tanks and bullets -- what aegon's new -- are you going to do? host: john is the last caller today on "washington journal." hope you join us tomorrow morning. have a great monday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and look at our live programming today on c-span. at 11:30 a.m. eastern conference and a obama will be addressing leaders at the national league of cities conference. the president planning to announce planning and hiring technology workers to drive of

higher income jobs. that will be live at 11:30 a.m. eastern right here on c-span. we will be back at that conference this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. for remarks from homeland security jeh johnson. there will be a panel discussion featuring anthony foxx and earnest money's and gina mccarthy. that will be live at 3:30 p.m.. remarks from ernie sanders from the national press club newsmaker lunch. he plans to talk about his priorities and the upcoming budget resolution. lb live at 1 p.m. eastern from the national press club. writing about this week in the senate senators left ahead of last week's snowstorm following a noncontroversial vote. they are to stay at line of business will be a bid by mitch mcconnell to turn to a bipartisan bill made by barb corker to give lawmakers assay

and any potential nuclear deal with iran. they are facing certain to be -- the feet. the kentucky republican has changed course. they said the senate would move with anti-trafficking legislation, evidently more bipartisan endeavor. you can watch live coverage of the senate when members gavel in today at 2 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. tonight on "the communicators," founder and ceo of media complications corporation on the challenges facing media companies and the fallout from the latest fcc decision affecting the internet. >> i'm no doubt this will increase rates to consumers. >> why is that? >> if they are going to impose regulatory fees, additional fees taxes at the local level, i think utilities, regulatory

utilities are in the states where we operate are going to get taxed. i've not found one government that does not want to raise more money. they're going to get an opportunity to raise more money. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. the supreme court heard oral argument last week in his challenge to arizona's redistricting community. the issue for the codes is whether the election cause of the u.s. constitution allows entities other than state legislature to have the final say on congressional districts. this is about an hour. >> your argument this morning. the arizona state legislature versus the arizona independent redistricting commission. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. opposition 106 the best the

state legislature of its authority to describe congressional districts and read delegates that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission. the election cause of the constitution clearly the us that authority, not just in the states, but in the legislatures thereof. it is a valid effort to read delegates that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission. it is plainly repugnant to the constitution vesting that authority and legislatures of the state. >> the commission -- there is no constitutional question of arizona the able to use this for its state representation. >> absolutely, justice ginsburg. our argument only applies to the congressional redistricting. that only means that these commissions are as effective as my friends on the other side stay. then, we will have nonpartisan districts that will elect the state house and the state representatives and the state senate.

those nonpartisan gerrymandering bodies will be the ones that take care of congressional districts. >> i just want to clarify your position. are you suggesting that the lack of legislation control of this issue only or are you saying that we have to charge smiley? you do not have to overturn gillibrand and smiley. >> what those decisions stand for -- smiley in particular, the court was in fact it that -- and found it that the framing of the constitution means then what it means now which is a representative body of the people. >> we have made it very clear and smiley and hillebrand that we are defining legislature in this cause. this is as legislative process. >> with all jews are -- with all

due respect, i disagree. once i was saying legislatures mean the legislative properties or the state or whatever it is. the other side said no that it means the representative body of the people. this court said that we do not have to decide that dispute, we certainly agree that it means the representative body of the people just as he said five years earlier in the hot case. what the core said first is that it is clearly the legislature of the representative body of the people. that raises the second question which is what kind of authority is allocated to state legislatures? and authority is a law a making authority. that means the state legislature has to engage >> this makes no sense to me. i think it is either or. if the legislature has the power, how can the government veto it?

either they have the power or they don't. people have the power and they can choose the commission or however else they want to do it. isn't that the legislative process? >> i disagree with you, justice sotomayor, but that is not important. what they say is that the delegate remains the same. it is the state legislature and the representative body. think -- the state function difference. -- differs. there's no partial agency of everyone else in that process. when they are tall prescribe rules, the court says that his delegation of the lawmaking authority. of course the state legislature does lawmaking pursuant to the ordinary rules. if the ordinary rules provide for give vittorio details or have to spend 30 days and committee, those rules applied to the lawmaking under the elections clause, just as they

would to other lawmaking. it is a completely different manner to say that we are going to cut the state legislature out entirely. we are going to revisit the framers decision to delegate this important responsibility to the state legislatures and re-delegate it to an entirely different body and a body that has the one feature that we know a body does not have -- this commission is completely unelected and completely unaccountable. >> would congress do that? would, grace -- congress substitute this? >> i do not think they would say that we are going to be delegate this. if congress wants to do it themselves on the federal level is set of some sort of federal commission, i think that would be a very different issue because congress has power under the second subclause. >> couldn't congress bless what

arizona has done by saying that is america -- the manner in which federal elections will be held. >> i do not think that they could bless what arizona has done because that will do what it in the first subclause. we are actually going to take those commission districts and we are going to make them our own and we are going to impose them. >> you are saying it had to be a federal commission or state commission but if it is the latter, it can be only the legislature? >> a can be an advisory commission. will we object to is the permanent resting authority from the state legislature. >> suppose he had a lot of that said the reapportion commission must submit its proposal to the legislature and legislature has 30 days to overturn? >> i think, just and kennedy --

justice kennedy, that would be a harder case. the question i think you would ask is does that residual authority from the state legislature amount to be authority of prescribed districts? i think he and i sighed that either way. you can say they're not cut out completely. they have residual authority. what you could say and this might be a better view in my opinion, what you can do under smiley and hildebrandt's apply ordinary rules for legislation to the state legislatures. but we cannot do is come up with separate rules that apply only to congressional redistricting to make it much harder for the state legislature to act. >> your statement completely cut out prevalent answers to the question about voter id laws absentee ballots, and so on. you would say that those are ok if the legislature is not completely cut out?

>> i was a -- i would say so. >> i thought the legislature was completely cut out to most of these things. you take the 2011 law a mississippi adopting voter id requirements. 2007, oregon voting my mails. -- by mail. 1962, arkansas voted by voting machines. these things were done by the legislative process completely cut out. when all those be unconstitutional as well -- would all those be unconstitutional as well? we can go further because there are zillions of the laws. christ if you look at the various laws that are put in the appellees appendix, not one of the constitutional prison visions purports to -- constitutional provisions purports to on its face we delegate authority away from

state legislatures. i counted 27 that delegates authority to the state legislatures. if you want to look at the north carolina provision on its choice of his -- >> all they are is lost past by not through the legislative process. >> we do not think that is the defect. >> my gosh, i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature there has to be legislative control. in none of these laws is there legislative control. there is no legislative participation at all. >> we distinguish to situations. the problem with proposition 106 is that it was done by initiative and not by the legislature. that is not opposition. we would have the same agendas -- a detective's -- objections here. we know that the rules in these case was no one in the legislature can ever do anything.

the way that we know that is that this court has arty said it is ok for a judicial body like a state court to do redistricting on a one-off basis. >> how do you make that consistent with the textual argument that you're making? potential argument that you're making is that legislature means legislature. now, you are saying that there are these many laws throughout the united states in which the rules are not being made by legislature. that is perfectly ok because the legislature is not involved. >> two things, justice kagan. our opposition is not that somebody else got to the legislature's land and were doing something about the legislatures. our problem is that once they got to link, they decide to arrest legislature from that process on an entirely permanent basis. the answer question, i wouldn't vote this court's case was dealt with an analogous cause an article to that gave state

legislatures the authority to prescribe rules for presidential electors. escorts in a practical view of the matter which is at the state legislature lets other parts of the state do something, we are not going to jump in. we can think of those as delegation of authority. but in the legislatures the, it means something in the constitution and and protects the legislature from other parts of the state coming in and permanently resting that authority. >> i thought that are sufficient of powers and jurisprudence application is as inconsequential as aggrandizement. if there is a problem, the problem continues to exist irrespective of whether the largest -- the legislature protester not. christ that is not the way the court approach -- >> that is not the way the court approaches the issue. i would certainly say it is the right view.

nothing would prevent a state legislature from delegating is authority to one of these commissions. that is not the problem. the problem is that the law whether by initiative for gubernatorial edict would be the same, someone can come in and say that the framers thought it would be right for the state legislature, we disagree. >> suppose the legislature opposed the initiative of the referendum. >> i do not think that would ultimately make a difference in my own view. i think that would be a different case. >> that is a case in which legislature has itself made decision. >> right. that does not the situation we are dealing with here. i do think they propose the referendum that rest of the authority. >> it is not completely remote because the legislature in arizona and correct me if i'm wrong -- they can seek to overturn what the commission does by overturning the referendum of voters by saying

please voters, change this proposal and redistricting plan. and enact a different one. i suppose the legislature can do that and cement a referendum to the arizona -- >> i think they would have the power to do in the initiative. i do not think they would have the power to do ever from them. one of the ironies is that my friends on the other side like to talk about the power of the people come up the maps that the commission propagates are not override by referendum the way that the legislature were before proposition 106 past. i think that all the legislature can do is what any citizen can do which is to propose an alternative map by initiative process. whatever that is, that is not the primary power to prescribe congressional districts. that is what the state legislature on the same plane as

the people. >> would it be ok if the legislature itself establish this communication? crocs i would take the position that that is ok because that isn't -- is a delegation of authority. you may disagree with me, but i think my position is consistent with what the court said in the mcpherson case about the authority of the state regulation died -- to describe rules for elections. if they want to take the authority back as they did in the michigan piece of legislation and mcpherson, you bet they can do that. at this stage had to stop them from doing that. as a constitutional problem. >> the independent commission has the veto power on the states redistricting. in other words, the state can do redistricting. the independent commission can

say, no, go back, do it again. >> it depends a little bit on the details of how that works and who has the ultimate last day in the matter. >> they have the veto. that is what has the veto -- the independent commission. >> i think it matters. at the end of the day i think two things that appeared one is that the legislature will have more authority than arizona is allowed here. the personal will allow you to describe -- defend this case is whether or not it was the state legislature to describe print -- congressional districts. this is a hard case. >> it does not. there is the veto at the end of this. if you think it doesn't, then you should decide that case in favor of the state legislature.

>> this is what we are going to have to do for every time that they set up some process in which there is independent commission involved in. what we are going to have to ask is what exactly? >> whether or not is consistent with the constitution. >> tell me how we are going to decide all these cases in which the advisory commission play some role -- not just some role a very serious role, but there is a very little piece left to legislature. >> i do not think it will be that hard, justice kagan. let us look at the real world. nothing in our theory suggests that there is anything prior -- constitutionally problematic. there is a backup commission that has the veto. if there's a stalemate and they just cannot get it done, then it backwards commission -- a backup commission comes in. >> one of the commission says we are going to give you to maps

and you have to take only one? >> i think that is probably unconstitutional, but i do not think -- >> wise that unconstitutional -- why is that include susu -- unconstitutional? why that constitutional? >> the reason that i say that is that if the legislature has the primary authority and they cannot get it done, we know that as a matter of fact that somebody else is going to provide that rule. as the legislature gets a stalemate, what happens in the real world, you cannot use the existent maps because they violate the one person, one vote principles and the state courts come in. >> they feel together? >> i think everyone wants the bypass to hc. everyone knows that at the other

the real -- at the end of the rainbow -- >> i know you're going to say it is a constitutional requirement, but i read hildebrandt and smiley different. if i read it differently, what the election clause means is that the legislative process -- isn't that just simple? do not have to worry about how the states do their own self governments? why is that a federal interest? crocs the framers -- >> the framers thought long and hard about this issue. >> actually, they didn't. when you look at the legislative history and the federalist papers, not a whole lot on this particular cause. >> there is a tremendous amount on this particular clause. i suppose i would grade you that on the second subclause. the first of cost is that it

seems so remarkably obvious to the framers that if this was going to be done at the state level by anyone, it would be done by the representative body of the people. it is not like they do not know about popular lawmaking. it is not like they have a conception of what a referendum would be or an initiative would be. recently said that we like representative government. >> the initiative and referendum that at the time of the founding, the initiative and referendum were not used by state legislatures. >> the initiative and render a from them -- and referendum as we came to know them were not part of the framing. a direct democracy was. the famous himself said that there are conventions to approve the constitution and that they should not be improved just by votes of the state legislature. the framers, when they formulate article five, they had articles

that congress could choose to provide ratification to the choice of state legislatures. the framers understood the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. they made a conscious choice. it is really hard to argue that the framers did not know the difference between the people and the state legislatures and the contents of federal elections because there they are elected by the people. when they get to the voter qualifications cause, they say but people are going to vote for the congress. how to be define the people that get to vote for congress? they're the same people who get to vote for the state house. after his points, the framers obvious demonstrated -- >> on occasion, you said something like this that the legislature means legislature and that's what it means. a legislature has to do all those things. you have made many exceptions to

that over the course of the last 20 minutes. you said that as to anything that is not redistricting, it can be done right of -- by referendum or initiative without any legislation process whatsoever. you of all these -- you have all these different things about an lecture and advisory commission. all these will have to be reviewed by case-by-case basis to determine if the legislature has primary control. when you get through with all that, the sort of purity of the argument that legislature means legislature -- we are miles away from that, aren't we? >> i do not agree with that, justice kagan. i'm effectively channeling the decision of smiley and hillebrand. the state legislature gets to do something, then the question of whether the constraints that are put on the state legislature are actually drawing his lines. those may be some hard questions

about that. there's no hard question here. this is an any of your hypotheticals. if an election clause means anything, it means that you cannot completely cut out of the process the state legislature entirely on a permanent basis. >> supposed the legislative districting plan is challenged here and the one person, one vote rule under the voting rights act and it goes to a state or federal court, and it goes a year for election, does the state court have an obligation under the constitution to simply pass on the validity or invalidity of the plan? and if it doesn't pass, can send it back to legislature? >> i would say that the court in that instance -- first law there should be a preference for the state courts over the federal courts. then, the state courts favors the legislative process. what they do is that if there is

time for the legislature to go back and draw new maps were quite you think is -- -- >> do you think of this constitutionally required? >> it is certainly prudent. the reason that it is prudent -- suppose from the recognition of this courstt time and time again -- >> we're talking about what is required. in your argument, we are talking about every court involved in an argument over redistricting and they have to some of the to legislature. -- resubmit it to legislature. you have to send it back to the legislature for the next eight years. crocs>> i think, for the most part that is what this court has already said. i think that if there is time you let the legislature do it. >> you mean every districting

plan as approved by court has to have a fixed deadline? of course, the legislature can pass a conforming plan, but the worst plan stays in place until it does. that seems to me as a displacement as what you are talking about here. >> it is displacement. there are two different circumstances. one is the redistricting plan challenge rarely. there's still time for the legislature to essentially take a second crack at constitutionally compliant plan. i would like to say that if there is that kind of time, then you allow the state legislature to do its primary task or the second question is if there is not time. then, there is a judicial plan. actually read this court's cases as generally suggesting even then that there's nothing that prevents the state legislature certainly from going in every districting. this court, in the terry case

for example, rejected the idea that you have one shot at this in the you are done. there's one state -- colorado they said that if you get in that situation, you have to live up the judicial plans for the next census. the legislature to extend and has a primary role. i'm trying to think that what colorado has done is inconsistent with the election clause, but however you decide that issue, you can decide either way. your position is that argument here is not an answer to that question. i very happy to adjust the hypotheticals, but i do think it is worth remembering that this is about the most extreme cases that you are going to have. if the election clause means anything at all in terms of its delegation of its us possibilities to the state legislatures, maybe we can talk about taking part of it away. you cannot take the entire thing away on a permanent basis and give it to a commission that its defining feature is that it is not representative.

i reserve the bounds of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. fagan. >> if it likes to please the court, i would like to make one point outstanding statutory to to a ceg. on standing, this is an extremely unusual an unprecedented federal lawsuit in which a state legislature is asking a federal court for assurance that if it has to certain kind of law, which it has not alleged it is going to pass, the law would be enforced by defendant state official whether they would deny that they would enforce it. we not seen interest cognizable under article three. there is nothing in the arizona constitution or the decision of

sotomayor: isn't this about the diminishment of the power to legislature? this is a removal of power from the legislature. feigin: i don't think there is anything that is as a practical matter that prevents the legislature from passing a bill that would redistrict the state, which they believe in good faith they can do under the view of the elections clause. there are numerous cases in which the arizona legislature has passed laws that conflicted a popular initiative or with the arizona constitution and arizona courts do treat them as laws in the consequence of their passage, their own constitutionality or conflict is that they are unenforceable. roberts: so you want the legislature to pass a law that is not enforceable?

feigin: i think the plaintiff had to allege and lujan against the defenders of wildlife -- the plaintiff had to allege that they were going to buy a plane ticket to see the not crocodile -- the nile crocodile. let me put to one side -- roberts: did they not just have to allege that they plan to exercise what is in their normal authority, to engage in the redistricting? despite the fact that you are litigating it, it implies that they have some interest in doing that. feigin: it may be difficult for them to call us on some particular redistricting plan. but that is no reason to excuse them the space from the normal standing requirements. let's assume they pass their own

redistricting plan and the secretary said we are going what the commission because that is what state law requires us to do. legislatures don't have an interest in the enforcement of the laws that they pass. sotomayor: they have an interest in the constitutional powers that they pass. feigin: let's say congress passed a law and there were a constitutional challenge to that law. i don't think anybody would believe that the state legislature acting in its own name would be the proper party to bring that constitutional challenge on the theory that its police powers have been infringed on the preemptive federal statute. although this case arises under the elections clause, the elections clause doesn't give the state anymore lawmaking power than it would ordinarily have.

ginsberg: are you saying, if anyone has standing as an institution -- feigin: if someone were to bring a voting rights act challenge to bring that claim -- kennedy: is it part of our jurisprudence that, if it is likely that another person is affected, that that goes into the balance and we say legislature do not have standing because other people out there are more directly affected? feigin: quite the opposite. even if it means that no one would have standing, that does not in that is reason to find standing. i want to make a couple of points on the statutory section 2ac.

i think the statutory issue is easy because the court decided all the relevant issues in ohio against gillibrand and constructed word for word the language of the 1911 act. roberts: it's meant to apply when the state has not redistricted under its law. here, the question is whether the law is valid. feigin: just to take your question on, i think the question of the preparatory clause is best understood in context. a neighbor you -- a neighboring statute states that states will be divided into districts. that makes it a question of federal statutory law how that redistricting is met and how it is met. section 2ac says one of these will be applied until redistricting.

once the state is redistricted by the law thereof, those are the districts that will be used. it is hard to believe that congress would expect anything different. hildebrand, in construing nearly the identical language as the 2011 at destiny 1911 act, it had the express purpose to provide democracy procedures -- alito: it would be one thing if congress passed a law that said a state may apportion congressional districts in any manner conditioned with the laws of the state. but that is not what this statute says. this statute may have been enacted on the assumption the that would be constitutional. but it is not the exercise of congressional authority implementing that.

it is just an assumption in which the statute is otherwise completely irrelevant to this case may have been enacted. feigin: hildebrandt is interpreting the same statutory language in the 1911 act, that it has the express purses to provide the democracy procedures. then it went on to say that congress did have the power to do it. sotomayor: i guess they bottom line question is, let's assume 2ac said something totally different, we remove redistricting from the legislature and we require every state to pass redistricting by referendum. is your position that congress has the power to override the constitution? feigin: i don't think that would

exactly be overwriting the constitution. if that was the law, we might defend it. but we won't go that far this case for two reasons. here, congress is not try to enforce upon the state a process that the state doesn't want. congress is trying to recognize that these legislature requirement of redistricting is done under its own procedures. i would think that the power of congress should be at its apex when both commerce and the state want to do the same thing. the second thing i would say is, in this room stance -- scalia: no, no, no, not if the same thing violates the state constitution. the objection here is a house additional objection. feigin: i do believe this was in the authority of congress. my friend just said that, if the state legislature wanted to, the state legislature could have

given this power to the commission. under the second sub clause of the elections clause, congress can do anything that a state legislature can do, which means congress can also give this power to the commission. the only difference between my friend's son now and mine is that in my friend's scenario the state legislature would retain the authority to override what the commission has done but that is only in consequence of state legislation over federal legislation. it's not something that a state legislature can override and it is a consequence of congress super seeding authority and congress authority under the elections clause. scalia: the second clause is being used to revise the second clause. the second clause can -- congress can do something on its own. but can congress use the second clause to revise with the first clause says? feigin: one thing i want to

emphasize is i think the court settle this issue in hildebrandt when it said it was simply doing something that the constitution expressly gave the right to do. i don't think the right way to think about this is commerce using the second sub clause to rewrite this first. thank you. >> mr. waxman. waxman: we have before us a suit that the people -- both raises a claim that the framers would have been astonished to consider

that federal district courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate and is misconceived. arizona defines its legislature in its constitution to include both the people and two representative bodies. the premise that in drafting the elections clause, the framers intended to ignore a state definition of its own legislature. it is deeply inconsistent -- scalia: whatever the state calls a legislature suffices under a federal constitution, is that right? waxman: by using the word legislature in connection with the accepted definition of that

term in the founding generation. we cited both noah webster and simon johnson's dictionaries and it was understood that legislature meant the body that makes the law. scalia: give me one provision of the constitution that uses the term legislature that clearly was not meant to apply to the body of representatives of the people that makes the laws. one provision of the constitution that clearly has your meaning. i looked through them all. i can't find acing the one. waxman: the one that most clearly has our meaning which accords with understanding is the one that this court has said in hildebrandt and in smiley best scalia: just name only one. waxman: this may not be the only one.

kennedy: since 1913, many states wanted to have direct election of the senators. not one state displaced the legislature. it took the 17th amendment to do that. waxman: that's correct. kennedy: that history works very much against you. the word legislature is not in the constitution. the senators shall be chosen by the legislature. there was no suggestion that this could be displaced. waxman: there is no question that this court has explained repeatedly, first in smith versus hawk which distinguished hildebrand and the legislative power addressed in article section 1 from the election of

senators in article 1 section 3 and again in smiley that made clear that, just as this court reiterated last week and yet it's, that it may depend on the function that the term is serving. kennedy: you are saying that the legislature in the now repealed section, choosing senators means something different than what it means in the following section. waxman: as this court explained in smith versus hawk, which was decided, which was in article 5 meaning, in smith versus hawk, this court said, in article 1 section 3, election of senators

by the legislature, and in article 5, the ratification power. what was at issue was the power to elect and the power to ratify that specifically comported with the elected representative body. and it used those as examples where often, justice kennedy often the term legislature in the constitution has that meaning. but smith goes on and distinguishes hildebrand on precisely the grounds we are urging, that what was at issue in hildebrand under the elections clause is not a particular body, a brick-and-mortar legislature necessarily. it is the legislative power of the state.

alito: is there any other provision where legislature means anything other than the conventional meaning? how about applying for a constitutional convention? calling on the president to send in troops to suppress the mystic violence? creating a new state out of part of the state of arizona, for example? all of those provisions will use the term legislature. does it mean anything other than the conventional meaning of legislature? feigin: i don't know the answer to that question. alito: do you think it might? feigin: this court has never said that it doesn't. it never said that it does. it has focused a lot of attention on three particular uses of the word legislature in the constitution. the article 5 ratification power, the former article 1 section 3 power to relax senator -- two elect senators in the legislative body, and the

article 1 section 4 power to make the laws in the provision that is at issue here. i think it is particularly important. i want to get to the language of smiley which my friend embraces. breyer: i would like you to because as i read it, they don't help you very much. a particular statute passed in 1911 helps the government with its statutory argument because a different statute uses similar words. we don't know if it was with the same intent. smiley talks about a sitting legislature and asks whether it's exercise of map-drawing power is a legislative exercise or say more like an impeachment exercise. it does not talk about what is at issue here where you have people outside that building making the dude -- making the legislative decisions.

so i can see -- so i can't see those two cases as helping you that much. please argue to the contrary. but the open question here is when legislative power over time expands from a group of people sitting in the state capital to those people plus a referendum. and there i don't find much help in the case is one way or the other. feigin: justice breyer, i think that hildebrand, smiley, hawk, and also this court's case decided a few months after smiley and that was quoted last week in yates, the atlantic cleaners and dyer case all support the meaning of the word legislature that we advocate and was in fact the consensus definition of legislature. i agree with you -- scalia: a consensus definition

that you can i give us where it is clearly used. i don't think it was a consensus definition at all. you plucked that out of a couple of dictionaries. breyer: the dictionary can be used as to determine how they word is used. but the power of the legislates, the power that legislates in arizona is the people in the capital plus the referendum. feigin: one thing is for sure, -- waxman: one thing's for sure if there was any other definition, but the framers on recent term, if i may, charles

tiffany, in pages 39 in our brief, who wanted to do away with the second part of the clause that gave congress any power because he thought it was an impairment on the states rights said, "america is a republic where the people at large either collectively or by representation form the legislature." madison made clear in discussing the constitution that, when he referred to "the legislatures of the state," he meant the existing authorities in the state that comprise the legislative branch of government. james wilson repeatedly interspersed legislature, state, and the people acting -- scalia: let's say the

legislature means the body we normally can think of as the legislature. however, at the time there was no such thing as the referendum or the initiative. so when the dictionaries refer to the power that makes laws, it was always a legislature. it was never the people at large because there was no such thing as the referendum. now that there is a such thing what about saying, ok, legislature means what everybody knows a legislature is plus the full citizenry, which is a level higher of democracy. but what we have here is not a level higher of democracy. it is giving this power to an unelected body of five people.

as it is constituted here, two of them are elected or selected by the majority party and to w o selected by the minority party. what if they decided that all four would be elected by the majority party? waxman: any delegation question -- the issue in this case is what does legislature mean. my friend concedes that whatever the legislature is, it can delegate its authority. so the delegation questions, well, i will endorse whatever i believe my friend would say because the arizona legislature has negative -- has delegated all time and place and manner of regulations to a single person of the secretary of state, an executive officer, and the individual counties that set the

precinct, places, the places where you can vote and register, etc. so the question is what is the legislature. if your question is, well, now we know there is something called an initiative -- of course, we knew this 120 years ago when the first states started reserving in their constitution legislative power to the people by initiative. but to echo something that justice kagan reverted to in the original argument, we are talking about a construction of the word legislature as to all time, place or manner regulation. roberts: why didn't they just say that the rules would be prescribed each state?

waxman: as the court explained in smiley, what the framers wanted was it to be done by a legislation. it wanted a "complete code of holding congressional elections to be acted." roberts: if you had a governor doing it, it reasonably would be pursuant to a delegation either from the people or from the legislature. either way, nothing happens until there is an exercise of lawmaking power by the state. it should have been sufficient for the drafters of the constitution to sibley say that it would be drafted by each state, whether i referendum or referendum or legislature or by committee. to say by the legislature is totally superfluous. waxman: it is in the power of each state that makes the laws.

there might be other constitutional problems arising either from the first amendment or the 14th amendment, but i believe that, after -- if mr. clement would agree, if the legislature decided, look, we are going to relegate this responsibility to the governor that would be a constitutional delegation because it would have been a decision made by the lawmaking body of the state. if i could just make one point and then address justice breyer's question. it would be deeply inconsistent with the enterprise in philadelphia to harbor and to

effectuate the notion that our framers intended to set aside both a cornerstone principle of federalism and their aim to bind the people as closely as possible to the national house of representatives. yes, it is true that that related to the second part giving congress authority. that is because no one questioned the fundamental principles that the sovereign states could choose to allocate their legislative power as they wanted. if there is any suggestion, the anti-federalists would be screaming bloody murder that the states could not do so. smiley specifically said that -- i am quoting from page 367 -- as

the authority is confirmed for the purpose of making laws for the state, it follows in the absence of an indication of a contrary intent that the exercise of the authority must be in accordance with the method the state has chosen as prescribed for legislated enactments. ginsberg: what he has addicted to his taking the legislature out of the picture entirely. waxman: yes, justice ginsburg. we can see in neither case was legislative power at issue. smiley says we find no suggestion in a federal constitutional provision of an attempt to endow the legislature

of the state with power to enact laws in any manner other than -- in which the constitution -- breyer: i am quibbling in a sense about the case. but the case is not about the body. everybody agreed it was a legislature. but when the legislature acts in this instance, is it acting as an electoral body? is it acting as a ratifying body? is it acting as a dissenting body? or is it acting as a legislating body? and that is the answer they get in the form of legislation. here the question is about the body. waxman: that's right. the question is are the people by initiative part of the legislature that they hum's -- they themselves have chosen? again, dressing held a brand this is what the court said. and it was because it was the

authority of the state to determine what should constitute its legislative process that the validity of the requirement of the state constitution in its application to congressional elections was sustained. breyer: legislated -- scalia: legislative process there means what it takes the legislature to enact a law. once you assume legislative refers to legislature, your whole argument for smiley just to sapir's. waxman: the state of arizona like the states -- the constitutions of the states of the near majority have defined the legislative power to include the people of the legislative initiative. like this court ordered last week in your eighth, it said

that it is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings. for example, the meaning of the word legislature, used several times in the constitution differs in the way it is employed, depending on the character of the function that body in each interest it -- instance is calling upon citing smiley. roberts: just -- waxman: the decision in your dates does not. roberts: my point is the supreme court in the months following smiley -- i am not quoting from yeats. i am quoting from atlantic cleaners and dyers. thank you. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chief justice. if it may please the court, let me start with the definition of legislature. the critical thing is not what the framers meant by "the legislature" when they were talking proudly about political theory. what matters is what they meant when they were assigning particular authorities in the state constitution to particular governments in the state government. as a number of you have pointed out, there is no doubt when they assigned an authority to the state legislature, they were signing authority to the representative body of the people. that takes us to the smiley case. the definition of these smiley -- if the definition of legislature is all that the smiley case turns upon, then

with all due respect to my opponent, we win. i am quoting from smiley, not yates or anything else. i am quoting from smiling. what it meant when adopted, it still means for purposes of interpretation. the legislature was then the representative body which made the laws -- >> that is true. smiley does not help him, i don't think, but it helps you less. but that is the question in the case. everybody assumes. nobody denies, it is those people making this law. the question is, are they legislating when they are doing it? nobody denies they were the legislative power. here we have a different question. is this the legislative power received by referendum?

the reason i say that smiley may not help, it says be flexible about that. clement: it says be flexible with the power of the state legislature. i do find this very helpful, because not only does it answer the body question, but the other side in smiley said, oh, we win this case because legislature means the lawmaking authority and the other section meant, it means the body and the court said, you are right, it means the body, but it is a lawmaking function subject to the gubernatorial veto. i think they would've been flabbergasted to find out that the legislature, which is defined as a representative body of the people, would be cut out completely. kagan: when it comes to this particular provision -- and this provision as compared to the 17th amendment, which is the

comparison and the contrast that hawks sets up -- when it comes to this provision, you need to show a lot of respect to the states own decisions about how legislative power ought to be exercised, and that seems to be the overriding principle of the three cases. clement: i think you have to show respect for the way the state legislature goes about lawmaking, but is completely different to cut the state legislature out of the process entirely. let me aver briefly to the 191011 act. the irony of my friends on the other side, the legislative history of the 1911 act -- at what point in legislative history of 1911, if people in 1911 good read, the statute on the book said it will take in until the state legislature

redistrict and they realized in 1911 the state legislature meant the state legislature, so they better change that law if they wanted to allow the referendum process. so, the 1911 legislative history -- not that i think you should particular spend a lot of time with that -- that it shows that there is a fundamental difference the between the legislature and the people, and as the chief justice pointed out, if there weren't, the framers could have stopped the election clause at each state. of course, -- kagan: you can turn that around and say what that provision shows is exactly what i just said. congress was on board to read you look at that clause, the elections clause, a lot of respect, difference had to be given to the states'own decision. clement: i am happy giving deference to what the state

legislature does. if that is constrained by the gubernatorial veto, overrode by referendum, then the restrictions on the state legislature are fine, but it has to be the state legislature. roberts: thank you, counsel. cases submitted. >> him shortly, we will go live to president obama live here in washington dc. the president is expected to announce a program to train and higher technology workers. we will have that for you here on c-span. the new york times has a story about former florida governor, jeb bush. -- appearing friday at a fundraiser, mr. bush said he would not back office support for the common core education standards, which have become identified with president obama and are deeply unpopular among

conservatives. then he took the stage and restated his support for conference of immigration overhaul another position where he stands in opposition to the republican base. the former florida governor said this is the least serious way to deal with this and we better start doing it is this is a competitive world. remarks now from the former florida governor who traveled to the living history farm to attend a fundraiser for iowa congressman david young. he talked about campaigning with his father in iowa and policy issues. we will show you as much of this as we can until remarks from president obama this morning scheduled for 11: 30. gov. bush: hello, folks. how are you? come on. [applause] let's sound alive, shall we? i want to thank you very much for coming out tonight. friday night.

there are a lot of other things to do. the state best alternate is going on. but you are here, and i appreciate that. we are 20 months away from 2016 elections. you are wondering what i am doing this so early for. you have to raise funds to get the message out. so thank you for being here. i want to recognize a few people. greg gansky is here. thanks for your service. we have some state representatives. thank you for coming tonight. i appreciate it. thank you very much. [applause] and my mom and dad and my sister are here. thank you very much. when you put your name on the ballot, it is like you are voting for family. they are so invested. applause for the family. [applause] a month and a half ago, my phone

rang. and i answered it. david? yes. this is jeb. jeb? jeb bush. unlike, governor. david, congratulations on your race. what do i need to do in iowa? i said, you need to get your tail here as soon as you can. i have state fairs coming up. a few months away. come out and i will walk you around. all of a sudden, he is here tonight. he got here faster than i thought. i want to talk about leadership quickly. iowans, americans, demand leadership from those they elect. we have avoidant leadership right now in washington. we have void in leadership.

when that void happens, it turns into a vacuum. a vacuum is filled with complacency. characters around the world who want to do us harm. we need leadership in washington dc. we need leadership from a president. i have studied this gentleman's record in florida, and he provided leadership. we also want a president that respects the rule of law and the constitution. we are not getting that right now. we have seen a president unilaterally change is affordable care act, obamacare on his own, through executive actions. if the president does not like a lot, we have something called the house of representatives and the senate. it is called the congress. there are three branches of government, if you did not know. he needs to be reminded of that. he also said 22 times that he

could not do what he wanted to do last november. but he did it anyway. it is like he spoke and a was created. three memos. that is scary, folks. we need a president that respects the rule of law and the constitution. that being said, thank you for coming out. iowans take our politics very seriously. we have candidates come out, we see the commercials, sometimes we shake our heads. it is better that iowa chooses our president then new york or california. we pick more than corn. we pick presidents of the united states of america. [applause] i do not know who you are going with, folks, but welcome to iowa. thank you for being here. ladies and gentlemen, governor jeb bush.

gov. jeb bush: thank you congressman. i do not know why all the press is here, but it is nice to see them too. thank you for continuing to serve. thank you for supporting your congressman. he is going to need your help going forward. early money does matter. i want to get the legal part of this out of the way. i am seriously considering the possibility of running for president. all of that allows me to talk about that possibility in a way that does not trigger a campaign. so thank you for allowing me to be lawyered up and get that part right. i have fond memories of violent. i got married when i was 21 years old. my life can be divided between bc and ac. i met my wife when i was 17. it took three years to convince her. i was ready to marry her than.

i lost 20 pounds, could not sleep. fell head over heels in love with this young woman from mexico. they kind of changed my life. part of that was we got married quickly. we had two kids. i came back to work and my dad's campaign. most of that time was right here in iowa. it was a blast. i learned to do things i cannot imagine doing. i learned to make a fool of myself speaking. i went to the pork roast twice. i saw chuck brantley everywhere i went. [laughter] what an inspirational person. there must be four or five of him at any given time. in the weekends, he is at five different places. i love the state and had a good time. my dad won, which was a spectacular experience. i have been to an iowa where my dad lost and been there when he

won. i like the winning part better to be honest. i am excited about the prospect of running because i have a record i think people might be interested in learning about. i got to be governor of a purple state. a crazy, wild state. there are a few iowans in florida, last time i checked. they migrate their once in a while. as governor, as a candidate, i got to say what i was going to. i talked about cutting taxes changing our education system. turning the system upside down so that people could prosper. for eight years, i got to act on my conservative principles and it worked. just in case you are worried. the cut taxes every year totaling $19 billion. we reduced the state government workforce by 13,000 people

during my time. but the number of jobs created in the state during those eight years was 1.3 million net new jobs. you're the only state during those eight years to go to a aaa bond rating without raising taxes. without having broad-based taxes that in the old days people said you needed to have. we restricted government spending. personal income growth grew faster than government spending. we put in place conservative principles that made a possible for us to garner a aaa bond rating. i vetoed 500 line on its in the budget. over $2 billion, earning the reputation of vito corleone. we created a process, and it legislature went beyond the process, their items were not included. we eliminated affirmative action and replace it with a model that

was not discriminatory but that people who had a chance to go to university did it. we had more african-american and hispanic kids attending our universities because they were well-qualified. we were the state that created the first statewide voucher program. we expanded school choice, public and private. we limited social promotion in third grade, this insidious policy that says if you are functionally illiterate in third grade, it is ok to go to fourth grade when you are reading to learn, if you can't read, you can't learn. we cut the number of people that were functionally illiterate in half. this is a state that has more democrats than republicans. we had taken on the teachers unions across the board this. record is what is necessary to get back on track.

if you have a president that could work with david and others in congress, if we fix how we tax, how we regulate, how we move our job training programs so people have another chance to be able to move up in this disruptive economy, if we created a more peaceful, secure world i restoring america's presence in the world, this would be the greatest time to be alive as an american. i honestly believe that. my hope is that the 2016 campaign for these races will be about what we believe in, what we are for, that we drive people towards our cause. that we are not as reactionary but much more positive about the future of our country. it is therefore us to fix. when we fix it, the country will lead the world for a long while. that should be worth fighting for by electing principle conservatives like congressman young and others.

i hope that you continue to stay involved and make it happen. i continue to stay involved in some fashion. i will let you know later with that turns out to be. but i am excited to be here and really appreciate your support for david young. god bless you, thanks a lot. [applause] >> questions? if the hard questions come david will answer them. yes, ma'am? [inaudible] gov. jeb bush: what i am for our higher standard, assessed fatefully, so we know where kids

stand. the more important thing is that they are higher than existing standards in every state. states that do not want to participate, that is fine. no big deal. they ought to be advocating higher standards in their states as well. in reality, after spending more per student in any country in the world, that is where we stand. other than luxembourg. and a couple other rounding errors. i got politifact'd on that. about a third of our kids were college or career ready. it is shameful. it should deeply disturbed everybody that once our country to progress and rise up. the skills required to be successful in the world we are in today and moving towards

requires much higher critical thinking skills. it requires the kind of learning that would allow you to get a job. too many kids are held back. think of the number of people that cannot get into the military right now because they are not military-ready. raising expectations and having act assessments of where kids are is tantamount, essential for success. i am not going to back down on that. what i can tell you is that the federal government should not be involved in this. this is an iowa deal. that is where it should stay. the federal government should not have a role in influencing directly or indirectly standards or curriculum or content. our tradition in our country is the right one, where it is locally administered and state-driven in terms of policy. [applause] yes? >> [inaudible]

gov. jeb bush: yes, sir. well, i have had a front row seat. as many of us have in the last years of how foreign policy used to be a bipartisan deal. i think we need to restore it. there was a bipartisan consensus that american power, with restraint, was a force for good in the world. and it was. our presence in the world, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. if you had to pick the one institution in the world that should get as much credit as any other, it is the united states navy, keeping the sea lanes open. as we pull back our military commitment, there will be uncertainty about that. this president is the first president, i believe, in the post-world war ii era that does not believe the military power is a force for good in the world. his pullback is not good for us

or the world. it has created uncertainty instability, and greater risk for the homeland. the next president has to restore an american presence where our allies know where we stand. for they do not think that we are pulling back. we are not pivoting, doing things that create uncertainty. we are involved and they know we have their back. our enemies fear us a little bit. they know we will act should certain things occur. neither one of those things is happening right now. these boys are being filled by asymmetric threats of terror and by states taking advantage of our weakness. restoring that alliance, rebuilding the military, shifting to the 21st century, we have new threats that did not exist a decade ago. cyber security, threats of terror, defending the homeland and protecting civil liberties

-- we need to continue to be engaged to make sure no attack takes place in our own country. this president, his former secretary of state has let us down in this regard. [applause] [inaudible] gov. gov. jeb bush: the question is, thoughts on the national debt. any ideas i have. first and foremost, there is no way we will get out from our entitlement mess, which is going to be more and more a reason why our debt is growing faster than our ability to pay for it. unless we grow the economy. we should be growing -- that should be the first priority. every policy should be focused on will this create jobs, income for the middle class? will this allow people at the bottom to rise up? will we grow and generate

revenue for government? more importantly, revenue for people. right now, our policies are about stymieing economic growth. if we work to grow at 4%, which sounds like an incredibly naive belief, almost impossible to imagine, 4% growth is basically the average up until the last decade. a 4% model would mean we embrace our energy revolution of north american energy with american ingenuity and innovation. we would fix a broken immigration system where the rule of law would be applied. where our borders were secure, but we would narrow family petitioning. we would simplify the tax code. reduce rates. not have tax expenditures, but allow people through transparency and simplicity to know what the rules are.

let them invest in their own dreams and not have exotic ideas from washington dc. the same would apply to regulation. if we did those things, our country would grow at a faster rate. we are not going to solve our debt problems until we grow the economy at a faster rate. we need to start passing budgets again. right, congressman? the textbooks are going to be rewritten pretty soon. the idea that every eighth-grader knows, the house passes a budget, the senate passes a budget, they go to congress, presented to the president, the president signs it or less it to become law without the signature or vetoes it, we have not had that in five years. we need to put the priorities back in order and challenge the aspects of how we make money. much of what is going on in washington is because it has been going on in washington. it is inertia that allows it to

happen. when i was governor, i had a chance to take this kind of approach. we challenged everything. it was fun. if you are policy oriented going through the budget and challenging every aspect putting performance criteria around things, asking if they could be done better at the state level, normally the answer is yes. asking the questions, what are the outcomes of this program? can it be done better? does it have to be done at all? every policy ought to be created on "will this create jobs?" will this allow people at the bottom to rise up? will we create revenue for people? right now, our policies are

the minute interest rates get back to a lower place debt service and entitlements are going to eat everything. it is going to be the cookie monsters that the cookie must-read cannot stop. there's no way something like this can be done jamming it down people's throats and we have to grow the economy. our country is way more dynamic than what people realize. even today, we are growing at a rate that's better than a handful of countries. we the most dynamic, spectacular country on the face of the earth . we just have a bad government that is holding us back to stop >> [inaudible]

gov. jeb bush: the nature of the patient-. relationship has been torn asunder. how do we restore it? i think we restore it by repealing at present the affordable care act, obamacare and replacing it with a model that is consumer-direct it. where patients have more choices. more of a direct relationship. where subsidies are state-administered. exchanges are not coercive exchanges that is not employer mandated or requirements of

services provided that are extraordinary. where people have more customized insurance based on need a it is more consumer-direct it. where they are more engaged in the decision-making and have more choices. when i was governor, we did something similar with medicaid. it is not the greatest insurance in the world. in florida, there are lower and -- reimbursement rates. it was a defined contribution land. we told washington we will take a fixed a mount but we want to have the freedom to be able to craft the policies in a way where we will lower costs, improve outcomes, focus on prevention. we did that. patients were more satisfied. doctors, instead of dropping out did not do so. still today, that is a big problem in florida. we lowered the cost of medicaid for the state budget.

there are 50 ways to do this to be honest with you. the system should not be top-down driven from washington, d.c. [indiscernible] would you work with my representative right here -- [indiscernible] gov. jeb bush: look, i just bragged about the medicare plan. we should know about this. this is what our federal system does best. we were asked in the pre-reception to sign the part of the constitution you admire

the most. that is hard to do for someone who loves the constitution.i signed the 10th amendment of the bill of rights. i think the power of our country, when we do it right, we are doing it by trial and error at the local and state level. when there is a national consensus the federal government begins to act. this approach, the progressive liberal approach, has created chaos. we are frozen in place. it is not just health care, although certainly health care is the place that has gotten a lot of attention, but it is also how agriculture is regulated to the pa. the department of labor has consolidated power and decided that everyplace has to be done the exact same way. children cannot work on their family farms for test is now defined as a pollutant.

it was never established in the law. i think that we need to shift power back to the state, learn from each other, and allow for a more dynamic approach in policymaking for sure. do i know anything about the insurance of iowa? i do not. that i now know congressman young. [laughter] and i am sure i will get along briefing on it. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. i want to bring out one more special guest here, congressman latham over here. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> a live picture this morning from the national league of cities conference happening today in washington, d.c.. shortly the president will announce a new plan to train and higher technology workers in just a moment at just past 11:30, any moment now we expect to see the president. a little bit later this afternoon we will have more from the conference with remarks from jay johnson and the interior secretary. there will also be a panel discussion with anthony foxx and ernest moneys. we will hear from the epa administrator, gina mccarthy at 3:30 eastern and we will have it for you here live on c-span. we also want to remind you about the national press club speaker today.

bernie sanders was expected to speak about his priorities on the floor of the senate and we will have live coverage of that at 1 p.m. eastern. again, we are waiting for president obama to speak here at the national league of cities conference. he is expected momentarily. u.s. senate is in session today. the houses out for a weeklong break and this is what is ahead for senators this week. host: we want to talk about the

bill that was expected to be on the floor this week in the senate. what is going on there? guest: we had anticipated that on tuesday that the senate would attempt to hold up a measure sponsored by the foreign relations chairman, bob corker of tennessee. it would require the administration to defend an agreement reached with the arabians over the program. it would allow congress to weigh in on any sort of agreement. what happened was, a number of

democratic senators who had supported the legislation indicated to the majority leader in the senate that they would not vote for their own bill until after a march 24 deadline for some sort of resolution in -- >> hello, again. it is a great honor to host [no audio] is this working? testing? can you hear a back there? no? -- can you hear me back there? no? hello? no, not working? there we go. that's what we needed. [applause] hello, again. >> high. >> it is a great honor to host

the president of the united dates of the national league of cities today. [applause] president obama is a great friend and ally to america's cities. from the moment that he was elected in 2008 the president demonstrated his deep commitment to cities. i recall meeting him when he was president-elect obama. a number of other mayors were at the transition office in chicago. we discussed how to move the country forward. mr. president, you made significant commitments to our cities at that time and you have more than delivered on those commitments. on behalf of america's cities, i want to knowledge our accomplishments for our communities. thank you. [applause]

president obama helped america's cities rise from the ashes of the great recession, build roads, protect the health of residents and improve the lives of young people. in salt lake city his administration has focused city investments that have benefited us directly with support for energy efficiency, housing, and administration. when i became the mayor in 2007 i began working on bringing our dream to fruition. at that time the streetcar was at least another 20 years away. thanks to the obama administration's innovative program, salt lake city was awarded $26 million and are streetcar became a reality. [applause] when our streetcar opened in december of 2013 it spurred over $400 million in private

development. i know that our story is not unique in that cities around the country have had similarly successful partnerships with the federal government. again, i will say thank you, mr. president. [applause] president obama's visit comes when federal officials are going local by targeting the cities to build stronger communities to improve the lives of residents. the national league of cities has worked closely with the administration to change the federal approach to match city needs. we see across the board shifts in programs like my brother's keeper and sustainable communities. once again, thank you, mr. president. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, fellow city officials, it is a great privilege and a high honor to

introduce the president of the united states, barack obama. [cheers and applause] president: thank you. everybody, have a seat. thank you so much. thank you. thank you for the wonderful introduction and the great job that you are doing every single day. everybody have a seat. [laughter] >> i love you. president obama: i love you, too. [applause] it is good to be with the national league of cities. we have about 2000 local leaders

here. we have mayors, we have councilmembers, republicans, democrats, independents. >> [indiscernible] president obama: we have got some small town leaders, we have got some city leaders. but you all have something in common. that is that every day you wake up ready to solve problems. and you know that people are depending on you to make sure that your streets are safe, that your schools are strong, that the trash gets picked up. that the roads get cleared. you have to spend time thinking in practical terms about whether people are getting good jobs and whether they are able to support a family. you do not have a lot of time for gridlock. you have got to get the job done

. you do not have a lot of time for hot air. people are expecting you to deliver. you are part of the reason why america is coming back. last month the economy created nearly 300,000 new jobs. unemployment rates went down to 5.5%, the lowest it has been since the spring of 2008. all told, businesses have created over 12 million jobs over the last five years. well done. the good news is that the pace is picking up and our businesses have added over 200,000 jobs per month over the last year. we have not seen a streak like that in almost 40 years. [applause] so, we are well positioned.

we are in a good spot to take advantage of not just next year and the year after, but decades to come. we have got to keep positioning ourselves for a constantly changing global economy. that is something that you all understand, it does not matter if you are the mayor of a big city or a small town, you understand that the economy is dynamic now. you cannot just stand still and rest on your laurels. you also understand that we have to focus on middle class economics. the notion that our country does best when everyone is getting a fair shot and everyone is doing their fair share and playing by the same set of rules. i have to say that the national league of cities has been a great partner in this work. a great partner. [applause]

we worked with many of you to raise the minimum wage while we wait for congress to do something. over the past two years more than 20 cities and counties have taken action to raise workers wages. [applause] we have passed sick leave laws. you have answered the mayors challenge to and -- to end veterans homelessness. nearly 200 meters have stepped up to answer what we are calling my brother's keeper, the challenge to create more pathways for assistance for our young people. some of you are supporting the agreements for trade that is free and fair in some of the world's fastest-growing markets because you know that businesses large and small in your communities can be impacted and we want to make sure that our workers and businesses can compete on a level playing field.

so, there is a lot of work you have done together and a lot more that we can do together to make sure that we benefit from these 12 -- from this 21st century economy. no one knows for sure which industries are going to be generating all the good paying jobs of the future. what we do know is that we want them here in america and we want them in your town, in your city, in york county. [applause] -- in your county. [applause] that is what we know. so, today i want to focus on something very specific. that is -- how can we work together to build a pipeline of technology workers for this new economy? this does not just apply to san francisco. this does not just apply to boston. it applies across the board in

every part of the country. right now america has more job openings then it any point since 2001. that is good news. we have got a lot of job openings. here's the catch. over half of a million of those jobs are technology jobs. a lot of those jobs did not even exist 10 to 20 years ago. titles like mobile app developer or user face designer. we tend to think that all of these jobs are in silicon valley. companies like google, ebay, maybe in a few spots like austin texas, where you have seen a tech industry thrive, but the truth is that two thirds of these jobs are in non-high-tech industries, like health care manufacturing, or banking.

there is no industry that has not been touched by this technology revolution. what's more, a lot of these jobs do not require a four-year degree in computer science. they do not require that you didn't engineer. folks can get the skills that they need for these jobs in newark, streamlined, faster training programs. what's more, these jobs pay 50% more than the average private-sector wage. which means they are a ticket to the middle class. you all know better than anybody that this is an economic development issue. when companies have job openings that they cannot fill, that costs them money. it costs them market share. it costs them exports.

so, they go looking for where they can find the people that they need and if we do not have them, that makes it harder for us to attract good jobs to our shores or your communities. when these jobs go unfilled it is a missed opportunity for the workers, for your city, your county, your state. and our nation. here is something else. if we do not produce enough technology workers, over time that will threaten our leadership and global innovation , the bread and butter of the 21st century economy. america is where entrepreneurs come to start the greatest startups. where the most cutting-edge ideas are born and launched. historically that is because we have got great universities, great research, and great workers. and if we lose those assets?

they will start drifting somewhere else. companies will get started somewhere else. then the great new industries of the future may not be here in america. now, i refuse to accept that future. i want america to win the race for the kinds of discoveries that will bring new jobs. [applause] whether it is converting sunlight into liquid fuel or leading a new area in personalized medicine or pushing out into the solar system, not just a visit, but to stay. we have got this incredible set of opportunities, but we have got to have the workers to take advantage of it. so, today i am announcing a new initiative that we are calling tech higher. it is going to be driven by leaders like you.

there are three big components to this. the first, we already have over 20 cities, states, and rural communities who have signed on. they already have over 120,000 of them in bold new ways. let me give you an example. employers tend to recruit people with technology degrees from four-year colleges. that means sometimes they wind up screening out to the candidates that do not necessarily have traditional qualifications, who may have learned at a community college they may have served our military. they have got the talent, but employers are missing them. so these communities will help employers link up to find and hire folks based on their actual skills and not just the resumes. [applause]

because it turns out it does not matter where you learned to code, it just matters how good you are in writing it. if you can do the job, you should get the job. while four-year degrees in engineering and computer science are still important, we have the opportunity to promote programs that we call, for example, boot camps, or online courses that have pioneered new ways to teach these skills in a fraction of the time and the cost. these new models have the potential to reach the underserved communities. to reach women, who are still underrepresented in this sector. minorities, who are still underrepresented in this sector. [applause] veterans, who we know can do the job. lower income workers might have the aptitude for these jobs, but they do not know that these jobs

are within we each -- within reach. there will be tears of jobs in this sector, all of which are tech, but they are not all the same. we still have to place more engineers, work with companies and help local leaders to connect the job openings to the training programs and the jobs. if you are not already involved in this, you have got to get involved. your community needs this just like everyone else does. that is the first component. the second thing we are doing we have private-sector leaders supporting everything from scholarships the job management tools. companies like linkedin are going to use data to help

identify the skills that employers need to. companies like capital one are going to help recruit, train, and employ new tech workers. not out of charity, but because it is a smart business decision. this is all going to help us to match the job to the worker. the private sector will be involved in this out of self-interest. what it means for you, the local level leaders, you will have to help create and facilitate these platforms for this kind of job management. finally, we are launching a competition to train and employ those who are underrepresented in tech. [applause] at this time when we all lead digital lives, anyone with the drive and the will to get into this field should have a pathway to do so. my administration is committed to this initiative.

we have got a lot of private and nonprofit sectors leading the way. we want them to get more on board. but ultimately success will rest on folks like you. mayors, council members, local leaders. you have the power to bring your community together and sees this incredible opportunity that could change the way that we think about training and hiring the workers of tomorrow. the good news is that these workers may have learned from the most unlikely of places. so, let me wrap up with just the example of one person, a woman named lashawn on lewis. where issue? i heard she was here. there she is, over there. [applause] now, the reason that lashawna's story is so relevant, she grew up in east st. louis.

she had a passion for computers. but, because of circumstances constraints, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth , she was not able to get a college degree. because she did not have a college degree, she could not even get an interview for a tech job. despite her skills. so, she was working as a bus driver. she was working in entry-level jobs. but she is apparently, a stubborn person, which is good. sometimes you need to be stubborn. [applause] so she refused to give up on her dreams as she used her free time to teach her self new computer skills. she started going to a coding meet up run by launch code, a

not-for-profit to find talented people across st. louis and give them the training and credibility for the tech jobs employers desperately need to fill as we speak. so, she have the skills. launch code went to bat for her. today she is a system engineer master clerk. [applause] now, it's a great story, but understand this, they want to hire mode -- more folks like lashawna. moreover, 40% of their first class came in unemployed, 90% of the graduates were hired for -- hired full-time with an average starting salary of $50,000 per year.

so, that is what is already happening, but on a small scale. what we need to do is expand it. in each of your communities there is an opportunity to find talent like lashawn a. help them get credentialed. help them to focus the skills they have already got. work with not for profits businesses, match them up. the next thing you know, you have got a systems engineer they have got a good job companies are excited they are able to expand. your tax base is improving. you can reach out and train even more folks. you can get on a virtuous cycle of change. and it does not require huge amounts of money. it is some planning, some organization, some planning from the federal government who is

going to be your partner in this process. we have got to create more stories like that. if we do, we are going to more effectively capture the boundless energy and talent of americans who have the will, but sometimes need some help figuring out the way. help them get on a path to fill the new jobs of the century. that is what middle class economics looks like. i said this weekend that americans do not believe in anybody getting a free ride. americans do not believe in equality of outcomes. we understand that you have got to work hard in this country. you don't just sit around waiting for something to happen, you have got to go get it. but -- [applause]

we do believe in equal opportunity. we do believe in expanding opportunity to everyone willing to work hard. we do believe that in this country no matter what you look like or where you come from or how you started out, if you are willing to put in some blood sweat, and tears, you should be able to make it. get a decent job. get a decent wage. send your kids to college. retire with dignity and respect. have health care that you can count on. that is what i have committed to doing for these last two years. the league of cities can help me do it. work with you. to build an economy where everyone shares in american prosperity and everyone is contributing. thank you very everybody. god bless you. [cheers and applause] ♪