chronicle. it has useful information including voting rights and each clicks coming up tonight senator bernie sanders of vermont discusses the middle class in the future of the country. then president obama speaking at the national league of cities about technology and jobs. the supreme court oral argument regarding who has the authority to draw convert -- congressional district lines in arizona. an article from the washington post, gop letter to iran deepens white house i are. and already heated battle over negotiations to curtail iran's nuclear program came more tense when 47 republican senators sent a letter designed to kill any

potential deal. the white house responded by accusing the republicans of conspiring with iranian hardliners who opposed the negotiations. the letter there on your screen suggests any deal between president obama and the iranian leadership what amount to "an executive agreement that could he and done by congress or future president." read more at washingtonpost.com. senator bernie sanders spoke today at the national press club. this is one hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. my name is john hughes, i am an editor for bloomberg first word. and president of the national press club. the club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. we are committed to our

profession's future through programs such as this and we work for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club, this is our website press.org. to donate to programs offered to our clubs journalism institute visit press.org/institute. i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's events. our head table includes guests of the speaker as well journalists who are club members . members of the public attend our lunches so applies you hear is not necessarily evidence that journalistic integrity is lacking. i would also what -- like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the #npclunch.

we will have a question and answer period. i will ask each of our guests to stand as each is announced. make bolick, director of public affairs of the national conference of state legislatures. john heldman -- heltman covering the fed in the fsoc. and the washington correspondent for japan's newspaper. tad devine. christopher gentlevisto. jane sanders, the senator's wife.

[applause] a reporter at "usa today" and vice chair of the closest speakers committee. skipping over our speaker firmament -- for a moment. reporter for bloomberg news and the committee member who organized today's event. thank you. [applause] and the chief of staff. congress reporter for bloomberg first word. lacy crawford, jr. and phil contrino, first analyst at box office.com. [applause] senator bernie sanders is widely

known in vermont simply as bernie. he began a life of activism as a student at the university of chicago where he led us it into protest discriminatory policy -- housing policies. after graduating and living on an israeli cabinets, he moved to vermont and had a series of jobs in areas ranging from filmmaking to carpentry. he ran and lost as a third-party candidate for several offices before winning a race for mayor of burlington in 1981. his margin of victory was 10 votes. sanders gained popularity by promoting burlington's local businesses, fixing potholes, and ringing a minor-league baseball team to town. vermonters elected him to the house in 1990 and to the senate in 2007. when sanders arrived on capitol hill, he was the only

independent in the house. he has gone on to become the longest-serving independent in congressional history. he caucuses with the democrats and he has become the ranking member of the senate budget committee. sanders speaks out frequently on issues he is passionate about such as cutting military spending, taking action to protect the environment, and working to reduce income inequality. in 2010, he conducted a nearly nine hour filibuster against tax cuts for wealthy americans. so many people followed his effort online, that the senate video server crashed. these days, sanders is considering a bid in the 2016 presidential election and what better place with there be to announce such a bid and the national press club? [applause]

not that we are suggesting anything here, senator. sanders has also been tinkering with his crusty persona. as the boston globe recently wrote, "sanders is an issues oriented class warrior who has begun to listen up on the stump, softening his term urgently demeanor with an occasional joke." [laughter] we at the national press club have also been known to relax our term i gently demeanors from time to time. we want to do that right now by giving a warm welcome to vermont senator bernie sanders. [applause]

>> thank you for inviting me. before i begin the thrust of my remarks, let me give you a very short thumbnail sketch of my political life because my journey here to washington, d.c. has been a little bit different than many of my senate colleagues. as john mentioned, i was born in brooklyn, new york in 1941. my father came to this country from poland at the age of 17 without a penny in his pocket and without much of an education. i always think back about the extraordinary bravery that was his, as well as many other millions of people who came to the country with so little. my mom graduated high school in new york city. my dad worked for almost his entire life as a paint salesman. my parents -- my parents, my

brother, and i lived in a small rent-controlled apartment. my dream was to move out of that apartment -- my mother filtering was to move out of that apartment and buy a home. she died young and never realize that dream. i learned what money means to a family and that is a lesson i have never forgotten. my wife jane and i have been married or 27 years. we have four great kids and seven beautiful grandchildren. and without trying to be overly dramatic about it, the reason politically why i do what i do is to make sure these kids and all of our children can live in a wonderful country in a wonderful world. representing the great state of vermont, as john indicated, i am the longest serving independent

in american congressional history. i served 16 years in the house and as vermont's loan congressman, and in 2006 i was elected to the senate and reelected in 2012. i began my rather unusual political career back in 1971 as a candidate for the u.s. senate on a small third-party called the liberty union, and i received 2% of the vote. a year later i ran for governor as these -- of the state of vermont and received 1% of the vote. [laughter] not being the brightest light on the block, iran again for the senate and received 4% of the vote and two years later iran i ran for governor and received

6% of the vote. i thought i would give the people of vermont a break and i retired from politics in 1976. remembering one particular guy who said, bernie, i promise i will vote for you if you promise me you will never run for office again -- in 1981, i was persuaded by friends to run for mayor of burlington, the largest city in our state against a five-term democratic mayor. i ran as an independent. nobody, but nobody thought that we had a chance to win. we did. and that very remarkable election, we put together an extraordinary coalition of workers and trade unionists, of environmentalists, of activists, of low income organizations, of woman's -- women's groups. in that type of coalition

politics, bringing people together around a progressive agenda changed my view of politics today. in a campaign that cost $4000, i, and the people who supported me, knocked on thousands of doors in the city, and let me tell you, it gets cold in vermont in march. on election night when the votes were counted, we won the working class wards i something like two to one and won the election by all of 14 votes. it was the biggest political upset in modern vermont history and after the recount, the margin of victory was reduced to 10 votes. i took office with 11 out of 13 members of the city council, democrats and republicans, in very strong opposition to my agenda. and if many of you in this room think that president obama has gotten a rough time from

republicans, that was nothing compared to what i am i supporters experience doing my first -- during my first year of office. a year later, a slate of candidates working with me succeeded a number of incumbent obstructionists. a year after that, the voter turnout was almost doubled from what it was when i was first elected. i easily defeated a democratic and a republican candidate continue to get reelected. in 1988, iran for the u.s. congress in a three-way race -- in 1988, i ran for the u.s. congress in a three-way race. two years later, i ran that

election with 16% more of the vote. a candidate who spent three times more money than anyone had ever spent before in our state's history, and ran a very, very negative race was who i was against. i ran and for reelection i got 71% of the vote. as mayor of arlington, my administration took on virtually every special and powerful interest in the city and in the state. against the wishes of developers and railroads, we created a beautiful people oriented waterfront and walkway and bikeway along lake champlain. we won national recognition for urban beautification by planting thousands of trees throughout the city, and we made major improvements in our streets and

sidewalks. we implemented the largest environmental program then in the state's history of building a new wastewater facility to prevent untreated waste from going into the lake. we started a youth office which created beautiful day camps, a little league program, afterschool programs, all of which continue to exist today. we were the first city in vermont to break its dependence on a regressive property tax. we made changes to the police department, moving in the direction of community policing. we had a very active and successful arts program. and the result for the last several decades, burlington has been considered to be one of the most beautiful and livable small cities in america, and i invite all of you not only to visit burlington, but to visit our beautiful state of vermont. in 1990, i became the first

independent elected to the u.s. house in 40 years. we formed a caucus that stands as one of the largest and more important caucuses, doing a great job representing working families. one of the first votes in the house i cast was against the first gulf war. i believe that history will record that was the right vote. [applause] as was the vote i cast years later against the war in iraq, and what i consider to be one of the worst foreign-policy blunders in the history of our country. [applause] that war -- and i think as the former chairman of the veterans committee, what the cost that war is.

that cost does not only be lives of thousands of beautiful and brave young men in women, but it also created the situation where today hundreds of thousands, 500,000 men and women have come home from iraqi and afghanistan with posttraumatic stresses order and dramatic brain injury. they have come home with a loss of arms and legs and eyesight and their hearing. before we get involved in another war, we should remember what war is really about. [applause] and that war in iraq also destabilized the entire region and opened up the can of worms we now see.

we have the organization called isis and we are deeply concerned about our remaining influence over iraq. i was one of those who led the fight against td regulation of wall street -- the deregulation of wall street. in retrospect, i think it is fair to say that most people today do not believe that it was a great idea to and glass-steagall -- to end glass-steagall and allow activity on wall street to go unchecked. [applause] i also strongly oppose the trade agreements written by corporate america and have gotten support

from democratic and republican presidents, like nafta, cap to which have led this country into a race to the bottom. needless to say, i strongly oppose the transpacific partnership trade agreement. [applause] while in the house, i took on the pharmaceutical industry and the outrageous prices they charge our people and became the first member of congress to take americans across the canadian border to purchase prescription drugs there, and i will never forget that trip where women struggling with breast cancer bought the medicine they needed for 1/10 of the price in montreal that they were paying in the united states. and my understanding is today hundreds of thousands of people, sadly, have to continue buying their medicine in canada rather than local pharmacies.

as the chairman of the senate veterans committee, i worked hard in a bipartisan way to pass the most significant veterans legislation passed in many, many years. we put $15 billion into improving veterans health care to make sure that the people who put their lives on the line to defend us get the best quality health care possible and get it in a timely manner. and i have -- [applause] and one of the wonderful honors i have received in recent years is to be the recipient of the highest awards from the american legion and the vfw and i'm very very grateful to them for that. as someone concerned about health care and our dysfunctional harrop care -- health care system, i worked

with jim clyburn to put some $12 billion into qualified community health centers which resulted in some 4 million lower income americans gaining access to health care, dental care low-cost ascription drugs, and mental health counseling. we also significantly expanded the national health services board. the president was very supportive of these efforts, and in my view, this program has been one of the success stories of the affordable care act. as one of the leaders in the senate trying to combat the crisis of climate change. i helped create the block grant program that put billions into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. several years ago, working with several of my colleagues, i formed the social security caucus and we were successful in reading back and massive effort

to cut programs, social security, and benefits from some of the most powerful people in this country and that is an effort i will continue to make. [applause] now, that is a very brief description of my life and political history. let me start with something more important, and that is the future of our country. what i am going to tell you now, i suspect not many people come up to talk about, but as someone who has been described as being too gruff, a grumpy grandfather, i have to live up to my reputation. so i will be gruff, i will be abrupt, and i will let you know what i think. today in a nation plagued by

many, many concerns, the most serious problem we face is the grotesque and growing level of wealth and income inequality. [applause] this is a profound moral issue. it is a profound economic issue. and as a result of citizens united, it is a profound political issue. it is the issue that impacts all other issues. job creation, health care, climate change, the environment, education, you name it. they are all fundamentally impacted by income and wealth inequality. let me be very honest with you and tell you what very few elected officials will tell you. and that is that given the incredible power of the billionaire class over the

economic life of this country, over politics, over media, i am absolutely convinced that the struggle for economic and social justice, the struggle for a strong middle class, these struggle -- the struggle for a vibrant democracy in which elections are not bought one not be one in our lifetime unless an unprecedented grassroots movement is developed which is prepared to take on and defeat the power of the 1%. [applause] over this last weekend, my wife and i had the opportunity to visit selma, alabama and montgomery, alabama, along with many other members of congress and tens of thousands of citizens to honor the incredible bravery of those who marched and

were beaten on bloody sunday 50 years ago. i was there with my good friend john lewis and many others. standing outside of martin luther king's small and modest dexter avenue church in montgomery, i was reminded that real change never takes place without struggle, without the active participation of millions of people who are prepared to stand up and fight for justice people who are prepared to put their lives on the line in those struggles. these political battle of this time is not republicans versus democrats. it is not the political gains inside the beltway that preoccupy much of the media's attention, it is not the ugly 32nd tv ad that flood our airwaves. the challenge at this moment in our history is a declining

middle class of millions of people working longer hours for low wages, if they are lucky enough to have jobs, against the power of a billionaire class whose greed has no end. [applause] it is the struggle of americans, black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, women and men gay and straight. the struggle for decent jobs adequate incomes to take care of their families, struggling for retirement security, struggling for decent education with their kids, struggling for health care, struggling for dignity against the greed and power of a few on top who apparently wanted all. -- want it all. economically, the great middle

class, once the envy of the entire world has been in decline. despite exploding technology despite increased productivity despite the global economy and the increase in trade, millions of americans today are working longer hours for low wages and we have more people living in poverty today than almost any time in the modern history of america. today, real unemployment is not 5.5%. real unemployment is a 11%, and if you include those workers who have given up looking for work or working part-time when they want to work full-time. african american youth unemployment is up to 30%. shamefully, we have by far the highest rate of childhood

poverty of any major country on earth, and despite the modest success of the affordable care act, some 40 million americans continue to have no health insurance, while even more are underinsured with heavy copayments or deductibles. we remain the only major industrialized country that does not guarantee to its people health care as a right, and that is a shame in my mind. [applause] there are a lot of angry people all across this country. some of them from the occupy wall street movement. some are in the tea party movement and see themselves as conservatives. but let me give you a hint as to why we are angry and why they

are. since 1999, the typical middle-class family has seen its take-home go down by almost $5,000 after adjusted for inflation. the median male worker made $683 less last year then he did 42 years ago. are we better off than when bush left office? of course we are. but the suffering, anxiety the middle class feels today has no idea what is going on in this country and that is my perception on capitol hill. there is a world here on capitol hill that is very different from vermont and the rest of the country and i think it is imperative we close that gap and begin to let them know what is going on with the working families of this country. meanwhile the wealthiest people

and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. the gap between the very, very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider and wider. the top 1% now owns about 41% of the entire wealth of this country, while the bottom 60% owns less than 2%. today, incredibly the top 1/10 of 1%, 1/10 of 1% now owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. today the walton family, the owner of walmart, is now worth $157 billion. that is more wealth than the bottom 42% of the american people. the fact of the matter is, over the last four years we have witnessed an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to multi billionaires.

90% was 36% in 2013 went down to just 2.8%. -- just 22.8%. listen to this. if the bottom 90% have the same share of its nations wealth as it did 30 years ago it would have more than $10 trillion in wealth than is currently the case today. meanwhile, the middle class has shrunk. the people on top are doing extraordinarily well. the richest 1/10 of 1% have increased their share of our nations wealth by more than $1 trillion over the last three decades. in terms of income as opposed to wealth, since the great wall street collapse, 99% of all new

income is going to the top 1%. as people struggle and worry how they will feed their kids in send their kids to college and how they will do childcare and worry about their parents, 99% of all new income generated in the last several years goes to the top 10%. the very rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer. in 2013, just as an example, the top 25 hedge fund managers made more than 24 billion dollars. that is the equivalent of that the full salaries of more than 425,000 public school teachers. is that what america is supposed to be about? i do not think so. [applause] but income and wealth equality

-- any quality is not just a moral issue. it is also an economic issue. maybe even more profoundly, it is a political issue. the people who have the money are now putting their money -- not putting their money under their mattresses. they are investing heavily in the political process. to make the rich even richer. as the result of a disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united, billionaire families are now able to spend unlimited sums of money to purchase the candidate of their choice. i know that sounds a harsh statement, but if anyone doubts what goes on in congress, that piece of legislation after piece of legislation is not done on behalf of the wealthy and large corporations, let me respectfully tell you, you do not know what is going on in washington. according to media reports, it appears the koch brothers are prepared to spend more money in

the next election than either the democratic or republican party. in other words, one family, the second wealthiest family in this country worth approximately $100 billion may well have a stronger political presence then either one of the major two parties. here is from a recent article in politico. the koch brothers and their allies are pumping tens of millions of dollars in two data companies that are developing detailed state-of-the-art profiles on 250 million americans, giving the brothers political operation or the earmarks of a mac -- of a national party. they also have developed in-house expertise in polling, fact checking, advertising media buying, and nationally after years of patient experimentation and limitless

cash the operation actually exceeds the republican national committee's dollar operation in many important respects. because they had an and listen supply of money, the only get stronger. i want everyone in this room and those listening to the program to step back and take a deep breath and tell me what you see. when the second wealthiest family in this country with an extreme right-wing agenda and a few of their billionaire pals have more political power than either of the two major political parties in this country, what is that clinical system called? i think it should be called by its rightful name. it is not called democracy. it is called oligarchy. that is the system we are rapidly moving toward. that is the system we must vigorously oppose. [applause]

i have exceeded my time. i always get people in little nervous. if i go on too long, yank me. i have been yanked once or twice before. let me just touch on what a progressive agenda looks like to begin to adjust some of the problems. let's never forget today despite the improving economy, we have a major draws in income prices. we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. i introduced along with barbara -- barbara mikulski a $1 trillion piece of legislation that would go a long way to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and water -- 13 million -- and support the creation of

13 million decent paying jobs. [applause] when we talk about jobs and income, the $7.25 minimum wage here at the federal level, it is a starvation wage. we need to raise it over a time of years to $15 an hour to an -- no one working 40 hours a week in this country should live in poverty. [applause] despite what my republican friends may think, climate change is real. climate change is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating harm. we have got to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy sufficiency and sustainable energy. [applause] we have to pass pay equity for women workers. it is unacceptable they are making $.78 per hour compared to men.

if we are going to save the middle class of this country we need to fundamentally transform our trade policies. they are not working. corporate america will have to start investing in the united states. not in china. [applause] we have got to learn from the rest of the world that investing in a higher education is an asset, it is a positive step. it is a national disgrace that billions of our young people are graduating school deeply in debt and many others cannot afford to go to college. that is not the way you create a great nation. anyone who has the ability and the desire should be able to get a college education regardless of the income of their families. [applause] six, you cannot regulate wall street. wall street is regulating the congress. the sixth largest financial institution have assets of almost 60% of our gdp. if teddy roosevelt were president today, you know what he would say?

break them up and he would be right. it is time to break up the large wall street bank. [applause] as i mentioned earlier, the united states remains the only major country on earth without a national healthcare program and yet we spent almost twice as much per capita. it is time for america to guarantee health care to every man, woman, and child, as a right of citizenship. [applause] my colleagues in congress, some of them are republican, working day and night to cut medicare and medicaid. needless to say, i strongly disagree. we have got to expand social security. not cut social security. [applause] we need real tax reform. it is not acceptable that major corporation after major corporation making billions of dollars pays nothing in taxes. we lose $100 billion a year in revenue because they stash their money in tax havens. it is time for the large

corporations to rejoin america and start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] so let me thank you and my forgiveness for overextending my time. we are at a crucial moment in american history. it is imperative we learn from the civil rights movement, which achieved so many extraordinary victories, that we organize, we educate, and we bring people together to create an america that works for all of us and not just a handful of billionaires. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> senator, when will you declare your intentions of 2016, regardless of what they are? >> that is a good question. and let me say this. let -- the reason i have been thinking about running for president sitting here with my wife who is less than enthusiastic about the idea, it is not because i wake up in the morning and say, i have a burning desire to be president of the united states. i am as proud as i could possibly be to be representing the great state of vermont and i have reached a higher level of political achievement i ever dreamed to be possible. the reason i am thinking about running for president is that at a time when the middle-class of this country is disappearing and so many people are giving up on the political process, -- last election, 63% did not even bother to vote.

we need candidates who will stand up for the working-class this country. it ain't an easy task. it is easy to give a speech, but we are taking on the koch brothers and the billionaires and wall street and the insurance companies and the military-industrial complex. that is not easy stuff. not easy stuff. i do not want to do this thing unless i can do it well. can we put together the political movement of millions of people prepared to work hard to take on the billionaire class? that is what i'm trying to find out. i go around the country and there is a lot of support for these ideas. more than i think the inside beltway pundits understand. can you convert that into a grassroots organization? how do you raise money? i woke up the other day and said, i -- if i were really successful and did something unprecedented and had 3 million people contribute $100 each, and my election campaigns, i think the average contribution is $45.

not a lot of money here in washington, d.c. i do not do these fundraisers for $100,000 each. i do not know anybody who has got that kind of money. if i were really enormously successful and had 3 million people check -- contributing a hundred dollars each, 3 million people, that would be $300 million, an enormous sum of money, one third of what the koch brothers themselves will spend. so those are the issues i am trying to work on right now. >> you are an independent and you caucus with the democrats. if you ran, would you run as a democrat or would you run as an independent? >> great question. and i'm getting bolder and bolder and grayer and grayer and trying to think through all of these issues. here's the story on that if you one. go out among the american people

and ask if you have a lot of confidence in the democratic and republican party, they will tell you if -- the republican party has moved to a right-wing wing extremist party and the democratic party, once the party of the american working-class, very few people to see it would be the case anymore. more and more people all over the country are looking for alternatives to the two-party system. it is one of the reasons one might run as an independent and what is the negative? as you all know, it is awfully hard to run as an independent if you are not a billionaire. i'm not a billionaire. how do you put together a political infrastructure? outside of the two-party system, how do get invited to debates ? with all due respect to the media, will the media follow someone who is an independent not debating? some places, you cannot get on the ballot as a third-party candidate. those are the issues we are trying to work through. >> what makes you an independent, given that you always do caucus with democrats

in the senate and with the republican senate, are you forced to vote with the democrats anyway so republicans cannot get their agenda passed? the question is what really makes you an independent? are you really a democrat? >> if i started in my discussion, my first victory was defeating a five term democrat and i've defeated democrats and republicans for many years. this is what i think. i think we have a political system right now, and i think the republican party has become extremely right-wing. this is not the party of david eisenhower. there is no way i would caucus with mp or within the democratic party, you have some great people and you have some really, really good people who often do not get the credit they deserve. many progressives or some progressives in the senate working night and day for working families. for me, given as a member of the

u.s. senate, there are two caucuses, so there is not much question about which caucus i would be in. i want to think harry reid and the democratic leadership in the senate for treating me very fairly and very decently. to my mind, there is no question, the democrats are far preferable to republicans on the issues i am concerned with. >> if you ran it if you were elected, how would you work with congress? there seems to be a gridlock between the white house and congress now. would that be the same case if you were in the white house? >> the reason congress is dysfunctional is not because of the so-called gridlock that exists.

it is not that every member of congress has a personality defect and is unable to communicate with people in another political party, or the people end up hating everybody around. it is just not the case. this is what is the case. the case is, right now, the united states congress is not representative of where the american people are. they are way out of touch. the american people say, raise the minimum wage. united states congress says, give taxpayers to billionaires. [laughter] the american people say we have to move toward sustainable and clean energy and energy sufficiency. united states congress says, kill the keystone pipeline. on and on. you ask me a question, and it is a very important question pair i happen to have a lot of respect and personal affection for barack obama. i think history will judge him in a lot kinder way than his contemporaries have. [applause] i think that as a politician, he

has run campaigns that will also make history books. not tell you any secrets, what the major mistake has been is that he thought after putting together this extraordinary, grassroots movement of young people, minorities working-class people, putting together a coalition and getting elected to the presidency, and then he thought he could sit down with republicans and negotiate all of these fine agreements, he was mistaken. the only way any president in this day and age taking on the billionaire class can succeed, the only possible way, is to mobilize tens of millions of people to say to congress, guess what. this is what you are doing. you are going to raise the minimum wage. you are going to create millions of jobs. you are going to protect our veterans and our seniors. you are not going to give tax breaks to the rich. you are going to make college affordable.

we are watching you. if you do not vote for this legislation, you will not return to office. what i will say with 100% certainty, that if we continue to have elections in which 63% of the people do not vote, 80% of young people don't vote, then the rich will only get richer and will continue to dominate what goes on here in washington. any serious president that wants to represent working families has to mobilize people all over this country to make the congress an offer they cannot refuse. [applause] >> how will your decision running for president be affected by what others do? secretary clinton, if she gets in the race and depending on what she does or says, if she goes to wall street and comes out very strong against wall street, or if senator warren or somebody like that got in, with that affect your decision to get in or get out?

>> i do politics. people in vermont understand this. you are looking at somebody who has run in many elections. in the house for 16 years, eight elections. in the senate twice. do you know how many negative ads i have run during those years? not one. i never ran a negative ad. so i don't run against people. it's not my desire to trash people. hillary clinton is a remarkable woman with an extraordinary history of public service. it would not be my job to run against them. it would be my job, if she ran and if i ran, to debate the serious issues facing our country as intelligent people should be doing in a democracy. [applause]

this is how i always get myself in trouble and i am getting my wife nervous already. we can't have that serious debate if the media doesn't allow it. so i would urge my media friends, that instead of political gossip, let us talk about the real issues and respect different points of view. him but when 63% of the people in a poll last year didn't know which political parties controlled the house and the senate, something is wrong with political consciousness in this country. so what we need is civil intelligent debates on the real issues facing the american people. not more political gossip of "who's winning today and who's losing? who slipped on a banana peel? who said something particularly stupid?" i'm sure i did today. but let it be -- "how do we rebuild a crumbling middle class?

how do we lead the world in transforming our energy system so we can save the planet from climate change? how do we deal with the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality?" not easy stuff. how do we do it? those are the issues that serious people should be talking about. [applause] >> i had read that you were frustrated about the number of times you were asked about secretary clinton's e-mails. i wonder if you view that as a total tempest in a teapot, or are there real transparency issues about how the government operates at the core of this that people like yourself should talk about? senator sanders: the frustration is out of all of the years i have been in congress, not one person in the media came up to me and said, bernie, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrial world, what will you do about it?

bernie, we have 11% of our people unemployed today. how are you going to put those people back to work? bernie, are you worried that so few people have so much political power? what will you do about that? those are questions i do not hear very much about. i do not know a whole lot about it. i know what you know, what you read in the newspapers about the e-mails. i do not know what the rules are, but frankly, from the calls, just mentioned, i asked at the front desk, how many calls are we getting about hillary's e-mail? in washington d.c., zero. >> how would you handle the federal reserve as president and what you think about the push the republicans to have the fed audited? senator sanders: an important issue. when i was involved in dodd

frank, a major piece of financial legislation, we managed to get an amendment for the first time in history in the united states that did not audit the fed in its entirety but did audit the fed during the financial crisis. boy, bloomberg was active in that effort as well. i think they brought forth a lawsuit. what we found out was that during the financial crisis, $16 trillion in zero or low interest loans, was led out of virtually every major financial institution in the united states and central-bank all over the world. $16 trillion, zero or low interest loans. in a revolving loan fund. and yet, working families today have to figure out how they will

pay 7% to 8% interest rates. in terms of auditing the fed that is legislation -- here is an example of strange bedfellows, together, ron paul and i worked together on that legislation, which we managed to pass some of it in the bill. the idea of auditing the fed does not make sense to me. >> several questions about war and defense we are running short on time. we're trying to combine a few of them and you will jump in. you have opposed the wars in iraq and afghanistan. if you were president, how would you have responded to the attacks of september 11, 2001? that is one question. another questioner notes you are a big advocate of cutting defense spending, and yet this

person also believes you are a supporter of the f 35 program, which has come under a lot of criticism is being wasteful. how do you reconcile that? f 35 and september 11. senator sanders: i voted for the war in afghanistan. the reason i did this because we had a pretty good idea who led the attack on 9/11. osama bin laden he was being harbored in afghanistan and they refused to give him up and i supported our troops going in there. i did not then know that the war would go on and on and on. that, i did not know. i strongly opposed the war in iraq and i think history will call that the right vote. how you deal with isis is a difficult issue. none of these issues are simple. anyone who jumps up and thinks they have a magical solution is usually very wrong. this is what my fear is. we have been in war in iraq and afghanistan for over a decade.

the cost of that war and human life and suffering and financially has been very heavy. i strongly feel that some of my colleagues are hell-bent in getting us involved in never ending war in the quagmire of the middle east. i will do my best to oppose that. right now, what you have is a situation where, as an example saudi arabia, some of you may know, is a country controlled by multibillion-dollar family, one of the wealthiest families in the world. it turns out saudi arabia has the fourth largest military budget in the world. now why in god's name is the united states contemplating sending combat troops into iraq again, when you have got the saudis sitting there, watching

us do that? what you have now the middle east is in fact a war for the soul of islam. what will islam be? will it be the peaceful religion many believe it to be, or will it be isis inform? it is incumbent for saudi arabia, kuwait, for jordan, for the countries in the region, to get actively involved in that effort against isis. i think united states and western europe should be supportive of their efforts. but i do not believe the united states should lead that effort. [applause] >> we're almost out of time. before i ask the last question i have a couple of other important matters to take care of. i first want to remind you about upcoming speakers.

fda commissioner margaret hamburg will be here on march 27. and the chief internet evangelist for google will be here on may 4. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug, which is really a nicer and more valuable gift than anything you would get as president of the united states, let me tell you. [laughter] senator sanders: thank you very much. [applause] >> last question, ben and jerry periodically retires its flavors. as a powerful political personage, what flavor would you use your considerable clout to save if it ever got put on the chopping block? [laughter] senator sanders: ben and jerry are good friends. they have stopped eating a lot

of that ice cream and then is a lot skinnier than he used to be. [applause] >> thank you for being here today. i would like to thank the press club staff for organizing today's events. if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to our website, press.org. thank you and we are adjourned. [applause] senator sanders: thank you very much. >> another picture.

[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] >> coming up i think then, president obama at the national league of cities about technology and jobs. after that, the supreme court oral argument regarding who has the authority to draw congressional district lines in arizona. the u.s. institute of peace examined ukrainian public opinion on the conflict with russia. on the next, washington journal associated press state department reporter matthew leon negotiations over iran's new year program. we will talk with christine leonard on the coalition for public safety, a group with backing from the lca -- aclu and the koch brothers that is seeking to reduce the u.s. prison population.

washington journal's live on c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. with your phone calls, tweets, and comments -- fixed the comments. state treasury and defense department officials testified tuesday about the ukraine russia conflict before the senate foreign relations committee. he had light starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. -- the live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this sunday on q&a, have pharmaceutical companies lobby congress inlet medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of the drug starts seven to 10 years before a drug comes on the market.

it's illegal for a company to market address before it is approved by the fda, it is not illegal if it is for a disease. so sometimes drug companies exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug. and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the mind of clinicians to accept a particular drug. also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8 -- 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a". >> next, president obama talks about jobs and the economy, and introduces a new initiatives matching people to jobs.

this is 20 minutes. president obama: thank you! [applause] hello, mayors! everybody have a seat. thank you so much. thank you. thank you, mayor becker, for the wonderful introduction and the great job that you are doing every single day. everybody have a seat. [laughter] audience member: i love you! president obama: i love you, too. [applause] it is great to be with the national league of cities. we have about 2,000 local leaders here. we've got mayors, we've got councilmembers. we've got republicans,

democrats, and independents. we've got some small town leaders, we've got some bustling city leaders. but you all have something in common, and that is that every day you wake up ready to solve problems, and you know that people are depending on you to make sure your streets are safe and your schools are strong, trash gets picked up, roads getting cleared. you have to spend time thinking in a very practical terms about whether people are getting good jobs and whether they're able to support a family. so you don't have a lot of time for gridlock. you got to get the job done. you don't have a lot of time for hot air. [laughter] people are expecting you to deliver.

and you're part of the reason why america is coming back. [applause] last month, our economy created nearly 300,000 new jobs. the unemployment rate ticked down to 5.5%, which is the lowest it's been since the spring of 2008. and all told, businesses have now created over 12 million jobs over the last five years -- 12 million. [applause] and the good news is the pace has been picking up. our businesses have now added more than 200,000 jobs a month over the last year, and we have not seen a streak like that in almost 40 years. [applause] so we're well-positioned, we're in a good spot to take advantage

of not just next year or the year after, but decades to come. and we've got to keep positioning ourselves for a constantly changing global economy. that's something all of you understand. it doesn't matter whether you're the mayor of a big city or a small town -- you understand that the economy is dynamic now, and you can't just stand still you can't rest on your laurels. and you also understand we've got to stay focused on middle-class economics -- the notion that our country does best when everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. and i have to say, the national league of cities has been a great partner in this work. a great partner. [applause] we've worked with many of you to lift the minimum wage while

we're waiting for congress to do something. [laughter] and over the past two years, more than 20 cities and counties have taken action to raise workers' wages. [applause] you've passed sick leave laws, you've answered the mayors' challenge to end veterans homelessness. [applause] nearly 200 leaders have stepped up to answer what we're calling my brother's keeper, the challenge to create more pathways to success for our young people. some of you are supporting our efforts to secure new agreements for trade that's free and fair in some of the world's fastest-growing markets, because you know that there are businesses large and small in your communities that can be impacted, and we want to make sure our workers and our businesses can compete on a level playing field. [applause] so there's a lot of work we've done together and a lot more we can do together to make sure

that more americans benefit from a 21st century economy. and nobody knows for sure which industries are going to be generating all the good-paying jobs of the future. what we do know is we want them here in america, and we want them in your town, we want them in your cities, we want them in your counties. [applause] that's what we know. so today, i want to focus on something very specific, and that is how can we work together to build a pipeline of tech workers for this new economy. now, this doesn't just apply to san francisco. this doesn't just apply to boston. it applies across the board in every part of the country.

right now, america has more job openings than at any point since 2001. so think of it -- that's good news, we've got a lot of job openings. here's the catch: over half a million of those jobs are technology jobs. a lot of those jobs didn't even exist 10, 20 years ago, titles like mobile app developer or userface designer. now, we tend to think that all these tech jobs are in silicon valley, at companies like google and ebay, or maybe in a few spots like austin, texas, where you've seen a tech industry thrive. but the truth is, two-thirds of these jobs are in non-high-tech industries like health care, or manufacturing, or banking, which means they're in every corner of the country. see, there's no industry that hasn't been touched by this technology revolution.

and what's more, a lot of these jobs don't require a four-year degree in computer science, they don't require you be an engineer. folks can get the skills they need for these jobs in newer streamlined, faster training programs. what's more, these tech jobs pay 50% more than the average private sector wage, which means they're a ticket into the middle class. and you all know better than anybody, this is an economic development issue -- because 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 they need. and if we don't have them, that makes it harder for us to keep

and attract good jobs to our shores or to your communities. when these jobs go unfilled, it's a missed opportunity for the workers, but it's also a missed opportunity for your city, your community, your county, your state, and our nation. and here's something else: if we're not producing enough tech workers, over time that's going to threaten our leadership and global innovation, which is 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 are launched. but, historically, that's because we've got great universities, we've got great research, and we've got great workers. and if we lose those assets, they'll start drifting somewhere else, companies will get started somewhere else, and the great

new industries of the future may not be here in america. now, i refuse to accept that future. i want americans to win the race for the kinds of discoveries that release new jobs -- whether it's converting sunlight into liquid fuel, or leading a new era in personalized medicine, or pushing out into the solar system, not just to visit, but to stay. we've got just this incredible set of opportunities, but we've got to have the workers for us to take advantage of it. so, today, i'm announcing a new initiative that we're calling techhire. [applause] and it's going to be driven by leaders like you. so there are three big components to this.

first, we already have over 20 cities, states, and rural communities, from louisville to delaware, who have signed on to fill tech openings -- they've already got more than 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, and that means sometimes they end up screening out good candidates who don't necessarily have traditional qualifications they may have learned at a community college or they may have served in our military. they've got the talent but employers are missing them. so techhire communities are going to help employers link up and find and hire folks based on their actual skills and not just their resumes. [applause] because it turns out, it doesn't matter where you learned code,

it just matters how good you are in writing code. if you can do the job, you should get the job. [applause] and while four-year degrees in engineering and computer science are still important, we have the opportunity to promote programs that we call, for example, coding boot camp -- or online courses that have pioneered new ways to teach tech skills in a fraction of the time and the costs. and these new models have the potential to reach underserved communities, to reach women, who are still underrepresented in this sector and minorities, who , are still underrepresented in this sector; and veterans, who we know can do the job; and lower-income workers, who might have the aptitude for tech jobs but they don't know that these jobs are within reach. understand, within the tech sector, there are going to be tiers of jobs, all of which are

tech but they're not all the same. there's still going to be the place -- we still have to produce more engineers and advanced degrees in computer science at the upper tier, but there's all kinds of stuff that's being done within companies at different sectors that can create great careers for a long of people. and so what techhire is going to do is to help local leaders connect the job openings to the training programs to the jobs. and if you're not already involved in this, you've got to get involved, because your community needs this just like everybody else does. so that's the first component. the second thing we're doing -- we've got private-sector leaders who are supporting everything from scholarships to job-matching tools. so companies like linkedin are going to use data to help identify the skills that employers need. companies like capital one are going to help recruit, train and

employ more new tech workers -- not out of charity, but because it's a smart business decision. all of this is going to help us to match the job to the work. and the private sector will be involved in this out of self-interest, but it means that you, the leaders at the local level, are going to have to help create these platforms and facilitate this kind of job match. finally, we're launching a $100 million competition for innovative ideas to train and employ people who are underrepresented in tech. [applause] at a time when we all lead digital lives, anybody who has the drive and the will to get into this field should have a way to do so, a pathway to do so. so my administration is committed to this initiative. we've got a lot of private and non-profit sectors leading the way. we want to get more onboard.

but ultimately, success is going to rest on folks like you -- on mayors, councilmembers, local leaders -- because you've got the power to bring your communities together and seize this incredible economic development opportunity that could change the way we think about training and hiring the workers of tomorrow. and the good news is these workers may emerge from the unlikeliest places. so let me wrap up with just the example of one person, a woman named lashana lewis. where's lashana? she's here today. i hear she was here. [applause] there she is over there. there's lashana. [applause] now, the reason lashana's story is so relevant is lashana grew up in east st. louis. she had a passion for computers.

but because of circumstances constraints, she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth. she wasn't able to get a college degree, and because she didn't have a college degree, she couldn't even get an interview for a tech job, despite her coding skills. so she was working as a bus driver, and she was working in entry-level jobs. but lashana apparently is a stubborn person -- [laughter] which is good. sometimes you need to be stubborn. [applause] so she refused to give up on her dream, and she used her free time to teach herself new computer skills. and she started going to a coding “meetup” that was run by launchcode, which is a non-for-profit that finds talented people across st. louis and gives them the

training and credibility for the tech jobs employers are desperately needing to fill as we speak. so lashana had the skills. launchcode went to bat for her. and today, she's a systems engineer at mastercard. [applause] now, lashana -- it's a great story, but understand this -- mastercard wants to hire more folks like lashana. moreover 40% of launchcode's first class came in unemployed. ninety percent of its graduates were hired full time, with an average starting salary of $50,000 a year. [applause] so that's what's already happening, but it's happening at a small scale. and what we need to do is expand

it. and in each of your communities, there is an opportunity to find talent like lashana, help them get credentialed, help them focus the skills they've already got, work with non-for-profits work with businesses, match them up. next thing you know, you've got a systems engineer, they've got a good job. companies are excited, they're able to expand. your tax base is improving. you can reach out and train even more folks. you get on a virtuous cycle of change. and it doesn't require huge amounts of money. it requires some planning and organization, and coordination in the federal government is going to be your partner in this process. so we've got to create more stories like lashana's.

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

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

>> state treasury and defense department officials testified tuesday about the ukraine russia conflict before the senate foreign relations committee. see headlights starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> national institutes of health director francis collins and food and drug administration commissioner margaret hamburg testified tuesday on u.s. medical innovation. that senate health committee hearing his life starting at 10:00 -- is lives starting at

10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only other new republicans and democrats in the house and in the senate, there are also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house, and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track on congressional chronicle on c-span.org. there is lots of useful information including voting results. , best access, on c-span c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. in 2000, arizona voters passed a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution transferring that power of redistricting from the legislature to an independent commission. the legislature claims this

violates the federal constitutions election cause. next, the u.s. supreme court oral argument challenging whether legislatures have the power to draw congressional district lines. the case will be decided later this year. this is about an hour. >> your argument this morning. in case 131314, 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 -- three 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. thus, it is a valid effort

re-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 say, then, we will have nonpartisan districts that will elect the state house and the state representatives and the state senate. those nonpartisan gerrymandering perfectly representative bodies will be the ones that take care of congressional districts. >> mr. clement, 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?

-- overturn hillebrand and 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. >> that is sort of hard to understand because we have made it very clear and smiley and hillebrand that we are defining legislature in this cause. -- clause as meaning legislative process. quest 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

-- actually we don't have to decide that disputes, but 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 delegated to state legislatures? and authority is a law a making authority. that means the state legislature has to engage in lawmaking -- >> this makes no sense to me. i think it is either or. if the legislature has the power, how can the government veto it? how could it popular referendum 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.

i actually think the court and smiley disagrees with that way of thinking about it. what they say is that the delhi key -- delegate remains the same. it is the state legislature and the representative body. they say the function differs. there's no partial agency of everyone else in that process. when they are told to prescribe rules the court says that his , delegation of the lawmaking authority. so of course the state legislature does it lawmaking pursuant to the ordinary rules. if the ordinary rules provide for gubernatorial details, or say they have to than 30 days in committee, then those rules applied to the lawmaking under the elections clause, just as they would to other lawmaking. it is a completely different matter 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 that a representative body doesn't have, which in this commission is completely unelected and completely unaccountable. >> would congress do that? could congress substitute this commission for the state legislature? >> i do not think they would say that we are going to be delegate this. if congress wants to do it himself on the federal level is that 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. what we object to is not just the idea there is a commission. we object to the permanent resting authority from the state legislature. >> suppose you had a law that said the reapportion commission must submit its proposal to the legislature and legislature has 30 days to overturn? only by three quarters vote. >> i think, 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

-- you could decide that either way. you can say they're not cut out completely. they have residual authority. three fourths is tough but if you get it done -- or you could say, this might be the better view -- 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. it might depend on the details a little bit. >> 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. all of these things were done by referendum or initiative. which the legislative process completely cut out. would all of those be unconstitutional as well? we can go further because there are zillions of the laws. >> and let me address those justice kagan. if you look at the various laws that are put in the appellees appendix, not one of the constitutional provisions purports to on its face we delegate authority away from state legislatures. to the contrary, many of them -- roughly half, i counted 27 that delegates authority to the state legislatures to implement them. if you want to look at the north carolina provision on its choice of his -- >> all they are is lost past by, -- laws that are passed not through the legislative process.

>> exactly. 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. --2 situations. the problem with proposition 106 is that it was done by initiative and not by the legislature. but that is not our position. we would have the same objections here if this was imposed by gubernatorial edict. if we know what should emerge from this if nobody from the legislature can ever do anything on a one-off. 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?

the textual argument you are making is legislature means legislature. there is no two ways around that. 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 position is not the problem that somebody else got into the legislature lane and purported to do something about the legislature. our problem is once they got to the link, they decided to do it on it 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. what this court said to practical view of the matter, if 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 generally in our separation of powers and jurisprudence application is as inconsequential as aggrandizement. in other words it doesn't matter what the legislature wants. if there is a problem, the problem continues to exist irrespective of whether the legislature protests or not. >> that is not the way the court approaches the issue. i would certainly say it is the right view. that nothing would prevent a state legislature from delegating its authority to one of these commissions. that is not the problem. the problem is that the law either by initiative or gubernatorial edict would be the same, comes in and said the framers thought it would be right for the state legislature,

we disagree. >> suppose the legislature proposed the initiative or 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 -- then permanently rested the authority so they couldn't get it back. >> 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 or change this districting plan and enact a different one. i suppose the legislature can do that and has the power to submit a referendum to the arizona --

>> i think they would have the power to do and initiative. i do not think they would have the power to do ever from them. -- do a referendum. 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 promulgates are not override by referendum the way that the legislature were before proposition 106 past. i think 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. or to make election regulations. 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 bashed this commission? >> i would take the position that that is ok because that

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 legislatures to prescribe rules for electors. 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. if the state trial -- tries to stop them, that is a constitutional problem. >> the independent commission has a 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. -- say in the matter. >> they have the veto. that is what has the veto -- the independent commission.

>> is it a veto that can be overwritten? >> does it matter? >> i think it does. 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. it is a different case. the principle that would allow you to type that kate is to ask yourself the question of whether or not it allows state legislature to prescribe congressional districts. >> it doesn't, right? >> it does. which is why it 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. but we are going to have to ask, is what exactly? >> whether or not is consistent with the constitution. and --

>> no, that's -- tell me how we are going to decide all these cases in which the advisory commission placed some role, but -- not just some role. a very serious role. but there is a little piece left to the legislature. >> i do not think it will be that hard, justice kagan. let us look at the real world. some are purely advisory. nothing in our theory suggests that they are constitutionally problematic. you have others called backup commissions. it is a legislature because there is a stalemate. they just can't get it done. then a backup commission comes in. i don't think that is a problem. >> what if 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 -- >> why is that unconstitutional?

and then in passing the legislature? why is that not 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. if they don't -- if 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. >> 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. and i think there is plenty of language in there to suggest so, but if i read it differently, to

say that what the election clause means is the legislative process, isn't that simple? you never have to worry about how this dates experiment what they do in their own self governments? why is that a federal interest? >> 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. part of the reason there was less discussion of the first subclause is because it was so obvious to the framers, that if this was going to be done at the state level by anyone, of course 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.

they simply said, we like representative government because that way -- >> i thought the initiative and referendum said 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 in use with the framing. but direct democracy was. the framers themselves 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 and had alternative mechanisms that the federal congress could choose to provide ratification they give a choice of state legislatures or the people in convention. 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. and a senate appointed by state legislatures. when they get to the voter qualification clause 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. at various points, the framers obviously 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. but 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 it can be done by referendum or initiative without any legislation process whatsoever. you have said that all of these kinds of different schemes about the interaction between a

legislature and advisory commission are all going to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the legislature has primary control. and when you get through with all that, the sort of purity of of the original list argument that means we are miles away legislature we are miles away from that, aren't we? , >> i do not agree with that, justice kagan. i'm channeling the court's decision in smiley. of course the delegate is the state legislature. when the state legislature gets to do something, then the question of whether the constraints that are put on the state legislature are actually drawing these lines, there may be hard questions about that. but 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. >> suppose that the legislative

districting challenge the one person one point role 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 senate -- 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 if there is time for the legislature to go back and drawn a new map -- >> >> do you think of this constitutionally required? >> it is certainly prudent. the reason that it is prudent -- suppose from the recognition of this court time and time again --

>> we're talking about what is required. 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. even if the court made its own plan for when election, you would have to submit it act to the legislature for the next eight years. >> 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. this court has also said -- >> 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 that seems to me as a court's plan stays in place until it does. that seems to me as a

displacement as what you are talking about here. not as much, but it is a displacement. >> it is displacement. there are two different circumstances. one is the redistricting plan is challenged to very early. and there is still time for the legislature to 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. let's say the first cycle of election takes place in the judicial plan. i actually read this court's cases as generally suggesting even then that there's nothing that prevents the state legislature certainly from going and re-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 at least one state colorado they said that if you , get in that situation, you have to live up the judicial plans for the next census. but then, the legislature still

kicks in 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 -- address the hypotheticals but i think it is worth remembering that this is about the most extreme case you will have. if the election clause means anything at all in terms of its delegation of its us -- is responsibility to the state legislatures maybe we can , talk about taking part of it away. but they can't take that and typing away on a permanent basis and give it to a commission that it's defining feature is it is not representative. i reserve the bounds of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. fagan. thank you mr. chief justice. if it likes to please the court, i would like to make one point outstanding statutory to to a --2ac issue. 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 don't normally conceive of legislature that having an interest. whether it be interest cognizable under article three. the enforcement of laws they might pass. there is nothing in the arizona constitution or the decision of the arizona courts interpreting that constitution. sotomayor: isn't this about the diminishment of the power to legislature? not of a particular plan or particular law, this is the 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? and suggest they don't have standing to challenge with -- what the referendum has done in this case until they go through the process? 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. in order to complain about observation analysis. the here to allege it will do everything in its power to bring this to a head. 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. if they can put their allegations to one side 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. i still don't think they would have standing here, because 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 that preempted state regulation. and there was 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 more directly affected that that , goes into the balance and we say legislature do not have standing because other people out there are more directly affected? do we say that? >> no, your honor. quite the opposite. even if it means that no one would have standing, that does not in that is reason to find standing. we think the legislature does not have standing to sue here. i want to make a couple of points on the statutory section 2ac. the first is i think the statutory issue is easy because the court decided all the relevant issues in ohio against hildebrandt and constructed word for word the language of the 1911 act. roberts: i don't understand how that even applies.

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 operation of the preparatory clause is best understood in context. a numbering -- neighboring federal statute requires that as a matter of federal law, state be divided into districts for the purpose of electing congressional representatives. that makes it a question of federal statutory law how that redistricting is met and how it is met. that is the question that section 2ac answers. 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. in fact, given they were

legislating in light of hildebrandt, it is exactly in light of what they said. 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 -- consistent with the law 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. congress was exercising its powers to make the result insofar as it had the power to do it. 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 -- congress and the state wants 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 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.