a legitimate concern. this is a piece of legislation that previously was supported by every single democrat in the house of representatives is set to expire at the end of september and what the president has advocated doing is not just preventing that laps of the program. the president put forward a specific proposal with a specific pay for worked out between the leader and the speaker to significantly expand the program in a way that was still the amount of its available that's available every year and in a way that would allow 17,000 people who over the last 18 months have seen their applications rejected to allow them to have their applications reconsidered.

these are 17,000 workers who are in need right now and if the house will pass this bill we could set it out to work trying to consider their eligibility again under a different set of circumstances. that is going to open up access to these important benefits of many more people come, and that is entirely consistent with the kind of progressive values the president has long championed and that we know are strongly supported by democratic members of the house of representatives. >> a little bit of follow-up on that. when the leader was on the floor, she was talking about getting a better deal for workers. has she asked you to seek more money or a greater package? is there something you can offer her? >> i'm not aware of any specific requests that she may have made but again this is part of the conversation that she's had with

the speaker and it's possible there may have been some requests made at the white house. but again the case that we would make would be focused on the amount of benefits that are included here. we will show you the letter from the secretary to the hilt yesterday that the detailing of the extends that would be offered in the legislation and explaining how this isn't just a renewal of the previously passed package. >> one of your supporters on trade said he would vote. so why in just wondering how you square the claim that the strategy is working when the allies are saying or suggesting the president's character. >> i would say i would encourage him to consider the track record that over the last month, we

have seen that the senate came together and beat the odds. it's build a bipartisan majority and then in the face of pretty intense skepticism in spite of the beltway. the remaining stumbling block that i acknowledge is when it comes to trade adjustment assistance. but as i've done a number of times already today county had have a strong case to make about how the whole class families all across the country would benefit significantly from the proposed expansion of trade adjustment assistance and we are going to make the case they should support it and we will keep doing that. >> i think after today's vote and the current leader is the democratic party have taken a position on trade. hillary clinton is the front-runner right now to be the future leader of the party and she would benefit from the fast

track authority if she became president. how would it affect things in the house if she came out and took a position and as president obama satisfied with the leadership being shown right now from one of his potential successors? >> he would be very concerned about the position of secretary clinton if she had a vote in the house of representatives. i assure you that if she did she'd be subject to a pretty aggressive lobbying campaign by the president on down. and we would be optimistic about the persuasive case that we would be able to make. unfortunately, however, she doesn't have a vote in the house of representatives. she's doing what she's supposed to be doing right now which is running a presidential campaign. >> you don't think that it would be influential to the past numbers? she would be at the top of the

ticket. >> i think it is entirely possible that she is obviously a significant figure in the party and people care about what she has to say. but she's focused on running her campaign right now and isn't focused on the house of representatives and one in one way or another and that means that she has her priorities straight right now. >> there's this perception that throughout the term the president hasn't engaged very much with members of congress coming and you have tested that perception but why is it so widespread that is if that isn't the case? >> frankly i don't know. i think that what the president has pursued is a strategy that has sought to engage members of congress on important legislative priorities and that's been on full display not just in the last 24 hours or so but over the last several weeks particularly on this trade issue

and it's served very well in terms of the success we've had in passing these priorities through the senate. we have additional work to do in the house but we are pleased with the progress that we have already made so far. >> you get the last one. >> something that has come up in the course of the debate, paul ryan has addressed this week is whether the tpa might down the road allow the president to implement the rules. one republican said today the concern and i want to ask on the white house perspective would the administration ever consider using the future trade deal for the requirement for immigration? >> my understanding is there a is specific language included that prohibits that. it is a pretty good example that

is where there are significant agreements between democrats and between republicans and the between republicans and this president. and we have made clear we be the immigration reform is a priority because of the economic benefits that it would shower on our economy. we also made clear dealing with climate change is a priori. they fought thought it very aggressively to make progress in those areas and they didn't need them to do it so the president is going to continue to advocate dealing with the causes of climate change and it's going to continue to implement the executive actions that he announced at the end of last year to reform the broken immigration system. so that's what the president is focusing on. >> [inaudible] twa? >> there've been a been a lot of

acronyms today. >> on monday the president will attend the graduation ceremony for participants in the 2,015th white house mentoring leadership program. tuesday the president will attend meetings here at the white house and on wednesday the president will deliver remarks at a ceremony for the attorney general were at lunch over at the warner theater. wednesday evening the president will here at the white house post a picnic for members of congress, so that will be fun. [laughter] on thursday the president will travel to the los angeles california area to attend a handful of events and will spend thursday night in los angeles. friday is scheduled to travel to san francisco california to deliver remarks at the annual meeting of the united states conference of mayors as well as attend d. triple c. events and we will have additional details about the trip to california early next week.

[inaudible] >> i don't have any details about the president's schedule this week. >> [inaudible] >> i don't yet know what the specific address will be that we will have it in your inbox shortly i hope. thanks, everybody. have a great weekend. >> white house press secretary josh earnest spoke to reporters today about the trade bills voted on in the house. the trade adjustment assistance failed, however the other two bills fast-track trade promotion authority and customs enforcement hast. so, regarding trade from the "washington post" this afternoon, the story says the legislation is now paralyzed and the house stuck in the station as nancy pelosi described in her floor speech. house speaker john boehner decided to give president obama the weekend to try to coax enough democrats into supporting the workers assistance package by bringing it up for reconsideration next tuesday.

that's the taa trade adjustment assistance. white house press secretary josh earnest insisted that the trade agenda is still alive and out and vowed that president obama would continue to urge the passage of the package in the coming days and he noted that the senate approved the fast-track legislation after initially voting to block it. again, that is from the "washington post" this afternoon. now the scottish parliament debate if the uk were to break from the european union. most of the members argue that it's best for britain to stay with the eu. we will show you as much of this debate from tuesday as we can leading up to the live coverage of the discussion on the future of the supreme court at 4 p.m. eastern. >> 13404 on the referendum members wish to take place to speak now.

>> scotland has been a positive and enter ballpark to the european union for over 40 years and engagement with the european union has been and will remain a corporate dirty for this government. we now stand near a crossroads. the outcome has resulted in the publication of the uk referendum bill for a referendum in the uk before the end of 2017. and while the government is clear in the general election they didn't split the referendum, it is now a reality and we must deal with it. they are debating the second reading of the draft )-right-paren. the referendum today and it fails the gold standard of the independent referendum with regards to the proposed franchise.

in the reform the center reviews published on the 20th of august, 2014 and these can be achieved without the treaty change. the presiding officer will make the case of the benefit of the membership and what it brings to scotland and to the rest of the uk why it is vital that this continues and why it is incumbent to make the case is the referendum approaches. this chamber has debated the importance on a number of occasions with a strong consensus that continued membership matters to scotland. the referendum is now in the inevitability we must continue to start the case for the membership coming forward and in making the positive case it will assure the facts are set out to tackle the unfounded fears of those that want to see the narrow isolationist position. the first minister was in brussels last weekend the

commitment to the eu speaks to the policy. to the argument, the membership was as a country of 5 million people we understand we cannot act in isolation. partnership between the states is essential for progress and for the fundamental vision of independent nations working together for a common good. and the corporation is critical to the success in many areas deliver it can only be successful when the member states added together. it seems to put me optimistic that they could deliver significant emissions reductions in the fight against climate change or take forward the plans to develop the plans that would al out into trade renewable energy. and they must look outward globally or it will become the old constant of the path when the rest of the world moves on without it. of course the economic arguments

supporting cannot be overstated. it is 500 million citizens that enjoy the highest standards of living on the globe. they have the goods and services to consumers and businesses both in the eu in a global market. it's a vital export market for the scottish funds. for the experts in 2013 with a massive 12.9 billion pounds each year. and it's been estimated that those experts support more than 300,000 jobs. it confirmed that they've become the most successful part of the uk for attracting the investment project. much of that is due to the skulls in the workforce and quality of life that we can offer and for many it is a vital selling point. around 40% of the companies in scotland in 2013 or by the funds

in the eu. they would come to scotland to find ourselves outside of the eu and let's not forget the benefits they deliver to scotland including the 985 million of the structural funds over the period of 2014 to 2020 with 572 million of competitive funding one by the scottish universities in the period of 2007 to 2013. however membership goes beyond the purely economic rationale. the experience of the eu and the vision is one that we can create a more equal and inclusive society. the government believes strongly in europe that tackles the question and they've been at the forefront of protecting the welfare of the citizens for gender equality, improved conditions for workers and strengthening consumer's rights. that is the type that we must continue to develop.

the members that embrace and promote human rights through the convention rather than to dismiss them or seek to refuse them. it deals collectively with humanitarian issues like refugees with compassion. i also welcome the social cultural economic benefits delivered to the scotland communities. the right to the freedom of movement is also a benefit but moved to the study. and we estimate that 171,000 people now swear in the eu and currently live in scotland. contrary to the claims here about immigration acting in our society it is estimated by the university of college, the migrants to the uk made a net contribution to the uk at around 20 billion pounds between 2001 and 2011. and that would cost all. by being a productive member

clearly heard in the world, we are able to shape the policies to ensure that they are of benefit to the citizens. alternative to the memberships offer no such opportunity for the uk transforming its status from the lawmaker. and as the minister minister of foreign affairs highlighted in the recent interview days ago have to implement all directives when they are discussed in brussels. none of us here today will be able to to vote to amend the actual referendum bill but that shouldn't stop us from expressing our views particularly if it falls short of expectations. they believe it falls short in a number of areas. the 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum at the engaged of awful, concerned citizens we always knew they would be. the case in the referendum is

overwhelming. >> is the cabinet secretary aware of this morning's debate that advocated precisely that point? she is of course a conservative chair of the committee. >> i'm grateful and pleased to hear of that because it that because it is a case that can and should be one and i think that they are advocating and complementing those from a number of parties that would be important is that he'll progress as. the citizens can vote in the parliamentary and local government elections and they are able to vote in the referendum, something of which all parties in the parliament agreed and they've chosen to make scotland their home in the

case for extending the vote in the referendum is strong. they should have a voice in the issues that affect the country and i don't understand why the government is proposing to grant the rights into the citizens of the other countries living in the uk, ireland, and cyprus is not the remaining 24. the polls have consistently shown that they have a more favorable attitude devoted to their english counterparts. they would argue for the double majority in the builder they can only lead if each part of it devotes to leave. that sort of requirement is not unique in it's used in some federal states such as canada and this should apply in this instance to this referendum bill. >> can i ask if the rest of the uk votes yes how [inaudible] >> i don't think they will vote

no. if you look at the opinion poll as well in advance of the presiding officer of the health and safety issues into the conservatives are to continue. >> why were the people not given a veto during the referendum last year? >> i think they have their own issues currently. but the plaintiff this is about a referendum it is a point about the future in the european union and i think the provisions are a grade in detail and it was argued i didn't see it going forward into and the double majority when the legislation for the referendum was going through. on timing, no date has yet been

set but the referendum of the voice in the parliamentary and recollections i hope that this something that should be set and if we disagree we can get a consensus in this place. the scottish have pursued some planes on the reform agenda. they've never argued that it's perfect and the suggestion in the agenda for the reform the institutions have proven distant from the citizens and india to put those institutions to reconnect. we've identified two main ways to contribute, first by implementing the institutions to pursue for that affect reform so the regulation is well proportioned and consistent accountable, transparent and targeted command secondly by implementing the renewed institutions we should reflect

the fundamental aspirations and concerns of its citizens. they missed object international problems for the member states acting alone could not. to promote energy security to the union package and to complete the single market to tackle climate change collectively cover the growth and competitiveness by all citizens and the collective action on the youth employment. the pertinent practice which was required to be paid in the policy to facilitate and encourage the member states to take action to combat into these reforms are doing things better and in a smarter way and the continued improvement agenda changing the way that it works and expanded set of circumstances change and ideally the existing treaty structures can accommodate this. however, the minister said that he wants to renegotiate the relationship with europe and it is far from clear what he wants or indeed what the proposals would require to be changed.

david cameron seems to be rather clear in the control. a word of warning we shouldn't cast the negotiations between the uk and other member states in terms of winners and losers. the whole point of the more effective union is whether we should gain from it. compromise doesn't win the confession. and the second of warning as if warning is if we remain concerned about the uk government rhetoric in some quarters which creates the impression that eu membership is not beneficial or present and will only become beneficial if we achieve big enough reforms and that makes it harder to articulate the benefits we already gained from the membership and there is a danger the uk will focus the debate on a narrow agenda on the success or otherwise of the prime minister's negotiations rather than the biggest picture of the value and importance. remember it is the overall decision that will be the debate of the decision on could the decision on the ballot and they

must conduct a bigger picture in mind. in closing, i'd be the best way to tell the story of the membership is to tell the individual stories and peoples people send businesses and the factors and i call them the members of this parliament to help make a positive case for the membership to give a move the notion in my name. [applause] to move the amendment 104.4. >> thank you. i'm pleased to be here this afternoon. >> we have a conservative government and we will have the referendum by the end of 2017. i do accept the legislation to pass it to their needs to the

debate had over the terms of the referendum but in the early days of the government in the position to decide the terms of the referendum. we support changing the franchise in the referendum that i took part in that were well conducted debates and the young people showed at the level of interest and knowledge and endorse the franchise. we support the franchise reflecting the franchise of the scottish parliament which would include that eu citizens in the uk and also the latest concerns about the date. the referendum should take place. but we can also have the process to dominate the public debate. the debate is the continued membership and most convincingly to win that argument.

we cannot ignore the views in scotland we have the election and there will be many that come with a certain name looking to understand the arguments and to be persuaded when we are there have to be naïve in scotland to assume that we know the outcome. we can also be regard while there are many positive reasons, some of them are outlined by the cabinet secretary and i will talk about more of these advantages this afternoon. there will be arguments across the political and social spectrum that it's not working from the concerns of business regulations to the campaign in the political direction and into those concerns need to be addressed. because it is a economic region is also political. all parties who separate the membership are also talking about the reform. but i would remain a member to achieve that reform.

we are seeing huge economic challenges across. many economies are facing levels of poverty that they haven't experienced for generations and from social problems, the pressure on public services to devise the concerns over the tax avoidance and implications of the future trade deals that were too many people, the parliament, the commission, the council of ministers to send books like that. often it is flexible and driven from the center. it's made it to reform the commission and the parliament and its accountability into the economic model which were too many is imbalanced. so this can only be met from within. i would argue that the economic benefits of the membership are hugely important to the economy and across the uk 200,000

companies direct a benefit from the membership while 200 billion pounds of annual export in 450 billion of evidence are all tied to the partners. some 330000 jobs are dependent on these relationships in scotland would benefit from the single market with 500 million consumers with scottish exports accounting for almost 50% of total international exports. the economy of the benefits from the freedom of the movement and the members who choose to look and work in scotland. there is a huge benefit to the country. they contribute more to the economy than they use and many citizens i speak to in the sector as well as our health sector services can't operate without employees from the eu member states. but it's a fact of the economy and of who we are. but the debate can only be about the economy. it can't just be about economics or politics. it also has to be the rule in the world. we are faced with the choice of

working across others to tackle the big challenges are cutting ourselves off from the world. it's in the educational union too. many of the targets of ip diversity targets, water quality coming and we must do more to meet these targets for making the effort strategic levels to make a shared progress. one works both ways. thousands of citizens work across the eu and we travel across the eu. we are part of our family and are more connected than ever and the challenges for human trafficking and a few weeks ago we held a debate in the crisis and a complex set of challenges that needs international action. and that situation was isolated and it encapsulates the demand

for the modern world but as a part of the decision-making process challenges we need to be part of the debate of moving to the onward looking and overlooking. it is the driving standards for workers across the eu and they argued at the heart again. it can be an effective vehicle in the traditions that work. they brought the measures to give part-time workers the same rights of the full-time workers with regards to the pensions maternity rights and leads and on the working time it's guaranteed to paid holidays. these are rates introduced at the time when it was perhaps easier to demonstrate to people benefits them. we are living in much more complex times and they must

demonstrate it can responded to the economy. and i don't think that it was in scotland or anywhere else and the initial polling does suggest that yes results but it does have a long way to go. we cannot be complacent about the results. we get a clear result from across the uk. those of us that take up the continuing membership should be emphasizing the positive way forward. and i am concerned about we are focusing too much on the suggestion for the debate trading the skeptics. we should be tackling the debate had on. and instead of talking about the political consequences those of us that support staying in the union should concentrate our efforts on making the case. and i do understand about taking

the referendum forward on what the conservative agenda is as compared to what other. and my plan on this issue they hold the agreement in the government. >> on the ninth of june, 1975 after the result of the previous referendum mrs. thatcher said one-off cannot let the occasion pass without winston churchill who was the original architect. in the double majority for some of these issues i want to know

the results across the uk would be difficult and let's be clear that reaction doesn't suggest this will happen but the majority isn't a logical solution and we recognize this. we cannot wait for it depending on where you live in the uk that would be undemocratic. they pointed out last week that it would set up any future referendum giving many you would think that would be what they would want to avoid. the debate was more productive to have the agreement for the uk what's not have disagreements which gave them the key and then the presiding officers have a voice in the world stage and whether its discussions about climate change or the relationship of different economies in the world it's far

more than they would suggest and we are looking at the corporations and partnerships in that european union that's positive to remain impartial. i would move the amendment in my name. >> to speak to the amendment 1304.2 in the name of alec johnston. >> thank you presiding officer in and with your permission, can i say a word about the tragic death of my fellow charles kennedy because his presence will be missed particularly in the forthcoming debates in europe because i'm sure that he would have relished the opportunity of speaking out for the uk's continued membership in the debate of this kind. now there is a certain approach this afternoon. we all know that westminster

will ultimately decide the referendum bill. but it's going to take every possible opportunity to use the referendum debates to further their own agenda. and this i think it's is an early warning of that. i suppose it is quite natural for them to do that. david cameron made it quite clear that the future conservative government would bring forward the bill that would enable the referendum on the future membership of the eu. and we now come to have that mandate from the british people. our commitment to allow the citizens of the uk. the changes required and i remind the liberal democrats not long ago they pushed the case with more than we did for the referendum on the membership. now they are supporting the conservative government on

having a referendum on the membership by the end of 2017. lets not forget it was the snp who wanted britain out of the european community in 1970s with many members campaigning against the membership. so this is at the same time as the conservative government helped create a single market and later the majority government, sorry, the major government and that is john major successfully achieved the principal subsidiary acting out of the successors of the treaty and the cabinet secretary may remember that the concessions were not joining the disasters of the single currency or the social chapter were achieved by the conservative government. now i am i'm a committed supporter of the european union but i don't always see it through the resident and spectacles. and also the rose of the natural

culture and and authority which is counterproductive and unnecessary. britain has always been an outward looking nation. if other countries such as france, germany and belgium, france, germany and belgium wants a federal model in the shape of the holy roman empire -- okay. i will take an introduction. >> i couldn't help thinking yes britain is an outward looking country or it was. if you look at the european union it doesn't say what happened. maybe it would be left in question because it says that a person on the date of the referendum would be entitled to vote on election -- does that mean i'm allowed because we

voted in the election in the cabinet. whether the member -- i don't know actually. i have to say i don't believe he would be allowed to vote or not and that is my honest answer. but when we come to other countries such as germany, france, and they want a model in the shape of those in the holy roman empire, so be it. what we want to do is ensure that they that the sewer debate could serve all member nations equally and in the objectives that can be agreed upon. we need a more flexible europe, not one speck of authoritarianism and this is what the prime ministers fighting for practical improvements for all member states, not just the uk. and these are good intentions which surely deserve support. the argument presented by the scottish government and the notion talks about the double

walked majority suggesting if one constituent votes against the eu then it shouldn't force either england scotland, wales or northern ireland to leave the european union. but i fail to understand the logic in this and that the other constituent policies were given no say at all in the separatism agenda than the other referendum is this not a probable sign of the governments inconsistency? and i think that the point in the intervention deserves scrutiny rather then just a brushoff. i see all of the benefits of remaining in as a member of the next generations committee i would consistently argued that reform of the european union is required. as philip hammond said it, what we are calling for is a fair

deal for britain. and i'm sure that definitely includes scotland and for my own part, they desperately need the investment as other nations enjoy. david cameron has yet to set up a specific details of the changes we want to see but clearly these would include opting out of the ever closer eu adjusting the benefits into giving a greater path to block the legislation which could have a negative effect on britain. ..

>> so welcome to the program plenary of the afternoon at which we hope to in the afternoon with a bang. and discuss whether the supreme court is a failure last night and if so, what to me done about it? so this program is being recorded by c-span so you may find it in any random hour of the day or night for the next five years. [laughter] before introduce our distinguished panelists i have to go through my marching orders. one of which is introducing myself. i'm linda greenhouse. by teaching yale law school a member of the acs board and are happy to be a member of the acs

board because i view our mission as helping to grow and to sustain the next generation of progressive lawyers. and i have been delighted to see how many students there are and lawyer chapter so that's why we are -- that's why we are all here. but we have a diverse panel. that everybody is necessarily on the same page and that's a good thing. cell phones can please mention cell phones must be turned off okay. on that -- [laughter] okay. we will have about 20, 25 minutes of q&a at the end that is to say start in about 20 minutes past five and to be cards and you can use the cards will be collected. if i is there was would like to tweet about the session or the national convention experience that would handle is, official hashtag is #acs15.

and the session is still the credit. for more information you should consult the blue cle handout in your convention bag. okay. so we're going to take i hope a kind of outside the box response to our topic whether the supreme court is the failure and by the question we don't mean -- we mean structurally. we mean, we don't necessarily mean the problem the supreme court as one justice decide an important case. we may agree that's problematic but that's life. there are many things we can talk about in terms of the supreme court institutional functioning, the nomination process, the confirmation process, various other aspects of the way that justices collectively or individually approach their work.

what i've done rather than ask people to give us a little piece of the talk to start us off is i'm going to throw out the question to a very distinguished panelists, who i almost forgot to introduce. the question of, just to name one thing that they think indicates whether or not the court is a failure and was elected to about that and will have a discussion in the next person. so in the order in which they are going to speak, which is not the order in which they are sitting, so on the far right is larry kramer who is a former dean of stanford law school and he now runs the hewlett foundation in the bay area. to my left, which is where usually find associate's nelson from george mason law school. at the far left is the founding

dean of the law school at uc irvine. and it is right is elizabeth who is the chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center. and justin driver on my immediate right from the university of chicago law school. and so these are all very distinguished constitutional scholars and we are very lucky to have them here. so i'm going to start with larry. is that the supreme court a failure, and in what way, if so? what would you like to do about that? >> i have a talk i give call why should you hate the supreme court, although it's too long for this. it depends on how you define success. from my perspective is different because it is way, way, way too much power. the amount of power that has been given this insane within

the democratic -- >> you wrote a whole book about that. >> i did. one solution would be take away their power. sound like an easy way to see this is there should be some balance for accountability on the other side. so they are and the pendant provisions built into the constitution but we pile on to that and million more as though any attempt to make them sort of the heat to anything that happens outside the court is bad. i will talk about two of those just very quickly. one is the lack of transparency by the way the court operates is shocking and extreme and ridiculous. that cuts across the board whether you talking about their ability to take i pay jumped without having to disclose them to anybody. their ability to decide themselves on discipline and when they will and will not recuse themselves.

such as the lack of television coverage in the court which, of course, they oppose precisely because they really don't want to meet people this is exactly what goes on and on and on. so that would be one space. you can have a lot more transparent in what the court does and how it operates which what i think change public perception into usable without in any way actually significant undermining plausible emotions. because it is 50 will have this power, we put on the court, i hope those of justices out of their because this would be a little insulting. i'll preface by saying i wouldn't put myself on the court either but if you're going to get people this kind of power, fact of matter is all the important cases the court decides, the ones we care about, and make it an important addition, literally by definition the long runs outcome ginger ninja. what's going to take a going to take a class when she done the legal analysis and did you go one way or the other, what's

going to take it that last little bit? we used to put people on the court who have done things in life, had real experience and real accomplishment who would then senators or governors or cabinet officials are responsibly for making decisions in the political route and see what the consequences were. and with that country kind of experience and wisdom. that you take people like that remove them from the parsing context and they can bring that to bear in making those decisions we have to make that last little bit. as it may be supreme court more important because this torture in 1970 we strip away the ability to put anybody on the court who had ever done anything like that. in order to get on the court you have to to basically have basically been nothing other than a technical legal expert and have not been anything beyond that. and, of course, the problem is how this thing when the long runs outcome exactly what it is these people have to bring to bear on the cases also runs out and that nothing is to bring to

bear so they tend to fall back on what you would expect which is ideology and that's what you see. i think the last justice from my perspective provide a kind of experience to bring to bear on this would have been justice o'connor. and you saw that in which he decided cases. very distinct upgrade or not. we need that kind of wisdom slightly changed and i don't have to do this because it's a cultural thing but what we don't need on the court our people the only african technical lawyers. -- and instead of people who have real experience in the world that the court is going to affect. >> one other metric for the need is something that i remember walter dellinger said back in the day when he was advising president clinton on potential nominations is to ask whether that potential nominee if they

ever made it to the court with her obit get into "the new york times" and what would it say. and i guess by that measure ruth ginsburg would qualify. i'm not sure of anybody else. but back to your point, larry. you make two kinds of points. one on the transparency and sort of with an undertone of effort, and then on the kind of work product of food we put on the corporate so i think those are two quite different points. and maybe we can discuss them separately and also on the transparency point i think you make a couple different points. television is an old issue. one can debate and the date for many years. put that aside for a minute but

you mentioned judicial ethics and junkets and things. is that a problem? a to disclose their finances like every other federal judge and they do hold themselves bound by the code of judicial ethics. as i understand the reason as a kind of formal matter the code doesn't apply to the justices even though they abide by it is because who would judge the justices? but do others think that these are problems that indicate that the court is falling short? let's just look at the ethical part of the transparency and then we will go to the others. >> just to be clear about the point. it's not so much which point any particular thing they would do about nothing would make a difference. it's more about the overall culture of the court and the sense they can do whatever we want answers public efforts of a watch what we do get what i take

jumped after junket paid by whatever the sponsors our communion, corporations, pick your side, is that come to think about that come to think what i do that or not does that affect how i decide what i have zero doubt that it does. do i do less and? it's a pervasive culture culture inadequate operates and as much a particular role in the narrow sense of what it may change. >> is there sort of a corrupt culture of the courts because it's about corruption and excessive independence, since we don't have to worry about or care. it's all interconnected. if you undertake or judicial supremacy which i would do, then what can you do nonetheless to give them some sense that the account of the world outside. that's what transparency rules are really about spent i don't think it's a corrupt culture. one of the great things about our federal judiciary and the supreme court is that rarely are there any allegations of corruption. i think though what larry says is right, the ethical rules

apply to other federal judges should be applied to supreme court justices. i also think it's wrong to lead east justice to decide whether to recuse himself or herself. out of anybody should be a judge for himself or herself. i think the procedure should be changed or added to making that decision rather than the individual justice. >> who would make the decision speak with i think we could create a panel of federal court appealsof appeals judges with some kind of other panel. i do like the idea been submitted to the justices because i worry they will all just defer to each other. it troubles me and we can look at cases where justices are participating even though there are serious questions. we all know it's a just left do justice to decide the related to that justices are reluctant to recuse themselves because of fear it will leave the court with a split. i so knew reason why the could allow specially now three living retired justices wanted to come

back and sit in when one of the justices would recuse which may make a more likely that justices would recuse themselves and to close cases. and in a close cases it's about if they recuse themselves. >> your idea as an outside body, how does that work to every petition come every granted case would have to be vetted? >> no. it should be submitted to somebody other than that justice. who that body is unless interested in. i would even settle going to the justices of the court to decide i don't like the idea that a person is a judge of himself or herself. we have had instances where they were serious motion to recuse and then the justices, no i think i can be. no i'm going to stay. i think it is for example in the army spy case was decided by the supreme court in the early 1970s. it was a motion to recuse justice rehnquist because you participate in issue when he was assistant attorney general of the united states and he said i

think i can be fair. quite famously those instance where justice scalia went hunting with a vice president at the participate in the case where the vice president was involved. just a school he wrote an opinion saying i can be there. i think of other examples. it's much better when this question to whether a justice should recuse to submit other than to someone other than that justice. >> i do think it's possible to put larry's comments sort of side by side and think about the way in which the justices are ubiquitous figures at law schools and on c-span, answered one place may be that we don't see them in their oral argued capacity. i define that distressing answer of difficult to explain. it seems like justices before they join the court are often attracted to the idea of televising the proceedings in the corporate as you say it is a sort of argument about cameras in the courtroom but why hasn't

it happened? is simply put the justices are going to go around and give talks, then they should you know, be seen in a capacity that i don't think that's because people would be embarrassed about the proceedings of the court. i think that justices ask good questions. i don't think they have anything to sort of fear by allowing cameras in the courtroom. if the argument is it's about justices or the lawyers are going to play to the gallery i think that already happens i don't think that will introduce a new dynamic. i think it would be wise for for the for the justices to let cameras in the courtroom. i do think there's a serious argument against it. >> can anybody think of an argument against it's because justicethe justices themselves make the argument that they are concerned or comments would be taken out of context or something like that but we have the audio of the comments and that doesn't really seem to have that much. i would say it is perhaps the

middleground between the argument against having cameras in the court is at least to have live audio of the argument. i think that would help especially we see in some cases very high profile cases of attempts -- >> acetate and the marriage case spirit they released them earlier but still later that day. those who are members of the bar know that typing audio in the lawyers lounge if there's overflow for the supreme court lawyers bar section. it seems technologically easy for them to do that. i think it would be a very good middle ground for the court to adopt if it wants to make itself more transparent and i think that's only to the good of the american people can be more engaged and more knowledgeable about what the court is doing. >> i think the current system is actually more problematic in that from time to time the court will acknowledge that there's a major case and to put out the same day audio which puts the court and in opposition of identifying the imported cases.

let's assume every case they grant is important. >> what's the difference between hearing the audio immediately after the argument with c-span putting still photographs of the justices and lawyers and watching it live two hours earlier? there is no distinction. >> for having to put to the john oliver dog reenactment, you know? [laughter] >> is that better? i don't know. >> i have a little bit different view on this. larry said one of the problems with the justices is as they think they can do anything they want. and i think to the extent that that's true it's a much worse form of corruption to any of the things we've been discussing about recusals and televising the proceedings. >> and do you agree agree to speak with you ought to agree to speak what do i agree speak what do you think there's a problem they can do anything they want? >> yes. >> all right.

[laughter] >> now you are supposed to say which we do about it. >> yeah, i do have some ideas about that. and i could kind of give a little bit of background. i went and read all of the transcripts, the confirmation hearings of the last four justices. and when they were asked what they thought the role of the judge was i found what they answered and you couldn't tell the difference between the answers if i went into judy biggert to which moment it was. they all said exactly the same thing, that the job of a judge is to apply the law to the facts. my personal views on anything have nothing to do with being a judge. it's a very constrained law. but the most striking cases where president obama's nominees, both of them were asked the president said it's all about your hard. that's a really important part of being a judge and that's why he picked you.

and they said i don't agree with it. both of them said i don't agree with that. so they say and all of the senators seem to agree on both sides of the aisle that's what the job is supposed to do. i think it's not completely impossible that they could do that a lot more than they do now. there was reason i saw a report talk that elena kagan gave at a loss over she described the conference's. and she said the only two kinds of conferences. one are the ones about 50 pages that make the front pages, "the new york times" and those conferences are very short. nobody discusses the case of all. it to say how they're going to vote, and i guess she said they all think if they explain to discuss the case with each other they just i know each other so what's the point? but then she said to our long conferences and those are about the cases that nobody except lawyers who specialize in the

field is paying attention to purchase it often does go on for quite a long time, and they spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal entities and they don't come in with subtle views and they try to work it out. so my proposal would be that congress did a few things to encourage more long conferences and fewer short conferences. and i have for proposals which i worked up with my colleague, regularly come and i regularly come and post it to conclusions without getting into the recent. first, congress can require all the opinions of the supreme court majority concurring and dissenting to be anonymous. and affect universal opinions. but that would include the conferences and the dissent. second they could expand the jurisdiction of the court. right-wingers often go for the jurisdiction stripping ideas, cut it out and let them do less. i would say let them do more.

and there's a no longer just a statutory mechanism by which courts of appeal can certify a question of the supreme court. they think the courts, the lower courts need more guidance. the supreme court doesn't like to be told which cases they should here so they never ever any longer except certification. so my proposal would be for every sort of grant on a federal question case they have to take one certify to some a court of appeals. that will give them more opportunity to try to deal with the issues at the lower courts actually think they need guidance on. the third thing i would do is take away pashtun very pernicious effect on the culture -- >> that would break the hearts of the people -- [inaudible] >> the law clerks have a pernicious influence. to the extent they serve a valuable function in doing research. that could be assigned to the office of library and of the

court and results of the research within be shared with all the justices, not just little research projects aimed at a particular justice. is clerks are librarians wouldn't be doing draft opinions at all. write their records suggest is to write their own opinion would have some of the beneficial effect of term limits because the -- [laughter] if you actually had to do their own job we would have, we would have fewer justices who stayed in the saddle pass the time when they can no longer mounted the horse. [laughter] and my last suggestion would be we bring back the circuit riding. that was from 100 years they were required to do circuit riding by congress even though they hated it. they finally managed to get rid of it and bring it back. they have plenty of time during

the summer. they can spend a little us time in the alps and more time sitting on some of the lower court doing real judicial work. and i think these are all marginal changes, very modest proposals. [laughter] they won't give us the perfect accord. that would only happen if we appointed a poor justice thomas is, but it would be -- [laughter] >> so these are wonderful blue sky proposals that actually you you and craig have an article in which i've assigned it to my students every spring in a course about the court. i went into the very end of the term so they have formed their own views and to present him them with yours and i think it's one of the favorite assigned readings of the whole semester. >> i'm often good for a laugh. [laughter] so anonymous, anonymous

opinions. for some of the european courts take a different approach but i think approach the same problem is they don't allow dissenting opinions, right? so you could have anonymous opinions that would speak for the entire court without concurring or dissenting opinions. have you ever thought about writing a new article about that? >> no. i wouldn't do that. i understand the european judicial gulch is quite different from ours. and actually think dissenting and concurring opinions can serve a valuable purpose. partly disciplining the majority by presenting competing arguments, partly by informing the bar about disagreements within the court. what i think making them anonymous would do consisting anonymity wouldn't necessarily do is curtail a lot of the showboating. you know many opinions nowadays

are not written for lawyers to get written for "the new york times," written for casebook editors, and there's a lot of stuff in my view just doesn't belong in judicial opinions in many of the opinions of the justices. and that's not partisan or an ideological think anyone who filed the court at all know who i'm talking on both sides of the ideological divide. >> so the dissenting and concurring opinions would also be unanimous? >> yes. they would be anonymous right. >> does anybody have any reaction to that? >> i think that, i think having authored opinions is important because if we had anonymous opinions i think would make the transparency problem that larry mentioned perhaps even more pronounced. because i think it's important to be able to say justice scalia offers his opinion and it is in contrast to these the other

thing is that justice scalia has authored or join. i think that's an important part of president and also allowing the public to hold justices accountable for it they deviate from precedent. and from their own stated views before. so i think that nothing to do that would be harmful. >> .co thank you letters the initial point. how does the public hold them accountable? where is the accountability? it's like tenure. >> i'm not saying they are necessarily very sensitive to public outcry but i think if one does take seriously one's role as a jurist you want to be seen as principled and then not. if you just sort of willy-nilly decide according to your particular preferences as to the outcome indicated that i think they would be a sufficient outcry as we've seen cases where i think it's been important to

hold justices, he voted this way and raise come you should vote this way when obamacare comes before you get if you don't then maybe it's motivated by politics. as opposed to a principled statement of the law. >> if i could just respond. >> ultimate the way to hold the supreme court accountable is through presidential elections and the senatorial elections. who we elect the for president in 2016 especially if there are two terms,come is likely to fill for vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the 2016 presidential election more important than supreme court -- >> i got to say, that statement which is sort of true and it's got a lot it's insane, right? something has gone seriously wrong with your democracy when the statement that is made is what we really need to worry about which is a president at our mouths of congress is going to put on the supreme court. that is just this is not critical of you because i think

it's a good statement and it's a really clear statement of what the core problem is. i mean i would get rid of the law clerks are exactly the reason -- what do you have to make them -- accountability, the court is conscious of its own south africa prop is where we've set those limits is so far out there that they could go really far. so the question is what are the devices you can have to reproduce some symbols of modesty with respect to the views as compared to the use of us if we disagree with them? and so as i said i don't think that's incorrect but it is just what kind of democracy is that was like the unaccountable branch what do we do it because -- like democracy is great except for things that are important. those things have to give to the oligarchy and i seems to me crazy. >> the question is are we as society better off having an institution like the supreme

court and the federal judiciary largely insulated from accountability to define the meaning of the precious rights and the constitution? while i am critical of the history us to quickly as a society are better off with that kind of institution. >> we have debated this a lot. we are not better off and we didn't have that until very recently and they have not -- actually what always amazes me is the progressive audience should hold these views so much more strongly than conservative ones. a cosmic history the court has been a reactionary institution far more often and in whatever ways that it has ever been. >> the only thing i would say this that when i think of the people who i've represented through my career, criminal defendants prisoners, a homeless man before the supreme court, a guantánamo detainee it's the courts are nothing there to say we're not going to the courts available what is

the last of a state legislature adopted a law to expand the rights of criminal defendants speak with where are you living? they are doing it all the time now. they come in ways. the delusional capture that a very brief and exceptional period in american history has put over the whole of american history. all of the progressive reforms in criminal justice that took place both in the run up to the '50s and '60s, and were quite a few of them. we tend only to focus on the things the supreme court did without paying attention to the parole. the supreme court to do that. what's happening now is all in the face of really radical conservative supreme court on criminal justice was where we find that the one area which we've got some breakdown in polarization is on prison reform and criminal justice issues. you have to do take the long view and not, he said the people you represent it, you are a lawyer during that period, i see that. if you have to look at the course of american history it's

hard to justify the court as a progressive this edition although that's not the basis of my view. i don't care in one way or the other i believe in democracy. >> if i can go back to elizabeth's point which i disagree with, i think it's been a pernicious development that the justices feel compelled to stick with their own personal precedence. it used to be that the presidents were the decisions of the court, and oftentimes very commonly once the court decided an issue the justices were in dissent simply accepted that precedent and that was a president of the corporate in recent decades we've seen an increase in the idea that each justice has to be consistent from case to case -- >> some people -- >> stare decisis right. and to contribute to the court behaving less like a court. it's true that if both opinions

were anonymous people can change their position for political reasons. they can do that anyway because there's not a single justice in modern times that has been able to hire law clerks clerks who can figure out a way to distinguish away. >> i agree with nelson on the idm that the justices should not fear changing their minds as much as they seem to get it seems to be that causes them great pain to say i've changed my mind. i think it would be better if people got away from that but if they could explain what led him to change that much i think i would be advantageous. one question of accountability and how to hold justices. i think one of the ways we hold them accountable is is by having

them sign the names to the opinions of themselves. if we can identify jocelyn harmon with that opinion, or that they wrote an infamous opinion on behalf of the supreme court. i think it's helpful to be able to identify the particular justice that wrote that opinion i'm not even sure it's possible to have anonymous opinions anymore given the sophistication of computer databases that would be capable of certainly know who wrote the opinion. that takes us to the question of law clerks. as to the law clerks, i think the law clerks, if not all the while ago i was a law clerk. i think at least are capable of adding something valuable to the institution and perhaps what's most important is not so much the drafting of opinions, but instead it's the voice of a younger generation. many of the justices are in their 70s and '80s and

difficulty cases that come before the court evolving technological issues or issues of import. i think it's viable for the justice of some in the chamber of they can talk the sort of issue. i would be in favor of getting rid of -- >> it would be a funny and election process for people to bring that to bear. i've got a lot of students at stanford who i would say why don't you pick them can afford them about technology come on whatever the issue this. law student who did really well in law school -- i probably should not have been a clerk either. >> your mention of the age of the justices and the need or the utility of bringing young voices into their chambers of course raises the whole topic of life tenure. so i think there's a lot to discuss about life tenure. i would just throw it out and see would like to get rid of it? >> i would.

i favor 18 year non-renewable term limits for supreme court justice. in part it's life expectancy thankfully is a longer than it was in 1787. clarence thomas was 43 when confirmed to the court in 1990 would i do want to sound ideological. elena kagan and john roberts were both 51 who confirmed. imagine that these three justices state until they are 90. the age of justice john paul stevens step down. that's too much power to exercise by a single person for too long a period of time. also too much and now turns on the action of history. richard nixon had four vacancies in his first two years as president of jimmy carter had no vacancies in his four years as president. 18 year non-renewal terms would mean every president would have a vacancy every two years but i think that would be far better. >> i don't have any objections to term limits.

18 might be too long too lengthy batter. [laughter] you could have rotating circuit judges serving on the supreme court for two years of peace. that might be even better. >> i think that i am opposed to term limits and here are some argument against them. one would be the constitution of the united states, right? there is article iii section one which talks about the opinion of the justices. assuming one were even able to a constitutional amendment, which i think would be required to bring that about at the seams and credit unlikely. i worry about the cloth of the constant churn of the supreme court justices. if they are a turnover every two years one could imagine the justices have an even greater incentive to the sort strategic arguments about whether to hear the case or not to hear a case. and that caused me some concern

that i should also say some of her most distinguished justices served for more than 30 years. think about chief justice john marshall and with some rather important opinions that shape our constitution universe will be been on the court for 18 years. the same could be true of oliver wendell holmes. when we start thinking about imposing these tenure requirements i think we should be careful. one of the reasons we should be careful is because of, you think it can is a device is justices to think about what they're going to do after they leave the court. and it seems like a mistake to me. earl warren was attorney general of california during the internment of japanese-americans. and then he joined the supreme court and those in ways that are very incompatible but one of the reasons that he was able to vote in the way that it is as a justice on the court is because

he didn't have to think about the next election to what was going to come after leaving the court. that is to say there is a real virtue in having people go to the court and understand that's the last position that they're ever going to hold in their professional lives. >> it doesn't require a constitutional commitment in the sense that grants a proposal. the then you see arguments about on balance i think i would favor term limits there you have an occasional justice by can think of the justice overtime to serve her longtime and the vast majority of them don't do that those were innovative but more more important than are so out of sync at the point before the country is. what i like about the idea of a regular turnover is one of those which you can preserve strong judicial independence and even supremacy. and yet know what about the court during too far away from where the country is moving because of constant turnover. and the question which is a question which is equivalent to

an award about that of an adjustable that too much trouble finding a good job after stepping off the court. the confirmation process would have to change but it probably would if it was every two years. it would bring the stakes down for any single point. >> one answer to justice concerned about losing the best work of the older justices might be that with the regular turnover there wouldn't be such an incentive to put the very young justices on the court. so i think one can make an argument that the framers of view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. want to talk a little bit more because people may not be

completely up on figures proposals that were circulated. looking at the 18 year, it is at least an argument that it couldn't be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court, but the actual active job of serving as working day-to-day justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group, am i right about that? >> they say would require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment but here i may disagree with justin. when rick perry ran for president he proposed just what i've suggested an 18 non- non-renewable conflict with conservatives like rick perry and liberals like me both

proposing the baby becomes more plausible. i've spoken to a lot of audiences about this and it's interesting, on the rare occasion i get interrupted with applause it's proposing 18 year non-renewable limits so i think it's -- [applause] i didn't do that on purpose last night but i do think there is much more support than we might imagine it would take time to build the support and would turn into a constitutional amendment but i don't think it is an impossibility. >> you mentioned you were concerned about the confirmation process in the hearings into whether i guess people who support the 18 year term is that, that would mean every president would get two nominees. so that they would avoid that kind of interest that problem that fate would befall upon the lucky president of the unlucky president like jimmy carter who

had none. so would be an expectation of regularity that may lower the temperature can lower this takes a somewhat of the confirmation process. is about something that appeals to you? >> welcome lowering this takes appeals to me. whether this would do much toward that end i'm skeptical about. i think the high temperatures that occur at supreme court confirmation hearings are something fairly will probably want contingent on fica with a somewhat closely divided court and that kind of thing i think is probably a more important factor in driving these things. >> i think that, i'm not sure it would lower the temperature at all because part of what raises the temperature is the fact that these very high profile, very

important cases get to the court in the first place which against larry thinks that's a bad thing, ma just initial premise. but i would still happen even if we had the 18 year term. i think we would still have confirmation processes. i'm not entirely sure what we get out of the term limits i guess. i think perfect example of counterpoint to the idea that justice is toward long period on the bench and to do some of the best work or are not, feed into current societies. our speaker to mark justice ginsburg she's notorious at the end of her cryptic you can get more embraced by the younger generation and current events than that. we are getting tattoos of her on the arm. if we have term limits we may not have gotten some of her best defense i think in shelby county. a lot of these things come by

some of the accident of the cases come up with you have which justices. jacketed this thought experiment what would happen if we had the 18 year term limits. it comes to conclusion that ruled the way would've gone the other way. i'm not entirely sure openness to get out of that -- rove versus wade. >> what you get get is this. against up to our nine individuals. i will say he i can state with some sense the term i clerked the last term of chief justice burger, six of the justice or in her 80s. i would say they were not all there. it was not a law clerk stepped in and get what we want a. we didn't. in a way that might've been better. what we did is we would extrapolate from the past eventually thought they would want to go and it was not sustainable to say i don't want to go there. udc district you see a lot of the elderly justices become exaggerated version of their younger selves in their later years. so again you can't do this by

anecdote exactly but on balance think about the important things that you might want to construct we own lives. who do you want what you want the ability to people who were at the very tail end of their lives and whose abilities are unquestionably declining or which by the people at the peak of their powers? i don't think there's any question that the most work things on balance i will take the people who are at the peak of their power. there's no reason it should be different speaker one part of that has to be a locker. those 40 for a terrible failure that did damage to people and society. in large part that was because justices remain on the court far too long. i think the advantage of 18 non-renewable terms is saying we will have new justices coming on the court but still give 18 years which is a long time to make a mark on the constitution. >> i'm just curious because the

arc of your career your own scholarship, is that year of clerking, is that what gave you the view that judicial supremacy is overrated? >> i was a part of it was i clerked for judge from his ear before and it was an amazing experience to impose the job i've been taught to you're supposed to go to the supreme court. anyone who clerked with tally i was angry the entire debate was such a disappointment in every single respect. summit was the age issue and did nothing to do with the ideological stuff. it was the way to work. it was fitting inside the bubble realizing what an incredible bob woodward and. complete unawareness of real consequences just initiate cases for i thought i'd some sense of what they were and on and on and on. i didn't come out of the court. it took me a long time to come to the youth of into. we were in law school at the same time. we had this argument at the time

and i was a staunch defender of judicial supremacy at the time and he was not been. so it took -- you know took a long time to come around. a lot of it was because the kinds of arguments irwin makes what you don't dismiss blindly which is if there is a really hard judgment to figure come on these are benefits of having unaccountable as part of the mix and the question is just how much do we need? we have gone way farther than we need to was my view. there's some notion the court is anything other than an agent of political guerrilla which it is and always has been even in its weakest period. we don't need to be quite so afraid of doing things that get them better information can make them more aware, make them think they need to be more aware of. >> how was judge friendly when you put foreign? >> i do know it's true, he was 82. here's the thing. i talked to a lot of these

young, he was the smartest him being a government. i talked to the people who clerked for him way ahead clerked for him way ahead of me and was still a decline. i used to think it must've been an amazing to see him when he was in his 40s and 50s. it would have been scary. >> maybes was born at judge friendly decided not to go until his powers were gone. he decided not to stay on the court until his powers were completely gone. >> yeah, yeah. >> just so i understand some of your recent work, your view is that the court has to know something -- right? that's a part of the court house, for the good, that it shouldn't be shy about using. so what did you get talk look at about that. >> i think the supreme court has fallen down in dedicating the

constitutional rights of marginalized citizen. some people would say that's because the supreme court is fundamentally incapable of indicating those rights, that is just too fragile and institution, and when it comes to vindicate those rights it ends up making matters much worse, right? it can't come to the rescue of marginalized groups. when you hear this all the time with respect to roe v. wade and furman versus georgia, to capital punishment, even brown people would say are sort of seventh grade at conception of the court come to the rescue of racial minorities is inaccurate because the mission of the whole was committed to racial egalitarian. i think that oversimplifies brown, that north was not quite the length of racial enlightenment that we sometimes pretend they're pretty depressed

more important than that the supreme court does have capacity to vindicate even for very unpopular groups. if you think about kennedy v. louisiana from 2008 decision involving capital punishment for individuals who rape children, the court says that's unconstitutional can't do it. spring based on a mistaken fact. >> yeah, right. if you polled by the pain is not a great surprise that people will say the majority of people would say yes you can affect capital punishment on those sorts of people. if you think about texas versus johnson for that matter in the first than in the context, flag burning, more than 80% of people think of course you should have a law against that. nevertheless, the supreme court steps in invalidates the mesh and stand strong even in the face of proposed constitutional amendments. and so is the supreme court hasn't done a good enough job as the because it lacks capacity to i think it's because of personal

data on the court. their desires and their constitutional visions are not offering a capacious enough and suction to afford people those rights. so when one looks back over appointments from earl warren whichwhich i think is the beginning of the modern supreme court in 1953 through justice alito's nomination in 2006 there were 23 justices that were confirmed to the supreme court. 17 of those justices were appointed by republicans, only six were appointed by democrats. of the 17. 10 of those appointment happened in a row. and so when one thinks about what the supreme court is capable of doing i think it is mistaken to only look at sort of history and i think about what the supreme court could do going forward.

i really do worry about people who are in law school today constantly hearing to file lawsuits against ago to the public square. coach of the state of the that's what a real change is great i'm not creating people not go to the statehouse but there are some people for whom going to the courthouse is the only option. the court has been successfully vindicated on at least some occasion of the soviet defense it's an incredibly powerful institution. citizens united is an example. i understand you regret about power but it is a powerful institution. the question is what is the power going to be used for. >> he mentioned when you're talking about the stare decisis problem that the course not acting as a court speed is less so than it used to right. >> isn't acting is it what is the court? if you had to identify. >> i guess they kind of monster.

[laughter] you know it really is to courts. and i think what justice kagan said at the law school talk i think is the sign of the. the only two courts. there's the political court and then there's the legal court. and for a variety of reasons, the legal court is smaller than i think it should be. and the political court is much bigger than i think it should be. may be that different justices up there with my views of how to interpret the constitution i would feel differently and to defined of a political court by the don't think so. >> i strongly disagree. i think the assumption in a statement is such a thing as value neutral judging, that there can be law apart from value choices. it's impossible. when you're dealing with the constitution you're dealing with a document written in open

textual language. was cruel and unusual punishment? what is due process of law? there's no way to decide that without value judgments. judgment. also no rights are absolute. there's no protection for sensitive. there's balancing the we call them in all levels of scrutiny. the court has to decide it is a fundamental right or racial minority. is the compelling government interest such as is diversity in the classroom a compelling government issue? the court has decided is the legitimate government interest. into marriage cases even if the court chooses rational basis they still get asked is there some legitimate government reason for keeping gays and lesbians from being able to ameriquest i think the obvious answers there is no legitimate reason but still all of these require a -- [applause] my point is that all of these are legal questions. all of them require a value choice. there's no way of adding value

neutral judging. so it's a mistake to say there's two courts, one political and one legal but it's all legal at all involved value choices. >> what's interesting is social science research that indicates that the public understands that. so that although is a political culture that forces judicial nominees to say, as nelson said, my job as supreme court justices to apply the laws to the fact that the public knows that's not your and they're okay with that. that you can hold two thoughts come in a way the public seems to want judicial nominees to say that, let's assume for else they wouldn't be required to say the politicians would require them to see. on the other hand, the public well understands that judging is a value inflicted task.

>> i don't know that the public is necessary okay with the court acting like just another political entity. i think that sometimes -- >> that's not what i was saying. >> i think there's an understanding that the justices how foss in which bridges and so forth. i think maybe getting an increase the diversity of those experiences, talking about justice o'connor as the last state legislative experience than maybe getting a diversity of experience with more public to fewer prosecutors, more folks up in the public interest, people living in law firms. maybe that would help but i think the idea of the court has just to mention as a protector of rights is something that we shouldn't overlook. the idea that you can achieve things in the court that you could through the political process is important. today's the anniversary of lebanon versus virginia. while it's true most of the states didn't have bans on

interracial marriage on the books that were still a hard-core group of city would not have done this i don't think without the court step in. i think that's important to note that even if the court is that mr. lee on these things many would say in the marriage equality cases this term they are not leaving but certainly there are states that will not without the court telling them recognize these constitutional rights of called it i think that's an important role of the court that just to mention. >> i think all of this is fair. what's bizarre is impossible to have any nuance in this debate. item in this debate, the debate we are having in society at large. on the other hand, there is a big difference in the relative mix and when you take it take a decide based on that because they are also legal consideration i think i feel pretty countable singh 20, 30 to 40 years ago almost to the time by the case like king v. burwell come is ludicrous