tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN October 17, 2011 10:00am-12:00pm EDT
host: average time out of work as of september was 40.5 weeks. of the 40 million unemployed, 45% have been jobless for six months or more, 70% of those have not worked in a year or more and of those unemployed 12 months or more, only one in 10 will ever return to work. those are some pretty grim numbers.
bernanke call this a national crisis. we have never seen anything like this. there is a human cost but there is a tremendous economic cost of long-term unemployment both in the short run and the long run. the short run cost is pretty obvious. longer people are out of work, the more pressure there is on consumer spending, the more credit quality gets eroded and banks are less willing to lend in that situation. also, government finance comes under a much more pressure at the federal level and at the
state and local level from both sides of the ledger in terms of lost tax revenues and in terms of extra money for unemployment programs and so forth. what is not fully understood is the potential long run costs of long-term unemployment. the longer people are out of work, the more they lose their skills. is has a tendency to weigh on productivity growth in the long run. it is the basic erosion of human capital, shall we say. also, people are not participating in the labour market. they are becoming unattached from the labour market, basically dropping out. i mention these two things for the long run reason because the long run growth rate in the economy is determined by two things -- the growth rate in
productivity and the growth rate in the labour force. if the economy is not growing to its potential, we run the risk of lower living standards, less output in the future along with less income. we are facing a serious problem that needs to be addressed. the difference between unemployed and unemployable guest: official unemployment are those who are out of work that are actively seeking work. unemployable is people basically who have lost their skills, who
have become unattached from the labour market, up pull have basically dropped out of the labour market. this goes back to one of the numbers you mentioned at the beginning. a labor department study has recently shown that of the people unemployed for more than one year, only one out of 10 have returned to being employed. the other 90% have either remained unemployed or they have basically dropped out of the labor force. this is one of the basic problems of long-term unemployment. we are developing a group of disenfranchised workers, mainly youth, the less educated, and also workers in the industries that were hit very hard by the recession, especially construction workers or the
unemployment rate is right now more than 13%. if you look at youth unemployment also, in september, the teenage unemployment, age 16-19 is 25%. the unemployment rate for those 20-24 is 15% in september. when you get above age 25, you begin to see a sharp divide with regard to education, those without a college degree face an unemployment rate of almost 10% per it with a college degree, the unemployment rate is about 4.2%. this is growing evidence that there is very likely a skills mismatch that has arisen because of the recession. it means that businesses are not really able to find the workers
that they need with the skills they need. one illustration of that is that there is a tight historical relationship between job openings and the unemployment rate what we are seeing now is job openings are about 35% higher at a 9% unemployment rate than a 9% unemployment rate would have implied based on past historical relationships. that is telling us that something structurally has changed in the labor force that will require something other than just a strong economy, efforts to stimulate the economy from either physical or monetary policies.
is this providing that long-term unemployed help to keep treading water while they are trying to find jobs? guest: i think it is part of the answer. there is no one answer i think to long-term unemployment. anyone will tell you it will be either quick or easy for extended unemployment benefits again is an interesting point. one of obama -- when the provisions in the obama jobs bill was to increase the flexibility of the unemployment insurance program which would allow long-term unemployed to continue to receive unemployment benefits as a part of a retraining or apprenticeship program with an employer.
this is a program that has seen some success in a couple of states, i think georgia which is called georgia works and there is a similar program in new hampshire. this is one of the suggestions within the obama program. in terms of fed policy stimulating the economy, they have done about all they can. however, fed chairman ben bernanke has said that any short-run policy that congress could come up with that would minimize the duration of unemployment would help to reduce these long run costs associated with loss of skills and the loss of attachment to the labour force.
host: our first call for james cooper, a columnist and contributor to "the fiscal times" comes from charlotte, n.c.. you've been on the unemployed six must-win year? go ahead caller: obama put out a plan a few weeks ago and the republicans pride themselves in listening to the people and yet 82% of the people spoke to them a couple of weeks ago about passing the obama jobs bill. they would not. they lied. why would they do that? it would have created possibly 1.9 million, maybe 2 million jobs to help our country.
yes, they pride themselves and listening to the people and get 82% of the people spoke to them last week', a week or so ago and it did not pass. can you answer that? guest: i think this is fundamental to the issue at hand in attacking the problem of long-term unemployment. i think there is plenty of room for debate over the appropriate size and authority of the government in determining our budget process. i think the biggest challenge with policies geared toward long-term employment is trying to get congress to decide how best to a desert -- to address the problem. that is the biggest challenge. when fizzles -- when philosophical
issues interfere with common- sense, it makes it very difficult to do what is right at a certain time. i would also add much more broadly and much more important that what the congress is thinking about right now in terms of long-term fiscal stability has to be viewed in the context of what the economy really needs right now. a lot of people in congress get this and many don't get this, that short-term economic stimulus and long-term fiscal stability in the same 10 year, a 15-year budget bridge a budget package are not mutually exclusive. one of the things we are facing
especially as we begin 2012 is if current law continues right now into 2012, we will see an expiration of a number programs, the extension of unemployment, the payroll tax, other programs that were part of the 2009 stimulus. those will expire at the end of this year and economists have estimated a drag on economic growth of 1%-2% growth. a lot of the provisions that are being discussed right now are part of those provisions that will expire at the end of the year. there is a question about long- term unemployment and what to do about it but there is also the broader question over how to shape long-term fiscal
stability without harming the economy in the near term while the economy is very fragile. host: our next call o comes nextcala, fla. out for those folks who are employed. caller: good morning. this entire conversation has gone on for years. no one has ever spoken to the underground economy. i come from labor class beginnings. small trades will be labeled by the contractor to collect compensation -- unemployment. they meet -- they remain working for cash at a reduced salary or people are laid off and as tradesmen, they take col resist most contracts on their own for cash or barter. that is what happens to greece.
everyone in the country was on some kind of government subsistence. there were all working on the table and no taxes were being collected so you had less revenue and more payouts socially with our social programs. that is happening here in this country. we don't know to what extent. no one has ever mentioned it. host: james cooper, your response? guest: the fact -- the effect -- all economists agree there is a disincentive effect that stems from unemployment insurance benefits. one study shows that the extension of unemployment insurance in this recovery has
added as many as eight weeks to the average duration of unemployment. that is basically a disincentive for people who would rather receive their benefits than seek employment. however, if you look at -- even go back to the same point at which the benefit program was extended, the average duration of unemployment has increased by 18 weeks. that is evidence that there is much more going on here than the disincentive the fact to seek employment from the extended -- from the extension of the unemployment insurance program. this speaks to the structural
change in the economy and a mismatch of skills that i was talking about earlier. host: damia in miami, fla. for those who have been unemployed for over one year. good morning, i was employed by lehman brothers for five years and unfortunately my position was gone. host: we can really hear you. are you on a speakerphone? caller: yes. host: can you pick up the handset of tex? can you pick up the phone? caller: is this better? host: we will move onto canton,
ohio on our live for those who haven't been unemployed for more months.12 maastrich . caller: it is actually over one year. i have been unemployed since october 2007. i have gone to college. i'm working on my second degree now. i looked for a job, putting in applications both at the employer's and online daily. monday-friday as if it were my job. there is supposed to be a 10-1 role, if you put in 10 resumes you should have won interview. i have only had 12 interviews all year. the companies are not wanting to hire people who are educated. i know people personally who are
not educated and are willing to work for minimum wage and they will get a job much quicker. we recently had a company of size that all this praise for moving into canton, ohio and open a company here. unfortunately, the only people they were willing to hire were people who are low-educated. host: you said that only the people who are low-educated are being hired but you have gone back to school. is that because it is more economically feasible for you to be in school or are you trying to retrain yourself into something you can get hired for? caller: my original the great was in business and i was looking to become a manager because of my skills and i have been a cashier for most of my life and i want to do something where i could be more assertive
and i thought getting a degree in business and perhaps become a manager would use my personal skills and skills i have learned on the job. however, that has not panned out. host: james cooper -- guest: i think this highlights the question of how much the long-term unemployment and how much the high level of unemployment is due to cyclical factors and how much is due to structural factors. one thing we have not talked about is when i say there is no quick or easy solution, there actually is. 45% economic growth will generate a lot of jobs. -- 4 or 5% economic growth would generate a lot host: of jobs what will it take to do that? guest: that is the key in terms of the type of recession we have
had in terms of coming off a financial crisis. studies have shown that it takes a long time to recover from that particular type of event. we still have banks that are very picky about loans. we have a housing problem, still, although we have below 4% mortgage rates, people cannot refinance because their homes are under water. tof this economy is going continue to grow about 2% or so, that is not fast enough to generate jobs at a pace that will significantly reduce the unemployment rate. to the extent that this is
really a cyclical problem, simply, that can be addressed by additional policy stimulus, then i think we need to look at additional stimulus. the fed has done basically all it can do at this point and that leaves the stimulus to come from congress at a time when there is deep division over spending the money to stimulate the economy which is coming at a time when there is no stimulus beginning to come out of the economy while the economy is still fragile. i think this is really part of the problem that the caller from ohio is facing. we have a salary of economy and it will take a while to get moving again.
caller: i am a 99er. i have not worked for 120 months. why has barack obama neglected the 99ers? is there any way they might include a package in the unemployment extension if it ever gets brought up in the congress? what ever happened to - barbara lee proposed he 2029. guest: the extended unemployed benefit programs is part of -- was part of the overall obama
plan -- obama jobs bill. that -- is pretty evident that bill not go anywhere as a whole but the extension of unemployment benefits is one of the pieces that is up for discussion right now. the question is how congress wants to pay for it. coming at a time when the expiration of benefits by february, there will be 2 million people coming off the unemployment benefit rolls. that will be less money coming into the economy, less money to be spent, and part of the fiscal drag that i was talking about. the question is how congress or
will congress decide how to pay for it. host: one of the numbers we have for the like -- from the labor department said of those who have been unemployed for a year or more, only one in 10 will return to work. the caller we just talked to falls into that category. what happens to the other nine it? it cannot find work, where did they go? what do they do? guest: in terms of labor department statistics, they either remained officially unemployed or they become marginally attached to the labor force in terms of wanting a job but not really actively seeking or they basically dropped out of the labor force. we have seen some staggering numbers on the labour force participation rate over the last three years. that is the rate, by the way, is
calculated as the number employed plus the number of officially unemployed seeking work/the adult population. this labor force participation rate has fallen at the fastest pace we have seen going back to the 1944 -- 1948 starting point of the data. the labor force participation rate in september is around the levels we have not seen since early 1980. to some extent, people are becoming so detached from the labour force because of an erosion of skills, because they have been -- become unemployable and they don't have the skills that employers want so they are dropping out of the labor force. host: let's go back to the telethon, austin, texas, go ahead.
caller: i would like to say a couple of things. host: how long have you been unemployed? caller: between 6-12 month period, really eight months. host: what were you doing before you lost your job? caller: this is part of the discussion about the jobs bill that just passed. a lot of the things that people were declining, a lot of people from small business, part of it was raising taxes on people make certain dollar amount. this hurts small business. i used to be one of those people who work for the small business and i worked for someone whose office was out of their home. i was working for these people and their lifestyle was very lavish. there were daily deliveries from ups that the wife would make from different places and they
had a finishedbuild in the garage. i don't begrudge people of that but when you hear people say that we are struggling, small businesses are struggling, to, that is not really very true. they did not change their lifestyle at all. they just sort of laid off people. host: do you have a question? caller: it goes to the anniversary of the memorial for martin luther king. with barack obama being in the black community, i would like for someone to start doing some investigation into the department of labour. it seems i have a bachelor's degree in this administration and i have not been hired, i have not even got an interview. i wonder if this has something to do with my rights.
host: will leave it there. anything to indicate this is a racial problem? it sounds like in some of these cases people may be overqualified for positions that might be applying for. guest: i think that is a difficult conclusion to make. when the stunning numbers is black teenage unemployment. i think that is more a function of the problems within the general economy and the problems with long-term unemployment. one of the things i worry about with long-term employment is that there is not only the social cost we have talked about that there is also an economic cost and social cost. if you look at the average age
of the occupied wall st. group, one of the many things that they appear to be protesting is basically their own employment future, i believe. these are people, many of the people are fresh out of school, they are in those high unemployment groups that i was mentioning a while ago. i agree that there is a potential of social cost addition to the economic cost of long-term unemployment. host: the lead in this morning's "washington post " --- how much are the veterans adding to this problem of being able to try to find jobs for long term,
short-term, extra in long-term unemployment? guest: i have no data to back up anything on that but i know this is a high-tech modern army. many of the guys and women coming back understand the use of technology, software development, and also health care. that is a growing area here. there are reports of soldiers coming back -- the reports of skills of soldiers coming back that are in demand now. you will see a mix of skills coming back but they are not just adding to the problem. some of the folks will be helping companies. host: back to the phones, cleveland, ohio.
are you employed? caller: yes, i am. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i machine repairmen. host: go ahead. caller: it has recently been announced that my job is going to canada and poland and in tennessee. that is the problem with our economy today. our jobs early in the country. buddy romer, a republican running for president, gave a speech and he said that tariffs are the only answer to bring our host: jobs: james cooper, what do you think? guest: i think would be careful in that direction.
if you go back to the 1930's, there was the infamous program called the smooth holly tariff act which some say made the great depression great. think we want to get bigger never policies when the united states needs to export -- develop more manufacturing geared toward exports. this is a growth area for the economy. people look at how much we are importing from china. we are exporting rapidly to china and other emerging markets. the emerging markets make up about half of our total exports of right now. think i would want to go in that direction. the senate recently is taking up the shumer bill about tariffs
on chinese imports. i really don't believe that will go anywhere although it is may be a symbolic victory for people who are concerned in this area. i don't think we want to restrict trade right now. i think we want to do more of the things that we had done or just accomplished with the trade agreements with korea and two other nations that will likely boost exports very much. that said, there is no question that the u.s. is losing jobs abroad. there is no question about it. manufacturing in the u.s. of the past 10 years output has increased dramatically. the u.s. payrolls of manufacturing has shrunk to thematically but that means that
u.s. manufacturers are becoming much more productive but they are using foreign labor. this is one of the key structural changes that we are looking at in the economy now. many people who had worked in manufacturing doing basic manufacturing jobs are looking at a different economy now in terms of where the growth in the economy is. it is those kind of areas that we will need education in order to contribute to today's economy. host: forms from justice sends us this tweet -- guest: raleigh, north carolina, how long have you been out of
work? caller: 2009. host: your prospects for getting a new job? caller: i applied about 500 places since i am unemployed. and i only had two interviews. perhaps i am unusual. i am informed position with no license to practice in the united states. -- i am a foreign physician. 52 and myto be language skills. i was born in europe and i came here when i was 30 years old. this is when i learned english. otherwise, i work in the health- care industry most of my life. i am not sure that my skills are
going to erode or improve in any way. many people are out of jobs and the people of manufacturing degrees have an easier time to find a job. host: james cooper, your your thoughts on this college prospects? this man was 52 years old. guest: an interesting statistic from the labor department's says the labor force participation rate has fallen dramatically. the only area has not fallen and has remained high, is in the 55 and above age bracket. -- in that age bracket. people are staying in the labour market longer at that age.
i don't think it is any coincidence that these are the most highly skilled, the most experienced, and also people who maybe have seen there for a one diminished over the past three or four years. they're there for putting those skills to work and remaining in labor force. in terms of the callers situation -- i believe that a strong economy lifts all boats. one of the situations we need is i think a stronger economy. people like to -- people easily find work in a stronger economy. host: rochelle in brooklyn, new york, you are on the air. caller: good morning, mr.
cooper. i have called cspan several times in the last two years. i'm calling to offer some ideas. i heard some callers earlier referring to how this program would be paid for, the jobs program, that includes the extension of the aum one about this. of work to do in this country as president obama has said many times. bridges, roads, teachers, firefighters need to stay on the job. there is lots of expertise out there, trained, skilled people, who can come into communities and start a british ship programs and make easier to teach without needing to grieve because people have the expertise and skills and they don't have degrees but they can come into communities and start to train young people, middle- aged adults like myself.
i have done -- i have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks. we keep getting shuffled around in congress. they go on vacations and we try to figure how to put food on the table. it is getting ridiculous. there is lots of things that can be done and it could be included in the obama jobs built to incentivize people without degrees and make it easier for them to teach within the community especially in a city where we are hurting the most. host: james cooper, your response? guest: i agree with the caller. there are many things that congress could do in terms of providing stimulus for the economy and boosting demand for goods and services. he mentioned infrastructure. infrastructure spending is what part of the $447 billion jobs
bill. there were other stimulus provisions in that bill. i think the only potential problem with the infrastructure spending is that it takes a long time to get those kind of programs going. the impact on income growth and spending is not immediate. i agree, there are many things that congress can do. the question is simply coming down to economics triumphing over philosophy. host: our last call for james cooper, from colorado city, colorado. caller: good morning. [unintelligible]
appropriate influence of government but in terms of what is needed in the economy right now, these of the web is the -- what is needed for -- we have to look at both situations. we need stimulus now to boost the economy and boost demand and we need fiscal stability in the future. these are not mutually exclusive in the same budget package. host: we have been talking with james cooper, columnist and contributor to "the fiscal *." you can go to their website, the fiscal times.com. thank you for being with us. >> can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00. air force one has just landed at asheville regional airport. the president is about to make remarks on his $447 billion jobs
program and the economy. who will speak to a crowd of teachers and first responders gathered here in asheville, north carolina. the white house is reportedly working with congressional leaders to break up the president's job program in two different pieces that would be considered individually. that is what the president will address during his remarks today. also during the three-day bus tour with sites from here all the way up to virginia. we are a couple of minutes away from remarks from president obama. this is live coverage on c-span.
asheville, north carolina. [cheers] i love aasheville. i think i should be on the tourism promotion bureau of asheville. [applause] every time i made somebody, i ask if they have gone down to asheville. that is a nice place to be. [applause] it is wonderful to be back in one of my favorite parts of the country. our family has great memories of staying here and it is always nice to get out of washington. and read some of that mountain air. [cheers] i want to recognize a couple of people who are here. first of all, one of the
outstanding senators in the united states senate, your senator, kay hagan is in the house. [applause] his daughter just got married this weekend so congratulations. we are so thrilled by that. we also have your lovely and intelligent matter of asheville. [applause] last time i was here, terry said she could play basketball it turned out she was a cheerleader and not a basketball player. [laughter] but she is doing an outstanding job overall as mayor. thank you both for coming. as you may have noticed, i came here on a plane.
it is a pretty nice plain. [laughter] i'm leaving on a bus. [applause] the boss is pretty hard to mess. for the next few days we will take his bus through north carolina and virginia and will get a chance to hear from folks about how they are doing, what direction they want to take the country and. i will be doing a little bit of talk in a mostly i will do a whole lot of listening. there does not seem to be much listening going on in washington these days. [applause] people don't seem to be paying much attention to the folks who sent them there in the first place. [applause] that is a shame. because want to escape the partisanship and a political point of discord in washington and want to start listening to the american people, it is pretty clear what our country
and your leaders should be spending their time on. [jobs] >> we should be talking about jobs. when you hear what is going on around the country, when you take the time to listen, you understand that many folks are hurting out there. to many people are looking for work, too many families are looking for that sense of security that has been slipping away for the past decade now. in north carolina, you have thousands of construction workers lost their jobs when the housing bubble burst. some of those construction workers are here today. they've got experience. they've got skills, all i wanted to be back on the job site doing what they do best. [applause]
and there is plenty of work to go around. in this airport, right here in asheville, you have a run like that needs to be widened and repaired. area that istaxi in the wrong spot which means the planes sometimes get too close together. we could be doing some work right here at the edge fell airport that would help boost tourism, helped to boost the economy here, put people to work right now. [applause] it is not just here in asheville, all across the state, you got highways that need to be built, you've got bridges that need to be fixed, you've got schools that need to be modernized [applause] and that's what american used to do best. wiest to build things. we built the transcontinental railroad, the golden gate
bridge, the hoover dam, the grand central station -- there is no reason why we should see here and watch the best highways and then was airports being built in china. we should be building them right here in the united states of america. [applause] right here in north carolina. [applause] now, our problems were a long time in the making. we will not solve them overnight but there are things we can do right now to put people back to work, right now. there are things we should do right now to give the economy the jolt that it needs. that's where i sent to congress the american jobs act. [applause] keep in mind, asheville, this is the kind of bill containing the kinds of proposals that in the
past sought support from democrats and republicans. it is completely paid for by asking our wealthiest citizens, folks making more than $1 million per year, to pay their fair share. [cheers and applause] independent economists, not mine but independent economists have said this jobs bill would create nearly 2 million jobs. that is not my opinion. it is not the opinion of folks who work for me. it is the opinion of people will evaluate these kind of things for a living. it says this bill will help put people back to work and give our economy a boost right away. apparently, none of this matters to the republicans in the senate because last week they
got together to block this bill. they. no to putting teachers and construction workers back on the job, they said no to rebuilding our bridges and airports and they said no to cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses when all they have been doing is cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans. they said no to helping veterans find jobs. essentially, they said no to you because it turns out that one poll found that 63% of americans support the ideas in this jobs bill. [applause] 63% of americans support the jobs bill that i put forward, 100% republicans in the senate voted against it. that does not make any sense, does it? now, it does not.
it turns out that a republican has a plan. i want to be fair. they put forth this plan last week and call the the real american jobs act. the real one is so let's take a look at what the republicans american jobs act looks like. the republican plan boils down to a few basic ideas. they want to gut regulation. they want to let wall street do whatever it wants. they want to repeal health care reform. [boos] that's their jobs plan. as to a comparison. the republican plan said was been standing in the way our laws to keep companies from
polluting as much as they want. our plan puts teachers, construction workers, and police officers back on the job. [cheers] their plan says they probably -- we help to get 30 million americans health insurance. our plan says we're better off if every small business and worker gets a tax cut, and that is what is in my jobs bill. [cheers] their plan says we should go back to the good old days before the financial crisis when wall street was writing their own rules. our plan says we need to make it easier for small businesses to
grow and higher and pushed this economy forward -- to grow and hire. you have a sense of our plans. my plan says we will put teachers back in the classroom, rebuilding our schools, tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your work for a raise. that's my plan. then you have their plan, which is led senate dirtier air -- which says let's have the rear air and dirtier water. so far i feel better about my plan. but, but let's admit i ameloblasts -- i am a little
biased. independent economists said our plan would create almost 2 million jobs and grow the economy by almost 2%. one of those economist took a look at the republican plan, and they said this will not do much to help the economy in the short term and it could cost us jobs. we could lose jobs with their plan. so i'll let you decide which plan is the real american jobs act. [cheers and applause] look -- >> four more years. >> i appreciate that, but right now i'm thinking about the next 13 months, because we have
an election coming up, but that election is a long ways away and some folks cannot wait. a lot of folks are living paycheck to paycheck, week to week. you have kids who lost to teachers because at the local level you have had layoffs. you have bridges right now that are crumbling and interior -- and deteriorating. we don't have time to wait. we have a choice right now. right now. >> right now. >> look, i want to work on republicans on ways to create jobs right now. and where they have a decent idea, i am happy to work with them. last week we passed a bipartisan trade agreement with korea that allows us to sell more goods overseas and supports almost 70,000 jobs here at home. i want them buying some of
ford's, and crisis, and chevy is -- fords, chryslers, and chevys. if they are serious secreting jobs, i am ready to go. i will go out of my way to try to find areas of cooperation with these republicans. some of you have been mad at me for trying to are to cooperate with them, haven't you? [cheers] some of you, i get some of your letters and e-mails and there, why are you cooperating with them all the time? because they cannot be all about politics. sometimes we have to try to get something done. and so i'm eager to see them stand up with a serious approach to put people back to work.
we should focus less on satisfying some wing of the party and more on common-sense ideas to put people to work right now and help the middle class and help people get into the middle class. there are a bunch of folks that are hurting out there that never had the opportunity. so, we're going to give members of congress another chance to step up to the plate and do the right thing. we have decided to let them do the right thing one more time. we're going to give them another chance to do their job by looking after your jobs. [cheers] so, this week i'm asking members of congress to vote -- we're going to break up my jobs bill. maybe they cannot understand the whole thing a lot once. we're going to break into bite- size pieces so they can take a thoughtful approach to this
legislation. this week i will ask members of congress to vote on one component of the plan, whether we should put hundreds of thousands of teachers back into the classroom and firefighters back to work. [applause] [cheers] so members of congress will have a chance to decide, what kind of future to our kids deserve? should we stand up for a man and woman who are often digging into their own pockets to buy school supplies? the education of our children will determine our future as a nation. they will have a chance to decide, do we want to make sure we are looking after the man and woman who protect our communities every day, our firefighters, police officers, first responders? and after they take that vote, we will give members of congress a chance to vote on whether we will put construction workers
back to work. should they be just sitting around a while roads and bridges fall apart, or should we put them back to work? [cheers] [applause] after that, we'll give them a chance to decide whether unemployed americans should continue to struggle or whether wish to give them the support they need to get back into the workforce and build a better life. we'll ask them to take a stand on whether we should have people like me pay a lot more so middle class families can pay less and end up creating the kind of jobs we need in this economy. [applause] so, those are the choices members of congress will face in the coming weeks. if they vote against these proposals again -- maybe they did not understand the whole thing. if they vote against taking
steps that we know will put americans back to work right now, right now -- >> right now. >> they are going to have to answer to you. they have to come down to north carolina and tell kids why they cannot have their teachers back. they have to come down to north carolina and look those construction workers in the eye and tell why they cannot get to work. there will have to explain it to working families why their taxes are going up while the richest americans keep getting sweet deals in the tax code. they have to explain why they did not have an answer for how we're putting americans to work right now. [cheers] >> right now. [applause] >> and if they support the
republican plan, they'll have to explain to you why they would rather deny health care to millions of americans and let corporations and banks right to own rules that we know will create jobs right now. so that's where all of you come in. some of these folks are not getting the message. i need you to send them a message. you need to make your voice is heard. you need to give congress a piece of your mind. these members of congress work for you. if they're not delivering, it is time to let them know. time to get on the phone and write a letter, tweet, pay a visit, tell your elected leader to do the right thing. i remind them what is at stake. putting people back to work. restoring economic security and helping create a ladder for
folks who are not in a middle class to get into the middle class. responsibility is rewarded. building and a comic that last for the future and for our trojan. if -- building an economy that lasts for the future. if we want to best airports and bridges and to continue to invest in basic science and research so we can continue to invest in new drugs and make sure the new course of the future are made right here in north carolina and in america. we have to step up and get to work. we have to get busy right now. [cheers] too many folks are hurting to do nothing. we need to act right now. we're not a people that sit by and do nothing when things are not right.
we are americans. if something is not working, we got an fix . it that is the spirit we need to muster right now. let's get to work. let's show the world what the united states is the greatest country on earth. god bless you. thank you, asheville. thank you, north carolina. ["hail to the chief" plays]
the president will make a stop in a high school millers creek and onto greensboro, north carolina. the tour expected to go to eric cantor's destroyed in virginia. we have live coverage online at c-span.org at 5:00 p.m. eastern. john sununu takes part in a forum on foreign policy that will take place at the woodrow wilson international center. live coverage begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> we should not shy away from or be afraid from -- this is a part of the events development of the computer world. >> the problem we face is to run a standards too quickly move data from one clout provided to
another. this capability is required for broad response will contingency planning -- to move quickly from one cloud provided to another. >> tonight, 8 eastern and c-span 2. >> the supreme court heard a case last week that pits of privacy rights against the strip search rights. albert flores was wrongfully arrested in 2005 for an on a fine. the court will take up the case sometime in june.
>> we ask this court to hold that -- this was the rule that was applied throughout the almost entire country after another ruling without any increase in smuggling. we're here because the essex ja il requires every arrestee to strip naked. >> you apply the rule to all orestes -- arrerstees? >> we do apply to all arrestee s. is a line drawn at major reverses a minor offenders. they do that because they think people who commit more serious crimes might be inclined to
greater criminality. our role is one of a reasonable suspicion. this class definition is only people who were arrested for only minor -- >> is this test net more easily if the felon detained for a serious felony? >> there was a rule that was adopted by the bureau of prisons that says if you were arrested for more serious offense, there exist reasonable suspicion. our case by case rule applies with respect to minor offenders. that is the class -- >> how would this work with respect to individuals who have been arrested for -- let's say
someone has been arrested for assault. let's take a case of domestic violence. would that be enough to justify a search? >> i think -- i know you want me to answer the question. this is their rule. the respondents replied -- >> you say you do not want to draw that line. i'm asking whether the mere fact that someone has been arrested for violent offense would be in your judgment sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion? >> we think that illustrates the up by contras when someone is arrested for not paying a fine, there is no justification because the logic of their own policy is that this is a person inclined to violence at. >> i take it we're trying to
protect the dignity of the detainee. it seems you risk compromising that individual dignity if you say we up suspicion as to you -- you're just setting us up and 70 detainee up for a classification that may be questioned at the time and will be seen as an affront based on a person's race and know what here see shed to the office is coming in. it seems that your role in perils' individual dignity in a way that the blanket rule does not. >> i think it is an incredibly important issue. the respondents replied a reasonable suspicion standard. they do it strip everyone naked. they have prior reasonable suspicions.
to your concern that maybe we're in fighting discrimination or the parents of discrimination, their role is going to produce more of that problem than ours. >> all tamale it will be our role -- ultimately it will be our role. >> to do what? said the is stripped naked and it is different from a strip search. there are various things. showering in the presence of officers? >> showering in the presence of officers does not require reasonable suspicion. if you are in an area in which
you are being monitored by the officers, that's not a fourth amendment search that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> they can be inspected without their clothes. >> there are two different scenarios. one is a common room where everybody is standing around. a common shower area. this is different. you ask what is prohibitive in the absence of reasonable suspicions. standing 2 feet away -- >> i want to know what is permitted. >> anything other than a close inspection of the person looking at arm's length. what concerned this court is that when you are standing so close to the person inspecting their genitals, looking after
most private parts of their body, that is a direct intrusion. >> are you suggesting it three different levels? strip and naked -- stripping naked is ok to stand 5 feet away but not two? >> they have confronted an acknowledged that jails are places that require security. if you're observing a shower room -- >> are you taking the position that is the purpose of the search that is at issue? >> there is not a problem with the question of two, 3, four, or 5 feet. the officer stands directly in front of you. >> i am still unsure if it is ok to shower and have an officer watching showers naked.
is the greater interest that you're standing in two as opposed to 5 feet away? that is a line that doesn't make much sense to me. let's go to the next line. that is one kind of search. the second is what some have called a visual cavity search, whether you have the individual open or expose private parts. can you make an argument that that is different than just a visual search? >> you can. let me close my answer about the 5 ft. vs 10 feet. this is a reprise of the argument in the sanford case -- safford. they said they dressmaking in gym class.
what implicates a fourth amendment right and the distinction did make sense. there is a material difference, we think, although we think both should be covered by our rules. a visual body cavity inspection where you require somebody to bend over and cough, which is what the testimony is in this case. the second jail have a slightly different search protocol. he was required to bend over and cough and exposed his anus for inspection. this is regarded as a more significant intrusion. >> what would you propose is reasonable -- some states could adopt the protocol instead of what they have. you are asserting that the
fourth amendment prohibits them from adopting it. the obstacle i see is that at the time the fourth amendment was adopted, this was standard practice, to strip search people who were admitted to prisons. how could be deemed an unreasonable invasion of privacy? >> we did not believe that the premise is correct. our understanding of history is that the closest they can come to it is two things. people were strip searched upon arrest. in certain jails at the time of the founders, other inmates in a process with a ritual cleansing would strip search new inmates. >> that is somehow less of an intrusion, to be naked in front of all bunch of inmates rather
than one jail official? >> it wasn't the nearly uniform practice the your question assumes. pertainsbelieve that today, that prisoners can strip search newt arrestees -- new arrestees as they come in. under the terms, you have to establish an exaggerated response. this is more than is necessary to accomplish their goal. >> more intrusive than the one in bell which involved a pretrial detainees. >> we disagreed with that. we do not think there is a difference in the degree of intrusion. a big difference between this
case and belts is that the inmates made a voluntary choice. they decided to have the contact visit -- >> do we know of pretrial detainees in bell were also inspected on every -- >> we do not. i tried to check the record and there was no record of admissions search. >> there is a distinction between the simple strip search any visual body search. you said they apply reasonable suspicion standards to the visual body cavity search. is the visual body cavity search therefore off the table? >> no, it is not. >> but you would say that they have to have a reasonable suspicion before they could do
that? >> we say they should have on their written policy. the only evidence is that the burlington county intake officer fell about a form saying there is no reasonable suspicion here. in essex, i don't believe there was. >> so you see a distinction between what the do and the written policy. >> i do with respect to the - - essex after the search in this case change its policy. we were denied an injunction going forward. it is a question of damages for the surge that occurred at the time under the old policy. >> suppose a jurisdiction has
the policy of requiring every inmate who is arrested and is going to be held in custody to disrobe and take a shower and apply medication for the prevention of the spread of lice and is observed while this is taking place from some distance by a corrections officer, let's say 10 feet away. does that require reasonable suspicion? >> it does not. >> your only concern is searches deco further than that. >> that is exactly right -- your concern is searches that go further than that. >> i want to return to justice kennedy's concern -- >> is there a disputed facts as to whether anything beyond that occurred in burlington county? >> the gentle lift -- the gentle
lift -- the genital lift. there was a finding that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search. >> courage to -- we see admitted into the general population at burlington? >> the record is not exactly clear. he was kept for six days. he was kept in the cell with one other inmates or possibly two and he had lunch with other people. >> the prior charge against your client was -- involve the use of a deadly weapon. assuming the prison do this, wouldn't that provide reasonable suspicion? >> because of the breath of the
phrase, the record shows to possession of the deadly weapon was that he was pulled over at a traffic stop and he drove away. into yourgoing adversary's argument. investigate in that fine detail? they could not look at the rap sheet? >> the rap sheet does not contain that charge. we're fine with them looking at the rap sheet. the rap sheet says there was a single charge and he pleaded guilty and got a term of probation. there is nothing that the jail had any information suggesting he had some charge involving a deadly weapon. they felt there was no reasonable --
>> i thought it was rather common that it would take maybe 24 hours, 48 hours for the wiretap -- for the wire services and that he was wanted for questioning for some serious crimes in some other state. in my practice, county jails were much more dangerous than penitentiary's because you do not know who these people are. you arrest them for traffic and the could be a serial killer. you do not know. the jail did look him up in the new jersey criminal justice
information system. they are required to do that. every one of these jails has a computer access to that and they tiepin his identifying information. they were able to pull up without any difficulty. they filled out a form saying there is no reasonable suspicion here. our rule operates in a system in which the jailed does have enough information. if the jail has the facts, as it did here, to determine there is no reasonable suspicion, then it is an extraordinary intrusion on dignity to strip him naked women have no reason to do so. >> -- to strip naked when they have no reason to do so. >> they get about 70 people going through this process a day. mr. anything in the record about how much additional time it
would require to look at their records and determine which category they should fall into, to strip search or not? >> there is because they do this already. they apply our rule today. remember, when he arrived at the burlington county jail, they did an assessment of him and determined there was no reasonable suspicion. the jail to plot his prior criminal history. they applied our standard today. >> you have been acknowledged that when you have visitors, you may be stripped searched after the visit and the same kind of close examination that you object to hear. your explanation why that is okay is that that is voluntary, that you did not have to have visitors.
can you condition you're having visitors on your waiver of the fourth amendment rights? >> you have no right whatsoever to of contact visits. you can say, i relinquished my fourth amendment rights in exchange for this privilege. i have a second -- >> are you sure about that? you can condition certain privileges upon a waiver of constitutional privileges? >> i think that is a fair statement of law. the principal reason that the researchers were reasonable is that it was essential to deter smuggling. that has much more -- the inmates in the case was having a planned meeting with someone. the problem was if you plan to somebody visit you and you have
a contact visit, you can plan for them to sneak something to you. >> there were guards who were watching the visits. there was no empirical evidence that smuggling came about as a result of these visits. >> can i read see what the court said about that? this is from page 559 of the court's opinion. "there was one instance when there were trying to smuggle contraband. the opportunity arises and will have an unexpected arrest, the paper work was shown that he was not wanted for arrest and that will be true in all kinds of traffic stops and the lighke. >> imagine a case where someone
will be arrested and into the general prison population there is a warrant out against him for second degree murder, and a policeman stopped again for a traffic offense arrests him because he knows he is wanted on warrants in another place. we strip search you. can do that under your role or not? then you're not saying and always has to be reasonable suspicion. >> we think that is reasonable suspicion. >> that is not helping me. wells me is to know is the category of things. that the jail what to look into the characteristics of this individual person. when i look at the aba, they talk about minor arrests. when i look of some of the cases, there is a long list like
violence and drugs where you do not have to and you can just use the general fact he was arrested. there are minor ones where you do. what is your role on that? >> our role that we would accept -- >> then the next question, who is a minor offender and help you administer that rule? >> i think that is a great question for them. they have a rule that says for minor offenders, you have to have reasonable -- >> you keep talking about what is their role and we're trying to find out what the limits of the rule, and i think you qualified what you said. you said reasonable suspicion is the rule for everyone as the minor offenders. many seem to be saying that this case involves only minor offenders.
that is what i thought you were saying. >> that is right. we have articulated a rule with respect to minor -- >> i'm asking you and not them and it is the same question. how do you want us to write this so that jail personnel have to be able to follow it and know exactly what they are supposed to do. >> the roll articulated by the federal courts is one that says for minor offenses. it was done and it felt like verses misdemeanor line. the court exempted if you are suspected of a more serious --fense, then for a minist >> i can understand that for cavity searches, but why it to see if a person has any fleas or
any other chemical disease before he is put into the general population? are felons more likely to have them then non felons? >> no, they are not. >> that makes no sense. >> the testimony in this case establishes the jail guards allow any kind of medical rationale for the search to be conducted by medical personnel, not by the guards themselves. they may be examined by a nurse and they are responsible -- >> that is for the fourth amendment invasion of privacy line is to be drawn, if your examine close-up by someone who has a medical degree? it is ok? it is not ok if you don't have a medical degree? >> it can be aligned and it is
the line that has been expected for decades. >> you have to keep the person in custody until a medical personnel -- 24-hour medical personnel. >> be in state process -- >> you are saying that every county jail has medical personnel on duty 24 hours a day ready to do a search. >> i apologize. >> you said before two feet is too close but 5 feet is ok. are you sticking with that? >> i am saying a close inspection and whether it is two four feet --or >> prisoners inspected for head
lice are body lice, you don't need a doctor for that. >> medical professionals are the people assigned that responsibility. the last point i wanted to make -- >> that is not constitutionally required. >> i agree. >> they can inspect for body lice. that is okay. >> i think that that's ok. the courts have said that is not itself -- because of the problem of shampoo, that is not a sufficient justification to require the person to strip naked. this is the rule, not just in burlington and in essex. the bureau of immigration of
customs enforcement -- >> the government tells us that therue if you don't put arrested in the general population. >> that is not correct. for the marshals service and for ice, which see 600,000 people each year, they do not have that separate housing rule. >> u -- do you have an objection to the superseding policy? because they still have to stand naked under the correctional officer. this is burlington's policy. there will not search the person for contraband in the absence of reasonable suspicion. both jails at the time of this
search and also now will still require the person to strip naked, supposedly for contraband, even though their own policy says there will not engage in the depth of search that is required. will not look at the anus or enter the person's mouth. >> that is the current policy. and you have no problem with that? and with respect to the simple strip search, you're only objection is that the guard is to close to the inmate. >> that is right. >> ok. thank you. >> mr. phillips. >> i appreciate the clarification that your questions brought to this case. there is a bit of confusion i would like to clear up. movement left me
a little bit perplexed as to the exact nature of the claims. the first question it seems to me the court should focus on is the policy at issue. this deals with one set of issues and the plaintiffs' claims do with another set of issues. i think you after focus on the policies of the dissidents in 2005. that was when he was searched under the circumstances. the policy in burlington was primarily aimed at health and tattoos. the policy at essex was for contraband and secondarily at tattoos and health. you come into the prison and you give up your clothes, you take a shower, they examine you, and give you prison garb and move you on your way.
>> is that during the shower? that places a lot of significance on how close the examination is. under that policy, how close was the examination? >> about arm's length. the problem is if you're exchanging close with somebody, it is hard to be longer than arms left -- the promise if you are exchanging clothes with somebody, it is hard to be longer than arm's length. >> that is what they do in essex. essex does have the logic -- burlington is basically -- the district court said that is unconstitutional. observing and all is unco