cellulosic quite significantly. and continued to look at those technologies as they fit into different categories, i will put them in the right categories. >> in that area, promising the biogas to see that, the feed stock for that and the ability, the challenge that is very productive, exceeded its targets but the amount we produce of feedstock is the problem. you have to kill more hog than find more increase to go after that to get more of it. the same issue with biomass as well. is there a in the amount of feedstock out there? >> i don't know the answer to that. with many of these feedstocks, that is part of the analysis, how much is available, and is efficient and cost efficient to encourage. the market comes into play in a

significant way and continue to innovate. >> that was part of where we are. you go through the two reports, what is happening and the production levels, we won't see that in the foreseeable future unless there is a significant change in advanced. is that correct? >> the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain in terms of conventional biofuels. in large part because most of the conventional biofuel production was already in place before the requirement to have a 40% reduction so we don't know how much reduction there is. it depends what technology you are using and that hasn't been

measured. for the small proportion that are subject to that 20% reduction, there is still a little bit of debate about how much reduction there is with conventional ethanol because some people think epa's model has not effectively taken into account indirect land use and facts on carbon emissions, but that aside if you assume that part has 20% and the advanced biofuels in the market are 50 or present or more, there has been a modest reduction in greenhouse gas emission but it will only grow significantly with growth of advanced biofuels. >> one of the issues about land use, the original design was to make sure grasslands did not

suddenly have corn but have expansion. are you confident that right now do not have things that used to be grasslands being used for corn based on ethanol requirement? if so how are you monitoring and ensuring that? >> that is something we look at every year for every pool and we work with our fellow federal agencies to make sure we have the best information possible on that and that was the expectation and each rule, we provide our analysis and information how we come to our conclusion that that is not happening. >> if i remember correctly, 8 million additional acres of corn, your confidence is acres that were planted with weeds or soybean or something else, not originally grasslands. >> i would like the opportunity to get to you want specifics on what our analysis shows and the

reason for our conclusions. >> that would be terrific. one thing i heard over and over again was one of the reasons we are not seeing a gain in ethanol is the price of gasoline is too cheap. of gasoline was $5 a gallon, there would not necessarily be more incentive but the cost of ethanol would be closer in price meaning the more we put the ethanol into gasoline now with a lower price, we are paying more per gallon for gallon of gas with the ethanol blend then if it was 100% gasoline and typical on that. have you run any small number of cost and to get that change every day with multiple, based on fringe prices and price of crude oil and ethanol coming from, any opportunity to look at snapshots of different days with

the differences in price based on ethanol. >> we have not done that in the course of this work, we did have an opportunity to look at ethanol and gasoline prices and ethanol use. most of this didn't make it into a report, but it wasn't really our objective and as we look at it, the strong correlation with the use of ethanol, when it was below the blend wall, you see when ethanol prices were below gasoline prices, see that the market would work, people were seeking the lowest cost fuel, but when you are at the blend,

10%, the ability to blend less, the price of ethanol higher than gasoline, there you would see if there is fluctuation, you would see differences in the price of the final fuel. >> cbo did a study in 2014, the most recent one i could find and i asked around to identify a powerful issue when you deal with the cost of fuel per day and what that is, the most recent was the cbo study in 2014, they looked at the program and 3 alternative scenarios and total renewable fuel mandates, corn ethanol, and was previously proposed at lower levels and the third option was repealed at

best. the study evaluating the impact of three options and according to the cbo rfs was repealed or if it's future mandates were kept at previously proposed 2014 levels corn-based ethanol production would remain at 13 billion gallons but still stay high and american consumers would have lower gas prices lose the numbers behind that, with the mandates and pulling the mandates away if they removed the mandate they could reduce the price 26 and a gallon, this is a study that was done in 2014 and diesel it would be reduced as much of $.51 a gallon that was a snapshot the challenge we have is trying to determine where we are greenhouse gas emissions and price to consumers. dropping that to a time. if we have a time a gallon more

in cost per gallon for every gallon with the mandate, the study they did, even if you repeal the rfs, at that time they estimate we would still use 13 billion gallons, tells me it is in the market. it is still out there, it is going to be used, not as if the mandate is pulled away, suddenly no one will use ethanol. a lot of people like using ethanol. it is a good fuel source and especially good source for octane use. especially in easier produce areas like corn-based ethanol. my question goes back to raising prices and not hitting the totals we need for greenhouse gas emissions and if we remove the mandate will still use it anyway. what am i here? why is the mandate so important? >> there will be a lot of

ethanol, octane boost, there is another missing things that might happen but makes a lot of other changes and the automakers make high compression fuel 30% ethanol and great fuel economy but that, again, no market for that. a lot of possibilities to use ethanol, not clear how much would be used. >> >> my folks in oklahoma cannot drive their chevy pickup, not a good fuel option for that, that is another challenge. why the mandate you why is the mandate essential if it is a good fuel and it is out there and we know it raises costs, why

maintain the mandate? >> i also can't answer on behalf of congress but my understanding of what congress was trying to do was bring advanced cellulosic fuels into the marketplace but they were not already there like ethanol. they needed the push, the mandate, subsidy that the rfs provided to readily available petroleum fuels and that fit the goals of energy security and lower greenhouse gases and congress chose to use a mandate approach. >> i would say looking back on its we 10 years later we have seen great progress in corn-based ethanol, we have seen some progress in cellulosic and some in the advanced and obvious progress in biodiesel programs but if the tax return cents a gallon for every gallon of

gasoline i am not sure most consumers, worth the cost. that is a pretty high cost to pay especially those who live in poverty with little income. i would challenge congress to look again at ethanol as a mandate and evaluate is there a better way to accomplish the same thing to incentivize fuel without punishing the consumer so much every single gallon of gas. i don't want to hug your time. >> mister chairman, i inc. we should always have a willingness to think about and reopen and explore new ideas on how to get to these things. i do dispute somewhat the notion that the value the mandate has had is those expressed in the

statute itself which is greenhouse gas which is looking at energy independence. a variety of fuel sources especially in transportation fuels up to this point there hasn't been the diverse city. we have seen more electric cars, more compressed natural gas, natural gas prices, increased vehicles especially locomotives, big project converting natural gas when we saw the differential between natural gas prices and oil prices and diesel prices, i think one of the problems we have in this country as we make decisions based on too short of a frame of history. i think that it was congress's judgment that incentivizing and providing a market for biofuels was essential for our long-term economic well-being both in

terms of transportation fuels but as i said in the past in terms of developing technology which really can be extraordinary as we go to the next generation of advanced manufacturing as it relates to agricultural products, fiber and food and go into using this as a base for growth long-term. in advanced manufacturing and value-added manufacturing and agriculture. so i get what you are saying and to have a broader discussion but i also think we haven't had time in the disruption we had, looking at this end the marketplace and fluctuations in oil prices to see this experiment and to see this whole system from a big picture. mile high beneficial value.

i don't disagree with you, mister chairman, if in fact we could agree on the number, cost to consumer is something we need to take seriously. because it is an aggregate, very high, but what is the benefit to the economy long-term and not just in a 5 or 6 year window but 20, 30, 40 year window? i have to get on my high horse. we are familiar with a facility called great planes natural gas, served on the board of directors, the 1970s project that was done in response to the oil embargo, what is our fuel that is abundant in this country and we saw a lot of fuel, we are in a natural gas shortage. we went about that and eventually the consortium that made the investment about out

because we deregulated natural gas and natural gas prices, we found there was too much natural gas in the market. and reflecting markets conditions, looked at byproducts, part of the co2 discussion with co2 injection which we have a facility that created huge economy, and lead to co2 reduction as it relates to the global economy blues how long did that take you to the facility went online in 84 and here we are 30 years later having a meaningful discussion about the value of that

facility. there is a real impulse in this country to look so shortsighted in terms of the time period and these technologies can be extraordinarily important, and there is an incentive beyond transportation fuels that need to be considered. we have to go with the statute we have which identifies what those goals are and we will continue to have that discussion but we have to have the statutes being enforced the way the statute was intended to evaluate economic success. this won't be the first time the chairman and i have disagreed about this subject and it won't be the last which and the issues raised by the chairman are issues we need to stand ready to defend the statute in the future. i am concerned about the reset

button. more uncertainty into the market. the early market disruption as we look for investment him and that is the sweet spot in all this and don't want to encumber the development of those technologies too quickly. mister chairman. >> that is your story and you are sticking to it. >> you got it. >> that the part of energy gave $500 million grant to a cellulosic facility in kansas that shell bought for $28 million recently because it didn't prove to be viable long-term and $20 million and something else in the future that may be liable and i hope they do. >> i suggest if you look at the history of great plains it is exactly that, guarantees that

through negotiations, the federal government, i would maintain that facility has enormous r&d benefit to our country. >> give us a guess, cellulosic, the multiple generations to be able -- all of this as you talk to people in the industry and science folks, give us a guess about viable ability of cellulosic and do you think it could reach any of the target numbers by 2022? >> i can't guess how many years. >> that is what we do, we are in congress, we guess. >> it would take three to four, even five years to build a second generation plant and they think they might achieve some -- might be able to achieve

second-generation plant. maybe 25% efficiencies but they did to achieve 100% efficiency, close to that and each generation, and going four or five generations even if they get that low, they see the next generation might get them 25% lower in cost and cut costs by more than that and if they see this when it is three, four, five years out, and got to figure out how to operate that and another one after that so not by 2022. >> let's talk about the authority the administration would have, 2022 and beyond for

the reset. how broad are the authorities to reset the numbers for the epa? >> the statute gives guidance to the agency. i thought you might ask. it is broad. it says if those triggers are set, agency needs to look at recalculating the numbers through 2022 for whatever category is being reset and a series of actors the agency is supposed to consider. >> they reconsider all three categories. you talk about they can reset the total amount in the individual category were to all of the above. >> right. whatever categories have been triggered get the agency moving forward. our thought is it is better to

do that all at once judge we would undertake rulemaking and background work to look at all those factors to put forward proposal, the experience of the program to date going forward. just so many factors and we don't know what will happen with oil prices in the future and a variety of other things so we would have a public process to do that. >> a couple quick questions. one of the main goals of the rf is was to get us off of imported energy sources. what percentage of rfs volume uses any imported source, brazilian sugar cane or outside the united states feedstock source? >> i don't have a precise number

but i can get you a number, it is small. >> there are some things that are sources being permitted right now. >> the statute doesn't this thing was between imported and domestic and it varies a lot depending on different factors that have nothing to do with domestic policy. >> you mentioned the obligated parties. help us understand the decision for the denial at this point and to deny this, help us understand what brought you to that point. both sides expressed to you. the independent refiners that i know of told me point blank the second most expensive part of the operation are rents. it is crude oil and after that the energy for their facility

and personnel, healthcare and the most expensive thing they have is paper that doesn't really exist anywhere except in the world of government. help us understand the process you went through to make the decision. >> let me talk about the process first. when we get petitions it is up to the agency to grant or deny them. we are not required to go through a proposal process to do that. in this case we felt it was important for one reason because people across the board asked for a public forum to put information forward to have the conversation. also because we felt it was an opportunity for us to put forward our best thinking at this moment for the information we received and as you acknowledged, people are in different places, not only clear

but vehement and i sat in many meetings, my staff have gone to some of these facilities and had many conversations where people come in with the same data and say one thing to us one day and another group will look at the same data and say the opposite to us so we are trying to sort this through. one of the questions i was getting from people as we were having this meeting, tell me what you think of what you are seeing. we thought it was fair to do that and put our thinking out in a proposal. rather than just say open it up, we don't know if we will grant it but give us your thoughts. we thought it would be a more meaningful opportunity for input, to understand our thinking and try to lay it out very clearly, our analysis of objections and the points people were making to us am a nobody is

denying there is a significant cost for businesses that buy them but there's a complicated interplay whether the value of the rent is covered through the products they sell and a wide range. >> path off to the consumer. >> or maybe not. i think it bears a lot of discussion by people who are much smarter about the economics of this than i am. i am not an expert on this but there is a range of views whether the consumer sees these costs passed back and forth among regulated industries. so people have different views on this and wanted to lay that out. they are getting lots of input. >> i'm all for the process. it is a company difficult issue and exceptionally skeptical that any industry could have $200

million cost for small manufacturer or small refiner and that would not be passed on to the consumer in some way. the second-highest cost of the businesses and item you don't swallow that under the folks don't swallow that and the consumer doesn't hear it and it is part of the $.10 increase we see in cost sitting out there if we can agree on a simple number because the ongoing cost has to go somewhere. i am not arguing one way or the other. what i hear from people is tell us how to process, it is better, i have integrated retail folks that have as part of their business model they produce and sell as part of the business model and it is helpful to them as a company and other groups that are refiners struggling exceptionally. i get that part of the business,

the consistency in trying to guess how to predict price and as you know it is hard to predict the price and when it is a large part of your business it is -- everyone wants to know how to plan for next year and it is hard to do that. >> we made a clear point that if you are looking for certainty in the system changing the point of obligation now will undermine that, it will take multiple years to get that fixed, people will be arguing how to do it so that is a consideration. >> so much simpler to get away with the mandate entirely. >> i want to make a point about transparency in the market. eta has long recognized potential for fraud and the concern about lack of transparency and volatility, you have limited quality assurance

program, don't think we should leave the subject without acknowledging that or getting some feedback from you on whether that quality assurance works, but working with cftc on a memorandum of understanding related to transparency and oversight. i don't know that we need to comment given the short time but i want to acknowledge the work you are doing outside this debate, who has the obligation to make the program more transparent, try to work cooperatively with the cftc to guarantee minimization of speculation. >> we are looking at those opportunities every day, more transparency. >> only thing worse than rim is a fake rim. last question, you and i when we spoke about the process of

dealing with the requirements for those own, at the same time you are dealing our fs we talked about the conflict between the two. help me on where that conversation is going. as you produce more ethanol, more ozone in those areas of the production part of it at the same time we are dealing with reducing ozone nationwide as well. >> back in 2010, when we did our analysis and put the rule in place, we didn't know there were places and times where ozone air quality could be increased. it is not uniform or across the board or places where the ozone standard is not met already. those are complicating factors. i think we are where we were last time, states and cities are

working to meet the ozone standard. most of those areas that are open areas are large metropolitan areas, so contributors to ozone are overwhelmingly motor vehicles generally, industry power plants and large energy. i am not denying we found there could be increases in ozone as a result of ethanol. >> i did notice as well, others had very different -- a number for what is the 0, quite a bit higher than what you estimated. around 200 million. >> an order of magnitude. that is the discrepancy that gets people talking to one another which we did and we are looking at different points in

the process so we are looking at retail level, their numbers were reflecting a point higher up in the supply discrepancy between the two agencies. >> the higher number is used in the united states or the lower number? >> we were looking at what was used in retail, what the perspective to be needed at retail in terms of people buying as opposed to e0 somewhere else in the supply chain or later. does that make sense? >> it does make sense. any final comments that we did not cover? the report is very thorough. i appreciate that and in the days ahead hopefully we can get something, numbers and costs, that is one of the areas missing still, tried to figure out what

does it cost the consumer. we have estimates but industry has not been able to do an estimate, we have not been able to get independent estimate and we are guessing what that would be at this point based on numbers that are several years old so it would be extremely helpful for us to get a good snapshot even if it was literally grabbing one day a month for a year and snapshoting those days, with estimated costs would be with or without the mandate or ethanol because i would assume some days that it is less and depends on the price of oil at that time but i would assume many days it is more expensive especially with lower oil price right now than what we have so in the days ahead hopefully we can get that kind of stuff down. >> let me see if i have a formal closing statement. the conclusion of today's hearing, here's my formal statement, i would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. the record will remain open 15 days. with that this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we head hoped to bring you the is really defense minister at brookings institution at this time. we are unable to cover it live

because of a technical problem. we plan to show it to you at a later time on the c-span networks was house minority leader nancy pelosi takes questions from reporters at her weekly briefing, she answered questions about recent party leadership when she fended off a challenge from congressman tim ryan of ohio and efforts to fund the government passed december 9th when current stopgap spending bill expires. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. as you know on wednesday, my house democratic colleagues extended the honor to meet you for which i am honored and delighted and humble and grateful. my caucus has been energized by

members wanting to get to work and i'm pleased we are building consensus and new goals in leadership. a little late for finishing. working and participating. there is hard work ahead and reese forcefulness within our caucus. i know house democrats will meet the challenges at. that is why democrats are able to work with republicans for bold infrastructure bill to rebuild america and create good paying jobs. congressional republicans are more interested, with chairman price, the nightmare of

shattering the medicare guarantee, attacking generations of american seniors. 2005-2006 when president bush tried to privatize social security. republicans are threatening to got and privatize the da, deeply radical and destructive move, we heard from veterans writing off executive director, veterans of america said the worst case scenario in the community is total dismantling of everything that took generations to create. there is a growing fear that it will get burned down. the executive director of the american legion says veterans deserve to go to the va, we oppose privatization. veteran survey organizations already communicated their eagerness to work on both sides of the aisle to -- the

privatization scheme. we are pleased with the work that was done with the cures act, had a strong vote, made resources available for precision medicine, brain research and great pride by vice president biden's cancer moonshot. $1 billion in opioid treatment funds, we call for that funding for a while and got bills but haven't gotten money, improvements in mental health and substance issues, by this republican congress to meet its responsibility to fund these commitments in the years ahead. the way the bill was written, this coming year, the commitment for what comes next, we want that commitment to be a guarantee. i will take any questions you

have. >> what is moving ahead for the price of obamacare? in regular channels? is it ready at this point? >> the republicans have some suggestions, we would be open to having a conversation how to approve the affordable care act. it is important to note you can't say i am going to have no preexisting condition discrimination, or no lifetime limits but undermine the rest of the bill. what is their agenda? a mandated the republican idea. we are already -- democrats had been in power, to say what improvements can we make? we won't be party to the dismantling of the affordable care act.

the affordable care act is not only important to the 20 million people who have affordable care now who didn't have it before, access to care, it is important for 125 million people who have preexisting medical conditions which had barred them from care. it is also important to anyone who has a lifetime limits. if you have a condition you fall into that category too. a baby born with a condition, lifetime limits on the care of that child be disaster so it is important to note you can't treat the good things without keeping the big pool of people who contribute to it and make the country healthier. it is about the health of america as much as health care and health insurance.

again, it is not to dismantle. it is an existential threat, that would be a problem. things we could do working together, of course. be change similar to obamacare? >> hard to come up with a system. if we were starting from scratch saying there was no healthcare system in the country were just forming a new country you would end up with single-payer. and certainly have a public option. i think that would be a good place to go. that is not what it is. important to note this, 75% of people in this country have healthcare through their employer. 25%, 20 million of them are in the affordable care act. other people on medicare,

medicaid and medicaid, is an expansion of medicaid not everyone eligible for medicaid within the affordable care act has access they should have so let's take it this way, 75% under employer-based care, insurance. of those people they have all benefited from no preexisting conditions, no lifetime limit, your child can stay on policy until you're 26 years old, no longer being a woman is a preexisting medical condition. understand this is not just about the 20 million. it is about the vast majority of our country benefiting from that. whatever it is we do impacts all of those people in addition to the 20 million but if they come forward with something saying we are turning away the 20 million that is a fight in our country, many more people are benefiting

from it then might say they support it right now but when you ask them to you want it to be repealed, 20%. yes? [inaudible question] >> they keep the calendar but i don't know what will be finished. i just -- a conversation with the speaker, not positive of the issue in terms of the win but how things were going and the continuing resolution and when is that going to be ready? supposedly by monday, then it takes a few days to get on the calendar. are they an agreement as to how

that will work? that is x positive of when we leave and the issue you bring up and it could be, we could end next week but we are on alert it could go another week. you had a question. [inaudible question] >> that is right. that is very good. i had this conversation with the speaker an hour or two ago. the bill, almost all in agreement, our disagreement with they want, the republicans want to drop the by america provision from the word of the bill, that would be problematic for us. they have the votes so they can do what they wish but we have a very big concern about that and

that is part of it. we were supposed to have it resolved by now and i don't know if that has happened but that is a problem now. what i'm interested in, the whole bill is about jobs, is about flint and flint is -- will be -- an authorization in the word of the bill but we have to see what the language is. wanting to have an obligation and another to have the money and that is where we are interested in the juxtaposition between the word of the bill and the continuing resolution. i am very hopeful we can have a worded bill because it would be important for our country, one way or another to get the flint money and i feel confident he will keep his promise to us in that regard. it is a debate between the house and senate how things are paid

for and the rest. >> the next congress -- >> yes. [inaudible question] >> thank you for your question. we just had a very positive meeting with the bear caucus. wonderful coming to terms, sean patrick maloney, very open to each other's ideas. .. >> i'm very excited about the fact that we will elect three members of the policy committee. some were doing with chucked it,

checked did what we did last time. last time we created a position now expanding it to three. they're more members who will elected, a freshman to the leadership and a person pure them five terms. these are substantial places. it took me 15 years probably to get here and these people get their freshman year or couple of terms. i am liberated by a because more people want to take responsibility and in know what would they consider this lower-level, specially from their perspective in the congress. it's a big honor their invigoration is important to it on and as we go forward as we did in a five and oh six working very closely together as the opposition has a different role

than we've had in the last few years, our unity is very important we will be strategic, unified and unwaivable on wavering in our support of america's working families. that's what joins us together, everything else is part of who we are. but it unifies our values and those values are down there. >> there seven senate democrats -- to classify additional information what information. [inaudible] >> wait a minute you want to say that seven senators are calling for the reclassification of it anyone me me to tell you what that information is,. i appreciate your question, i

want to talk about this in this way, our new approach year of the policy committee and new members of congress are feature form traveled the country listening, millennial's, and, also a member of the intelligence committee, he is working with elijah cummings are champion and finding out the of what's going on in some of this, they are talking about calling for -- i want them to make their own announcement but to take us to a place where we find out through foreign government and i know that we did, what was the role in the former government and undermining our election. that would've been in necessary investigation even if hillary had one.

it's about with the interferences. we have witnessed, i know that it's the russians come i know because i paid for the investigation of our own hacking. i don't know that from any information, i note from our own investigation. two or three months later the highest level of confidence from our intelligence community said the russians hacked our committee. every day e-mails came out from the democratic side, frankly saying they couldn't be more aggressive coverage of the fact that a foreign government was hacking our committees, but but it was just something that was going on but the fact is something was also going on.

what's interesting is the fbi did not, he did not want to sign that consensus report because it was too close to the election but he had no trepidation or hesitation or call about putting forth a letter that it might be insignificant 12 days before the election, which others revealed was coming a couple of days before. that is why our distinguished chairman and the ranking member of elisha cummings has been asking for an inspector general report about that particular letter and the leaking of it in advance and how elisha cummings and falwell will be working for some call for us to investigate or whatever.

i'll let them make their own announcement because they're shaping it. i would not even be able to tell you what it is because they are doing it to uncover what is happening. it's about our democracy. part of the russian agendas to undermine democracy. not just just in our country but another countries as well. to hack, to alter, and to disclose. this is just not right. i think it shameful this is able to go on so evidently a foreign government undermining our democracy without more things being said about it at the time. so that will happen. >> the that's really up to the president and probably to see know this the president can declassify something by just saying it.

it's a mighty power actually. if the president president said something was highly classified information a mistake or something he would not be vulnerable because his saying it declassify's it. so i haven't seen the letter, i think there should be more information known to the american people whether that is by declassification, whatever, maybe that is the investigation that mr. coming wants to have. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible]pennsy >> we are joined by congressman matt kart wait, a democrat from pennsylvania. he is he is here to talk about house democrat legislative agenda in the next congress under president-elect

trump and efforts to increaseedo democrat support among blue-collar workers. thank thank you for joining us today. >> it is my pleasure. nice to be here. >> you won reelection for your third term with 54% of the vote. yet secretary hillary clinton lost your district with 44% to donald trump's 57's 57%. what you think happened? >> actually was a little closer. for the trump, the problem with my district is you have to goo through all of the precincts to see. i have one full county and five have counties in pennsylvania. it is is an endeavor to figure out how much trump one by. it turned out kimberly there is a .75 percent. so donald trump one my district by almost 9%, ii won by about 8%. that was a surprise.

i think it caught pollsters unaware a little bit. a lot of people came out to vote that really i don't think had voted since 2008. people who were energized anddo inspired by donald trump and came out to vote for him and maybe were not so much energized and enthused by met romney. the message is that romney was putting out was much different than those put up by mr. trump and it was also think a change election and those are hard to predict. the models that the pollsters use on who is gonna come out to vote, they'll go sideways and change elections and let's facey it it was really hard for hillary clinton to be a change candidate. as i have been saying locally,

she kind of had status quo noamped all over her pant suit. if people are hurting, life is is not going so great for them and they feel that maybe washington is working hard helping other people besides them, change has a big appeal. so one thing you wonder is are they racist? that came out question? a lot of what mr. trump said was pretty bad and it seemed like it appealed to bigoted people. i don't think so because another thing you need to know about mya district is that president obama won my district by 12 points in 2012. so i don't think so. there is always a little bit bit of truth in every bit of defamation, but my own senses people are in

pain, they are working two and three jobs and working harder to stay right where they are at. there is frustration with the economy. not enough manufacturing jobs around and so when somebody comes along and offers a futuren with going back to more - manufacturing jobs even thoughge he did not lay out specifics on how he will do it it is attractive and if you are hurting, change looks good. >> a democratic house leader nancy pelosi attacked you to be part of the folks that bring this message, she nominated you to fill a spot on house democratic policy and communication committee, the election for that will take place next month. according to morning call in announcing she was tapping new she says you and some other

people pelosi described the pennsylvania legislator someone who knows how to take the concerns of his constituents in working-class pennsylvania and translate them into a message that moves people. at 5555 he offers a fresh ideas to a leadership team in it 70s and criticized as stale. talk about that. >> it is always important to remember that the house democrats were not in charge of the presidential campaign. so while we do tend to go around beating and gnashing our teeth, the house democrats picked up members, i think we picked up a net of six-game seats. so on paper and in a vacuum that's a victory. and a victory, remember that happened in the face of headwinds. i think there was a trump wave, certainly to the heartland

democrats have not lost pennsylvania since 1988. it was a tough year for democrats but even in the house we picked up seats. i think i know how to talk to heartland voters. it's like anything else, you have to have credibility. they have to know you care abouy them and if you really do care about people it shows and i think it is true of me and true of all 194 democrats in the house that we really care about our constituents and remember, they all want, it's the ones that didn't win that we have to concentrate on. we have. we have to work on that message. it is tougher.

when you are a challenger for a district the voters don't know you that much and they are not sure whether you care about them.. there is a lot of work to be done, we need to get out and listen to these people and not just in our district. we won those districts. we need to get out and listen t the people in the districts that we did not win and hear aboutr their concerns. if you want to be able to talk to people in a way that resonates with them you have to listen to them. i can tell you if i have anything to say about we are going to be doing a lot of that listening in the heartland in the next couple of years. >> okay, we're talking to congressman matt cartwright of pennsylvania, democrat. allen is calling from brooklyn, new from brooklyn, new york on the democratic line. >> caller: even though it's unlikely the republican congress will do anything in your favorko this term i think democrats have

to start talking about issues that will take a long time to succeed on. one is an idea that was mentioned by newt gingrich during the contract for america in the 90s. he said that elected officials should be subject to the same kind of standards of ethics and roles about fraud that commercial entities are. in that regard it seems clear that if those standards were applied to donald trump's campaign he has changed so many of his positions just in the week sense election day that a three clear that a lot of the promises he made would know only promises he never intended to keep their made specifically to exploit the advantage of small population, white dominant states in the electoral college by disproportionately riling up and stirring up these people with promises he never intended to keep. to my mind that is fraud in the public as a whole has been damaged by his use of that to exploit an unfair advantage in the electoralalst college. >> okay let's give a chance to respond.sp

>> those are good points. i was a courtroom jury lawyer for 25 years in the first thing he made me think of was he's not going to keep those promises and he never intended to keep them in the first place. that's the difference between a beach of contract case in a fraud case. i don't think we have to prove fraud. i think breach of contract is going to be enough for the american public to turn on tonald trump. he has made gargantuan promises to the american people. he's going to relate the rewrite the trade laws. i don't how you do that and to me it's more like on baking a cake. he's going to adopt the countryside with new manufacturing firms. i don't how you do that in that kind of hurry without also beefing up public education andr training programs.

even if he does, what i worried worry about is modern manufacturing facilities are highly automated, you might have a big plant and only a couple of dozen people work there. that's also true of mining.prog my name is hugely automated these days. i'm here to tell you that democrats are solidly behind rebuilding our manufacturing base in this country. making an americorps program, i'm very proud of and included a couple of my bills and his drafted bills but yes, think and you mentioned newt gingrich in 1994. remember four. remember came to power a speaker in 1994, two years after reelected bill clinton, the president. and president clinton had the public turn on him very quickly. so americans pay attention, they remember the promises that were made to the and you don't keep d them, watch out.

>> other areas of potential agreement though? might democrats take the task of holding donald trump to his promises as opposed to opposing him just like pointed out in this los angeles times piece as congressional democrats prepared to deal with the republican and a white house they appear ready to take the opposite approach of what lawmakers do with president obama challenging trump byal finding opportunities to say yes. the goal is to strategically engage on the white house with common objectives and drive a wedge between trump and those anxious about his ideas, aiding blue, workers workers and expanding paid family leave, you are on the appropriations committee, talk about that. >> my overview is that you have to give the guy a chance.uy a cc the people in my district who voted for him one change and we

have to give change a chance. again, i don't think they are bigots in my district, they just want changes so much that they for gave him all of the get up regrettable remarks he made drought the campaign. for gave him some of the allegations of fraud and all that. anything for change. for the democrats to get in the way of that would be a mistake. another thing is democrats are solidly in favor of infrastructure investment. i just saw the american society of civil engineers has rated american infrastructure at a d+. democrats more than anybody understand the importance of investing in our infrastructure, roads bridges and rail systems, water systems and sewer systems. our electrical grid. all of these things.

if we had taken a responsible these things, something like flint michigan never would've happened. we would've realized that you have do be grown-up. you have to spend money to take care of what we have inherited as an american infrastructure. we have to spend something like $3.6 trillion by 2020 to upgrade our infrastructure. if you do that it leads to jobs. the jobs that create the infrastructure improvements in the jobs that flow from it. when american businesses more competitive because infrastructure aids their efficiency. remember, china is upgrading its infrastructure and we have to compete with china. this is a democratic principle that mr. trump is espousing. i

will not get in the way of that. >> we have a color and the independent line. you are on. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i taking my call. i like to make a couple of points. first of all i think this election was. [inaudible] in the election of 2000 last time and probably the only time that the president lost the popular vote and still got to the presidency was george bush. you you seen what happened with him. win the now soonest obama got elected i don't understand why they didn't change that electoral college and make it one man one vote. make it a simple system. and the american people are behind it. but now now here would they go again losing. also this election right here was not democrat republican. an independent never went trump was an independent republican and bernie sanders was an

independent democrat. now the democrats if they were to put bernie sanders up there no doubt he would have beaten donald trump. in the polls showed that in the primary. it wasn't about the establishment, it was about to independence. i think bernie sanders would have one if the democratic party would've put them up there. >> that's a lot to impact let's let the congressman take a shot at it.: >> so we'll start with theve the electoral college. it is the system that is in the constitution. it would take a momentous amount of effort to pass a constitutional amendment to change that. and that there remains a significant question whether it would have made a difference because if the candidate's campaign according to what the w rules are and what we know is

that if you can win the presidency with just the popular vote, maybe mr. trump's campaigl would not have focused so much on electoral college votes states and more populous states. he would've spent would spend more time in places like california and new york. so it is hard to say and whether bernie sanders would have one, maybe. in my own district i can tell you that we had 14,000 extra voters that came out to vote in 2016 who did 16 who did not come out in 2012. so to say that those were bernie sanders voters as opposed to trump voters, it's really hard to say into my mind we are going

to learn a lot of the answers by getting out in talking to the people and that something i hope to do in the next couple of years. >> i want to get your reaction to breaking news and unemployment. new job numbers that just came up this morning. in november the november unemployment rate is 4.6%. there is 170,000 jobs added to the economy according to the washington post. they added 170,000 jobs in november while the unemploymentt rate fell to 4.6% from 4.9% the previous month. that's according to new government data released this morning. economists surveyed by bloomberg news expected u.s. employers to create 180 new jobs last month, roughly in line with the average number added in the first ten months last year. what is your reaction to these job numbers.n you ge >> when you get out and talk to people they remember mark twain's remark about about statistics, their allies and then their damn lies and then there are statistics. i can tell you in my district the county in pennsylvania

national unemployment went down but unemployment picked up one point that is a tenth of a% iny my home county. so, you take it all with a grain of salt. maybe if employment went up in san diego the folks at home where i live say okay so what about me. and rightfully so. where i live and i think all over the country jobs and good paying jobs is the number onee u issue. it is the best social program in america, a high-paying job. a good income for an american citizen solves a whole russia problems and we have to keep her focus on the democrats hope to win back the trump voters.s. >> we have a color from arden,

north carolina. good morning. >> how are you. thank you for taking my calls. where we had, and do you support a constitutional amendment toit overturn citizens united? second of all, i am 65 years old. i have a research and read a lot and doug things out and it appears to me right now and for years that we have stop being a constitutional republic in a democracy so to speak and have become an oligarchy with unlimited monetary bribery. i would appreciate yourour co comments. >> wonderful question. the answer is yes, with a full throated support stand behind

the constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. but remember, you have to be practical, we had trouble passing regular appropriations bill. i think we passed one out of the 12 appropriation bills this year. so passing a constitutional amendment i think it is shooting for the stars at this point. my own approach has been look, the democrats have to win the presidential election so they can have influence so they can get the pic of the out build supreme court seat and that is the quickest and easiest way of getting rid of citizens united, having a more sensible court look at it and overturn it. we have to get money, i cannot agree few 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 so they can get reelected. for challengers it's daunting to try to raise the money to get elected to the united states congress. it was the scariest thing i faced when i first ran a 2012. 2012. how my going to raise the money any to get my message out.es it was very difficult. it it is moly going to get harder. you're going to get more entrenched politicians unless we get rid of citizens united. i urge the trump administration to appoint someone to the supreme court of the unit's state and whatever else their views are, they want to get money out of politics to. >> anthony is calling on the republican line from puerto rico. you are all from you are on. >> i wanted to comment what the

democrats they had promised us for decades, the hispanic and african-american community and they have done nothing. you talk about donald trump or donald trump saved 1000 jobs and he still criticize them. at least he's fighting force, something you haven't done for decades.our pock democrats have a proper sever. i think about is money putting money in your pockets, okay. that's it. you criticize him because he's trying to fight for jobs. give me a break.gu >> okay let's get a response. >> actually is quite the opposite. i do not criticize anybody trying to fight for jobs.i ju and i just got done saying how h admire the promises mr. trump has made on infrastructure and i want to help hold him to those promises. investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs in this country and high-paying family

sustaining jobs. so to say sayon the democrats are turning their backs on anybody is a flat-out mistake. but i like the fact that you're focusing on jobs because that is the correct focus. it's what i talk about at home and i think we need to ramp up our focus on jobs and the economy in the next election. >> i know you said the house picked up some seats in the house, it was fewer than what was projected, the senate senate clearly was not able to regain control. what message do you have for people like the caller whether it's working-class people are people of color who have expressed on the show and elsewhere that the democratic party has taken them for granted? >> i can speak for myself. i don't take anybody for granted.rd and g it is a question of working hard and getting out to meet people and listen to the.

if you care about people at all you're going to listen to them and work hard for them. i cannot be prouder of my colleagues in the house democratic caucus, these are people who are amazing hard workers. people that have given up other avenues of employment to dotheyh this, to work for the people. to say they have abandoned the people that elected them, that is flat-out wrong. in fact you have to realize it has been a long time since the democrats have been in the majority in the house. it has been the republican house. i wish people would say that. this week the republican house of representatives did this or

didn't do this. it's been a republican house of representatives the entire time i have been serving. so what we serving. so what we have been doing iss trying to push back on the republican agenda that i think hurts the average working men and women and benefits the top 1% all of the time. >> james is calling in from florida on the democratic line. you are on with the congressman. >> good morning. first i want to say kelly you are really a beautiful lady.mb and second i wanted to talk toto congressman that i wanted to ask you about donald trump mental status and how the democrats are going to be able to work with one who has been diagnosed as nash this is to. and unfit to be president. in the campaign he ran was nothing like the campaign that president obama ran or john mccain or any of the others.going he has bullied people in his

life and how can he be president and how are the democrats going to be able to work with someone like that. >> i don't know if that is ato e diagnose diagnosis but i have read things about mr. trump's mental mental state. we are all speculating. ice talked with people that think he's an absolute genius and he was saying crazy things just to get in the news, get a lot of free press and not have to spend campaign money to do it. so he may be crazy like a fox for fox for all i know. i have never met the man.t but i do intend to take him at face value. when when he wants to invest in american infrastructure, we have to be grown-up about it. we have to have to take care of our national asset portfolio and we have to realize that it takes money to do it.republic what is going to be interesting is to see whether house republicans go along with that. if house republicans don't agree

that we need to spend money to keep america in good shape there don't have to come to the democratic caucus for the votes to do it. don't be surprised if you see us making a deal to get it done. if you love america you want to keep it in good shape and keep us in a position where we can compete with china and these other countries that we must compete with the foregoing to keep jobs in this nation. r >> has speaker paul ryan and tom price have a prioritized many government programs including medicare and the aca coming ints

this. it's a plan by paul ryan according to political to potentially privatize medicaid. they say if he has his way the 115 congress won't just repeal obama care it will dramatically reform medicare turning the program into a form of private insurance. what is your be about privatization of the changes that we might see an entitlement we might see in entitlement programs? >> it's nothing new. paul ryan has been wanting to private tiess these programs for a while. i think it's a huge mistake. they talked about privatizing social security during the george w. bush administration.d if they did that, if they had done that put social security money into the stock market, the stock market lost 40% of its0% value in the 20072008 crash. these thousand eight crash. these are senior americans that depend on social security. in my district average social security retirement benefit, $1305 a month. and about 40% of them are not living on anything else. this is everything they have. to risk that, to do anything to change it or risk it is foolish.

the same thing applies to medicare. they also talk about raising the retirement age. you have to you have to work three or four extra years before you a qualify. i don't think that's fair either. who does that hurt? people that have to lift and carry and climb into physical things. you're going to make them work into their 70s doing this work because you want to save money on medicare and social security? that's not the answer. my view is we need to expand social security and medicare. programs that have worked wonderfully for as long as theyy have existed. i am behind a wonderful bill that congressman john larson from connecticut introduced and it's a social security 2100 bill. if you're interested in the subject look that up. it's the answer for beefing up the fiscal soundness of social security and medicare and for increasing the amount of money

these folks can live on in their old age. >> gene is calling in from pipe creek texas on the republican line. >> good morning. representative don't you think citizens have a responsibility to do something about the economy. if were concerned about the loss of jobs widely except for corporations to? it was just announced that they're going to as a response to any attempt to increase the minimum wage they're going to put in automatic order kiosk and therefore replace that population. going to walmart, i don't have to do i have to stand in thesere line 15 people deep into a j self-serve machine. were helping corporations eliminate jobs even if they are low-paying jobs. second issue, why is anybody looking at 1930s germany and

what happened there politically. demonize the press, dragon the billionaires, destroy the parties that they have their. when i went back and read my history again what is going on right now is frightening. thank you. >> wonderful question. thank you for that.tion. let's start with automation. i don't think there is any way to stop the transfer to automation. it's a bad thing in a good thing. it's a better thing because it takes away workers jobs. there's no question. on the other hand, a lot of the jobs that automation takes away are really bad jobs like backbreaking lifting jobs. i do a lot of factory tours in my

district and i love doing it because the engineers and manufacturers who take me on the are very proud of their processes and they show me how to upgrade them. most most of the upgrades have to do with reducing workplace injuries. a lot of the things are good. the answer to to it is education. what the future workforce needss to do is train themselves to run these machines and maintain them and keep them going because there's going to be a lot more in the future and i don't see a way that is going to go away. as far as the 19 thirties, i was a history a history major in college and i absolutely agreeee with the statement that if you don't study history you may be. doomed to repeat it. the 1930s in germany and starting in the 1920s it was ahb horrible time and we have to learn from that.

it scares me when we have all of the sudden and the political t discourse it's all right to use bigoted and racist terms. it's not all right. in. in fact, buckle your seatbelts, because when the senate goes to take up the question of whether they're going to confirm jefferson davis sessions as our nation's' attorney general, a man who cannot be confirmed as a trial judge in the federal court in the senate, the fireworks are going to be flying. and i think rightfully so. i think what i'm going to be looking for senator sessions is a complete, contrite apology for the racist and bigoted things he has said and done in his adult life before i would, i'm not a senator but before i would vote as a senator to confirm him that's what i would be looking for. >> denise is calling in on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning.

i really want to agree with the representative in the comment he made about the republicans in the house and senate been the ones that have blocked any further economic development and not only the ones in the senate but also the governor.le i have two examples i live inivd tampa.ter pres after president obama tookhe ca office and he came to tampa to deliver a stimulus package. because charity hugged president obama he was ostracized by the republican party by republican voters when they went out, got -- scott to repeal obama care. this is scott who made his fortune on medicaid. after governor scott was elected remember watching president

obama and vice president came back to tampa with an infrastructure bill that --cluded expanding rail from the rice west coast to the high four corridor. what to governor scott do? he rejected the package. >> were running short on time i want to give the congressmen the congressman a chance to respond. >> she was in tampa? t >> she was there at the time. >> i want to say was just talking to kathy, the wonderfulo congresswoman from tampa yesterday and you mentioned charlie chrisman who is now in our democratic delegation in the house, we are thrilled to have him in the points you make are true. there are too many of our colleagues across the aisle that are afraid to spend money. i have been harshly critical of

them. i should call them the shutdown crowd. they sign pledges never to raise revenue under any circumstance.n they don't want to spend money for anything to matter how good it is. they want to cut the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, they want to cut everything that government does right and it's almost like they want government to fail. so i disagree wholeheartedly with their position and i agree with you. >> can we have a calling from maryland. >> okay thank you for taking my call congressman, a little confused and baffled with some of the things that you said. my take them on by one. >> actually have one quick one because we have to go to to thee in just a few minutes.. >> one quick one, the people

have spoken. when the people speak the government works with people, not for you or anyone else. >> okay can you give us a quick reaction to that. >> when the people speak you're supposed to be speaking for the people not yourself. can you talk about that before we go over to the house. >> that is the nation of our constitutional democracy, that i am elected to speak for the folks at home. i try to do that and i try to keep in close contact with them about the votes that are happening and why it voted the way it voted on things and also representing them. i like to tell folks at home that when i come here ton, i washington i hope to bring down here sense of the decency thatat people have in northeastern pennsylvania. . . the last word. congressman matthew learned. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and joining us now is congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania, a republican from the pennsylvania's 18th

district. he is here to discuss the mental health legislation that is moving through congress and the state of mental health care funding and services in the united states. >> funding and services in the united states, congressman, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me here. >> so, tell us a little about the 21st century cures act, that is moving through congress at this moment and where it stands. >> well, 21st century cure led by the chairman committee upton of michigan, which is basically a reform system for the fda moving research from nih, helping to make sure that positive research taking place with drugs and medical devices, get bogged down, woulding on -- working on that for a couple of years and passed the house and it's now moving forward. as part of the package this week, we included my bill, family crisis act, that bill

passed 22-2. what happens they get into the senate, a different amendment process there, which bogged down the bill. a number of things took place and the negotiations between the house and senate and content of the bills and now we pass it this week, including the cancer moon shot funding that the vice-president wanted as well, and the president wanted. it's in the senate's hands and hoping they vote on it on tuesday and make major reforms to mental health and health care in america. >> there are over 100 federal programs in mental health, including more than 25 homelessness programs alone. how might this legislation change that or does this legislation change that? >> well, when you look at -- when the general accounting office did a study at my request, what are we doing with mental health? we were surprised by a couple of things. one, office of management and budget surprised us saying the

federal government spends 130 billion. most is for disability payments, most is not for treatment. and they came back over 112, they're not sure how many more, because many agencies didn't know what they were doing. the point is they don't work together. why do we need 26 homeless programs? the homeless problem is growing. we see that the death rates from suicide is growing when the death rate from so many other disease groups like cancer, diabetes, i mean, infectious disease and hiv, stroke, have all gone down. suicide rates have gone up. drug overdose rates have gone up. so the issue is that this bill will create a new head, the assistant secretary of mental health and substance abuse. we want that person to have enough title clout that they could get these organizations together and say we're going to start working together. they were supposed to have done doing that, they haven't met since 2009. while our mental health system continued to deteriorate in this country, there was no leadership. and leadership had no power and authority. so, this is going to put

someone at the helm who is going to have that cloud and have the expertise, going to have the authority to work with the agencies and programs, and we want to know as a congress, what is elevated, what works, what's not, what needs to be motivated and what needs to be eliminated and merge them together to be more effective. what good is there to have an agency if they're not getting effective care to people. >> we are talking to republican congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania about the health care bill. bill that's making its way through congress. and could get a vote in the senate next week. republicans can call 202-748-8001. democrats can call 202-748-8000 and independents can call 202-748-8002. now, let's talk a little bit about the federal mental health parity law. what -- why has the spending parity been hard to achieve? >> well, parity is supposed to

mean that you're going to deal with mental health treatment in equal footing with other treatment and it hasn't been that wayment we worked together a couple of years ago working with patrick kennedy, then a congressman, to build that parity up so insurance companies would have been on equal footing and it hasn't worked out as best as possible. our bill will demand for review, more study to determine what's there. this is extremely, extremely important for health care overall and quite frankly, as we look at health care reform, here is why, for a while, and having been a practicing psychologist myself for 40 years, you use today call up the insurance company and say may i see this patient? two visits. well it's going to take time. >> fix it. and we find ourselves dealing with bureaucrats and that's not the way mental health care needs to be. you have to have equal footing. when a person had a serious

illness, one of 10 million americans and 4 million are not even into treatment. but when there's serious mental illness, the risk for chronically illness is dramatically high. 57% of schizophrenia or bipolar illness or depression. 75% have another chronic illness, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, infections. 50% had at least two. the point is you've got to start ramping this up to integrate care between behavioral and fiscal health. similarly, when you have a person who is a chronic medical condition diagnosis, cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, who is in pain and what it does to life style and what it does to their system, depression risks double and untreated depression doubles cost. so these things have really merged together and it's a matter of keeping the pressure on insurance trying to say, first of all, it's best for the patient and it makes more sense financially. when you manage both together you cut costs in half when you work carefully with those patients. >> another member of the

kennedy family in massachusetts, democratic congressman joe kennedy spoke about the cures act on the house floor on wednesday. let's take a look at some of what he said. >> mr. speaker, when we first passed the version of this bill last year, it was a result of a strong bipartisan compromise and sacrifice. it certainly wasn't easy, but the legislative process is not intended to be. well, i'm disappointed that the funding level for nih were cut even further and that the investment is no longer mandatory, i take my republican colleague at their word that they will be appropriated in the years ahead. i'm also pleased that this legislation includes language to remove obstacles for children covered by medicaid. but my real concerns with legislation lie with mental health reform proposals which don't go nearly far enough. the parity is already the law thanks to the mental health parity and equity fact and affordable care act.

each study that we read, mr. speaker, each story that we hear, prove companies are skirting those rules. instead of further guidance or meetings carried out years down the role, need enforcement and transparency today. we need random audits before violations, not after. we need closure of the rates and denials in a way that patients' families can understand. and have access to care not reduce them or roll back expansion and we need to appreciate the difference the aca made for mental health markets especially the most vulnerable among us. until we do, we cannot consider the proposals comprehensive and certainly can't pretend that they are nearly enough. >> what's your reaction to congressman kennedy? >> well, we have a great deal in the bill that deals with compliance, with parity, reporting back. we want to strengthen that. there's a lot in here and i thank him for his passion in

this, i'm equally if not more passionate about this, too. this is what i do, what i've done, i'm currently a navy psychologist and i understand what happens when someone is discharged and we've had contact with millions of people and we'll hold feet to the firement one of the reasons we want assistant secretary in charge because we want someone to work closely with the new secretary of hhs and make sure things are followed through. listen to what i'm saying, it's important for americans to hear this. when i talk about an integrated care model, you can't really have full health care unless you're dealing with behavioral and physical medical together. if you have someone with a chronic illness and fre frequentlily going in and out of the system, super utilizers, massive costs there, what insurance companies are beginning to realize, when you manage the psychological aspect

of that and early treatment of depression and anxiety and worries, as well as seriously mental illness, you're actually lowering cost. part of what we have to do is educate members of congress and insurance companies and say this is the model that works much better when you're treating the whole person. >> leonard is calling in from dayton, ohio, leonard, you're on with congressman murphy. >> caller: good morning, everyone, thank you for c-span. c-span, here is what you do. you run what president reagan defunded mental health saying the private sector could do it better. and what this man is sitting up here talking now is going against what president reagan defunded mental health for. now, c-span, would you-- while he's talking can you run that signing and see that the private sector could do it better? thank you very much, sir and we have a tax dodger, a tax dodger becoming-- to become president and--

>> let's keep this on mental health, this discussion, i'll let you respond. >> guest: looking at the facts on this, is president kennedy in 1963 signed the bill to say start-- his last bill, institutional care and towards community mental health care grew and california, from the left and right and saying let's close the big asylums and others say patients shut be put in against their will, let's clear them out. you ended up somewhat of a disaster, yet we need today close the old asylum, the classic cuckoo's nest or snake pitts. and that started in the '70s and '80s, what happened states across the spectrums didn't take care of these, democrats and republicans, legislators alike. >> people not in treatment is 15 times more likely to be violent than people in treatment.

what we've done, replaced the asylums with jail cells, emergency room gurneys and with the county morgue because of the high death rate, high arrest rate, 60 to 80% in people in your city jails may have a mental illness program. at least half in the state prisons and mental illness problems. that's what we did, we dumped them there, and when the judge has them with an arrest or a crime. the state has to provide for them. when someone has a mental illness, nobody has to do a thing. and i think we need to get away from the idea who is at fault. the blame is plenty to go around under all administrations and what i've done here in this bill. crafted a strong bipartisan bill to make some change here. i don't want to look back. we need to look forward. we know mental health is a brain disease, get better help and start them early. that's what the bill is designed to do it will.

>> host: does the bill provide money for mental health care and where does that come from? >> there's money for trainers and providers, 50 million. we have an incredible shortage of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, et cetera. half the counties in america have no one to treat them. can't find someone. it's even harder for african-americans and hispanics, a derth of providers who are culturally similar or training in their communities. you're ten times more likely if you have a serious mental illness to be in jail rather than a hospital. these are pathetic and painful numbers. going into the fields and going into graduate school and medical school is pretty expensive. what we're seeing overtime is pushing more for that. providing that early on is far cheaper than jail. >> host: we are talking with republican congressman tim

murphy of pennsylvania about mental health care legislation moving through congress. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats. 202-748-8002. and independents. and we have a line specifically for people who have had experience in the mental health system and encourage you 202-748-8003. tony right now is calling from texas on our independent line, you're on with congressman murphy. >> caller: thank you, thank you very much. first off, this is the great and wonderful country that is not hard at all to run unless you throw the corruption in on it. and that's the problem with you congressmen and all of you corrupt people is that you're trying to get all the corrupt money in your pocket and not do your job. and all we want you to do is our job and that's why you -- you can't be in this for so long that you're amassing all of this corrupt money in your pocket. >> host: tony.

>> caller: we wonder why you come into the white house broke and-- >> love being reduced to a stereo type. i don't know what he's talking about. the issues here is that-- let's focus on mental health today and let's move on. >> host: well, you said one of the driving forces behind your desire to tackle this issue was the attack in connecticut, in newtown. tell us a little about that while we show some of the cards you've gotten. >> guest: i had met with families who have lost a child, a spouse, from that terrible tragedy perpetrated by someone who had a mental illness that was untreated and these family members gave me these pictures, that has been my motivation. there's been no money coming into my pocket or anybody else. i've had those on a table in my office since the day i met with the familiesment every day i would look at those kids' eyes and that was my motivation and frankly when people say you can't do this bill, you've got

to compromise, i remember that. when we had brutal hearing or markup, we're not doing these parts of the bill, how can you stay so calm? because i had the pictures in front of me. no matter how they attacked me, i knew the families had it far worse. all the kids wanted to do is make it to lunch at that day or go home and play soccer and they didn't have that. we owe them as a nation, everybody, whether in sandy hook, tucson, aurora, wherever it was in america where someone was harmed, the millions of people mentally who get assaulted and different crimes, that's why we're doing this. this is not a corrupt issue, this is a compassion issue and this is the reason why so many people came together on this bill and made a difference. >> host: carl is calling from decatur, georgia on our independent line. good morning, carl. >> caller: good morning. congressman, one thing i'm concerned about, many of our american citizens don't

understand the number one thing that govern us all is our constitution. and i know that i fought for this country and whether you get hurt, injured, for your memory, or battle fatigue or anything, corruption is not on your mind when you swear in to become a military person in this country. nowhere in my, to i remember my pledge to this country. and as a democrat, i'm predicting the constitution of this country, and i am tired of people-- >> let me ask you. >> caller: people taking sides. >> host: carl, do you have a question about mental health today. >> caller: if you don't understand that all of us are

affected by something that is medically or anything like that, whether-- when we're citizens of this country, it has nothing to do with corruption other than understanding our-- >> that's right, you're right it doesn't have to do with corruption and i took that same oath when i became an officer in the navy. there's nothing there about any party affiliation and i might say to you, that when it comes to dealing with mental illness, of the thousands of people that i have treated in my lifetime of the hundreds i've treated at walter reed hospital, army, navy, air force, marine, and people i've known and gone to the va, i don't care and i've never asked what party they belong to. mental illness, like cancer, like diabetes, mike cystic fibrosis has no party affiliation and it attacks people and the best and compassionate thing we can do is to help people so they can become productive citizens again. get back to school, get back to work, get back on their feet and work with them.

this is where i think it's an essential part of our constitution, to promote the general welfare, to make sure we're doing all we can and frankly not build a bureaucracy in washington. >> host: let's talk about suicide prevention. statistics from the national alliance of mental illness looking specifically about suicide and other issues in young people, said that suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth ages 10 to 14 also that 90% of those who died by suicide had an underlying mental illness. talk a little about what this bill does in terms of suicide. >> extremely important, we reauthorize the suicide prevention programs in this and the key factor is make sure that we have providers available. when people make a decision that they're going to have a suicide attempt, in many cases, they've-- they've seen us before, they're growing with depression, anxiety. some cases have an illness and

not going to make it through, got a divorce or whatever the issue is. they want to reach out to find someone, but how awful it is, how cruel it is many times there is no place to go. they can call a crisis hot line and those are readily available and we need to continue to have those. what happens when you find, you need to talk to a local psychiatrist or psychologist and there's a waiting list. there's shouldn't be a waiting list for one in crisis, suicide one every 12 minutes and a grieving family every 13 minutes, having more providers. we have 9,000 less. we need 30,000. even those 9,000 we have, very few have appointments available and of those, how many really deal with serious mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar and depression? we have to inspire more people to enter the field and offset

expenses of going through training and make sure there are places for them. >> host: peggy is calling from cheyenne, wyoming on our independent line. peggy, you've 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, he got it when he was around, you know, 19 or so and he did get treatment and he did get better and then he worked for a long, long time and then he got fired because of his conditions, i guess. anyway, then he wept on medicare. what i don't understand, he could not get his 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

life threatening, maybe to other people and maybe to themselves. why does congress not pass a bill where they can get medical treatment right away? >> that's a great point you're bringing up and part of the reason we knew we needed this new office of the assistant secretary to work with hhs. there's a number of things that take place, including people who may be on medicaid, incarcerated for a period of time and they come back off and they don't get-- medicaid doesn't pay their bills when they go to jail and having to reapply to disability and people now in the throes of poverty. we heard from one person who runs a jail, sometimes people throw jail and throw a brick threw a police car window so they can have a place to stay. what an awful thing in america that we could do this to people. it part of what we recognize. we have to streamline this. when you get people treatment it's 20 times cheaper to get

o outcare than in a jail. and sometimes they wait for a bed to open up and that's extremely expensive. getting a perp on medication, have peer support, helping with conflicts along the way, all vital. what i'm describing here, we recognize how woefully our system is to deal with 16 million americans and 100 million family members related to them and bringing up a good point how we have to work not just with parity with insurance companies, but the federal government itself doesn't do a good job. >> host: how will mental health treatment in in bill be affected in the affordable care act is repealed as the president-elect and members of congress vow to do. >> guest: i've talked a great deal with tom price before he takes on hhs. he has experience as an orthopedic surgeon. understanding, too, the point i

made about integrating health care. mental and physical health. about 5% of the population of medicaid, consume 50% medicaid ending. and 50% consume a minor part of overall health spending. what is it about the folks? versus all the people on medicaid, those 5% have mental illness combined with them, and when it's untreated mental illness, is doubles the costs. and the high risk pools, the states aren't getting more money, but you have integrated coordinated care for those patients to make sure those things are there. in the past what we've done, you're on your own. if a mother brings a 17-year-old into the family physician's office, my son is hallucinating, dilutional, well, has he threatened to kill anybody? no. then we can't do anything. the warm hand off, a psychiatrist and psychologist,

meet directly face-to-face or on a tv screen. when you meet, the follow-up is 95%. when they're given a card, call this person tomorrow, it drops down to 45%. by the way the numbers are similar when a person goes into emergency room with a drug overdose and break your arm and get treatment. if you're in an emergency room and get referral and treatment immediately while you're there for the drug problems, you increase follow-up by 50%. so, it's getting this efficient effective care immediately and not problems like she was describing with her son not getting the care. >> host: okay, john is calling in on our democratic line from maryland. good morning, john. >> caller: good morning. have you read a book called-- i'm sorry the name of the book was again. >> caller: the name of the book was "reign of error" written by diane ravich.

she's one of the experts, she trains behavioral control deficits in schools, learning deficits in schools, high drop-out rates, how instances of a.d.h.d., to a particular statistic that is shocking and that's in 2010, the united states was tied with turkey, somalia and thailand for the 187th worse rates of premature birth in the world. high rates of premature birth are directly causative of all of these kind of educational challenges and let's set aside the terrible medical bills and tragedies associated with high rates of medical birth.

>> host: john, let's let the congressman respond. >> guest: i use today work in newborn intensive care units at mercy hospital and i was inspired to run for public office, i continued to see children born addict today crack or heroin or something and watch them go through terrible trials. it does affect them. they have a longer term prognosis indicating problems associated with them correlateed with that. there are a wide range of things with that. we need to get better handling of prenatal care for women. and if you took a woman with an addiction problem and nine months of a pregnancy, you've had her go somewhere else and helped her ap nurture her through that and no drugs and almost like a positive, warm setting. no matter what that costs it's far cheaper than it costs that child the rest of their life for education and social problems.

far cheaper, not saying we send people off to five-star resorts, but it points out that providing quality pre-natal care makes a massive difference in the child's life. we need to think of longer term perspective instead of saying that child, writing them off they're going to be in jail. that's an awful way to treat a human being. >> host: let's talk a little about the prospect of this bill's passage according to keiser health news. it says although the health care package has strong support its passage is not assured. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren had said the bill favors the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety, heritage action, a conservative group opposes the bill because it would increase federal spending. how do you address these concerns? >> you know, the issue is, i think elizabeth warren is wrong because if you have a family member or yourself with one of these 10,000 diseases which we

only have 500 cures for, they are searching for a solution. if you have someone with mental illness, 959 deaths a day, do we say we're going to continue to hold out and let you just be one more that goes to the cemetery or one more person who suffers from these illnesses? and through haeritagheritage, te areas the federal government should be spending money. some are efficiency. some people don't want the federal government to spend anything, i had your philosophy, but this is life and death issues and i believe it's constitutional under the preamble to promote. and we have a sloppy system, far from the best in a disjointed area of mental health, but when you have drugs that have been approved in europe and showing effectiveness and here they say, you have to spend another $100 million to go through the system to repeat everything

you've done, i have concerns about that. why not fund ways of-- we're not bypassing research. we're streamlining so you don't have to sit there and do the same thing over and over again and in the meantime, people suffer. i'm hoping that senator warren changed her mind on this. there's a lot that can be done as we move forward in this and we ought to pass this bill so people can start seeing their lives. >> every weekend book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authorities and here is a look at some of our programs for this coming weekend. on saturday night 8:45 eastern, mit film and media professor, author of "open to debate", how william f buckley put america on the firing line, looks how mr. buckley used his program outside of his conservative circles and made him an early pundit. as our level of discourse seemed to be deteriorating and

the shouting matches seemed to be and so on, it seemed important to talk about a show that valued civil discourse, civil debate between people who disagreed with each other. >> sunday on in depth, the 75th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor, and the authors will be taking phone calls and tweets and e-mail questions live from noon to 3 p.m. and then at 9 p.m. eastern on after words. the envoy for middle east piece 2009-2011 looks at "a path to peace" previous history of negotiations and way forward in the middle east. interviewed by the president and ceo of the woodrow wilson center. >> they've long since renounced violence, have accepted israel's existence and opted for peaceful negotiation to