[inaudible] this weekend a book tv on c-span2, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern former vice president al gore looks at the effects of climate change around the world with his book, an inconvenient sequel, treat the power. >> we and our civilization, not me but the technologists and engineers are learning how to manage atoms and molecules with the same precision that they demonstrated that they can manage bits of information. it's changing things dramatically. the missions globally have stabilized for the last four years. starting a downward trend. we are going to win this, but the remaining question is whether we will win it in time to reduce the risk to an acceptable level that will cross

some point of no return. it's a dangerous race between hope and catastrophic consequences were created. >> at 5:30 p.m. eastern, and author discussion on political diversity in free-speech on college campuses with professor sam abrams. mark villa of columbia university, april of elizabethtown college and former president of the aclu. >> i don't want to demonize and disparage these protesters so they are passionately committed to social justice and racial justice. i want to thank them for that but i would love to have the opportunity to persuade the cap freedom of speech, especially for those that we hate is their most essential ally.

>> for more of the schedule, go to booktv.org. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies this brought you today by your cable or satellite provider. now, part of friday's "washington journal" with an author. he talked about opiate addiction and the government reaction. this is half an hour. >> here the author dreamland, the true tale of america's opiate epidemic. joining us.

the points it were present trump is now saying some type of announcements forthcoming what does that say about the situation abroad? >> this topic is finally getting the recognition it's deserved. the problem has been percolating for 20 plus years. it's a deadly struck problem we've ever had in the country. i think we'll find that last year 60000 plus people died, that's more than the loss in the vietnam war. so finally is getting the kind of response. we'll see what the response is. so far i haven't heard the president say anything about what the response will be. the christie commission because chris christie leads it, they

came out with a variety of proposals i thought were good. they were not original. people have been talking about it for a long time. it's important they get put on paper and have the -- of the administration. assuming will have some final report soon, maybe next week. >> as far as what the federal government is currently, what's the best way to respond in light of what might happen. >> what we need to understand is more got into the story i realized it's a story that grows out of isolation. one isolation is isolated response. for a long time in the country we had one response to addiction and that was a jail cell or prison cell. law-enforcement has a robust role in this problem to play. there has to be far greater treatment options for people,

both whether overdosing at the er level and then after that. we have saturated whatever capacity. but her prevention is important as well. it's the community response. the federal government can't to a lot of that. it boils down to the local folks. this is where it hits most heavily. that's what's being hammered in all this. i think the federal government's best response simply to facilitate and make it easier for those folks to do their job and find ways to work together so public health and law-enforcement combined. that kind of thing is what the federal government's role out to be. >> the author dreamland, take a look at the opiate response.

if you want to ask questions you can call in. you can give us a call, all others. let's hear from president trump from last week talking about what he plans to do about the situation. here he is. >> we will be doing that next week. by the way, you know that's a big step. people have no understanding of what you just said. that's a very big statement. a very important step. to get to that step a lot of work has to be done. will be doing the next week. >> so that's president trump. in light of this announcement the headlights that he blindsided his advisors taking a

look at this. but it seems complicated teeth event fashion something like that. >> i think as part law-enforcement, part public health, part community resources. one problem were finding his foster children explosion and foster kids because so many parents are addicted and unable to care. those numbers would be greater if it would not for 70 grandparents stepping up taking care of their grandchildren. shout out to the grandparents. they're doing an amazing job under horrible circumstances. we have an even worse problem if it were not for them. i talk about opiates and particularly harrowing and when you're writing about that, you're right about the united states of america and what would become as a country, it touches so many aspects of our lives.

that realization or approach is the best one. we tried the unilateral a approach. i think there needs to be more combined, cohesive community approach. a lot of this has to do with the destruction of community. wesley areas where people don't interact or the rust belt areas where jobs have left him people find themselves debilitated for that reason. our first call is from new york. rob, you're on. >> caller: good morning and thank you for the conversation. i see a correlation between though. crisis enough is afghanistan and

what happened in vietnam with the same problem. do see that as potential cause of this whole thing. >> i don't. but thanks for the call. the idea what you're suggesting is that we have lots of heroin in america today and we have a war going on in afghanistan for the last 14 years and so therefore there the major producer of heroin in the world. so that heroin is coming in, that's not true. the harrowing coming into the united states for the last 20 or 30 years has mostly come from latin america. for many years it was columbia on the eastern side of the united states and mexico on the west. now it's virtually all mexico. that stands to reason, there it's business reasons why that's true. heroin is a commodity.

it's prices reflected in how far it has to travel. faster cross an ocean can be far more weaker and diluted. so, i think it's important to understand in our country, the harrowing coming into our country almost all of it comes from latin america. and the vast majority is mexico. >> for someone who is impacted by this, trenton new jersey. >> yes, i have two people who take opiates and when they cut back by two thirds and now the person instead of functioning five days a week is in bed five days a week to maybe gets a couple of hours. another person has opiates and ptsd medicines they can take

both. so either they will die from a mental problem or from opiates. thanks for your consideration. and i believe bill bennett addresses focus on the illegal fentanyl i think that would be appropriate. >> guest: thanks for your call. i think part of the response we've had is that were swinging that pendulum little too hard in the case of some individuals in the country who suffer from chronic pain and may need that. the problem is, for a long time we prescribe very little of this. then we got a big push a notes pain pills for everybody. there's a happy medium somewhere where we need to nestle. what it involves or what it has been lacking is healthcare in

which people are treated as individuals. therefore you devise an individual response. pain management was heading that way in its early days in the 70s and 80s treating every person is a holistic being. so you are treated with marital counseling and counseling a better diet and exercise. what happened was the pills took over entirely now you have people who do have a very high daily dose of this to take. my feeling is a lot might benefit from scaling back. the problem is, we want to drastically cut back and lay people hanging. that's cruel and counterproductive. i think this is where the approach has been lost in flailing without much vision and

direction. >> host: let's hear from a medical professional. >> caller: hello. i'm an anesthesiologist and i've been in practice for many years. the classical teaching that we are taught is that for an acute situation in other words a patient of surgery you give us much pain medicine as you can so the patient will be relieved. and there's no dependence for anyone in that situation. in my opinion just like your speaker says, a happy medium must be reach. the addictive personality, i'm sure has issues. >> i would agree. for a long time people come in for routine surgery who go home with paper which is going to

list two or four days, they go home with 30 days worth of pain pills, narcotics, or maybe a refill. you multiply that by millions and millions of americans across the country, every year for the last 20 years and what you create is those drugs leak out into the black market they are used to access by the people who they were prescribed and sometimes those folks get addicted. there's a massive amount of prescribing going on for 20 plus years in this country. a lot of it is because people were thinking it didn't matter how many pills you sent home with the patient after surgery it wasn't going to be addictive. the longer you use these drugs, 90 - 100 days is is those

excessive things that need to be reconsidered i guess. >> the front page story takes look at governor christie and his role in the situation talks about ami's recent meeting and they invited ceos with the promise of good network opportunity were 17 pharmaceutical met with president trumps opiate commission they pitch what they called a public-private partnership to address the crisis. what you think about the idea. >> i think they have a role to play. honestly, people ask was the government doing about this? my feeling is governments been doing a lot. the only people fighting this for 20 years were corners, jailers, et cetera. i think there's a more robust,

maybe expensive role for the pharmaceutical companies to play. i don't think you can leave them out. i don't understand how that would be helpful. >> basically, i think the community response is a community response. you have to bring in people who have been silent up until now. because whether it's legislation or lawsuits. i believe they produce these products. they do have a legitimate medical use their valuable medical tools so we need to figure out the proper role for them. that role should not be in every medicine cabinet in america. >> host: on our line now mike is

on. >> good morning. in my view the inclusion of law enforcement as part of the solution makes things worse, much worse. isn't the drug prohibition alcohol prohibition causing the same social problems for the same reason? high crime, gangs, you're putting into the hands most violent people billions of dollars. >> well, it's hard for me to look at the story, i understand the argument. i lived in mexico for ten years and i saw mexican drug trafficking up close. i understand that it's true that drug prohibition has fed the coffers of the cartels in mexico. it's hard for me to see how this

story would argue for legalizing drugs. this happens because of legal drugs. the entire story in which the whole thing starts because there's a massive fire hose a potent legal trucks blasted at the american public. it's a classic story. when i lived in mexico i believe our drug to mansfield these problems. my feeling after doing this book i came to a different conclusion. the problem has to do is supply. there's a reason why all calls the most abuse drug. this treatment available almost anywhere. the same is true here. it's a story that starts with legal drugs being blasted at the american public. when you do that you run into

problems. that doesn't mean there's not a better way. there is a better way of doing it that would not lead to what we have seen. but it's hard to see how this idea and story, our opiate epidemic would argue strongly for legalizing more. i think that's were going to marijuana. we need to be very cautious and humble about legalizing a very potent drug. i think their strong arguments to be made and i made this in an op-ed that we need to go slowly and do what we did after prohibition which is regulate potency and do the same with marijuana and not just say all pot is equal. it's not anymore. so i believe in that when i lose lived in mexico, but, i think

humility, we don't how to do this well. maybe we need to take it slowly and an abundance of caution. >> i've used opiates for many years with back problems i've had on them for the last five years on battling cancer. now they tell me that i have to go, they can't write my medicine i have to go to pain management and they will do a spinal injection and maybe give me some physical therapy of this other stuff. i'm in my 70s. i have no addiction. i took before these last started passing i would maybe only take my medicine once a week or two weeks. but since you change their law i have to take it everyday and heavy doses because when i go to

the dr. i have to pass a urine test in all this. please opiate crisis is a heroin epidemic and you refuse to say that on the news media. i know people see it all the time. it's heroin and that no, it is not the lortab pills that you're going after. you're doing it because the legal people you can go after, the illegal are in more trouble. . .

>> >> and a dangerous idea. i don't know how many people prescribed but it was very clear that eagerness supply of pills people don't just jump rarely from from one in

oculist's drug to hear with it is a progression something to get your mind around the ideas of the essentially the you would want to seek out something as potent as fentanyl. >> a related story this week of representative from the drugs are bad decision of a opioids?. >> but the guy did not know about. and american politics today if he cannot seek to do the bidding of the

pharmaceutical. in those politicians with the ec is the confluence of the pharmaceutical industry power and monday and influence and money with the high end at understanding of what that creates. creating massive addiction. because it started that excess supply. >>. >> the manufacturer of heroin the poppyseed is stirred into opium turned into heroin but it is

usually grown in afghanistan and burma. >> in this case it is not all grown in afghanistan or burma. a lot of that heroin from that neck of the world goes to russia or other countries it does not come here. our problem stems from mexico largely. and that is a good question to ask your policy maker. but what the requires we have long believed what had been resolvable to have a deeper and more new ones relationship with mexico.

and to recognize it needs ourr influence it does not help when we talk about mexico to beyond the number of years off and on that will lots of heroin from crossing. end of copy that is a good idea i am not sure how that works but of course, now fentanyl is a very different draw up -- rugged has democratized heroin. they used to come from for

five mexican states but now it could be made in hong three your nebraska or north dakota or a candid that. fentanyl makes the argument far borer complicated. >> i am registered nurse of 36 years. i have watched the progression of this. two months ago my grandson at 27 years of age decided he would have a taste of whatever hisfe friends were offering which happened to be o p.m. and fentanyl.

opium. he died in they could not revives him. it was a huge mass. my issue is we have cut back funding on the da and the research. but these major pharmaceutical companies make their own compound and is more toxic than the combination between fentanyl and opium. >> we have to stop you because we are running short on time.ng >> this is a federal response. with the approach of the eddy date to be better funded would be a good idea. they have beennc fighting it the longest.

long before anybody thought it was a problem. but funding for research we have to expand it sounds like there is this money for studying this or how the brain works or what proper response. looking at the federal response. t that would be part of the federal part. >> dreamland is the date of the book. thanks for your time. >> great to be here.

. >> and should be wrested from a murder. with the vietnamese women whose child was burned by napalm by american planes. but then they have to use the tactic of disruption and the american people . >> but to except their offer because every time you see the president of the united states you learn something.

it is important that i can be there for you. and everything i see is important. . >> your argument case 1512 '04 jennings verses rodriquez. >> mr. chief justice this

court has stressed the but the of the constitutional authority to establish the rules and aliens are allowed to enter and states. this clearly implicates the principal. during the removal proceedings the certified class will be detained in the question if they are allowed into the united states is two sides of the same point. to have a constitutional right to be released into the country of court proceedings last more than six months is court's decision has made clear the respondents have been such right. and that is most directly a an issue for these purposes of the petition appendix and

what is the subset in the subclass. in to pass that credible fear for those silent purposes and removal proceedings. at the top of page 152. if the asylum officer determines at the time of the interview be even has an incredible fear of persecution they shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum. in the very provision of which congress dealing with aliens do past the screaming it was making clear that that entitlement to be released into the united states and that is in the expedited approval.

but it doesn't have any right to be released into the united states. >> and that is to the discretion of a da chess. and those respondents would have it is the policy and teach us to give the alien and then to verify the identity to satisfied that he is not a flight risk some the policy of vhs is too close individuals into the country. >> nd justice not keep

statistics. it is not a formality in the sense of aliens that they are always broiled but between those two extremes i don't they we have reliable statistical evidence. >> i thought the we had some. and is in 2012. granting parole to 80 percent of the aliens and then the number dropped to 47%. so my question is the executive alone making this determination. what other area of law have we permitted a government agent on his or her own without a neutral party? looking at that decision

should detain someone definitely. >> but that is specifically pending a determination of eligibility. >> and that wary be done in the expeditious way. that could sometimes take years. >> it could take a long time it is expedited so they do move more or quickly in those of others. so the court has said time after time as aliens are

arriving in the of. >> but the problem with that is it basically says we are a country of arbitrary to lock them up. but a answer this question. in which way is immigration detention different than criminal detention?. >> and subject to read -- surveillance and a strip search and with that immigration detention.

>> with bad justification for was the detention for criminal detention that leads to the convicted prisoners fighting guilty of the crime. and outside this country those aliens who ought to apply for a visa. and those that can do so outside this country. while officials are deciding they don't need to but if they arrive then the option is detention or release. so the principle that they have no constitutional right into the community doesn't necessarily compel the tension.

>> it doesn't have to me 53 they could be monitored with monitor devices?. >> but i do think it is basically we these and that due process clause does not require congress with the attention to aliens. >> the statue to death is not say if there are bail hearings or not it just says arrest and detain.

and then read detain them and then possibly in most cases. and the agency said and those found within 100 miles of the of order but the people oh who register writing at lax? no. into a cafe and incredible claim with the prosecution. but we give to a poll tax murderers are those that are accused of such.

are they dangerous? are their risk of flight? so these people in the first category could have relatives in los angeles. or even have the green card. so what is the basis? sometimes to allow those hearings at the discretion of the agency or other times not. so keeping the people possibly for a year and a half in a jail sale? sorry i do not mean for my voice to rise. but without even a bail hearing? where? the word detaining dozens say that. >> section 1225 and 1226 traditionally have been understood to have different

categories of aliens. it is the provision when we arrest somebody in when dealing with aliens are riding on shores. but as you alluded to do that category of aliens for oil those purposes the way they just arrived. so you can agree nor disagree but for purposes of the bond hearings read those regulations. even though they have been arrested. >> is there just as much people who has no right to be in the country for those who have not been here for a few hours. but the agency thinks there

is no problem to give them bail hearing. >> but it was never suggested aliens to come to the border with the checkpoint with the matter of xk. >> or they thought that regulation end that his imposing such a in a obstacle. >> so those that shall be gittin. >> if this cia wrote that statute that they were simply wrong? because it said the statute is

perfectly consistent with bond hearings being given only a the regulation. >> even if you adopt that reading of the statute to that extent that authority a6 on page 156 in the appendix those that are detaining within the country except as provided in subsection c dealing with criminal aliens. or how they should be removed from the united states. >> handed is the of regulation for those bond hearings. nt but all of those to authorize the executive branch for those who are

newly arriving nobody says that is compelled and for i.r.a. second, a justice sotomayor if you said is there anything comparable? wide world immigration be unique? and with that doctor and/or the idea of the political branches and even also think of it as the application and it is often the case the government house to provide and then the lady individual already has as a benefit to the individual. >> with respect to the 1225

to have an executive with the intelsat member. servo magistrate of any kind that looks at that executive decision to make sure it isn't arbitrary. >>. >> that is the case as the constitution is concerned and what congress specified.

and then to make a decision by the congress did not provide for zero a judicial review and that answer what you would have notes due process clause. >>. >> justice eliot talked about in to to a total of saluting answer to that is north. with respect to the determination sub-index of

the do have a constitutional right to not to be tortured ed is pretty close to that in an arbitrary confinement. but arbitrary means nobody gave him the individual hearings so we don't know if there is held for any good reason. nobody made the decision. to usually in our constitutional role we think that is a problem. >> anything congress consistent with the constitution could have abolished it all together as a category girl matter no alien to rival until he/she to persuade the decision maker dave right answer is to let them ben.

that historically to offer. role as a process. >> people overstate the visitors were visa. >> you write your to space look even the cell. we will keep you there 13 months. do they do that?. >> they could. >> the answer could be. and with that circumstance. >> see you have the thinking at the beginning somebody standing at the airport outside the gate but that is

not what happens. >> guest: to go? go. with now he is physically in the united states but because of he had shown an incredible fear of persecution to put him in the of reception area that looks like nestle and we keep them there 13 months possibly or year. without a bail hearing. there was a law of implications. and not to find arbitrary.

>> i side with justice kagan no constitutional right to be admitted into the country. the only alternative with some form of supervision is detention. so it is good 2.0 with these class numbers those that were detained for more than six months 5% to the extent that mistakes were made at the border. >> a number of them win but they obtain asylum or removal of with a dough in establishing the right. >> but that violates due process affair is the unreasonable delay.

>> if that is attributable to the government. >> how does the court assessed at when the delay results from a backlog? only one tenth to avoid unreasonable delays. >> i would not attribute that to a the government. >> not available for year-and-a-half. >> and with that constitutional rule. >> and it is a charitable to the government.

is six months nine months and with those immigration judges. >> let me say a couple of things. and then to talk specifically about criminal aliens. bin if they were unreasonably fur that purpose with the flight risk presenting danger to the community so of the d chess officials to win asylum but then to go through the proceedings through that purpose if you can prove

that without constitutional theory. >>. >> but for that class we are talking about those that various constitutional rights but is the backlog five years it is okay to keep them five years without a determination of whether they pose a risk of flight or dangerous?. >> that is not unconstitutional. >>. >>. >> service does not match. en un the government's part.

>> so if the government decided to appeal that created a further delay of two with three years?. >>. >> had the most extreme answer is the alien that is detained for more than six months of like every a other ford of detention discussed the alien to lead has the option with kathleen or rural of removal. >> but these other new ones is congress has provided asylum or rural cancellation of a removal further discretionary relief and

congress had narrow constitutional obligation on which the alien tries to remain in the country. >> they could have said all of those categories will be removed without regard to lou discretion reforms of release -- relief and if congress can take that step but the resources are offended it may take a long time to rule on your case. >> with that supplemental brief if it lasts longer than 40 months it could prompt the location because i was close to a concession.

>> i could be wrong but talking about that stage of the proceedings. seven order to woo decided the case is the of lyre look to statistical evidence how long do those particular stages typically take? and that evidence is this particular stage taking longer than it ordinarily does that should prompt further inquiry by due to restraints it became typical for her proceedings to take three years. >> i believe i interrupted justice alito. >> let's assume that would be a constitutional violation and what is the best way? do we impose a time when it? or do we deal

with a speedy trial? where you look at all of the factors in a particular case. >> there are several differences with this setting but the one that would focus on the most intensely i am not aware of any situation the court has imposed the constitutional deadline where if those steps were in the control of the person. >> with individual consideration so then the croats killed look at it. if that is unreasonably delayed there is say possibilities to give this person a bond hearing.

so this should say give them a bond hearing after a certain amount of time because that'd is independent neutral adjudicator can decide if those aliens held our national security risk and to be a danger to the community or if it is a class number but there was no zero criminal record with strong ties to the community and own property they should be let out. as opposed to creating a rule after a certain amount of time so explain why this

person is dangerous. >> if it imposes that deadline this is the appropriate vehicle to say that. so with that analysis of the constitutional violation depend on a variety of factors. >>. >> the q mr. chief justice to clarify the basic difference between the parties and with that removal in detention are two sides of the same coin. to be practical reasons. it goes far beyond anything they have said with respect to a that power to detain.

so they first said there is the power to do detain they did so to analogize so you have the power but only if the detention in is necessary that the person appears as a danger to the community so we will not impute dangerousness. >> so with that pretrial detainee there is nothing like a six month requirement the gravity of the ninth circuit that it provided. is not provided to the pretrial detainees. >> with that initial six

month hearing that analogy to the bond hearing is within days so after your arrest in the pretrial context so the fact you're in those deportation proceedings that which mandated that attention and my friend said that. >> we do know they said that was permissible over a matter of months. isn't that true?. >> hand with that deport ability. the with the is the tension times but it did -- in addition because it is run those stupid defenses that

is two-thirds hispanic that is a difference. but i am less sure if there is a difference to the second factor because many of your clients are looking and cancellation of removal. the only relief as they a understood if they decided the case. but then you lose your green parting can be deported to any country except for one. so that removal so you keep your green card but is also

true for asylum. there is that fundamental difference because the court treated that session of deport ability and accepted that because the detention was brief. >> i'm sorry. there is a couple of jurisdictional ankles. when is 1252. bin to strip that jurisdiction blur those collateral attacks. what do we do about that? and also with the ninth circuit said in to be on

constitutional grounds at least through that declaratory judgment that we would expect them to apply that like the injunction. >> i like the government's view. >> naysay that does not apply to the detention and claims which makes sense because those challenges so they beg the statue. in this far is that ninth circuit but. >> but that is the initial question. >> back canby wage. it does ago to subject matter jurisdiction. and they would recognize there was a constitutional claim in the case the

government argued at that time and to say the supreme court has the power in to bring out the habeas distinction. and that is the basis for that jurisdictional ruling in with that first dimension so there is that reason it. >> co2 view that the probability as a proxy for a flight risk. so with our group of people it is a horrible proxy for those who have citizenship claims and married to u.s.

citizens waiting for da just to decide the petition. it is eight or 10 months. they have no reason to flee. and that extremely extraordinarily high by a the government's own testimony that the immigration judge cannot just look at that to individually assessed if you do present a flight risk. even if it did not require that. >>. >> even at the top end does that mean your proposed remedy that continues to be

detained?. >> en aggravator never argue. for the first six months and never make that argument there is the history even in the criminal context. and dad is treated as the limitation because of the jury trial. with that constitutionality but i don't think that question is rarely it is open. in with that six month rule so outside of national security and they did not

say previously that the allied air cases unless the lives of our 47 days the court did not understand that now when does about to be backlog and that the way it is structured but if you have a cancellation of removal you have to take a continuance. >> for anybody who has been detained. that is the immediate bail hearing. >> yes the agency's own

regulations there are two of them. in the second every six months to those who are especially dangerous and not withstanding as a national security threat with those other provisions. but provided every year and i do that every year it is true six months is rare although the agency does do that but our concern. >> but it could be done by congress the it is something to spend six months. >> where does this say

this?. >> that is within the power or the control of the government entity making the arrests. >> if you have a certain period of time with those 48 hours affair provides clarity but this is different there are many factors if the delay is unreasonable. >> as the constitutionality is a useful benchmark. >> so the other argument this arises from the fact when it is prolonged you

have to draw a line somewhere and what we have seen in a decade is the lower courts. >> and then there were more cases but then there was another year later in the third circuit said it was unconstitutional and then four years later there were more cases. then to say we have to have a guidepost. >> but concerns are heightened with the time period.

so give us a sense of how that is an issue with respect to the broad group of people. >>. >> where they corrected the error they cited those updated statistics so 90 percent finished in less than six months. so that is due to the al myers. -- altairs spinet but they are compiling that evidentiary record to substantiate their claims to take into account considering how long it is.

if you have the alternative with the assessment to take into account normally the time to compile the record why doesn't the suitability were the availability of the individual for habeas become more plausible? with the smaller category of cases?. >>. >> i'm in any given day. >> because they're compiling evidence to make a stronger case. in that diminishes their claim. >> and will answer that portions of we fundamentally

disagree to have a hearing if it is lawful or not with the reason for the delay to compile a record. so i agree if you want to give up than go home. i am not sure where home is at the age of one better i huge majority or two-thirds came here prior to age of 21 and 60% but anyway. so of you want to apply a or make any difference you do not have control. >> so you owe the key in the pocket. but my question is that it isn't, the government is not

entirely responsible for our the length of time. >> i'm trying to get a number you said 400 people? and the number of people that are not partially responsible is a smaller percentage of that. they get smaller and smaller at some point the prospect rather than class y relief. >> if the court were to hold you don't even get a hearing if you are partly responsible to litigate your case and nobody will get out in the habeas petitions are very small. but i disagree with the premise is not fair to say the link of the detention.

>>. >> and the way you have been deprived of the speedy trial have to take out of the calculation. >> that analogy because that's what gives you relief and dismissal of the prosecution there is a violation. even if they are not contain to have us separate obligation than there is probably a speedy trial the we have not argued that. that the detention last to be necessary even if litigating in in good faith because this is the first three years of a child's life because that they are pursuing relief.

when does a making a flight risk in not a speedy trial. when the detention has become prolonged and the judge may say you are pursuing those tactics even putting the ankle monitor with the gps device is not good enough. that's fine. they are detained but the of their people that it is not true they should have the chance to make the case in front of the immigration judge. >> why not immediately?. >> we thought that it should that we lost the court accepted the idea that a generalization was okay and

that is it. if you don't need that hearing on in day one. >> so if there is a significant flight risk that is the six month rule?. >> in we disagree with this but congress said that was because that ship has passed that is a sufficient justification. >> i can imagine some individuals say they have the good argument between zero and six months. would that preclude those claims to do individualize

claims zero to six months? what do we gain?. >> i agree that there may be those that are entitled to a the hearing before that. the with those hearings as six months but don't put his'' close subindex said to have those individualize claims. >>. >> if you were detained in those conditions change? i would want to bring that habeas petition. >> i understand. so as a practical matter it is very unlikely it is difficult to get that

adjudicated. >> but those habeas petitions?. >> you will help so. it takes 14 months. >> to have that finally adjudicated?. >> yes. they are assessing all of these factors that they don't know about. >> i would assume the reason in six months is not picked out of the year but it was presumptively six months in and you could say that was unreasonable and up at eight months. >> how has that worked out? i assume that those are not

overwhelming and therefore for or purposes of vehement -- for what it does in the criminal case that yet does not have the extreme detention where that number comes from. how oh did that work out?. >> there was one big dispute and i would be surprised i am not aware of one. but it is currently pending before the court with a law of litigation that arose trying to figure out those limits but to go back briefly, with the immigration judge of conducting the hearing it doesn't take long that the

habeas court is a totally different story. that later habeas is part of the justification to ensure that there is another look after one year and this is how long mr. rodriguez as step by all of his detention for that entire time would have been justified. he tries to challenge his claim even at the ninth circuit in than remanded back then he can go home to mexico. >> but to save the attire period it is his fault but this is what they try to compile a record.

they can keep them as long as they want. >> that my broader point is still that the fact he is pursuing relief you should not let that person out. it is a plausible came -- claim not to be locked up. >> can i ask a procedural question? so close we reject your constitutional of flavins with there be any sentiments if we were limited to the ninth circuit for the constitutionality?. >> the court to produce that so we are continuing to press the construction claims so yes that being

said that ninth circuit would say that the end of the opinion. so we could come back phone-number three. >> so to ask a practical question i have seen the statistics under this category there has been more people released may and previously. why? under 1226 you have a bail hearing before dirty ims judge have the burden is on the immigrant to prove they're not a flight risk were danger to the community. said to have the situation.

>> sublet it and -- has changed the outcome?. >> lenovo the specifics that might to guess is why, one is the burden shaft after six months with that requirement to be considered under the injunction and second as a practical matter even people who are eligible they don't have lawyers and they don't how that rule the to have a periodic hearing than they have access to the court. >> i don't get that statutory part budget after

that final deportation order the image we the time of their release of the final deportation order to go months and months without a bail hearing. so take them into custody was released from prison that the attorney general made these. >>. >> and even under the constitutional components. >> my time is limited we have not discussed that yet that those two arguments that requires that congress has prolonged detention and real congress understood this to clearly authorized dealer six months and that

is the argument. so with three? points the first to decide that matter as a description of a lost soul if you do get as a bond hearing if you cross in the desert the past the credible fear interview they say in their brief if you look at the opening brief the problem is that statute is attorney general so give that authority to the d.a. chess. so those are the delegates

they have to decide in a statutory manner with they are entitled to read these the long bond. even if there is no constitutional problem there is that in neighboring provision pending their removal proceeding. and i am standing in line for the movie that is how we read deprivation. with a constitutional provision you cannot shoot the and you cannot be taken them whatsoever. >> so we with these the people who were not the danger of a flight risk. so it is narrow that the

jailer gets to make that decision? sorry the immigration judge who gets the case? if we're not in danger of a flight risk they should get out. two-thirds of the class with asylum even when the change. said he talked about a class to are avoiding persecution so that is entirely appropriate for the court to find that is why we would request with respect to everybody else. >>. >> i spent most of my initial time on the right

being aliens and justice kagan talked about the collection of statistics but it is important to of the size -- to emphasize what they thought was true was true that the court said this was a stopping point because the last only as long as the removal proceedings. the large majority of cases is not appealed in that average in median times is about one month. so that prospective that it turns out to be much longer than the court thought they were around tender 15% when it is taken by the vast majority of those cases involved the alien who takes his own appeal. so even if misinformed about the statistics it is in the category of cases where that

own choice causes a further stage to be triggered. to set a course reduces a methodology uses under the speedy trial clause to determine as the core focus is on the reasons for the delay that our attributable to a improper act by the government. >> it is just a question of who makes the decision that goes to the very essence at the threshold have no constitutional right under the due process clause. >> the case is submitted.

. >> when i first went in i was barely able to get back to the surface because trump -- they jumped in and there is a pitcher that they are pulling me out out of the lake for you can see my arm was broken and then of course, once they pulled me out they were not happy to see me because i just finished bombing the place. [laughter] so it got pretty rough. broke my shoulder and hurt my knee again but i don't believe them. we were at war.

i did not like it but at the same time when you are in a war captured by the enemy you cannot expect to have tea . >> good evening ladies did gentleman and i of president

of the national congress club but before i do that i will send a few brief moments to offer expressions of gratitude with most sincere thanks to the british embassy for hosting us in this beautiful then you it is truly an honor to be here this evening and we very much appreciate our also like to recognize the observatory group for their generous contributions hoping to make this evening possible not the least of which by sponsoring students from universities from across washington d.c.. now i am positively delighted to introduce tonight speaker. she needs no introduction but nonetheless it is almost

obligatory given her stature. taking office as chair in february 2014 after previously having served as a member of the board of governors the president of the federal reserve bank and vice chair of the board. also chair of of pfizer's among those associations member the counselor for relations in the american academy of arts and science graduating from brown in receiving ph.d. from yale. tonight she has agreed to take a handful of questions following her remarks you will note that should day question arise you like to ask please write them down on paper. with all of that said please

welcome the honorable janet yellen. [applause] >> i am delighted to address the national economists club also on this occasion to be associated with herb stein who'd scholarship characterized by careful analysis and pragmatism and sharp wit to exemplified the best in the profession to consider new ideas to government policy in in that openness that fits the remarks today. meanly i will discuss the monetary policy tools used by the federal reserve since the start of the financial

represses and the rules they make way to address future economic challenges. ten years ago we were mired in the worst economic crisis since the great depression the fomc he committed a key challenge to the pursuit of the mandated goals for maximum employment and price stability to weaken the u.s. economy was the main policy tool for the federal funds rate to be or to substantially zero. addressing that led to a second challenge if we could scaled-back accommodation in the orderly fashion when no longer needed failure to

meet either challenge to compromise the ability to foster a maximum employment leading to serious consequences were millions of americans to submit that first challenged thanks in part to the monetary policy accommodation provided in the aftermath of the crisis through enhanced forward rate guidance in large-scale asset purchases the u.s. economy has made great strides in with the economy now operating near maximum employment, inflation is expected to rise with the fomc 2% over the next couple years it has been scaling back the accommodation provided in response to the great recession.

in no small part for the excess reserves the process of removing policy accommodation is working well after discussing a few issues to start reducing the size of the federal reserve i will address the key question what is the future role of those policy tools? e. verify believed interest rates should be their primary policy lever those tools will be likely to be needed again their downturn drive those interest rates

indeed empirical analysis suggest that the neutral fed funds rate that is neither expansionary nor a contraction kerry is a much lower than in previous decades and consequently interest rates may need to be reduced to be uncomfortably high in the absence of major financial economic crisis returning to the of question of policy tools but first i would like to review our experience this decade so the substantial body of evidence suggest the u.s. economy is much stronger today than it would have been without the

unconventional monetary policy tools deployed by the federal reserve in response to the great recession. to keep tools large-scale asset purchases in forward guidance to the future path the short-term interest rates the rationale was straightforward. did in the inability of short-term interest rates after reaching year's zero the fomc used increasingly explicit guidance and asset purchases to apply downward pressure which was still well above zero. reflecting the financial participants expectation of the future path of interest rates as a result the

enhanced for word reached guidance in the aftermath of the great recession can affect long-term interest rates. in addition it includes the term premium which is the compensation demanded by investors for the interest-rate risk for longer-term securities. when the federal market the remaining stock available for purchase declined which pushes the prices of those securities up to lower the premiums imbedded in the yields. simple studies have found that forward rate guidance and asset purchases didn't

appreciably reduce long-term interest rates the fomc is goal is to help u.s. economy recover from the recession to stem those disinflationary forces some have suggested the slow pace of the economic recovery proves that policy tool is an effective. so indeed to suggest that for word guidance in securities purchases to lower the borrowing cost in making those financial condition is more accommodative and lower the unemployment rate in stave

off disinflationary pressures. to deploy and conventional policy tools following the financial crisis. evidence accumulated supports the notion that these tools help to stimulate in their countries after their short-term interest rates were or to years hero or even below zero. by 2014 u.s. economy was making notable progress to the fomc goals of maximum employment and price stability had dropped as 6% by midyear with a peak of 10% and those conditions were showing significant improvement. in addition to inflation is measured by the changing of

price index had reached one and three-quarters percent after hovering around 1%. said reflecting that progress the focus was shifting from providing additional monetary policy accommodations to scaling it back. the key question then is how do we reduce the degree of accommodation of the expanded balance sheet? one possible approach was to start by reducing the federal reserve security holdings will short-term interest rates remain lower. allowing them to roll off the balance sheet thereby putting upward pressure

while calibrating the pricing and configuration of the reduction of the of holdings with maximum employment and price stability eventually once security holdings were sufficient they could start nudging up the short-term interest rates one problem of the last in / first how to approach the fomc has no experience to calibrate the composition with respect to those economic conditions. a the temper tantrum of 2013 illustrated that even talk of perspective changes can illicit unexpected changes in the initial conditions.

given the lack of experience to scale back monetary policy in the need to do calibrate their removal, the fomc opted to allow changes of the federal reserve securities holding to play a secondary rule when negative rolled in this strategy the fomc decided the primary tool for those accommodations would be influenced short-term interest rates. as we explained september 2014 the fomc decided the overall size of the security holdings at the elevated lovell and tell sometimes after they had begun to raise short-term interest rates once that

normalization was well underway and with that economic expansion was strong enough to further increase what is to be warranted the fomc would gradually reduce the size of the balance sheet to allow the federal reserve security holdings to run off. to allow the balance sheet to shrink by not investing all of those principal payments from securities. 1a vintage of that chosen approach that both have decades of experience in response to changes of economic conditions. nonetheless the post crisis

environment presents a new test to influence short-term interest rates. . .