senator brooke, a first african-american to be elected and eleanor homes norton and see >> the promotion of a drug actually starts seven to 10 years before drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it is approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease.

they have exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or a particular mechanism of a drug. send a blanket medical journals -- then they blanket medical journals and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. next sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific.

>> 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 club's 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 applause you hear is not necessarily evidence that journalistic integrity is lacking. [laughter] i would also 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. mick bolick, director of public affairs of the national conference of state legislatures. john heltman, covering the fed and the fsoc.

and bryant harris, 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. -- club's speakers committee skipping over our speaker 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 boxoffice.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 a sit-in protest discriminatory housing policies. after graduating and serving on an israeli cabinet, 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 after graduating and serving on votes. sanders gained popularity by promoting burlington's local businesses, fixing potholes, and bringing 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. protect the environment, and 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 would there be to announce such a bid than 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 curmudgeonly demeanor with an occasional joke." [laughter] we at the national press club have also been known to relax our curmudgeonly 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 brother, and i lived in a small rent-controlled apartment. my mother's dream was to move out of that apartment and buy a home. she died young and never realized 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 of the state of vermont and

received 1% of the vote. [laughter] not being the brightest light on the block, i ran again for the senate and received 4% of the vote and two years later 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 women's groups. and 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 vermont in march. class wards by 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 republicans, that was nothing compared to what i and i supporters experienced 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

continued to get reelected. 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 -- burlington, 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 by 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 progressional 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] and what i consider to be one of that war -- and i think as the former chairman of the veterans committee, what the cost that war is. that cost us not only be lives of thousands of beautiful and brave young men and women, but it also created the situation where today hundreds of thousands, 500,000 men and women of thousands of beautiful and 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 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 core. 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 beating back massive efforts 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 future of our country. 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 and that is that given 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.

the 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 30 second tv ads 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 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 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. [laughter] [applause] 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. act, some 40 million americans 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 $783 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 and wider and wider and wider. top 1% owns 41% of the entire wealth of this country while the bottom 60% owns less than 2%. today, incredibly, the top 1/10 of 1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

the owner of wal-mart is now worth 157 billion. more wealth than the bottom 42% of the american people. the fact of the matter is over the last 4 years, we have witnessed the robin hood principal reversed. in 19 5, the share of the nation's wealth going to the bottom 90% was 36% in 201 to just down -- listen to this, if the bottom 90% maintained the wealth, it would have more than 10 trillion in wealth ng is currently the case today. meanwhilewhile the middle-class

has shrunk, people on top are doing extraordinarily well. today, the richest 0.1% have increased their share of our nation's wealth by more than a trillion dollars over the last three decades. in terms of income, as opposed to wealth, since the great wall street collapsed, 99% of all new income is going to the top 1%. our people all over the country struggle and worry about how they will feed their kids and how they will 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%. a very rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer. 2013, just as an example, the top 25 hedge fund managers make more than $24 billion. that is the equivalent to a full salary of more than 425,000

public school teachers. is that what america is really supposed to be about? i do not think so. but income and wealth equality is not just a moral issue. it is also an economic issue. maybe more profamily, it is a political issue. the people who have the money are now putting their money under the mattress is. 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's been unlimited sums of money. i know that sounds like 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 then either the democratic or republican party. one family, the second wealthiest family and the entry, worth the process hundred billion dollars, may well have a strong political presence than anyone 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 into companies developing state-of-the-art detailed

profiles on 250 main americans giving the brothers political operation or the mark of a political party or the coke network has developed in-house exit teeth in polling, fact checking, advertising, media buying, and nationally aggressiveness and years of patient experimentation, plus the coke operation actually exceeds the republican national committee passes operation in many important respects. because they had an endless supply of money, they only get stronger. i want everyone in this room and those listening to the program, to step back and create 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 in this country, what is that political system called?

i think it should be called by its rightful name. it is not call democracy. it is called oligarchy. that is the system we are rapidly moving toward. that is the system we must vigorously oppose. i have exceeded my time. i always get people in little nervous. if i go on too long, yanked me. i have been yanked once or twice before. let me just touch on what a congressional 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 of maryland a trillion dollar piece of legislation that would

go a long way to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and water -- 13 million decent-paying jobs. 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 own working 40 hours a week in this country should live in poverty. despite what my republican friends may think, climate change israel. 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.

we have to pass pay equity for women workers. it is unacceptable they are making $.70 per hour. 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. we have got to learn from the rest of the world that investing in a higher education is an asset cared 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.

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 here he would be right. it is time to break up the large wall street bank. as i mentioned earlier, the united states remains the only major country on earth to put out 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. 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.

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. 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.

>> senator, when will you declare your intentions of 2016, regardless of what they are? senator sanders: that is a good question. the reason i have been thinking about becoming 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? 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. >> 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? senator sanders: quick question and i'm getting bolder and bolder and grayer and grayer and trying to think through all of these issues. if you 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

question mark 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? senator sanders: as i started 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?

senator sanders: 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. 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. 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.

>> 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? senator sanders: 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. 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. 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. >> 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. 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 prison 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 world 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.

>> 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. senator sanders: thank you very much. >> 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? . senator bernie sanders: i like them all. chocolate does just fine with me. [applause] >> thank you all for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press corps staff including its journalism institute and broadcast center, for organizing today's event. 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] >> coming up on c-span, president obama speaks at the national league of cities about technology and jobs. after that, a supreme court case regarding who has the ability to draw congressional district lines in arizona. that is followed by the supreme court oral argument challenging subsidies for the affordable care act. later, a look at president obama's meeting with the european council president.

clerics on the next "washington journal," matthew lyons negotiations over a rent plus nuclear program. and we will talk with christine leonard of the coalition for public safety. a group with backing for the aclu and the koch brothers that is seeking to reduce the u.s. prison population. giuliano of environment and energy news on oil drilling and coal mining, crude oil prices, and renewable energy. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern with your phone calls,'s, and facebook comments. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republic and 15 democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are also 108 women in congress including the first

african-american republican in the house. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of information including putting results and statistics about each session of congress. in congress, best access. -- new congress, best access. >> next, president obama talks about jobs and the economy and introduces a new initiative matching workers to technology jobs. from the national league of cities conference, this is 20 minutes. [applause] ["hail to the chief" plays] ♪ 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. 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 in 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 percent, 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. 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 percent 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 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. 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 percent 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. 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 or the senate foreign relations committee. see it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on seas. -- here on c-span. >> national institutes of health director and fda commissioner testify tuesday on u.s. medical innovations. that health committee hearing is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this sunday on "q&a well the director of the university medical center watchdog project on how pharmaceutical companies lobby congress and influence doctors about what medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of the drug start 7-10 years before a drug

comes on the market. well it is illegal for a company to market a drug or it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases are exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or 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 met to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug, and also to prepare the minds of consumers, to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> in 2000, arizona voters cast a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution,

transferring the power of reduced seeing -- power of redistricting to the city. next, the u.s. supreme court oral argument in the case challenging whether independent commissions or entities other than state legislatures have the power to draw congressional district lines. the case will be decided later this year. this is an hour. >> 131314, the arizona state legislature versus the independent redistricting commission. >> may have placed court, proposition 106 puts the state legislature of its authority to prescribe congressional districts andriy delegates that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission. the elections clause of the

constitution clearly vests that authority not just in the state but in the legislatures thereof. thus it is plainly repugnant to the constitution's testing of that authority in the legislatures of the state. >> it is all right for state redistricting. clemens: it only applies to the congressional redistricting. that means that, if these commissions are as effective as the other side says, then we would have nonpartisan districts that would elect the state houses and the state senate. then the nonpartisan gerrymandered perfectly representative bodies would take care of congressional districting. sotomayor: i just want to

clarify your position. are you suggesting that the lack of legislative control of this issue only or are you saying that we have to overturn gillibrand and smiley? claimant: we don't have to overturn gillibrand and smiley. the court was in fact that the legislature would do -- that it means than what it means now which is the representative body of the people. sotomayor: we made it clear that we are defining legislature in this clause as many legislative process. clement: i'm especially disagree. one side was saying the legislature means the legislative process in the state whatever that is. the other side said, no, he means the representative body of the people.

this court said, action, we don't have to decide that dispute but we certainly agree that it means the representative body of the people just as we said five years earlier. what the court said is, first, the delegate is clearly the legislature, the representative body of the people. but that is the second question. what sort of authority is delegated to the state legislatures. the authority is a lawmaking authority. that means that the state legislature has to engage in lawmaking subject to -- sotomayor: this makes no sense to me. i think it is either or. if the legislature has the power, how can the governor veto it? how can a popular referendum veto it? either they have the power or they don't. the constitution says the people hold the power and they can choose a commission or however else they want to do it. isn't that the legislative process?

clement: no, it's not a i disagree with you, justice sotomayor, but that is not particularly important. what they say is that the delegee remains the same. they say the function differs. so when a state legislature it tells you it is going to ratify something, there is no pressure or agency of anybody else in a process. but the courts is that is a delegation of lawmaking authority. of course the legislature does its lawmaking pursuant to the ordinary rules. and if they provide for a gubernatorial veto, if they say it has to spend 30 days in committee, then those rules apply to the elections clause just as they do to other lawmaking. but it's a completely different matter to say we are going to cut the state legislature entirely and revisit the framers decision to delegate this important responsibility to the

state legislatures and we will redelegated to a completely different body, a body that has the one feature that a representative body does have. ginsberg: can congress substitute its commission for the state legislature? clement: i don't think that congress would say that, at the state level, we are going to redelegate this to the state commissions or two independent commissions. if, as was to do it at the federal level and set up a federal commission, i think that would be a very different issue. obviously, congress has power under a separate subclause. ginsberg: if congress does the same thing that arizona has done in saying that that is the way federal elections will be held. clement: i don't think they

consider play bless what arizona has done. i think that would undermine the decisions the framers had made in the first clause. we are actually going to take those commission districts and make them our own and impose them. kennedy: if it is the latter, it can only be a commission. clement: what we object to is the permanent resting of authority from the state legislature -- kennedy: there is a law that says a portion of the commission must submit its proposal to the legislature and the legislature has 30 days and only can overturn it by a two thirds vote. clement: i think that would be a harder case. the question i think you would ask is does that residual authority from the state legislature amount to the authority prescribed districts? i think you can decided either way.

you can say they are not cut outcome lately. they had -- completely -- they cannot cut it out completely. they have residual authority. what you can do under smiley and hildebrandt is apply ordinary rules for legislation to the state legislatures. but what you can to do is come up with separate roles that apply to only congressional redistricting to make it harder for the state legislature to act. kennedy: your statement partly answers questions about -- you say those are ok because the legislature is not completely cut out? clement: i think it might depend on the details a little bit. kagan: i thought the legislature was cut out in most of these things. 2007, i guess voting by mail. 1962, arkansas, voting by voting

machines. these things were done by the legislative process completely cut out. there are zillions of these laws. clement: if you look at the various laws that are put in the appellees appendix, not one of those constitutional provisions purports to on its face three delegate authority away from -- on its face re-delegate authority away from state legislature. if you want to look at the north carolina provision on page 27 -- kagan: all they are is laws passed not through the legislative process.

claimant: exactly. we don't think that is the defect here. kagan: i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature, there has to be legislative control, in none of these laws there is no legislative control. there is no legislative participation at all. claimant: we do stingers to situations. we could say the problem with proposition 106 was that it was done by initiative and not by legislature. we would have the same objections here if this were imposed by gubernatorial it it. we know -- gubernatorial edict. this court has already said that it's ok for a judicial body like a state court, to do redistricting on a one-off basis. kagan: how do you make that consistent with the textual argument that you are making? the argument you are making is that legislature is legislature.

there is no way around that. but now there are these many many laws throughout the united states in which the rules are not being made by a legislature and that is perfectly ok because the legislature isn't involved at all. clement: it's not the problem that someone got into the legislatures lane. the problem is that, once they got into that lane, they decided to rest the legislature from the process on a permanent basis. i would invoke this court's case that dealt with an analogous clause that gives the state legislatures the authority to prescribe rules for presidential electors. this court took a 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 us delegation of authority. but it protects the legislature from other parts of the state coming in and permanently resting that authority. kagan: i thought that our separation of powers judas prudence abdication is as consequential as aggrandizement. if there is a problem, the problem continues to exist irrespective of whether the largest teacher -- the legislature protests are not. clement: 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, from without to say that the framers thought it would be great. kennedy: suppose the legislature propose the referendum. clement: i don't think that would make a difference in my own view. kennedy: that is a case where the legislature would make the decision. clement >> that is not the -- clement: that is not the situation we are dealing with here. kennedy: it is not completely remote because the legislature in our zone a test in arizona can seek to overturn what the commission does by putting its own referendum before the voters saying, please voters, change this proposal -- change this redistricting plan. i suppose the legislature can do that.

it has the power to submit a referendum or initiative -- i guess a referendum to the arizona -- clement: i think they have the power to do an initiative. i don't think they have the power to do a referendum. one of the ironies is the other side i should talk about the power of the people. i think all the legislature could do is what any citizen could do, which is to propose an alternative map by initiative process. but whatever that is, that is not the primary power to prescribe congressional districts or to make election regulations. that is what the state legislature -- that puts the state legislature on the same plane as the people. kennedy: if the legislature

itself establish this commission, would it not be the same? clement: i would say that is ok because that is a delegation of authority. you may disagree with me, but i think it is consistent with what this court said in the mcpherson case about the authority of the state legislature to prescribe rules for electors. they can delegate that to some commission. but if they want to take the authority of back, as they did in mcpherson, you bet they can do that. and if the state tries to stop to -- stop them from doing that, that is a constitutional problem. kagan: the independent commission has veto power on the states redistricting. in other words, the state can do redistricting and then submit it to the independent commission. the independent commission will say, no, go back and do it again. clement: i guess it depends a little bit on the details of how that works and who's got the ultimate last say in the matter. kagan: they have the veto, the

independent commission. clement: can it be overridden? kagan: does it matter? clement: i think it does. it would give the legislature a lot more authority than arizona is allowed here. the principle that would allow you to decide that case is to ask yourself the russian of whether or not it allows the state legislature to prescribe congressional districts. which is why it is a hard case. kagan: there is a veto at the end of this. clement: if you think it doesn't, then you should decide that case in the favor of the state legislature. kagan: this is what we are going to have to do for every time they set up some process further -- for where there is some independent commission involvement. what we have to ask is what exactly? clement: whether or not it is consistent with the constitution

-- kagan: tell me exactly how we are going to decide all these cases in which an advisory commission plays some role but -- not just some role, but a very serious role and a little piece left of the legislature? clement: i don't think it will be that hard. let's look at commissions that exist in the world. we have some that are purely advisory. there's nothing that suggests they are constitutionally problematic -- -- problematic. a backup commission comes in when two sides can i get it done. kagan: what if they commission says we will give you two maps in the legislature has to pick one and only one? clement: i would say that's probably unconstitutional. obviously -- kagan: why is that constitutional and an impasse of the legislature and leaving it

to a third party who is not the legislation will -- not the legislature, why is that constitutional? clement: if the legislature has the primary authority and they can't get it done, we know as a matter of fact that some meals will provide that rule. if the legislature as a stalemate, what happens in the real world, you cannot use the existing map because they violate the one person one vote is also the state court comes in. sotomayor: so they will bypass 2ac altogether. clement: yes. sotomayor: i know you will say it is a constitutional requirement, but if i read gillibrand and smiley differently to say that what the election clause means is the legislative process, isn't that just simple? we don't have to worry about how the states experiment, what they do in their own self-governance?

why is that if federal interest? clement: it is of federal interest because the framers thought and -- the hard and long about this issue. sotomayor: no, they didn't. if you look at the federalist papers, there is not a whole lot on this particular clause. clement: part of the reason there is less discussion of the first sub clause is that it seemed so remarkably obvious to the framers that, if this was to be done at the state level by anyone, it would be done by the representative body of the people. it's not like they didn't know about popular law make an. -- lawmaking.

they simply said we like representative government -- ginsburg: [indiscernible] at the time of the founding, the initiative -- by the legislatures. clement: the referendum is as we came to know them in the late 19th century, not the time of the framing. but direct democracy was. the framers, when they formulated article 5 and had alternative mechanisms at the federal congress could choose to provide for ratification, they gave the choice, state legislatures are the people in convention. the framers understood the difference between direct

democracy and representative democracy and they made a conscious choice. it is hard to make -- to argue that -- they are creating a house elected by the people and a senate appointed by the state legislatures. when they get to the voter qualification clause, they say the people will vote for the congress. they are the same people that get to vote with the most numerous body in the state house. at various points, the framers obviously mistreated -- kagan: that suggest popular rule. you have made many exceptions to that over the course of the last 20 minutes. you said as to anything that is not redistricting, it can be done by referendum or initiative without any legislative process whatsoever. you said all these kinds of different schemes about the interaction between a legislature and advisory commission are all owing to be have to be reviewed on a case by

case to be determined whether the legislature has primary control. and when you get through all of that, the sort of. he of the originalist argument that a legislature means a legislature, we are miles away from that, aren't we? clement: i don't believe that justice kagan. smiley said that of course the delegee is the state legislature. there may be some hard questions that there is no hard question here. this is in any of your hypotheticals. if the election clause means anything, it means you can't completely cut out of the process the state legislature entirely on a permanent basis. kennedy: suppose they challenge the one voter/one vote rule and it goes to a federal court and it goes a year before the 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, can it has a back to the legislature? clement: the -- first of all

there should be a preference over the state -- preference for the state court over the federal courts. if there is time for the legislature to go back and draw a new map -- kennedy: you think that is constitutionally required? clement: i think it is constitutionally required. if it is not, it is surely prudent. kennedy: we are talking about what is required.

if we rule in your favor, we will have to tell every court involved in a redistricting litigation that they will have to submit it to legislature. even if the court made its own plan for one election, it would have to submit it back to the legislature for the next eight years. clement: for the most part, that is what this court has already said. weiser said that, in the initial challenge phase, if there is time, you let the legislature do it. kennedy: you mean a redistricting plan approved by a court has to have a deadline? it has a conforming plan but the plan stays in place until it does. clement: it is a displacement in there are two different circumstances. one is when the redistricting plan is challenged very early and there's time for the legislature to take a second

crack at a constitutionally compliant plan. then you allow the state legislature to do it the as is their primary task. the second question is when there is not time and there is a judicial plan. that's say the first cycle of elections -- let's say the first cycle of elections takes place under the first plan. there is nothing that prevents the state legislature from going in and redistricting. this court rejected the idea

that you get one shot at this and you are done for the whole census. colorado basically said, if you get into that situation, then you have to live with the judicial plan until the next census. but then the legislature still kicks in and has the primary role. what i like to think is that colorado has done this inconsistent with the elections clause. i am very happy to address the hypotheticals but it's worth remembering that this is about the most extreme case that you are going to have. if the election clause means anything at all in terms of its delegation of responsibility to the state legislature, we may talk about taking part of it away but not the entire thing away on a permanent racist and give it to a commission whose defining feature is that it is not representative. if i may reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

feigin: on standing, this is an unusual lawsuit in which the state legislature is asking the federal accord -- federal court for assurance for a law that has -- that it has not even said it will pass. we don't normally conceive of legislatures as having an interest in the enforcement of laws they might pass and there's nothing in the arizona constitution or the arizona courts -- 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 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 constitution. the junction here is a constitutional 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 el