tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 3, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EST
in treatment. and we have replaced those with homeless shelters and the county morgue because of the death rate , the higher rest rate 60 to ofp 80% in people and city jails who may have a mental illness problem at least half of those in state prisons. that's what we did. when a judge has someone before them with an arrest or crime and they see this person is to go to jail and the state has to provide for them. nobody has to do anything.idea s the blame is plenty to go around adult administrations and a strong bipartisan bill to make changes. we need to look forward. we understand mental health and we know it's a brain disease and we know that people get treatment they can get better. >> host: does that the bill provide new money for mentalan health care and where does the money come from? for t
>> there's a lot of money money for number thinks is things is specifically for training more providers. there are about 50 million. we have an incredible shortage of psychiatrists. it's even harder for african-americans and hispanics. dearth of providers who are culturally similar order that training in the communities. you are 10 times for likely if you have a serious mental wellness to being a jelda hospital.ese are pa the painful statistics so we are are -- we need a lot more because going into these graduate school and medical school is expensive but we will see over time is pushing more for that because we will find by providing visits far cheaper than jail. but so we are talking with republican congressman wmata up that's been about mental health
care reform legislation moving through congress.vi republicans can call democrats 202-74-8800 sarin independents 748 -- 2027488802. we encourage you to call (202)748-8003. tony is calling in from texas on our independent line. you are on with congressman murphy. >> thank you very much. first off that it's not hard at all to run unless you throw the corruption and on it and that's the problem with these congressmen value corrupts people. you are trying to get all the corrupt money in your pocket and not do your job. we want you to do your job and that's why you can't be in this for so long that you are a massing all this corrupt money in your pocket. we do you wonder why you come
into the white house broke. >> host: the issues here, let's focus on mental health and just move on. lets a user one of the driving u forces in tackling this issue was the impact in connecticut in newtown. tell us a little bit about that while we show some of the cards you have gotten. >> i had met with the families who have lost a child or a spouse from that terrible tragedy perpetrated by someone who had a mental illness that was untreated. family members gave me pictures' thos is than my motivation. there is no money coming into my pockets or anyone else's. every day i would look look at those kids eyes. that was my motivation and quite frankly when people came up to me and said he can't you can't do this yet the compromise is not going to happen, we had a
brutal hearing on this.ask me ha they say howdy stay so calm and i because i had those pictures right in front of me in that room. i matter how they attacked me a new they had a far worse. all these kids wanted to do was make it to lunch that day or go home and play soccer or something. nation we owe them as a nation whether sandy hook or tucson or aurora wherever they were an americaa where someone was harmed or all the millions of people who get assaulted that's why we are doing this. this is not this is the reason r why so many people came together. o >> host: carollas calling in from decatur georgiana independent line. good morning, carl. >> caller:good morning. congressman one thing i'm concerned about is many of our american citizens don't understand the number one thing
in our constitution. i know that i fought for this country and what do you get hurt for your memory of battle fatigue or anything, corruption is not on your mind when you swear in into become a militaryb person in this country and in my sweary swearing-in do i remember my pledge to this country were i'd say i'm honoring a republican or democrat or anyone. i'm protecting the constitution of this country. p >> host: let me just ask you, do you have a question about mental health today? >> caller:no. if you don't understand we are affected by something that is
medically or anything like that, when we are citizens of this country it has nothing to do with corruption other thanan understanding our world. >> guest: you are right and i take that same oath when i became an officer in the navy. there's nothing there about any party affiliation. milita when it comes to dealing wither mental illness the thousands of people i have treated in my lifetime or the hundreds i have treated at walter reed hospital and people i have known i don't care and i never asked the partk they belonged to. mental illness of cancer or diabetes cystic fibrosis has no party affiliation. it attacks people and the best thing we can do is to help people so they can become productive citizens and get back to school, get back to work and get back on their feet and work with them. them.
this is a an essential part of our constitution to promote the general welfare and to make sure we do all we can to help people with their health and not build the progressive washington. >> host: let's talk for a moment about suicide prevention. some statistics from theic national alliance on mental illness looking specifically at suicide and other issues and people say suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth ages 10 to 14. also it says 90% of those who died by suicide had an underlying mental illness. talk about what this bill does.s >> guest: we do we offer some of the suicide prevention programs but it's also making sure we have providers available. when people make a decision that they are going to have the suicide attempt in many cases they send out signals. they have depression or anxiety or whatever it is rare in some cases they have analysis and
they think they're not going to make it through. we want to reach out to find someone but how awful it is to find many times there's no place to go. they can call the crisis hotline but what happens when you find you are told they have a waiting list.at we can't be doing that.in that's a big push in what we are doing with the d.a.. there should be no such thing as a waiting list. overall when you look at suicide there is one every 12 minutes. by having more providers, we simply don't have enough. we have 9000 psychiatrists inn this country. we need 30,000 in the bin though it's the 9000 in a very few of them have appointments and of those how many two with serious mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar and severe depression? we have to inspire more people than to the field and make sure
we are helping them with expenses going through training and make sure their places forri them. >> host: peggy is calling from cheyenne wyoming on our independent line. peggy has had experience with the mental health system. you are on with congressman murphy. >> caller:yes, what i don't understand is my son is paranoid schizophrenic.- is he got it when he was around 19 or so and he did get treatment and he did get better and then he worked for a long, long time. then he got fired because of his condition i guess. anyway, then he went on medicare but what i don't understand, he could not get medical for medicare for two years. when i questioned why not, they said well it's not life-threatening. well i'm sorry, but this is is
life-threatening maybe to other people and maybe to themselves.a why does congress not pass a bill where they can get medical treatment right away? >> guest: that's a great point you are bringing up and this is part of the reason why we needin this new office of the secretary to work with hhs. there are a number of things to take place including people who may be on medicaid, incarcerated for period of time and theyhey e don't -- they don't pay their bills and they have to apply for disability. people people are down the throws of poverty.y. we have heard from one person running the jail system, sometimes people leave jail and come back so they can have a place to stay. to pay fo what a cruel place did do this to people. we have to streamline it because when when you give peopleu treatment it's 20 times cheaper than to be in jail. cell
when people are lying in a bed and emergency burn for hours and sometimes days or weeks were waiting for beds open up its really expensive than that sought treatment rate we should give people a medication seeing a counselor to work with them and peer support. they are all vital but what i'm describing here is we recognize how woefully inadequate our system is to deal with 60 million americans and 100 million other family members related to them. she brings up good points how we'd not have to work just with the insurance companies that the federal government.es >> host: how will mental health treatments in this bill be affected if the affordable care act is repealed as the president-elect and republican members of congress are about to do? >> guest: tom price he understands thing from a medical perspective. understanding to the point i made about integrating health care behavioral and physical health is where that's a key
component.the about 5% of the population is 50% of medicaid ending. 50% consume just a minor part of overall health spending so what it is about those folks? when thl illness, it can double the costs. it is a matter of working arefully, because those high risk pools. we want to get the position to ordinate care -- two coordinate care and make sure what they need is there. in the past, it has been on your own. when a mother brings a 17-year-old into an office and hels the professional that is delusional, having problems, and they returned with is he a threat for violence, and she says no -- then they say there's
nothing they can do. is a problem. the follow-up needs to be 95%. however, it drops down to 45%. the numbers are similar when someone goes into an emergency room with a drug overdose. you need to get treatment right away. if you get the full treatment immediately right there, you by 50%. it is about getting efficient, effective care immediately. host: john is calling in on the democratic line from ireland. good morning, john -- from maryland. good morning, john. caller: good morning. have you read a book by diane ravitch? error" was written a couple of years ago. she is one of the country's leading experts on public school
systems. she traces behavioral control deficits in school -- learning deficits in school, high dropout of adhd to instances a particular statistic that is shocking. was010, the united states tied with turkey, somalia, and thailand, for some of the worst rates of premature birth. the high rate of premature birth directly causes these kind of .ducational challenges let's set aside the terrible medical bills associated with high rates of medical birth -- guest: let him respond to a
couple of those things. i used to work in a newborn intensive care unit. seeingo frustrated children born addicted to crack or heroine and watching them go through withdrawals. they do have a long-term prognosis that indicates a long-term educational issues. there are a wide range of things that correspond. we need to get better at handling prenatal care for women who are on drug and addictions. we saw a study once that if you took a woman with an addiction months ofd for a nine her pregnancy, you have her go somewhere else and you help her through the process. no drug in a positive one setting, then it is far cheaper for that child for the rest of their life. i'm not suggesting we send people off to five star resorts,
but it does point out that providing quality prenatal care to make a massive difference in a child's life. we need to be thinking about this long-term perspective instead of just writing the child off. it is an awful way to treat a human being. host: let's talk about the prospect of this bill's passage. although the health care package is strong, it's passage is not a short. massachusetts senator elizabeth ward says that the bill favors at pharmaceutical industry the expense of patient safety. party does not favor the bill because it would increase federal spending. how do you address these concerns? guest: i think the issue with elizabeth warren is wrong. if you have a family member with one of these diseases, you are
searching for a solution. if you know someone with mental -- 959 deaths a day, and you say we are going to continue to hold out? we're going to let you just be one more that goes to the cemetery? thateritage, i would say there are areas when the federal government should be spending money. a lot of this bill is about improving effectiveness and efficiency. a lot of people do not want the government spending any money, and i understand your philosophy. however, i believe this is about life and death. in the constitution, it is about promoting the general welfare. this is about all americans. we do have a sloppy system in terms of metal health care in america. here, when they say they have to spend another hundred million dollars to go through the system again and repeat everything you have done, i have concerns about
that. -- not find ways of not bypassing research, but streamlining? warrenping that senator changes her mind on this. there is a lot that can be done to move forward with this. we ought to pass this bill so people can have their lives saved. host: john is calling from arkansas. also someone with experience with mental health care. john, you are on with congressman murphy. caller: good morning. first of all, i am bipolar. hate aboutthings i being mentally ill -- i found out real quick that you are automatically stigmatized. i was just thinking that was other people, but i found it was not just other people.
what we really need are lawyers to back us up so that people will not miss treat us. thing -- ihe violent am pretty sure that 97% of all people with mental illness are nonviolent. probablyft are sociopaths, the criminally insane, and someone like jeffrey dahmer. guest: yes, people that are mentally ill should be treated equally as rep. newhouse:. the our bills that protect as everyonets -- else. there are bills that protect patient rights. there are some individuals, without treatment have also had drug and alcohol abuse, it increases their likelihood of violence tremendously.
often, people will encounter someone in a and a health crisis and they can end up as violent. the was a large statistic of individuals that attack police if to a mental illness, and we had more effective treatment we could have saved a lot of lives. the process of handling them was put them in solitary confinement, and that is not a path to treatment. host: ok, congressman tim>> was. byt: we are joined now congressman matt cartwright, a democrat from pennsylvania. he is here to talk about the house democrats'legislative agenda under president-elect
donald trump, and the efforts by democrats to promote support among blue-collar workers. thank you for being here today. guest: thank you. it is my pleasure to be here. host: secretary hillary clinton .ost your district with 44% what do you think happened? guest: it was a little closer in my district. the problem -- you have to go through all the precincts to see. endeavor tof an find out how much donald trump wopn -- donald trump won by. 9%.yes he won by almost i won by about 8%. it was a surprise.
caught po can't -- llsters unaware. a lot of people came out to vote that i frankly do not think have voted since 2008. people that were energized in inspired by donald trump. they came out to vote for him, so maybe they were not energized and enthused by mitt romney. the message that romney was putting out that they were much different from those put -- a were much different than those being put out by donald trump. i also think the election was very hard to predict. the models that were being used -- they all go sideways. let's face it, it was very hard for hillary clinton to be a change candidate. as i have been saying locally, she kind of had status quo stamped all over her pantsuit.
people are hurting and life is not going -- if people are hurting and life is not going so great for them, and they feel like washington is working hard to help other people besides them, then change has a very big appeal. ok,thing you wonder is -- are they racists? a lot of what mr. trump said was pretty bad. toseemed like it appealed bigoted people, but i do not think so. the other thing you need to know about my district was that president obama one my district by 12 points in 2012. so, i do not think so. there is always a little bit of truth and every bit of defamation, but my own sense is pain.eople were in they were working to or three
jobs, and they were trying harder and harder to stay right where they are at. there is frustration with the economy. there are not enough manufacturing jobs still around. so, when someone comes around going backa future to more manufacturing jobs -- even though he did not really lay out specifics on how he will do it -- it is still attractive. if you are hurting, change looks prickett. democratic house leader attacked you -- she nominated you to fill a spot on licy ande democrats' po communication committee. nancyhe tapped you, pelosi described be pennsylvania legislative as someone who knows
how to take the concerns of his situation in working-class pennsylvania and translate them into a message that moves people. ideas tos fresh press individuals in their 70's. guest: it is always important to remember that house democrats were not in charge of the presidential campaign. while we do tend to go around gnashingur breasts and our teeth, the house democrats did take up numbers. i think we gained another six seats. so, on paper in a vacuum, that is a victory. a victory that happened in the face of head wind. i think there was a kind of trump wave -- especially to the
heartland. democrats have not lost pennsylvania since 1988. so, it was a tough year for democrats. even though that in the house, we still pick up seats. so, i think i know how to speak with heartland voters. yeah cap credibility. they have to know that you -- you have to have credibility. they have to know that you care about them. if you care about people, then it shows. it is true of me, and i think it is true of all 194 democrats in the house, we really care about our constituents. they all won. it is the ones that did not win we have to focus on. when you are a challenger for a district. the voters do not know you all that much. they are not sure whether or not you care about them.
there is a lot of work to be done. we need to get out and listen to these people. not just in our district. we won those districts. we need to get out and listen to the people in the districts that we did not win. we need to hear about their concerns. if you want to be able to talk to people in a way that resonates, you have to listen to them. i hadtell you -- if anything to say about it, we are going to be doing a lot of listening out in the heartland the next couple of years. host: we are talking to congressman matt cartwright of pennsylvania. alan is calling from brooklyn, new york on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you. although it is unlikely that this republican congress will do anything in your favor this term, i think democrats have to start talking about some issues that will take a long time to succeed on.
one of them was an idea that was mentioned by nude and rich at in the ninth -- newt gingrich back in the 90's. he said that elected officials forld be held accountable the same levels of fraud that commercial entities are. it seems clear that those standards were applied to donald seen thataign, he has it is very clear that a lot of that it has he made been very clear that a lot of those promises he made -- .. with thomas is that he never intended to keep. in my mind, that is fraud. the public has been damaged as a whole by his desire to exploit the electoral college. host: let's give the congressman a chance to respond.
guest: i was a courtroom jerry >> >> that is the difference between fraud and breach of contract. i don't think we have to move fraud but that should be enough for the public to turn on donald trump. he has made gargantuan promises to the american people to rewrite the trade laws that on know how you do that that is like undertaking the cake he will dog of the countryside is new manufacturing firms that don't know how you do that in that kind every without a will also beefing up a public education and training programs and even if he does, what i worry
about this modern manufacturing facilities are highly automated. a big plant but only a couple of dozen people working there?ru that is true with mining it is hugely automated. i've here to tell you democrats are solidly behind rebuilding the manufacturing base to make give it in america program and then also proud to include the couple of my bills but yes, and you mention the 1994 but he also came in power to years after reelected bill clinton the president and clinton had the public terminal very quickly. americans paid attention and they remember the promises made and if they don't keep them
then watch out. >> are there areas of potential agreement today will hold him to his promises? as pointed out in this piece as they prepared to deal with a republican in the white house to the opposite approach effectively each challenging that president-elect? str callisto ewing gave john common objectives even those with the costlier idea is to rebuild infrastructure and expanding paid family leave and donned the appropriations committee. talk about that approach. give them a chance sitting the people who voted for him in my district want change
the half to give change a chance they wanted so much that they forgave him all of those regrettable remarks frauda with some of those allegations of fraud in they are solidly in favor of infrastructure investmentst sawt pledges saudis american society of civil engineers they got a d plus democrats understand the importance of the roads and bridges. and the electrical grid to
say if we have taken a responsible approach to these things flint michiganap never would have happened to realize that yes you have to spend money to take care of lead have inherited with american infrastructure and we have to spend something like 3.$6 trillion by 2020 to upgrade the infrastructure. not only the jobs that create the infrastructure improvements that when america is this is more competitive p. coz it aids a deficiency, remember china is upgrading its infrastructure. so this is the democratic principle to say i am not getting in the way of that.
>> caller: good morning. first of all, i think this is the democrats' fault. if you look at the election the only time the president lost was george bush can use seen what had happened with him. one but if obama was -- with those they knew they were losing. also this election was not democrat or republican. donald trump and was in independent was bet the bill
but with those independents won strict that is a lot to unpack. >> okay. so with the electoral college, it is a system that is in the constitution. it would take a momentouson amount of effort to pass aeffo constitutional amendment to change that. but the candidates campaign according to the rules and what we note is but then to
>> but though lifelong county in pennsylvania with national unemployment wentpl down well locally it did kick up the 1.. point it was one-tenth of 1% in my hometown. so it all comes with a grain of salt if the employment went up in san diego the people left home where i live say what about me? rightfully so where i live and i think all over the country good paying jobs is the number-one issue. it is the best social program in america as a high-paying job with good income for american citizen and we have to keep our focus on that if democrats k hope to win back the trump voters. >> north carolina on the
independent line good morning. >> caller: 84 taking my call. mr. representative where are we at and do you support the constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united? and second of all, i am 65nd years old i have research negative and read a lot and had dug the south but it appears to me rhino that for years, we have stopped being a constitutional republicocracy and democracies though too speak and of limited monetary a bribery. a >> wonderful question yes, with full is support, stand behind the
constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. we have to be practical. we have trouble passing regular appropriations bills. so, passing a constitutional -- it is kind of like shooting for the stars at this point. my own approach has been, democrats have to win the presidential election so they can have influence on the unfilled supreme court seats. that is the quickest and easiest way of getting rid of citizens united. have a more sensible court look at it and overturn it. i could not agree with you more. we have to get this money out of politics. it is awful. you see it every day.
people spend so much time trying to raise money to be reelected. for challengers, it is daunting to try and raise the money to be elected into the united states congress. it was one of the most scariest things i raised -- i ran into in 2012. how am i going to raise the money i needed to get my message out? it is only going to get harder. you are going to get more and more entrenched politicians unless you get rid of citizens united. i urge the donald trump administration to appoint someone to the supreme court of united states who wants to get money out of politics, too. from anthony is calling puerto rico. you are on with the congressman. caller: good morning. the caller from new york, i want to ask him -- the democrats have
promised for decades to do something for the african-american community, and they have done nothing. at least donald trump is fighting for us. something you have not done for us in decades. democrats only think about putting money in your pocket. that is it. he is try to fight for jobs. did me a break. -- give me a break. guest: it is quite the opposite. i do not criticize anyone fighting for jobs. i just got done saying that i admire the promises he has made on infrastructure. i want to hold him to those promises. investing in infrastructure will create millions and millions of jobs in this country. high-paying, family sustaining jobs.
to say that democrats are turning their backs on anyone is a flat-out mistake. but, i like the fact that you are focusing on jobs, because that is the correct focus. it is what i talk about at home. i think we need to ramp up our economy inbs and the the next election. host: congressman, i know that you said the house -- democrats pick up some seats in the house. it was fewer than projected. you are unable to gain control. what message do you have for people like the caller -- whether it is working class people or people of color that that theessed democratic party has taken them for granted. guest: speaking for myself, i do not take anyone for granted. it is a question about working hard and getting out to meet and listen to people.
if you care about people, you are going to listen to them and work hard for them. i could not be more proud of my colleagues in the house democrat caucus. amazingly hard workers. people that have given up other avenues of employment to do this -- to work for the people. to say that they have abandoned the people that have elected them -- that is flat-out wrong. that it is realize been a long time since the democrats have had a majority in the house. it is a republican majority. it has been a republican house of representative's for the entire time that i have been serving. a we are trying to do is push back on the republican agenda that i think hurts the average
man and woman. it hurts the middle class, and it benefits the average 1% all the time. --ler: game guest: james is calling from florida. james, you are on with the congressman. caller: the first thing i want to say, kimberly, you are a beautiful lady. the second thing i want to say to the congressman -- i want to how is donald trump -- how are democrats going to be able to work with donald trump. the kind of campaign he ran was nothing like the campaigns that barack obama or john mccain ran. president?be how are democrats going to be able to work with someone like
that? guest: i do not know if that is as being fits far to be president, i have -- but i have read things about his mental state. we are all just speculating. i have spoken with people who think he is a genius. he was just saying crazy things to get free press coverage. so, you might be crazy like a fox for all i know. i've never met the man. i do want to take him at face value. when he says that he wants to invest in american infrastructure -- as i said before, we have to be grown up about it. we have to realize that it takes money to do it. what is going to be really interesting is to see if house republicans go along with it. do note republicans
agree that we need to spend money to keep america in good shape, they are going to have to come to the democratic caucus for the vote to do it. do not be surprised if you see us making a deal to get it done. if you love of america, then you want to keep it in good shape it you want to keep us in a position or we can compete we can competere globally we want to keep jobs in this nation. ryan house speaker paul and others have prioritized many government programs including medicare and the aca. it is the plan by paul ryan, according to politico, to privatize medicare. they say, if he is to have his weight -- they will not repeal obamacare, it will dramatically into amedicare, turning
complete form of privatization. what is your opinion? guest: it is nothing new. paul ryan has advocated for for a long this time. i think it is a mistake. privatized social during the bush administration, the stock market lost 40% of its value in the 2008 crash. these are senior americans that depend on social security. in my district, the average benefit is significant. living0% of them are not on anything else. this is everything they have good to risk that -- to do anything that would -- this is everything that they had.
the risk that or do anything to --nge it would -- you other the other thing he did about is retirement age. -- you need to think about is retirement age. make peopleg to work into the -- into their 70's because few want to save money? that is not the answer. my view is that we need to expand social security and medicare. they are programs that have worked wonderfully for as long as they have existed. i am behind a wonderful bill that congressman john larson from connecticut to reduce. it is the social security when social security 2100 bill. i encourage you to look that up. it is about increasing the amount of money for these folks
to live on in their old age. in froman is calling texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. presented of cartwright, don't you think that -- representative cartwright, don't you think that citizens have have responsibility to do something about the economy? mcdonald's have just announced that -- as a result to any response of increasing minimum wage, they are going to put in automatic order kiosks to replace their population. if you go into a walmart, there are more self-serve checkout machines. we are helping corporations illuminate jobs -- eliminate jobs. why isn't anyone looking at
1930's germany, and what politically. press, destroying had, when ithey --t back and read my history what is going on right now is truly frightening. guest: a wonderful question. thank you. let's start with other nation. automation.with i do not think there is any way to exact we stop automation. it is a bad thing in a good thing. it is bad because it takes away workers' jobs. there is no other way of looking at it. however, a lot of the jobs that are taken away our bad jobs -- breaking, lifting jobs. jobs.k-breaking, lifting
torts -- of tof ours, and i had seen that a lot of this automation reduces injury.e industry -- with the future workforce needs to do is train themselves to run these machines and keep them going. there is going to be a lot more of it in the future. i do not really see a way that it is going to be going away. as far as the 1930's, i was a history maker -- major in college. i agree with the statement that if you do not study history, you may be doomed to repeat it. the 1930's in germany -- even starting with the 1920's, it was a horrible time. we have to learn from that. it scares me when we have that
in thea sudden, political discourse, it is ok to use racist or bigoted terms? it is not all right. the the senate takes up position to confirm jefferson davis sessions as attorney general -- a man that could not be confirmed as a trial judge in the federal court. the fireworks are going to fly. i think rightfully so. i'm going to be looking for from senator sessions is a complete apology for the racist, it could racist, bigoted things he has said and done in his life. that is what i'm going to be looking for. thank you. host: denise on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning.
i want to agree with the representative on the comment he made about republicans in the house and the senate being the ones that have locked any further economic development. not only the ones in the senate -- i have two good examples. in tampa after president obama took office. he came to tampa to deliver a stimulus package. he was ostracized by the republican party, by republican voters. scottent out and got rich -- not to replace or bring back jobs, but to replace obamacare. after governor scott was elected
, i remember watching president obama come back to tampa. he had infrastructure bill that rail from theding west coast to the i-4 core door -- corridor. governor scott rejected the package. host: we are running short on time. i want to give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: did she say she was from tampa? but she isas, calling from jordan. guest: understand. i want to mention trolley chris who is now -- charlie crist who is now a democrat in the house. chris who is now joining us in the house. aboute correct
republicans who i called the "shutdown crowd." they don't want to spend money in a matter how good the programs are. they want to cut programs to the national science foundation. they want to cut everything that the government does right. it is almost like they want the government to fail. so, i disagree wholeheartedly with their position. i agree with you. host: next caller on the republican line from maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is confusing to me some of the things you have said. quickyou have to have one one, because we have to throw to the house in a moment. caller: one quick one. spoken.le have the government works for the people.
host: all right, that is it. congress meant, can you respond? speaking for the people and not for your self? guest: that is the nature of our constitutional democracy. i am elected to speak for the folks at home. i tried to do that. to keep in close contact with them about the boats that are happening -- about the votes that are happening, why i voted the way i did, and about representing them. when i come to washington, i hope to bring down here the sense of decency that people have in northeastern pennsylvania. host: i will have to let that be the last word. congressman matthew
which traumatized they tried to keep that we took good fires as well as bad fires out if the last 50 years is a long time passes history of inducement we tried to fit the fire back. this is very difficult. >> i am the person that tells the story i will try to do it as best i can as balanced and is honest that i get to do something fundamentally created to say this is what i think happened. >> when milken his career he was responsible for cosponsoring and but it is
unless the government can paris six months that the tension remains necessary. this is a serious misuse of the appointments. with respect to those aliens even the ninth circuit recognized the vast majority of applications of those out later cases and with respect to criminal aliens the approach in many it is constitutional has written under this court's decision.
>> 100 miles to the border. >> that is possible if they are really held under 1225? >> i am sorry 1226. if they had not committed other crimes so therefore not subject to the mandatory detention and then takes the president's 50 miles from the border quick. >> 1226 and then that they get a bond hearing. >> better earlier you said with the of burden of proof are you suggesting to the
concept of prolonged detention without reason is not appropriate for these aliens. >>. >> with the reasons being of light risk into met with that statutory scheme that allows it there is the changed circumstances of that redetermination. >> that additional regulation is one of those factors. >> if these are people who have been here for decades don't you think to process would require a periodic review to ensure that these people are properly held but. >> we don't think that ended
does material change the government's burden -- burden and the initial bond hearing in conjunction with the opportunity to bring forth changed circumstances. >> you don't consider the length of detention? that is what the judge does with bail hearings and almost every other detention is that a certain point the calculus changes or the balance changes on the detention is unreasonable. >> so to think about the case for people end of the purpose of detention is usurped.
and to accomplish removal where it cannot be observed. so that'd is constitutional. and so this scheme in place for those that is identified is constitutional. >> was going to shift to something else. >> i was going to shift to something else. >> then let's do that. [laughter] and not focus on the statute but the constitution and i think your brief indicates there are some constitutional grounds so talk to me about what they are and when a judge would find them. >> and as he said were there
could the court say three years is too long legs a dozen matter three years is too long. >> but our position in the situation and we could go on and that could be a concern that we could make the argument that this is not the situation we have here. >> so right there you said 20 years. now you are outside. >> this is 1226 that this
only if. eric is center really all me if some he has been there 20 years? n with the removal proceedings or in emergency operation we can always exercise our beagle imagination to think of the weirdest since certain metal think attorney-general has discretion. >> i know that. >> is a constitutional requirement to process is implicated at that point program not say yes some point they have discretion that is mandatory. >> but my point is but 20
years is different. >> why pet like many great things but always interpreted with the unusual circumstances. and that could be a picky point. >> but i was just going to say that and this was a deliberate judgment based on the experience where congress had tried to do with the concerns of recidivism and eight and it was hard to predict for the
categorical judgment sumac is there where that availability of which provides that self hate. >> absolutely that is it for those types of exceptions were. >> because if you put it aside to say you can add just without any finding of a flight risk during that period of time and not run into do process? it is based on the assumption and why the
constitution itself and it does not set that outer bound. >> but i with like to take on a number of things. >> i don't think it is that focused pet is the way the courts should look at it. this increases in part it has provided procedural protections in have the right to the interpreter straight eight can appeal to
the court of appeals in with that process comes time and without their reasons for the delay to file for that continuance that is i mistake. solute are bright your honor that those statistics are not right and we apologize. >> it doesn't really matter but i was just suggesting that the averages five months it turns out it is also more than a year. >> to be resting upon two pillars the flight deck of recidivism is a real problem parco and therefore with
certain but and might and did this to a fresh rate removal imbedded would envy for of. >> but the alien or the was under six months and the court was sending that individual back for the hearing and the appeal. so with the erroneous assumption there is five months tacked on but we're talking detention one year with respect to the time limits they are not trivial. these are serious matters and recognize that.
and the current median time is between seven. >> so when is it not the aliens? to suggest of budgetary matters or the of personnel matters but that is okay? but given that we have to process to be hauled indefinitely whiff that point of release with the unknown period it delian asks for those judges that are overbooked at what point
seeks multiple continuances one because what most of them are seeking is discretionary i don't think most of that delay is immigration judges to expedite the proceedings that involve the aliens. >> assuming there is a constitutional limit can that be addressed in a class-action with the individual habeas case quick. >> we think that it adopted the rule that applies to aliens no matter if the
alien is criminal that the of one size fits all approach. >> again said down to understand that. would there is this court to review the ninth circuit to say here are the guidelines it might not be one-size-fits-all but the ability to go beyond that individual case. but to set the iodide post to let the individual determination take place. >> but usually doesn't permit that type of broad based approach of the
differences on the ground. >> is that what everybody would note to follow? for popup year and another place for everybody is treated differently the dozen seem like the good immigration system. >> what the ninth circuit has done is apply a single standard to everybody. so that type of rigid rule. >> i was not suggesting something like that but to
say some of your language that the detention has to serve the purpose of what it is meant and presumptively thicken number, nine months or one year? would ever something pretty reasonable there is an exceptional circumstances. >> idol think that is the way we would defy is. >> we don't think that is the way the court should do about what it has generally done has applied challenges. >> given that tremendous variation. what is the relief or with
the situation would be of the individual determinations should be made quick. >> that is why we don't think that is what the court should do i think it has the power for guidance and that isn't the approach that is the most conducive to think about these categories of cases. >> but there are indicators that 90 percent of the hearings are done within 19 months. role the would offer that not that it has been violated but as applied
challenge to take justice kennedy's opinion to do the search and inquiry. >> if we think 14 or 19 months? >> what i am trying to suggest it is part and parcel of the scheme part of the reason for that. >> to make sure they're not a flight risk gore a danger. >> with the categorical judgment that there could be a flight risk bond ended is very hard to predict. >> i have a couple of questions about to ask.
the first part that is up pretty odd statute that could say we could keep you to eat or three years or four years the term and punishment is over but you have four more years of your punishment that is the removal lurch. it bothers me as of lawyer so what happens to the notion? when they're not a flight risk. maybe it is the constitution. so now all of my questions are out there.
>> i will try to be briefed because i'm aware of your generosity. so rebel stages on page 156 with the appendix to the petition and starts off that the alien may be arrested or detained. >> may. >> but then it says as provided to subsection and pending such decision the attorney-general. >> may. >> but then subsection says unambiguously and then read these. >> you can see the criminal. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. chief justice of that
may please the court it is more narrow than is seems from the acting solicitor general has just said be agreed that link by itself this and to talk about the need for the inquiry. they are a danger and a flight risk. >> bar you making a statutory argument? so are you making that statutory argument? >> we are making both but i still think that dispute is narrow because of the primary focus whether that is achan statutory constraint. >> diet understand that and
with the language of the statute to have a tough argument. >> with that mandatory decision subclass because their interpretation is that the constitutional argument or statutory? that we don't have the guts to say it is unconstitutional so we will put them together of constitutional avoidance. >> but we think that interpretation is no less plausible with a 90k requirement for release then the exception.
>> what about only if to authorize people in to be picked up in the witness protection program ended it becomes prolonged with beyond the removal period with that long-term detention so that gave him permission they've made may may may. not those on the border. but in that was described in paragraph one. in that is the witness protection program hog you get around that?
and with those terrorism cases and at they have the patriot act. >> with the patriot act provision and that seems superfluous. >> and they already had the mender more 30. >> with those two provisions . and for what the thing in 1226, they are listed six categories and for of those are not included in the
no question about that. >> with your statutory interpretation on 1225 that is the one where it says that alien should be detained one says for asylum the other says removal proceeding but you say that applies only until the relevant proceedings starts. where would we find that in the statute quick. >> where the attorney general is pending the decision. >> just to deliver them for christmas does not mean have to leave on christmas eve. >> sometimes it is read that way and a the way that you know, that in this provision is if you are denied an interview they
wrote the word pending in us different subsection for people they're not in the class that is only for those who are found to have a significant possibility. so that authority ends once up proceedings began quick speed mickeys still have bad detention authority. >> bet that other argument is that provides the bond hearing this and that they should be for that consideration. in den of arrested under that same consideration to give bond hearings to those people.
to be in the immigration court we have a straight for word application it applies to the two groups the other that crosses in the desert and that does not distinguish between the two. >> they say we have a right so what happens to that person? >> then you get a bond hearing you could be removed >> but i have a right to live here. >> then you get a bond hearing with a credible fear then if you don't you're all the subjects to the parole process of the deportation of process.
>> what is the language of the statute? >> that is what the statute says. but they are reading that language is this uh decision in going back to that constitutional whether these enforcement mechanism. and then for the habeas. and not to be familiar with that legal system and be no from the record and the experience with that mechanism.
>> as up practical matter quick. >> they cannot. and then take 19 months. and it is not a meaningful remedy. but the court has never before held that they could be vindicated so pretrial detainees have of bond hearing in the matter of days why is a fundamental shift i am sorry amiss your argument they had hearings?
>> i apologize to risque hearing requirement for the due process for people facing civil commitment that is sent dependent on the up process clause to give that right so similarly at some point in time whether or not it if they have a lawyer that can file that petition. >> and it does require determination and in us case >> so with this court said for example, the detainee it
is in gauged not been tabled -- entitled in their case so look at the inquiry. somebody has to look at the case is this the case where the person even spend one day in jail? if that is a class-action vehicle the nature of release depends on the circumstances. >> let me give you a procedural answer so the government did not seek certification they did not seek review. they conceded to the commonality of this proceeding. >> it was based on the interpretation. you want to affirm i dunno
process. >> we have very few quarrels and that they exclude people with their criminal conviction. >> those aliens have been here a long time. that we believe that burden of proof. and with those periodic caring so and for the detainee to raise. but yet i've spent 10 months with immigration detention. and i am not a flight risk. i will not win my case because i am eligible for removal.
and that that link the detention that is based on the fact that well over half of the class is not. and that when the detention is prolonged. >> that is pretty hard to do with 1226 supplies to everything but the statute is pretty clear. >> then to go back my friend suggested but of the due process clause.
soleil person is engaged in litigation and that is the most serious problem and if they have a substantial defense that does not necessarily mean it is almost an first correlated. and then to go to immigration courts. into have a substantial defense they're not in a class of people that congress wants to mandate which probably means that have a less serious time. you are not eligible. >> and bet that has to be
>> the ninth circuit says that is higher from that flight risk. >> this is only happening after six months. >> but now i am focusing that i have a right to live here. >> and as that same statute that i have a right to live here. em what it is made throughout so why in book up section 1229 a does not say
anything about that to. it is the simplest thing in the world. and if they don't have it tomorrow in therefore you have bail after six months have you tried that? >> that is part of the statutory argument. so those regulations prevent to release that person on bail. >> so we could say and the language does not forbid 1229 a to interpret the statute for purposes of the
bail hearing is tomorrow. if this is correct and then to get back to the freedom. >> i am still stuck on an elector c.. en the value of the statutory interpretation is that we deal with tens of thousands or millions of people and it is the ministry of organization that they need a rule we can interpret that statute to give them a rule and that can have lots of discussion. but i have not heard from you yet in a way to get around the 90 days. they don't get a hearing.
>> and before that 90 days start to beat an exception between uh time they're released from their punishment to the time we have the hearing there to be punished six months not 10 years. what do i do with the language? and to thoughts to work on the language if nobody is willing to except 1226 but that due process clause the