tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 24, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
refined to say the deadline our timeline for the security forces command we are working, but we are not counting on afghanistan and always have the client assistance. we are thankful, but as you are aware afghan security forces are now in full control and are the ones responsible for protecting territories of the international security forces. >> i would like to. >> train and advise. >> i would like to see is provide a little more air support. we got 300 bombs in iraq and 30 afghanistan. it is a strange approach. they seem to think they are still in a war with us. you can tell i'm out of the government.
>> thank you very much. i am doing my fieldwork with international peace and security. before i came to my question i want to clarify something for the gentleman who was sitting over here, the minute you mentioned sharia law in america is suddenly think of something very strange. because in saudi arabia there is no constitution, like every single thing, the source of information, legal, social, political, economical, all based on sharia law or just like the ambassador mentioned, in 2004 when the constitution was modified it is, of course, equal rights for women. you know, not everything is based on that because we do have the constitution
aligned with international human rights and 28 percent upon the women, and that will not be taken back. >> you have a question. >> yes. hopefully he can simulator. my question, i have been in the uk for the past eight months just coming from a poor background. if not for the 15 years of recent government i would not be standing here. one example of what has been achieved. i know you have done some amazing work. one of the things i was impressed with for fulbright scholars to go back.
there will be opportunity for them. they did not have that opportunity before. you go back and look for work. so not a fulbright student both scholar studying in the uk. i finish mywhen i finish my masters degree my hope and goal is to go back and serve my country anyway that i can what would be some of the opportunities my go back? not a guarantee, but how helpful i could be when i go back. >> this is a great opportunity for announcing that we have a job for this friday. and that is meant to address the very questions that you have. in the past, it was easy to find a job from abroad.
with the drawdown it has not been easy. we notice there was that very same question for many people, so we have organized a job fair. that will have recruiters afghanistan connected with technology. videoconferencing and phones to be able to provide the information in the direct question on what can be expected in the current job market in afghanistan, where the jobs are cut out of find them, and again, how to adjust yourself to be able to get the job. afghanistan is looking forward to people like you returning back to our country and contributing. sometimes with your education and the opportunities that are at your disposal means you can create jobs in afghanistan.
they are attracting or trying to attract more and more small businesses who would not only provide jobs for themselves but to be able to provide jobs for others. those are some of the discussions you will hear on friday, i think it is this friday. this friday at the embassy. it starts at 8:00 o'clock. >> 8:00 a.m. >> thank you so much. >> john robin currently unaffiliated, but i was part of the new civilian surge. i was wondering, do you think the civilian surge was successful or unsuccessful? and in what ways? >> the civilian. >> surge, when obama sent americans to work on prt's.
>> again, to say afghanistan is made a lot of progress that would have not been possible without the support from the united states. the institutions that we have managed to build, the infrastructure, the credit goes to the united states. there are, i think we focus on challenges. this is my point, we focus so much on challenges. we do have them and i want to hide. they may have more than any other. we don't want to undermine the progress that was made in the last 15 years and with the search, too. we built over 7,000 kilometers, paved over
7,000 kilometers of roads alone, hospitals, schools, over 8 million children that attend schools and all of the districts that would not have been possible without the support of those individuals. wewe thank them, and i think we owe it to the service of americans and afghans that we continue and build on it. >> a little bit like a roller coaster. i don't know there has been in the academic work for anecdotal. and i don't think there has been any significant academic work yet to actually do a real cross comparison. >> i want to let you know, i had a friend or have a
friend, and she and her husband spent a year in 2,000 and afghanistan volunteering during medical work. i want to tell her i had an opportunity to tell you how she really found the afghan people wonderful, and what they needed was an opportunity to explore and do their thing. it sounds like they are doing it. i'm sure she will be delighted to hear the progress that they have made. i congratulatemade. i congratulate you and your country and wish you all the best. >> thank you. it is wonderful to hear have been able to convey that. >> we will let you go right now. >> would like to thank all those who serve. i feel that we are lucky is a diplomatic mission compared to other countries. so many friends in the
united states. afghanistan is that the country command if you are engaged them even if you have not been there it captivates you. it is to do with the opportunities because you see the potential, see the great opportunities to be able to build on. and we are thankful to those people who served in our country and thank you for the opportunity. emily: friends. they can continue helping the country, but advocating for the cost. but their lives at risk. >> thank you. >> thank you friends from me. >> wanted to be explicit.
>> insurance, your excellency, congratulations. god willing with blessing. a young united states citizen command i have learned over the years that any states to most vital assets are youth and education. only did in the beginning of the discussion today, 50 percent of afghanistan's population under the age of 27, tell us briefly with the international community can do to further progress of investing in education and in the use of afghanistan just furthering of what has been accomplished. >> more investment. >> we are working on a decade that wants to get to self-reliance, and it would not be possible without us
being able to build an economy that is self sustainable now. our number of things the afghan government is doing to achieve that the making sure we sort locally. an agricultural country, but sadly we import vast quantity of our cultural progress from outside. the government set of rule four on security forces, they will be produced locally so that they can create more jobs, create aa sustainable economy. we are also working on attracting more investment. one of the things we have been working on is putting in the legal infrastructure in place so that we can attract investment. talking to many investors,
and i did not leave afghanistan because of insecurity.insecurity. they left because they did not follow legal infrastructure supporting their investment to protect them.them. we have been busy passing laws to create that opportunity. if we want to attract investors need to have not just the physical infrastructure but laws in place for them to be able to feel safe and secure, join the world trade organization on the availability of international courts, also passing laws to be able to protect, let's say you had a technology business, one of the put a data center, while the immediate need to be connectivity in a safe location, the other needs
would be privacy laws to make sure the government is not going to when they show up and say i want to look into all your data. we are preparing afghanistan for that investment while attracting small businesses. >> thank you so much. i come from the spanish embassy. i read that you are refugee two times. my question is, your opinion about the european union behavior but the refugee crisis, senior example that are refugee can become an ambassador of this country. >> okay. you know, it is not easy to be a refugee.
the 1st time we were escaping the ussr in the 2nd time due to civil war, each brought its own challenges. we had lost hope. that is the important part. that's where the international community role is so important because the afghan public is seen so much turmoil. we have seen different fractions come and take over , witnessed losing their entire wealth, housing and everything they own. so it makes the afghans a little concerned only see that we are headed toward insecurity.
so much tragedy happened. so international community has continued. it is extremely important giving the afghans who may be thinking about leaving than those who left the opportunity to return. you would know everyone knows there is no better place to know. that is where you feel comfortable for your family and friends are, you're not a foreigner. in the long at home. we want to make sure that afghanistan has is opportunities for the people so they can come back. as one of the reasons we are negotiating peace deals, to get those who are not in afghanistan and perhaps worried about insecurity and lack of opportunity to come back from the larger refugee
population as well as those who maybe have ties, and also those other people who are going to build our country and have been in the united states or europe and have the opportunity to learn skills that we need to rebuild. and thank you. earlier in the united states we think the united states. >> on behalf of the welfare council and our strategic partner, ambassador, thank, ambassador, thank you so much for sharing your time and expertise was. [applause] >> thank you.
[inaudible conversations] >> we have other events that go on. you have to check the website. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next on c-span2, supreme court oral argument in the case regarding virginia redistricting. then former hud secretary henry cisneros on issues facing aging americans. after the supreme court oral argument and foster v
chapman. >> c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning with presidential candidate bernie sanders declaration of pursuing the nomination through to the democratic convention, congressman rick nolan talks about the 2016 campaign the future of the sender's candidacy his support of political reform. the ongoing concerns the wait times at airports and the agencies efficiency and effectiveness and the executive director of the presence committee and the arts and humanities and tony award-winning actor john floyd young discussing the government's role in promoting arts, education, public schools. be sure to watch c-span washington journal live.
join the discussion. >> tuesday house oversight committee chair testifies on the conduct of irs commissioner john cost can and surrounding the irs targeting investigation. congressman javits will appear before the house judiciary committee carriage the impeachment -- impeachment of mr. kosten in. you can see this hearing live. >> congratulations to the class of 2016. today is your day of celebration, and you have earned it. >> the voices crying for peace and light because your choices will make all the difference to you and to all of us. >> don't be afraid to take on cases are new job or knew issues that stretcher
boundaries. >> the specter of living in your parents basement after his graduation day is like -- not likely to be a greatest concern. >> watch commencement speeches. from colleges and universities around the country by business leaders, politicians command white house officials on c-span. >> it will help argument 1st this morning.
>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the sum total of the alleged violations is that the legislator treated the same way. it is undisputed they preserve the court and whatever minor adjustments. >> how do they preserve the core when they should be something like a hundred 80,000 people? >> your honor,honor, 83 percent of the prior occupants of district three or in the core. the plaintiffs alternative only had 69,000. simply because they are 63,000 short that doesn't mean they will move anywhere near 63,000. for example, district 11 the 64,000 short. a new 480,000 people to fill that out. the district is directly adjacent the district three
with district to. >> are you holding that reserve the court? >> yes. obviously it was the most important interpretation. incumbency, protection, and politics or motivating the district. they waydistrict. there were they were protecting incumbents was through core preservation. they never found race subordinated incumbency protection of politics. >> how can we take politics of the drafter of the plan rightly or wrongly represented. i have not looked a partisan performance. it is not one of the factors i considered. we have to take that. he did not take into account partisan performance. >> he didn't look them in the face of the states. politics and arguably
motivated these districts. every incumbent was reelected in the district. >> that is our objective comeau what we seek to do, preserve incumbency or whatever. maybe venues race to move people from one district to another? arrays the boasts strongly so that we can use race for this ultimate neutral purpose? >> it's very important to note. >> anderson your argument to be that. >> the difference is a proxy. you can use politics is a proxy. everything we did make perfect sense, we know it
would not have led to a dramatic exodus and the four adjacent districts if all of those people were white, and therefore since they were pursuing exactly the same incumbency protection and political motivation with respect to district three they are not somehow disabled from doing that simply because the predominantly democratic voters happen to be black. insisted that the plaintiffs show that traditional districting principles were supported. >> how do you show the motive of the legislature? let's say you have 10 percent of the legislators say this is because of race. 10 percent say it is because of partisanship and 80 percent say nothing at all. what is the motive of that? >> it is difficult to discern, which is why this
court is always held. if there was a way of achieving the political objectives without respect to the racial composition minute should be simple as pie for plaintiffs to come in with an alternative that doesn't rely on race that is user legitimate political objectives, but plaintiffs approve that any re- alteration of district three which results in the definition of the black voting age population would be absolutely contrary to the normal political agenda that would be motivating the legislatures if everyone involved was white. plaintiffs alternatives only reduced by 3 percent to 50. if that converted district to the brand-new republican incumbent with a toss of district characterizes heavily democratic. the court's remedy demonstrates the reduction
loss of 45 percent. dismantle entirely district three and district four, took away about half the districts. >> district three is more compact. >> the only way to do that is to split the district in half. >> this was never come back to start. >> it is contiguous only by water, land. and it runs a very unusual route. >> it is certainly reasonably compact within the meaning of the virginia supreme court's definition what you have to look at whether or not the preserving core -- >> the new plan splits west districts. all these plans have their flaws, but the new utterly splits the districts and is more compact under traditional criteria. >> that is only half accurate. it splits just as many
particle boundaries. that is when special master said in his report. it is more compact, but the only way to make it more compact is to split district three and four in half. what happens when you do that? representative for within a 60 percent democratic district and he loses half is incumbency advantage. the purpose is putting them in half was to create to black opportunity districts, so it is actually more race conscious of what the legislature did. >> spend a few minutes on whether this case is moot or not. as i understand it, the vast majority of districts of the representatives who are parties to the faction have not been changed in any meaningful way. force is the only one who had perhaps alive claim. he has decided to run
another district. how do we have alive claim or controversy? >> because what they did was to severely hamper and make it impossible. >> he has decided not to run >> that means the injury is so severe that forced them out. >> is he going to go back and run? >> but for the remedial order he would obviously be running and district four. the fact that the injury and pushed amount. they don't need to continue down what they were doing. >> are you representing that if the math goes back they will run in his old district?
the never say it violates the constitutional rights but disrupts the status quo for what they're defending. they made it clear repeatedly that obviously of the remedial order prison and a worse position they have a direct stake of the al company can appeal no defendant ever could beaches virtually there never alleged to violate their rights so precisely the same sort of injury as would be suffered by i the incumbent and they dropped at that 30 percent republicrepublic an district if they could not challenge the order that severely hampers their chance of re election it is yes he has suffered precisely the same kind of
injury that i had hypothized by my analogy he has standings of appeal. >> i could argue they also had their districts changed sabbaticals is diminished although i've not abandoning that they are accepted. >> early the defendant in the voting rights case and they have the plant because the court said you could intervene so i am looking
for a workable standard that allows some people of other districts to remain to defend it but not everybody. after all of a smaller plan likely effects somebody in every district some people find it easier to get elected some harder i have not found a case to support you. >> i will give you two of them to articulate be averted do you suffer a threat because of the lower
court the court found because they attach the propaganda label to the legislators that hurt his chintzes for reputation that was all the relevant because of hirsch's chances for reelection there isn't evidence suggesting his reputation was harmed. >> with the distinction if he has standing and who doesn't? >> this is the argument that the democratic legislator
said he was hurt because the reagan justice department labeled propaganda. >> in the voting context that the person was hurt enough to maintain standing? >>. >> to misuse the formulation use whatever adjective you want armed substantial significant nature in a district that he won 16 straight years. >> so we announce a rule that every change that affects an incumbent gives the incumbent the right to
challenge? >> i think anytime somebody is injured skin cancer the question yes dispel the incumbency protection standing rule so every time your district is changed and you believe it hurts you and you have a right to go to court and say what the? >> will quibble with the premise it is undisputed the deal have a right to claim? is one thing to say i have been racially discriminated but what is the incumbents claim. >> three real order has hurt dramatically and is irretrievable his chances for reelection.
>> let's assume that is true with his injury we also have an the other requirement that we talk about a lot less deceived to be well established that there needs to be a legally recognized interest not you just have to have an injury although you do but the ec and e injury to the legally recognized interest in what is that here? that the legislators are banking on? >> that is he wants to be elected he has been injured in the practical ways we can get understand that the other part suggest to meet a legal recognition of your claman that is what i am searching for. >> we don't need to show nobody is arguing they have a right to because then
nobody could appeal because they cannot argue the adverse judgment. >> as part of the standing doctrine is only good for plaintiffs and once the increase shifts to the defendant it drops out? >> direct is is the reality the difference between the plaintiff filing it challenging and state law and the defendant on is the will not argue his legal rights to be violated he has the same rights that he was well benefited and suffered direct injury in fact, because of the alteration cost of the remedial order. >> he suffered injury to what to? period the ability to be reelected.
>> so the right to assert a legally recognized interest to be reelected without improper interference? not have the state or federal entity to create the electoral system that didn't -- diminishes the chances for election why is that not injury? it is. >> a was a contest in the entry in fact, and i was asking and there really is a question how this other separate acquired - - requirement that has to be held legally protected interest applies in the context of the defendant it might be right but it seems trod the plaintiff has to
show it it it is a pit bull dash a disappears from the inquiry. they don't have to show i'd like the plaintive that has a protected right. >> so that interest is the defendant's? >> he has a stake in the outcome to be reelected. >> katchis makes it the same as the injury. >> i apologize but i do want to clear this that the point is what are the hardest to reelection? the point of standing is to keep the federal judiciary if to unelected judges have also alter the state's sovereign's views of redistricting that is a situation to find the injury
most but the desert exercise extraordinary caution. >> there is on the you have been talking about is a member of congress did was to be reelected have illegally recognizable interest with a district that was lawfully enacted by the state legislature? >> yes certainly because you have to except this is a interfering in harms him to rearrange the entire district obviously it is just the kind of interest you'd want to recognize because it is most concerned them hijacking the political process. >> cure is the basic problem
normally the plaintiff is suing because somebody did something so the defendant is the person who you did that and normally we're looking for the standing plaintiff the person who did this to the plaintiff are not in it anymore. there is an order entered and his neighbor brown says thises is hurting me now is he had a standing? we're sure there is locked
in these cases i am just not certain the way to analyze. >> a data that incumbency protection generally thought it was bound to show such a severe gerrymandering to of equal population is classic to political gerrymandering and they had no standing to challenge the fact recognizing that is different than anything else we give the incumbent special distinctions with term limits the court held that unconstitutional to make it more difficult for
companies to be reelected because they have failing campaign so we are talking about a well recognized constitutional right and do have very different factual interest but the sole reason the representative of it is because of this order i don't know why they would allow the federal judiciary to hijack the most intensely partisan in legislation and that we have. >> let me give you a hypothetical. >> if there are racist map of drawers who say we really want to segregate african-americans that is the first statement it turns
out they vote in a particular way and second to we will achieve a partisan the advantage as a result now what should be the right answer to that question? civic that is precisely the answer from alabama the but you can argue to segregate it invalidated all districts in alabama is said to the racial purpose? >> you are making it more complicated this is one district will segregate all african american voters primarily because of racial reasons we all like african-american voters and
that has beneficial consequences so is that unconstitutional because eyeleted that and i say that was a your primary motivation that is sure scrutiny you are out of the ball gave you suggest you are not the kids to have a secondary that coincides with the racist conduct. >> if it is a motivating factor to show race was the but for clause you need to show its subordinated debt neutral principle that had any effect. >> then it seems sure changing your argument that
they're not in conflict with each other so you say that the question is not conflict rather the critical question is which is of primary litigation which is secondary that is a different kind of test. >> if i could clarify just as cake didn't the only way to accomplish was i doing where race predominated they cannot be that but for clause. >> it is very clear with of list of criteria number one is race and they have a lot of evidence this was the most heinous racial purposes imaginable so the fact that it has political benefits
alliance from what you think is the obvious conclusion witches it is unconstitutional conduct. >> even those that are outside the tavis special burden to show even in those cases you have to show of the of but four clauses. >> he said is that of first priority. >> yes in daybreak that higher because they recognize the supremacy clause. >> it is the first priority because it is a racist line draw hour. >> if he wants to make that his top priority does that make any fact? if it is undisputed that they would have drawn that precisely the same way to protect the incumbent that
if you diminish even a 50% you know, it is a certainty because that is the improvement of. >> but that sounds like it is a racial discrimination but what we have said we found a racial discriminatory purpose and a case. >> you need to show the causation to be held as of matter of law with insufficient as a matter of law is there is equally plausible explanation. >> the question is highlighted by eight justice kagan hypothetical of not for the voting rights act
the you can not take race into account data of this discrimination to take a rental action on the basis of race. is there any relevance to this case that will never come up again in the future if the voting rights act is not amended? >> but the fact was they had to get clearance in record time. >> that is why it made good sense not to go below the benchmark even if they just pull that out of the year it establishes a violation because here it is always a factor so it's not like employment of other context it said in a case such as
this were the majority minority districts are issued and it correlates highly to attack those boundaries to show with the legislature could have accomplished spirit the first seven words is what do they mean by that? and that broad understanding that as a case that there was node direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence and in the absence or the presence of that was relevant to the question of that was circumstantial evidence that was added up to the conclusion that race was the motivator. >> i respectfully disagree because in the case such as this for the majority minority districts are
issued and it correlates with political affiliation to send an implicit signal. >> go. why did we ask for a map in alabama? we needed to find out which districts were affected. under this hearing all 35 districts are ipso facto violations in by the way they're all ipso facto because every legislature has voted the supremacy of the voting rights act but they say go back to find out if race had a significant effect it said total gold turned into 45 percent black and and is a great evil to except the rule that is why the court shows that race
rather than politics particular in states like virginia where that is so extensive. >> [inaudible] mr. chief justice in the core we did not some merit submit clear race predominated district because ample evidence to justify a finding there was a 55% use of more than 44,000 african-american voters. >> it was unclear bayou thought that it did? >> our office defended this district at trial of thought there was conflicting evidence and they resolve those beacons to their standard. >> i and stand your position at trial is the district court was wrong you defended
those facts bayou review and on appeal to say they're wrong. >> exactly that is why we did not appeal. but it was sufficient. >> did anything else happened prior to your parents year to date? >> you may say because of the change? >> our administration came into power the case is pending and summary judgment we defendants admitted at trial and the district court ruled we had to reevaluate if we could win or could not
and in addition our own experts were report said there was a 55% change referred to the threshold that well -- as well. >> which 518 of their joint appendix you will see the report or she you refer said 55 percent floor and served as a consultant to the republicans in the house of delegates. >> was one of your experts that said every person involved was white to the result would be the same? >> john mcdonald was the plaintiffs' expert said they can they be explained based on politics? he said they could be with the exception of those that
showed in the joint appendix that there were five voting districts from the benchmark that had above the performance. >> that supports his argument. >> is that a violation that had it could be explained on partisanship rather than race but? >> and it could be explained you are writing would have won the case instead of defending that position but what killed us was the expert report that said there is a floor and evidence there was a floor and there wasn't clear evidence that was the driving factor. >> the question that i ask your talking the motive of the legislature so what do you do when it is 10% to race than% partisanship and
80 percent don't say anything? >> it would be harder but in this case are was one sponsor said had to be the same in the new district is in the benchmarking and said that twice to bump that up to 45%. >> i suspect most of them looked at the map in said howard my doing your they may not have cared what the sponsor thought. >> caribe to waste collected the evidence like the district court wishes to say 55 percent for did politics trump that? no because the sponsor said i did not do that analysis so with that scenario they did not commit clear error to save their west a floor that is a simple case but what you were describing
people may look at the floor to say this is pretty good for republicans so i will go along with it but race is a proxy to justify the plan of they can be used as a proxy ignore as an excuse and that is how it was used other statements of the house and senate the of redistricting there appears to have been the mantra and passed to me 55% that the lowest they will clear is city 9% of the joint appendix and the statements the most important factor was to obtain pre-clearance. >> is there a basis for the legislature you said it would if we go below 55%?
as that he made dapper is there a basis? >> there is no showing where that came from in fact, the record shows this district was cleared previously had 53 percent the senate districts were precluded 50%. >> are their districts and other states that deviated 55% during said unusually high? >> in toronto the answer the record shows day cleared a district from the joint appendix from south carolina i agree it is not enough to say that triggers scrutiny it'll think it does produce a we have to comply by having a 55 percent floor then they got that right once we lost the issue of race that was the end of the
case because he put in no evidence to justify where that number comes from it was not there the congressman scott was elected by a huge margins before the plan was altered afterwards it was 81% and that was the end of the case from the merits. >> would like to address the standing issue it is not in any states interest to prolong litigation like what happened here but we read that as a proposition for the intervenor can argue that a sedative for standing in this case it is true congressman "forbes" the fact he had to switch does provide the injury in his district ago for 40% that does prove the injury.
>> but if that was the case of though lobbyist? train wreck that was the senator that wanted to show the film deemed political propaganda. >> if this is a sufficient injury that will now make it harder for me to be elected then that should give rise to a claim for virtually every member of the state legislature and indeed if it does the why not in the voters hands? there are several million people who could have any variation of any plan. >> a little think it means that there is a special justification the things you'll lose that is why he switched.
>> because it is more severe in degree. >> yes it does explain. >> there is no case the closest you can come as a lobbyist complaining about his position. >> is there anything better? >> take a look at the footnote the government argued the damage to reputation to a candidacy is not enough just because of the actions of the voters not one justice dissented that injury was inadequate and is simon chin the opinion from justice alito was the proposition from a political career selected what the government said we're not happy about that
we don't want to prolong litigation to be responsible and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees but we do think they have standing. >> is it fair to characterize "forbes"? >> the future of his political career he had 16 years. >> exactly that is what i dinkey does have standing on the merits. >> mr. chief justice a state of virginia has twice decided not to appeal the decision below the court has said in several locations lowe's recently in hollingsworth is ever defended the constitutionality of a state statute with the state itself has not chosen to do so this is not the first
time the court should venture into this new round of the fact is that under the american system voters choose candidates and elected officials not be of their way around and listen heavily to the argument of counsel in the fact is is is not a question of what they did to mr. "forbes" but with the state of virginia did to the voters and the third congressional district the second and the fourth for candidates win and lose for all types of reasons it is not true it is conceded that partisan performance is the be all and end all the lead plaintiff in this case was congressman cantor. >> i don't want to look at the motives of the commonwealth but if that were the case that the state
decided not to defend the legality of the constitution of a districting plan adopted by the legislature when it was made purely for partisan reasons and you would say the number of the elected official or candidate who was severely adversely affected should not be able to challenge? europe that is correct not every injury in society opens a courthouse door. as the colloquy early discussed the hostage be legally protected rights and members of congress do not have a legally protected interest to choose their voters. >> again i am not saying this about virginia but what if that decision was made for a racist reason? with the reason for not defending the legality of
this plan was racist on the part of the state that adversely affected a number of congress? darr that is correct because members of congress don't have a legal interest to choose their voters. it is worth looking at the supplemental briefing on standing in this case to illustrate why the injury is not just legally protected but speculative so the initial brief with question of standing said there was no particular congressman who had a standing at that time but then the revealed itself than refiled a brief saying they have revealed themselves know, because it looks like his district in one month later the state of virginia citizens him now is
congressman "forbes" they have had a standing in every stage of the proceeding they needed standing at the moment they filed the appeal in every stage thereafter. >> if they have a plan to protect incumbency and did not do that could the voter object that that was not followed with interest on the part of the legislature? >> and don't believe the individual voter would have more but number two is worth noting. >> then you have the knowledge interest on the part of the legislature the fact that the plan fails and nobody can object. >> neither the virginia
state house or the state senate controlled by the same party as the members of congress affected neither has chosen to intervene which is quite different than in the arizona case that this court resolved. >> in your view could the legislature? director think they could have intervened would have a better claim to standing under the arizona redistricting case this court decided spirit if they pass the law have greater standing in individual affected? >> we're all affected i say we because i live in the commonwealth and members of congress and the appellants have to do better they cannot to say they are affected by the law of the show with have a legally protected interest. >> is now residing
incumbency which is the same thing i don't understand. >> one thing i want to clarify is it is not the case we have conceded or that the court has found the underlying facts that the legislature endeavored to protect incumbents what we said was quite specific he did not want to draw the houses out of the district that is different to said the virginia legislature had a policy of protecting him the only way would to use partisan data or race as a proxy the second would be unconstitutional. >> you said race as a proxy. this is why i think this is so important you check by coming up with the district
to achieve the same partisan objectives without respect to race. >> i think your honor that is true in the circumstances such as where the direct evidence that race predominated but the direct evidence with the other way of the court was evaluating what you do in a circumstance with no direct evidence but you have a circumstantial evidence maybe it did maybe it didn't? one way to tease out of it was partisanship or race to save show me the map we have no case to do that. >> the with a greater degree of confidence if they wanted partisanship that is a
pretty high priority for politicians there would have done this. but instead they did the sparkle -- this. then how do you analyze and 80 percent say nothing at all? >> in this case the person who's sponsored the bill and you drew the map. >> he was not in the legislature? >> i believe he was at the time the map was approved to was the sponsor of the bill. >> i thought the person who drafted the plan was not? arabia have that mixed up. >> he says i believe that he
did say he drafted the state house plan versus the congressional plan but the fact is if you look at what mr. raphael pointed to the was a very important calculation of the voters than ever added in those that were taken out and he found the voters added had a higher percentage of black voters than democratic so he found the blackest parts of the voter approval to add them to skip over the white democratic voters the differential was two / one so there was the analysis that teased out that
statistic. >> si thank you could have drawn a map to show if you wanted to protect the incumbency over democratic advantage you would have done this? >> and think the question isn't if we could have drawn a map but if it requires in the case. >> why not? the you say you only draw a map by race that is your position i could see where you take that. >> my position is as was suggested the analysis involves a handful of precincts so we could have drawn after that analysis and make very few changes but it'll think that is what they had in mind but a circumstance not using race but using a significantly
different district to show that race predominated over partisanship in this case we try to get it something different which was the intent of what the legislature had in mind. >> you are skipping over that the map may have been slightly different but it would have been different if you did not use race that is the whole purpose of the exercise if you are race neutral he don't move on the basis of skin color but a neutral principle end you have shown enough least five precincts it was not on the base of partisanship but based on race. >> but if you move those that have to move the others to make up for that and it
says you don't have to speculate about 10 percent for 10% for 80% but show partisanship could not be a factor because you cannot have drawn any differently. >> i think our burden was to show the race predominated i don't think they put a straitjacket to say the only way to do that is through the alternative. >> of race and partisanship or coextensive which one dominates. >> of the legislature tells you? >> if they are coextensive then it may be abstract but which predominates? eric if there was a second -- a circumstance of no other events of race and partisanship then if it is a
tie than either predominate. >> then who loses. >> it is a tie but in this case nothing approaches is a tie the legislature set a 55% threshold. >> suppose they set the same number as the benchmark if it was 56.3 and kept it at 53.1 and it was exactly the same? >> justice ginsberg if that was done as a mechanical threshold that would be subject to buy into scrutiny this state would have to show a mitt the burden any time the state sorts people based on race using mechanical targets or thresholds then it has to show there was a very good reason for doing so.
>> do you agree with the solicitor general that a simple statement that they were trying the best they could to comply with the voting rights act and that is not sufficient to pass strict scrutiny applies? >> the fact that the state may have been under the mistaken belief in good faith that had to go to 55%. >> but assume a different set of facts where they didn't just say we have to stay at that number as seven different state where of course, the first priority is to comply with the love with that trigger? >> no. that is the supremacy clause the fact that they understood they had to comply with the voting rights act.
>> then we consider is the use of a mechanical target not related to the ability to elect. >> direct look at what the professor did as the court special master he did a thoughtful analysis of all traditional redistricting criterion been looked at the impact it would have fallen the ability of african-americans and that is a model of the analysis that the state of virginia should have engaged but instead it said 53.1 under that we break the law ago at 55 that gives certainty 55% it is.
>> mr. chief justice if it pleases the court i'd like to make two points on the merits of standing we believe the lack standing to appeal alleging the district court's judgment may at par by adding voters of a different political party that may vote against them the candidates have no interest in the composition of the voters in their district. >> is that true of the legislator specifically offered incumbency protection as state policy? >> i think if they adopted the incumbency protection that might be different because they would establish as the right to but that does not interest here and what is at issue is whether a candidate has a particular interest and rethink your
own opinion is obstructive. the congressmen had alleged the that the latino voters were no longer voter -- voting for that congressmen and your opinion said that type of voter protection for the kennedy and not to the individual voter is fine for politics but does not justify the action. >> that was district five that is heavily african-american so imagine the racist legislatures changed a whole districts they cannot possibly affect african-american as an african american member of congress has standing. >> of voter has standing the candidate does if they're a voter in the district.
>> but as a congress managing cannot remember we have a different situation here with a candidate. >> i know what i am looking for a sanders stands there is no case that discusses this is in a different context and what is bothering me about it i want you to explain and not tell me is that there are a potentially dozens of claims and hundreds of possible plans every plan will hurt someone and if one district is changed suddenly open the door to every legislature in every congressman challenging the plan that strikes me as a big shift in the direction to take power
from the legislature to turn it over to the judges as to what type of plan you will have. >> a sink your right to be worried about that. >> i thought you would be. [laughter] and we do normally rely on the state to be the principal but what this court recognized that it would go and defended and that doesn't concern the court but we have to be careful about legislators in choosing their own we don't let them choose their own voters in there is good reason for that i do think it would have expansive defects is not clear there is a difference between this type of line drawing and a challenge it legislator may
seek to appeal the relocation of a base on their grounds as that would change the voters in their district. >> but this is different because it is a devout jews and the voters in the district not you don't have an injury but you don't have an interest to vindicate that by choosing the voters in your district sarah this is harder than what you suggested this is the representative to say i want to choose the of voters to increase my a chances but to say there has been inactive the legislature and has given me a certain set of voters' wide and i have a interest to rely on that judgment when they have taken better way?
>> it is the same reason they rejected that idea there isn't an interest among the voters or candidates that lawfully legislated districting plan is enacted otherwise every voter would have standing because they said you should be in this district that is the direction of the court has gone in the combination of feeling in the office that the author gets to choose the constituents it should give this court some pause in the situation with the state statute it would be unusual from standing here. >> switching over to the merits of i want to start
with the observations of justice kennedy on the could have would have standard that was put forth the basically the district is okay on race if it would have been based on politics that flies in the face that what they are about at the core the you cannot use race as a proxy and you cannot sort voters the basis of race it is not a defense to say come have done this with politics you can send it back if the legislature does the same thing taking race out the neck injury is eliminated is the sorting so the would have or could have test put forward is at odds with this court's jurisprudence. >> but they did say that the
cutback as well and at least i feel on more solid ground if the plaintiffs were put to the test to say showa's citizens about partisanship by race so shoa's draw the district that will be different in the lower court did not subject them to that inquiry. >> is a very important case but it is the exact opposite that it was direct and substantial evidence to act on the basis of politics to say it is equally explained. it was basically a bomb on the scale but in a situation like this the same evidence it is equally consistent
just does not cut it. >> i'll give you a chance to answer i would not want to deprive you of your looking to see if race is the motive so how can you say the motive was this or that? >> it is a difficult question but the court's cases have been fairly unanimous looking to the intense of the drafter and in alabama the court had a policy if the each individually had embraced the policy so there is case law going that way but is the sole lead the intent of the draft turf there are objective indicators such as
continuity that reinforce that intent and they are a part of the plan so if they say race was the first consideration that we have to take race into account under the voting rights act? >> battle being that necessarily results but that it must predominate and that makes sense because the court has said there always conscious with the need ruth
-- they need room to maneuver so that is not sufficient civic you have four minutes remaining spinnaker like to begin with justice kagan question we heard a constant theme with the explanation does not agree we have a mixed motive case that is with the district court said race politics and incumbency protection you reason it was retired with the race because he said it was a federal mandate under the supremacy loss of as a side justification and they had legal error. cry was politics tics and incumbency they told you because it was permissive with a mandatory criteria of compliance know they said implemented it by the benchmark for that have nothing to do with their
rank so to get your question. >> i take the point but isn't that exactly what we confronted in alabama which is the number one priority was that it turned out they misunderstood so the number one priority was the racial quotas and had nothing to do with the way it is supposed to operate? civic that's fine but here we try to figure out if it is prime facia if race was complete the coextensive through county lines would you say it was dominated with their coextensive? taken out of racial context you draw a nice compact district nobody in their right mind would say that predominated because the same result was ordained in
you can research this opinion for any finding the race was inconsistent with politics and you will not find it there for those principles were subordinated to race rather than politics really evidence the even tried to come up with is joint appendix that is undisputed it has exactly the same clause as a matter of law because the racial effected is identical to the political effect he made a big deal about the fact 16-point 5% vat -- gap between those inside and outside of district three in terms of race but his own index shows there is also a 16% gap in democratic
percentages so it is to say of what as tiercel unless the court is prepared to allow the district court's of the plain language in this case needs to be reversed as your direct evidence what is that? partisan and racial balance the course that as clear as possible partisanship and race as little or nothing about the predominance what do we have here? politics in a race of the direct evidence is little or nothing about the relative predominance in what we need to do to show we could have accomplished those political objectives by heard the slogan and repeated voters choose representatives but the relevant point is the state legislatures choose
welcome to the bipartisan policy center and the senior vice president here and of the pleasure to help to oversee our fiscal and tax policy work a recently came across a statistic s startled me that there are over 600 million people in the world today over the age of 65 cards on the table, i am one of them and remarkable in itself it is estimated that half of all humans from the beginning of recorded time left ben over the age of 65 are alive today. amazing in now statistics cannolis be an error i am certain of one thing that everybody in this room will be 10 years older 10 years
from today. [laughter] we're living longer and that is good but that also comes challenges with policy issues we cannot ignore the fiscal challenges are daunting that in just 10 years 70 percent of all federal mandatory spending will be associated with federal health care spending is also true some of the most creative solutions to these challenges are found in the intersection of multiple disciplines and that applies to the discussion today in 2013 we had a housing commission with a forthright to to see that millions of american seniors preferred to aging in place in their homes and communities as a new frontier in housing and that
comes an obvious connection to health in the housing task force was launched one year ago to underscore the synergy between health care and fostering improved health outcomes public and private cost saving in the enhanced quality of life for the aging population. it seems too often housing and health care are treated as separate and exclusive areas of concern this is to help policymakers breakdown the silo of this divided you will hear today this is not only possible but necessary this project complements other efforts we have under way including those of long-term care reform
innovation in the health care system in personal savings retirements and in about three weeks the commission on retirement security by said deputy security administrator will release distance of recommendations and you're all invited but today's senior health and housing forces consist of two distinguished republicans and democratic members with significant experience and expertise of housing and health policy former hud secretary u.s. senator martina's represented shorts and former representative of how bin tremendous leaders for this effort with depth
and we thank them for their dedication to this project i also want to recognize the efforts of the team as who staffed the task force as well the external revisory council and i think many are here today placed him that if you were a part of that advisory group because they're very helpful. thank you over the next hour we will hear from the task force members on the recommendations followed by a moderated discussion followed by open question and answer period they will all have an opportunity for questions so please welcome our wonderful friend
secretary cisneros. [applause] thanks for your kind words and your service i had the opportunity to meet him here for years ago after a career on capitol hill and now here he is focused on these important questions before our country and for years ago was hoping the task force dealing with deficit reduction issues in the overlap between those questions of the trajectory of national expenditures for medicare/medicaid security and the work of this task force overlaps greatly because what we tried to do is find ways to shave the increasing cost by having people live healthier lives
in their own homes for as long as possible i want to express our thanks to the macarthur foundation who supported this work in their previous work of housing and aging of the next 15 years the senior population is poised to grow dramatically driven by the aging of the 78 million baby boomers born between 46 and 64 the first of those turned a 652011 and every year 1.8 2 million people turn 65 years and byl amc 2030 sr. 65 and above will represent more than 20% of the total population up dramatically from 14% todaytions those over 85 years are already the nation's changin
fastest-growing demographic group america's changing demographics impose unprecedented strains on fiscal health care and housing systems although these challenges are hiding in plain sight we have severely underestimated those high stakes involved as one of the most pressing domestic issues before our country and don't think we thought through as a nation what it would mean to have the ever-increasing portion of the population aging with our resources and without good whole circumstances we need more affordable rental housing the acute shortage affects low income households of all ages better force to spend excessive amounts of income on housing but it is tragic when an older adult must
forego purchasing essentials like nutritious food for vacation just to pay the rent for shelter the overwhelming number of seniors want to aid in placean stay at home as long as they can get many lack the structural features and support services that can make a living their safe and viable. , pounding the challenge isdails 70% of these adults will require help with bathing and food preparation and medication management long-term service is in support medicare does not cover these although the cost can consume a large portion of the budget only a small minority of americans
have long term cares insurance covering these expenses as a critical source of retirement funding in savings are a critical source but for seniors this will fall short of what iske necessary to pay for housing and modifications and health care and other retirement needs so today's task force report draws attention to offer recommendations to congress for state and local governments to consider those recommendations cover subjects from increasing the supply of affordable housing to transforming homes and ofmmunities so they're moree accessible to listing the power of technology to help older adults live in dependent wives underlying all of these is the belief
of greater integration of america's health care andmore tg housing system is essential more tightly linking health care and other services to managed conduct is caesar's to improve health outcomes if unable millions of americans to age over the past year the task force was fortunate to win as many success stories he made integrating a supportiveer services a central focus of the mission health care providers who understood the importance to fight for care in service delivery and communities who deploy latest technology to the seniors remain connected to their friends it is time for our country to steal these efforts so they can truly become national in scope make no mistake healthy
aging begins at home the title of the report is not just a slogan and must be aa central element of any strategy to manage those demographic challenges ahead now i would like to turn the floor over to a good friend senator martinez who was and how the mayor the gorge county florida secretary of housing and then senator one of the best public servants i have had the privilege to know and a friend havingd thoroughly enjoyed working with him and hopefully more in the future. [applause]u better >> the feeling is mutual i have enjoyed getting to know
you better on all the housing issues here in the past and i hope we have a chance to do more in the future as well we have a good time with a good effort with productiverememb conversations one thing that is important to remember in wa that the bipartisan policy center is bipartisan ideas that bring together different points of view at the end of the day resolved, and greyhound to reach solutions that is what i love so much about doing this work someday happens to be older americans month in the way the seniors contribute so it is fitting the task force releases the
report that for policy ideas to maximize thehly mo contributions as the senior population grows monthly mortgage payments and the cost of home maintenance can be a major strain on the budgets of senior households for many housing related cost constitutes the biggestthe expenditures the major factor contributing to highthis cost by the way not only for seniors before the country at large this most negatively impacts lower income households living on fixed incomes according torenter hide 11.to extremely low income households competing for only 12.3 million rental
homes resulting in a hoortfall of 6.9 million homes of those 11-point to a million households 2.six were identified as those with those children the aging of the population will decrease yet of ability of rental homes and exacerbateoble. the supply that is not keeping up millions of older americans will make that transition from home ownership into rental housing that demand will intensify with greater numbers of senior suffering severe mental burdens is estimated by 2025 the number of rental households 65 to 74 or older to pay more than 50 percent of the income on
housing will rise by 42 percent and 39 percent respectively affordable housing is the glue that holds everything together without access to such housing and stability it is increasingly difficult to introduce a system of him and community-based support of its successful aging to help increase the supply the task force for poses a significant expansion of the tax credit program the housing credit is a 300 program that encourages private investment and has proven to be a great success helping to support the construction and preservation of rental homes
we were pleased to see chairman of finance also a member of the finance committee released bipartisan legislation last week to mirror thoseion for recommendations other is a call for higher levels ofs of ad support what is clear the affordable housing needed now more than ever is indispensable to encourage this beecher investment when i served as head secretary i consider this to be one of the most successful initiatives many more restive institutional alsatian but benefits from those services available to them the nonprofit sponsors enhance the lives of
hundreds of thousands of lower income seniors and families unfortunately sinceel 2011 there is no funding for new construction or rental assistance for new units so while we work together to find the program it is time to try something different to propose a new program to use project based rentall assistance and housing credits to finance new construction from health care programs the approach is designed to ensure that a broader set of factors has given in the game not just the government are not for profits but private sector developers requesting statesth g to commit to health care promoting a more integrated
delivery of services the task force spent time examining the impact of regulatory policies including housing for seniors and issue that deserves more attention than it receives something of a work that when i was at hud as a great big problem in our country 40 percent of the cost goes to government for the permits and impact fees it is a serious problem so much as they called the hearing of this at the national association of home but builders pointed out at the national level there for regulation is 25% of the price of a new family home if we close the supply gap policies must work to encourage the production of affordable homes state and
local communities mustni embrace policies that encourage alternative housing structures for seniors as accessories rowing units micra units these policies must be a win-win for everyone to and preserve the integrity rollicks landing the supply of affordable housing options we need the public and private sector to step up and recognize the need to help seniors in their communities and finallyconclude senior homelessness the number of homeless seniorsle is projected to rise nearly 59,000 by the year 2020 the fastest better country one of the wealthiest nations in the world should not accept that situation that so many citizens live on the streets without adequate shelter and
care preventing should be a major national priority to help the effort we recommend the interagency council adopt the goal to preventlessnes and end homelessness from all-american is in the near future. now will turn on the programo dc over and how to transform our homes and communities. [applause] this is my first project with a bipartisan policy center has been a delight wen go down the congressional side but i want to said with a july it has been for this first experience to work with the staff of the
bipartisan policy center letter genuinely dedicated in mission driven people and we can be proud of the work and those other projects emanating from this place there was some reference to his own approach since we have been friends over 30 years that tells you about my age but it is a delight to work with these folks before i get into specifics one of the things we say to each other every time with the conference call is the case that america ted does not understand the magnitude of the problem if you cut through all recommendations and analysis that would be the thought the kind of know
america is aging and we have problems but we concluded the country does not the cou understand the magnitude of the difficulty of the huge number of retirees and population in the coming years. in the course of the work the task force decided to get some input from around the country those that we convened from last september of and the congresswoman shorts to the same thing in philadelphia in march to get perspectives from different folks and it to again putoo other ways as well the communities may differ but the problem exists everywhere there is no place
that is immune from this problem from the aging of america and as henry mention the overwhelming majority of seniors would rather age in their own homes and communities but unfortunately they will not be likely to do so there will be a mismatch with the desire and the ability from personal experience this is very close to me within one month of watching this task force my siblings and i moved my mother from an independent home in a retirement home it was nice and well taken care of i had no problem but there wrenching difficulty moving some debt of an independent home into a facility is enormously difficult sometimes it is unavoidable that there are things we can do to make it possible to
stay longer and age in place most homes lack the design features that would allow people to stay longer 3.8 percent of housing units are suitable for individuals the difficulties end communities? senior friendly infrastructure such as transportation will maintain streets and affordable closing - - housing said consider the recommendations aimed at the individual and that the community's that are part of the problem that also become more aware of finances nearly 40 percent of individuals over 62 will have financial assets