how do we turn what we have into a 21st century health care system? not just insurance, but the system altogether. how can we envision what a health care system can look like in 2025, rather than protect the version of 1975, which in effect is what we have now. america, really if you think about it, is a place of discovery and innovation. if we fix a few big things, we can transform ourselves because we are the most dynamic country in the world across the spectrum of policy to make policy better for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. this will require a new approach on how we allow people to stay healthy, how we reward that. support life-saving medical discoveries and care. let me give you some personal anecdotes. next week, or the week after next, on the 20th anniversary is an event that my wife, columba, and i have been involved with to raise money for cystic fibrosis.

we have been doing it for 20 years. when we began this, people would say that children were dying before they became adults with this disease and people would say, if we keep working hard, eventually we will find a cure. today, if you are born with cystic fibrosis, there are medicines that have been discovered in the last 3-4 years, and more on the way, that will ultimately allow someone with cystic fibrosis to live as long as everybody else. our grandchildren, being born today, if we get this right, will live way beyond 100 years. it creates challenges, but it is also an opportunity to transform our society in a way that will allow more and more people to live lives of purpose and meaning. here is the problem -- the one thing i know is this, we cannot stick with the status quo. we cannot leave this up to the lobbyists and politicians in washington, d.c. the system we have today, obamacare, in its current form, was written by the special interests for the special interests.

let's look at what had been promised and what we got instead. president obama promised that health care insurance premiums would fall by $2500 per families. it is estimated, by the president's own team, that they will increase by over the next $2900 10 years. right here, in new hampshire, based on the rate filings that have taken place, next year premiums are expected to increase anywhere from 20%-50%. president obama promised universal coverage. based on covenant -- based on government projections, even after spending trillion's of dollars, there will still be 27 million americans without health insurance during this 10 year period. it turns out that being on medicaid is not necessarily a better deal than being uninsured. for those policy wonks in the crowd, you may want to check the oregon study that analyzed

like kind people with insurance, and those receiving medicaid. they found that those who did not have insurance actually got better quality care. the notion that access to insurance yields better results may not be the case if you look at the poor quality of medicaid that is tied down massive -- tied down by massive amounts of regulations and rules imposed by washington, d.c. the obamacare website, one of the classic disasters in modern government history, has now been overhauled at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. two thirds of the people who got an obamacare subsidy found out later that they owed an average of $730 to the irs. people who signed up for an old obamacare plan are fighting that -- plan are finding that one third of the doctors and hospitals are not in their networks. the number of people dropping out of the plan, according to "the new york times" story that i read yesterday is growing as people realize that they have to pay out of pocket cost, and it

is better to pay the fine. you cannot escape the impact of this terrible law even if you were not in the exchanges or on medicaid because the mandates an additional coverage requirements are creating impositions for private companies. all of this is being done with the largest tax increase in modern history. on the backs of businesses and sabers and american workers. he imposed these rules that require companies to reduce hours for workers. markets work this way. the minute you create some sort of rule or imposition, markets adjust. that means millions of men and women hours are gone. people are working part time when they want to work full-time. in fact, people are losing their insurance when they have had it before. it is quite a legacy, if you think about it. when you consider the wreckage, it makes you wonder, how could anybody support this now? well, hillary clinton supports it, and so does bernie sanders,

and other democrats. the debate tonight in las vegas will probably prove that they will be strongly supportive of this top-down driven, highly bureaucratic insurance plan that is stifling our ability to rise up. for the democrats, this is what they want. this is what they like. they like the power deciding these things from up above. this is their essence. i believe the top down approach is not the one for our country. whether it is energy policy, health care policy, across the board, we are a bottom-up nation. we are a nation that does things much better when we empower people to make decisions for themselves, rather than get in line, and be told what to do. that is what obamacare is. there is no way to fix it, to be honest with you. you cannot fix something that was a failure from the start. we have to start over. when i become president, i will work immediately to repeal and replace obamacare with a system that looks more like the successful enterprises and successful systems of our great country.

let me tell you how i will get it done. i will focus on how health care should look like. we need health care system for 2025, not 1975. i believe we need to recognize the positive change and disruption all around us should be our friend, not our adversary. we should liberate our system to allow for more innovation to take place. think about it. we have smartphones that can video chat with our doctors and caregivers. we have genomic medicine. personalized treatment of cancer and other diseases. we have 3-d printers that can turn out replacement blood vessels and heart valves. medicine has changed. it is constantly changing. we have to get washington out of the way, stop its micromanagement, so we can have an explosion of dynamic responses to the great challenges we face, and turn them into opportunities, not just for our better health, but for economic progress for all of us. i believe, as i hope you do, lives are saved by bold

innovation. we have a moral obligation to make sure washington does not get in the way. if we rely on the regulators of washington, d.c. to decide what kind of health care we should get, we will continue to get frustration, higher cost, and a lot more complexity, or worse. look at the v.a. scandal that has taken place throughout our country. president obama and many on the left have used the v.a. hospital system as a model for a government controlled health care, bragging about how great it is. the delays and deceptions speak for themselves. we have been warned. if that is the best that washington can do, i think we need to move in a different direction. we need to unleash the power of millions of americans, doctors, nurses, entrepreneurs, who are inventing the future of health care. advance screenings only require a stick of a finger.

personalized therapies for seniors who live far away from major hospital. genomic medicine, so treatments match each person's physiology. an app on your smart phone that calls a doctor to your door, just like it does a card to pick -- just as it does for a car to pick you up. devices that can mimic what our body was designed to do. i want all of us to embrace this change so we can answer these questions with confidence. did the patient get the care he or she needed? did her health improve? was there a more efficient or affordable way to get to the best result? my plan, therefore, focuses on five key steps. first, repeal obamacare. that means all of its mandate, penalties, new spending, the arbitrary picking and choosing of the parts of the law that are implemented, and the ones that don't. all of that goes away. especially the new taxes on medical devices, drugs, and insurance, all of which drive up

the cost of health care for middle income americans. second, instead of punishing innovation, we will double down on it. my plan would aggressively support groundbreaking work at the nih and our country's finest researchers as they find new treatments and cures. if we started from scratch, if we did not have a system of how we allocate the resources for the research that goes on, and if we start from scratch with the fda, i can promise you it would be a less costly system and it would take a lot less time and it would the a lot more strategic in its efforts. that is what we need to do. we need to make medical record keeping efficient, shareable, and secure. the president had a golden opportunity to be able to do this, but the simple fact is the information technology funding, through the stimulus, was not focused on creating a shared platform for all of us to benefit.

we have huge complexity in information technology, and that information is not protected nor is it shared. we have to look celebrate the -- we have to accelerate the fda process of drug production and approval so potential drugs can reach patients more safely and quickly. i believe we need to create a consensus, as we did in the 1960's, when john f. kennedy suggested we launch a man to the moon. it is an aspirational goal. i think we need to do the same thing as we create an aspirational goal to investigate and explore the brain. think of all the challenges that exist in our community today because we lag behind on understanding how the brain operates. autism, alzheimer's, mental illness. all of these challenges that play out in our society in a great country of ours with an abundance of resources like ours -- if we were strategic, we need -- if we were strategic rather

than everyone just getting to the high-grade slop in the front of the trough, that is not how it should work. we need to be significantly more aspirational in strategic about how we go about doing this. innovation led by the private sector will be at the center of everything we do. that is the only way we can get better care at lower cost. we need to fix where the government is paying for health -- is holding back innovative health care. we would give people more control over their health care dollars. in my plan we would propose tax , credits to those without employer coverage so they can secure portable and insurance that provides preventative care and also comprehensive coverage for major medical evidence. -- major medical events. this will help middle-class households who currently do not qualify for obama care subsidies and have been slammed by higher premiums brought about by obamacare. we will make it user for small businesses to get coverage.

today, as a small business person, it is either or. is a you provide insurance for your employees or you don't. a better approach would make it easier for lower-cost insurance for small businesses to provide care, but if they wanted to provide support for people who wanted to get their own care in a less mandated form of access to care, they should have the right to do that, and that should be a tax write off for them. many people are frustrated with the higher to dockable plans and we will give them the support they need to make it easier for co-pays.-of-pocket the system would work far better. a system where you do not have the consumer engaged in making decisions, you get a good result. that is not how it works. the best system is one where the people are totally engaged, where we have transparent information for them to make decisions about themselves.

where there is support for them to be able to have the kinds of insurance that will allow them to grow and prosper, along with a health savings account, so they are rewarded for healthy lifestyle decisions as they go forward. whereever they don't spend, they should be able to say. -- they should be able to save. we will give them real transparency to decide which health care provider will provide the best value. health care providers will be more accountable for results, and they will really compete to design the new ways to deliver care. this will require some major changes on how we regulate health insurance. states rather than washington, , d.c., are much better equipped to set the standards. here is what i propose. we will open up state insurance markets to much broader competition and choice. right now, obamacare locks in a small handful of one-size-fits-all mandated policies engineered and

-- engineered in washington, d.c. when did you to break up the insurance monopolies and allow people to buy health insurance designed for what they actually want. for example, an individual who might want to buy a high deductible plan for unexpected events the true form of , insurance that should be the norm, but maybe they would want also to have one that adds preventative care and diabetes management with no cost sharing at all. or, physicians may want to develop a plan that uses preventative medicine that identifies and cures once cancer. the possibilities for innovation are endless if we trust the marketplace to do what it does so well. if people are informed, and they make decisions based on the proper information that they have, if the system is much more transparent, the providers of insurance and care will respond with a significant amount of innovation. plans to protect you in case you get sick, and plans with a focus

on certain conditions such as heart disease would become the norm. plans that are perfect for different stages of life, whether people are single, whether they have a family, or whether they are retired. let me be clear. everybody will have access to the tax credits that will help them buy insurance that protects them from losing their life savings from major medical events. that should be the national focus, making sure that people have catastrophic coverage so that their lives are not turned upside down by an adverse event that could have tragic results -- could have a real devastation for their family. whatever they want insurance to cover, they should buy that. we won't force people to buy coverage they don't want because they don't need it or it violates their conscience. frankly, that is one of the most egregious parts of obamacare, the idea that you are forced to do things against her own conscience. we would get rid of that. there are certain things that we will ensure. we will expect that vulnerable americans, regardless of how much money they make, get the care and outcomes they deserve.

hillary clinton says that will happen under medicaid. let me tell you something. i was governor of the state of florida, i think we had the fourth largest medicaid plan. states are extraordinarily frustrated with the state partnership that is medicaid. spending more through a broken system is not the answer. let's try a new approach. let's let the states have the power to create a safety net for the 21st century, and hold them accountable for the results they achieved. if we took the money that goes to medicaid, and took the subsidies on obamacare and put , fchip in the mix, i can promise you we will get a better result. you know why i know that? i had a chance to do a version of that when i was governor of the state of florida with our medicaid plan. we had a pilot program in fort lauderdale and jacksonville. it was the 25th largest medicaid plan. we created tiered premiums,

where medicaid beneficiaries were given choices, where we empowered them to make choices. this notion that people living in poverty do not know what is right with their families -- we better start rejecting that out of hand. whether it is health care or education or the safety of their neighborhood, america does not do this right this top-down , believe that some people are smart, and some people aren't, i reject it, and i hope you do as well. a medicaid plan that empowers people to make decisions for themselves will get far better results. imagine a system where you had choice counseling, where you rewarded making healthy lifestyle decisions by allowing people to have more money to make healthy lifestyle decisions the next year, where there is competition, choices, where people takes the plan for them. maybe the have a child with asthma. i higher premium based on the actuarial cost. they are empowered to make more choices because they get more for the premium dollars that they had. a system that is focused on

people, rather than on government, will yield a far better result. the net result of this is we did this at a lower cost than the old medicaid plan. we did it at higher quality. medicaid beneficiaries, based on outside observations and studies, suggested it was far better for them. i believe the states are the place where this will happen. washington has had its chance to do these things and it has failed miserably. we need to liberate our country to be able -- to be able to, from the bottom up, be able to solve these problems. i won't except the strawman argument from the other side that the opposite of obamacare is no care. it doesn't mean going back to the way things used to be. we need a system that doesn't address just the changes, but also one that meets the needs

for our economy. as you know, my aspiration is that this country should grow at 4% per year as far as the eye can see. if we were doing that, i promise you that the demands of government would subside. there would be a lot more people in the private insurance market who would be able to increase their pay incentive having to slough off their health care costs. it is not working. are from the costs backs of employees. take home pay has declined. we are the sixth year of a recovery, and disposable income is 2000 plus dollars less than the date of the recovery started. moving to a different system would make it work. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, repealing obamacare would increase gdp growth by 7/10 of

1% over 10 years, which is a big part of reaching the goal of 4% growth instead of this new normal of 2% growth. 4 would as the equivalent of million full-time equivalent jobs to our economy. there are a lot of people working part-time. they want to work full-time but they are stuck in a system because of these rules having these adverse outcomes. no matter how you earn a living, my plan will give the american people control over their health care. i reject the arguments you hear from the progressive left. whether it is senator sanders or hillary clinton. government have to do the work for them. that is not the american way. if you empower them with the right information in a much more transparent system, i can promise you that people will act on their self-interest which is lower cost at a higher quality

for their families. i'm not afraid of giving more information on their health care. i got to do that as governor of the state of florida as well. at first thought this was kind of a radical idea. but then they realized, why should we do this. they started offering care and promoting the fact that they had better outcomes at lower costs. think about every aspect of our economy. is this the only place in the economy were low costs and higher quality is assumed to be impossible to achieve. the rest of the economy does this daily. more abundance, more prosperity, higher-quality. health care needs to get to that as well.

for people in terms of our economy and better health, if we tear down the barriers. for some odd reason, people just can't see how lower costs can improve, if you do it the right way, quality. we prevent illness and create a better chance for people to live a life of purpose and meaning. it will require the kind of leadership we need to fix these things. whether his regulations in general or taxes, or reforming our higher education system, young people are stuck with recourse debt. to make sure that degrees are attained in a way that allows young people. all ofthese young -- these things are broken right now because we have not had the

leadership in washington to fix them. can do thisat if we this will be the most exciting time to be alive in the world. this is an essential element of what the next president has to do. i believe i have the skills to do it and if we get this right, we will have our grandchildren living way beyond 100. we will be hopefully in heaven, at least my age. -- but we will have a society that continues to be the [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we will have more road to the white house coverage continuing tomorrow. jeb bush held a town hall, you 7:00atch that like at p.m. eastern. and a political rally for

donald trump. watch all of our coverage online at www.c-span.org. >> at a conference, donoghue talked about the fourth amendment. this conference took place in september. this is just under an hour. >> hello, everyone. i am a senior here address minster college. i had the pleasure of serving on the symposium committee this past year. i am honored to introduce professor laura donahue, our

opening plenary speaker. she is a professor at georgetown and director of the center on privacy and technology. professor donahue writes on u.s. constitutional law, history, and national security and counter terrorist law in the united kingdom. books and author of the forthcoming book on fourth amendment and digital surveillance. she obtained a bachelor of arts from doug ruth college, a inters in peace studies northern ireland, a jd from stanford law school and a phd from the university of england. please welcome professor donahue. [applause]

donahue: thank you very much. thank you very much, president, it dean, associated in jefferson, dr. gibson, ms. gibby, and members of the committee for inviting me to the symposium. particularly the sure, as you commemorate the 70th university of sir winston churchill's address. privilege tor and be her. as a graduate of churchill college, cambridge, i have more than a little loyalty and respect for sir winston. i returned every summer to avail myself of his great legacy and to center my thoughts in an increasingly complex and swift-moving world.

in our archives, for many years we had one of winston churchill's great school report cards on display. as graduate students, it gave is great hope. when winston was 10 years old, the headmaster of saint george's been, his conduct has exceedingly bad. he is not to be trusted to do a single thing. in a gross mistreatment of character, he added, "he has no ambition the co it turned out that sir winston had great ambition. waspersonal ambition, which a facet of his character he referenced when he came to missouri in 1946. he took the opportunity to speak freely. ambitions i private might have had in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. specialwledged the relationship between the united states and the united kingdom

and arts them to set a common hours. the freedom and progress of all the homes and families of all men and women. to give securities, sir winston argued, every home must be shielded from tyranny. ar churchill, it was not question of security versus freedom, but security through liberty. he spoke of the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the british empire. never, he stated, ceased to proclaim in fearless tunes the principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the english speaking world. the magna carta, the bill of rights, that heaviest corpus famouseir most expression in the declaration of independence. seven decades later, the united states and the united kingdom, again find themselves at the

dawn of a new air. again, we face existential threat. science and technology have again radically altered our world. while the cold war was to find my nuclear weapons, our world is defined by technology. they offer great promise. nevertheless, the digital age, like the atomic age, offers great. at risk for the fundamental principles of liberty churchill underscored, the english bill of rights and centuries of common law. principles of the founding so seriously as to incorporate into the virginia bill of rights, our state constitution, and ultimately, the fourth amendment. i will draw from three areas today. english legal treatises and case

law, the american experience, and the current state of affairs. my principal concern is advances in technology and efforts of the government to protect us threaten to undermine one of the most important protections on government power. the prohibition on general warrants. the right against promiscuous search and seizure lays at the heart of law. it was to prevent the general warrants, specific warrants that lack particularity, that we adopted the fourth amendment. if we do not act quickly, this liberty, which service to churchill recalled in his address, will be lost. a general warranty is a document issued by a court or executive branch giving officials the and toty to search for seize private documents without any prior or specific evidence

of wrongdoing. it does not specify with particularity the persons or places to be searched or the mozilla records to be seized. it is not supported by an oath or affirmation of any wrongdoing. it is a fishing expedition to find evidence of wrongdoing. scholars andlish jurors rejected general awards as the worst exercise of tyrannical power. during the reign of charles i, sir edward coke argued against the use of general warrants. in such instruments be used for matters of state, we argonne. we're in a worse case and win ever if we agree for matters of state. we should only magna carta and other statutes and make them fruitless, and do what our

ancestors would never do. returned to his argument in the third part. to issue general warrants, he wrote, is against magna carter. preventing their use lay at the heart of the law. [latin] neither will we pass upon him or condemn him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the crown. deathbed,on his charles i ordered that looks home be searched and all such papers in manuscripts that might be relevant to be seized. the trunks when

they arrived. his actions were too late. even as charles i pass execution and did this, cook's ideas became cemented into english thought. an intellectual giant famous for his history of the laws of england noticed in his first volume a general warrant to search for felons or stolen goods not good. two years later, parliament direct the publication of his manuscript. appeared inlly 1936, it became enormously influential. stated, a general warrant to search in all places is not good. but only a particular place with suspicion and probable goal cause. cause.probable

he continued, therefore i take those general warrants to be dormant. they are not justifiable. makes the party to be in effect, the judge. years, england looked to these and reject did the idea of a general warrant. in 1760 two, john looks founded north brittany in opposition to the pro-government paper. when the english entered into negotiations with the french, the north britain attacked the terms of peas. wilkes, it shown here and somewhat unflattering light, lamented the french king, i the

stroke of his pen, has rejected but the sovereign nation could never have done. remarkably, the treaty of paris saved england from a certain ruin. the crown had been sunk, even to prostitution. this time, he went too far. three days later, the crown issued a general warrant trying and- making a strict diligent search for the authors, printers, and publishers of northport and publishers of north britain number 45. dozens of cases challenged the kings actions. actions.own's it was argued that more was at stake than the simple execution of one warrant against one person. beenain has our house declared, by the law, our asylum and defense. it is capable of eating

centered, upon any frivolous or no preference at all, by a secretary of state account argued,law, counsel might make a man's bed for the promulgation of our most private concerns. secretive the most and personal nature. reparation could not be made. beyond the privacy invasion, significant risks accompanied the proposition that some papers, quite innocent in and of themselves, might be made by the slightest alteration criminal action. after more than one -- i'm sorry -- after only one hour of deliberation, the jury returned anerdict and rewarded astonishing one thousand pounds to him. two days later, the st. james chronicle, reflected on this important decision.

every englishman has the satisfaction of sinbad to his home is his castle. recall that sir thomas cook stated, every house of everyone castle and photos as well as his defense against injury and violence. with four years later he incorporated this into his institute. required, for a man's house is his castle and each man's home is his safest refuge. later, lord chief justice mansfield, similarly found himself confronted by a general warrant. in this case, as it was executed against the printer. -- dunning argued that the

generality of warrants is what made it invalid. no mobile cause. if such a warrant could be issued, the court would be extremely mischievous. its studiesfact of to search for evidence and even without a previous charge on oath, is contrary to national -- natural justice. to search a man's private papers without accusation is in an infringement of the natural rights of mankind. lord mansfield, presiding over the case, agreed. such a an uncertain warrant is void. there is no case or book to the contrary. the judge has stood. charlesstice contemplated under the general warrant issued. rolling against the government, the greatrved that

edge that men enter into is to secure their privacies. any breach, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. he did not mean this merely as a home. said, is man's dearest property and are so far from and during a procedure that they will hardly bear and expection. -- in inspection. a general warrant is such a piece of nonsense as deserves not to be spoken of. two years later, william blackstone's commentaries on the laws of england underscored the distinction between general and theific warrants, rejecting latter. it is the duty of magistracy and ought not be left to the officer

to judge the grounds of suspicion. when the american colonists left england, they expected that their rights as englishman will travel with them. generalthe new world, warrants began proliferating again. this time, in the form of a bit of assistance. a writ of assistance. this gave a allowance to search in order to recover goods. be first tod would assist. -- thus, writs of assistance. massachusetts state governor, relied on the

executive general to serve the order. in 1790, the southern secretary of state director of massachusetts colony to stop just not northern trade, but trade with the french indies. the merchantser, had an opportunity to challenge them in court. the merchants chose one of the leading writers of the time, james otis, junior. he resigned his position as deputy advocacy general to take the position. case,n'son in named after one of the assistants, remains one of the most famous in american history. more than 50 years after the

event, president john adams, who was present at the time, said, overdose is a flame of fire. everyman appeared to me to go as i did, ready to take arms against writ of assistance. to speak andood up something profound changed in america. otis attacked the very concept. i will, until my dying day, up the powers of such instruments of slavery on one hand and villainy on the other as this wr it of assistance is. it rejects the fundamental rules of the constitution. hearken back to charles i and

james at i, he said it was this type of to spot it when king of england his throne and another his head. king has the potential to be a tyrant. not just in behavior, but one backed by the law. they could use it to take revenge on others. anyone could force others to his will. the freedom of one's house is his castle. and he should be as well guarded as a printed in his castle. of assistance would totally annihilate this privilege. it was reflected, then and there was the first act of resistance to the arbitrary claim of great written. then and there, the child

independents was born. americans were eager to ensure the united states did not have the same power to override their rights. so, the fifth of virginia convention assembled and the plan of the american public. lee,e mason, richard henry thomas jefferson, and others. to mason fell the responsibility of drafting the virginia declaration of rights. internet document, mason laid out the natural rights of man. document, in that mason laid out the natural rights of man. man has rights to limit the government. to be free of general warrant. the virginia declaration of that the general

warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without , orence of a fact committed to seize any person or persons not named, but offense. along with the square of confess -- long it free to the colonists from tyrannical rule. 1770 six, benjamin franklin, james cannon, tom's and others drafted a new constitution for the state of sylvania. in establish security from search and seizure of a road of the paper. fromeople shall be free unreasonable search and seizure. by using the word unreasonable, sylvania meant something

different than what is attributed to it today in the fourth amendment. it meant, against reason. againstable meant reason. against the reason of the common law. anything against the reason of the common law was illegal. by using this term, unreasonable search, it they meant precisely general warrants because they violated the common law. other states followed suit. these state constitutions transformed a colonial grill events about the rights to enter them as englishman into a important guarantee of individual rights. the founders ray wrote the articles of confederation into the constitution, state after state demanded a new clause be added to the bill of rights the building general warrants.

the most lively and intense exchange place in the gillette. check henry led the attack. -- patrick henry led the attack. he demanded a bill of rights be added to ensure the protection of ancient liberties. general warranties or one of his particular concerns. i feel myself distressed, he said. thingsy other valuable missing. general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places without evidence of a commission or a fact, or seize a person on to be prohibited. the problem was that property can be taken in the most arbitrary manner without any evidence or reason.

everything considered sacred could be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. the virginia delegates went on to establish the protection against unreasonable search and seizure and general warrants. article 16 stated that every to be frees a right from all unreasonable search and seizure of his person, paper, property. all warrants had to pay particular eyes. the debates in new york similarly highlighted the absence of a protection against warrants. for rhode island, it was only with the understanding the constitution will take into account and ratified the constitution. in maryland, anti-federalist wind excise officers would be able to enter your home at all times, night or day and if you

refused entrance, they could break open at your doors, trunks, desks, and ravage your houses from adam to cap. that to also asked for be included. sylvania, north korea -- carolina,ia, north similar requests. wrote, "the rights of conscience, the freedom of the press, trials by jury. -- and the u.s. constitution, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects against

unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. the first part of this clause as established as the prohibition on general warrants. says what poet specifically is required for a specific warrant to be valid. history in mind, one could perhaps be forgiven for when theprised guardian announced that the united states was collecting the telephone records of millions of americans. this order required verizon to turn over all call records created by verizon for communications between united states and abroad for within the united states, including local calls.ne issued by the foreign

intelligence surveillance court, this order did not name any suspected of wrongdoing. it did not specify a crime. there was no oath or affirmation. the order did not note the particular place to research. it did not appear to be tailored in any way whatsoever. it demanded that documents detailing individual private networks, social network, relationship, location as revealed from trunk information identifier, seven days a week, and four hours a day, for months the time, be turned over to government. it is important to note a significant amount of personal information was included. a study at stanford university showed that for just a few months, the telephony information, looking

one participant in the stanford study received calls from a pharmacy for a medical device that is used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia. participant called a firearms store specializing in ar-15 automatic rifles before telephoning customer service for manufacturing that produces the line. another customer called a henshaw, -- locksmith, head shop, hydroponics dealer. one woman telephoned the clinic and called it a final time. metadata provided gun purchases, heart conditions,

cannabis cultivation, and the decision to have an abortion. it was a small sample over a short period of a limited number of calls. the order, it turns out, was in place for over a decade. it was a judicial risk and demanded that anyone circumvent complied. to findeing used evidence of illegal activity. to be sure, there are differences between the general warnings issued by the founders and this general warrants that marks the telephony metadata program. it was physical entry into people's homes which was at stake where is now the collection of data is not involved a physical trespass. in the founding, if an individual's home was being searched, there was an element of embarrassment and also occurred, while today the programs are secret.

and since everybody is subject, it does not carry the same in premature -- the carry the same wait. that an englishman's home was his castle is largely in anti-federalist writings, and the same is at stake in this program and other programs that were at stake in the founding. embedded in the concept of the englishman's home being his castle are deeper understandings about what we ought and ought not to be forced to reveal to the government. access to our castle means access to our family, our friends come our bedrooms, our bathrooms come out of books come in our correspondence. further implicated as the right ,o solitude, the right to relax the right to be unguarded and our actions and ideas and

question the world and our role in it. who we are, who we want to be, how we evolved come all of this in protected space will we can interact with our own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. to decide for ourselves different degrees of intimacy to contribute to our own development. underlying these ideas is a basic understanding that when you are subject to surveillance, you change your behavior. democratic deliberations turns on our ability to discuss ideas, however unpopular our views are so that we may further develop our ideas in the marketplace for ideas. gibson exactly what dr. says the symposium is about. if you think that everything you say and do is recorded and

analyzed in subjected to algorithms, you change what you say and do and with whom you say and do it. these ideas were alive in .olonial times the relationship between different rights like the right to privacy, free speech, association, was understood and protected. considerations such as the potential harm that could follow from government amassing too much power in one place. for one, it gets the assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty wrong, instead that you are guilty until you are innocent or free of guilt. another way of approaching this manner is the possibility that individuals will target people simply because of their ideas, beliefs, or positions. it can be used to prevent

political or economic opposition. using intimate information to gain insight into our relationships and then using that to stifle opposing views. it can also override the structural division of power for our government at a federal level. the u.s. government to collect all of the communications of judges, legislators, and secretly analyze. the amassing of this power in one place holds enormous attentional for abuse. because of this potential for harm, the founding generation warrants eveneral more concerning the general warrants for arrest. search.ral warrants for

defenders have defended the collection of metadata in three ways. first, they say congress specifically authorized them to collect the information when inserted information into the usa patriot act by providing them the power when the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible thing saw a relevant to an authorized investigation other than a threat assessment. so how did this program fit? the government interpreted the word relevant, the second clause underlined, to mean that all telephony metadata is potentially relevant, so we can collect it. the problem with reading it in this way is that it reads relevant out of the equation. if all telephony metadata is relevant, and so is all

financial metadata, so were all gun records, educational records. everything becomes relevant, nothing is irrelevant. the government, by reading it written, approved it large and turned this authority into precisely a threat assessment, which is explicitly banned by the statute itself. second, proponents of the measure claim telephony metadata is not private. they point to a case in the 1970's called smith versus maryland, in which the supreme numbersld that the dialed from a telephone provided to a third party or not private. in one case, for tricia mcdonough was walking down a street in baltimore when someone

assaulted her. he took her purse and a monte carlo drove by her. later, somebody started calling her and making threatening phone calls. she saw the same 1975 monte carlo drive pastor home. she called the police and told them she was getting these phone calls. the police approached the phone company and said, we have is the device that allows us to record numbers to be dialed from their phone. police didn't the have the numbers you called. you were built by the minute. they did it as a favor for the police. sure enough, the man who owned the license plate of the car that had been driving in runs, he called patricia mcdonough. they use that information to go into his home, they walk in the door, and there is the phonebook . they use that to build a case against him. supreme court said that by

providing the telephone information to the company when you pick up your phone, you have no privacy interest in it. if there was zero privacy interest in 1970, even now there is more of that information, it is still zero. zero plus zero equals zero. the problem with this argument, as i have noted already, is that there are enormous privacy interests at stake . it is absurd to think that we have no privacy interests in our network. , sleep next date to, all of this is private regardless of whether the information is gleaned from metadata or a camera inside of our home. interestsnot the same they were at stake in 1970. then, it was applied to a landline. now we have mobile devices.

where we where we go, are located, even when we are not on the phone. our phone can communicate with local cell phone towers letting us -- letting them know where we are. this reliance means that detailed social networks can be ascertained. one socialust network, but the entire social network. e, is zero plus one yadabit which is a totally different level of inclusion. third is that it is set to expire so we don't need to worry about the collection of telephony metadata. that is a red herring. thathing is -- something is especially meeting to be misleading or distracting. new analytical tools compared

with ways in which technology has catapulted our world forward makes this one of the most pressing questions of our time. telephony metadata collection is not the only game in town. myriad other mass collection programs are under way, giving the government insight into our most private affairs. there are just a few examples we know from documents that have been leaked. starting in october of 2001, operated aush surveillance program entirely outside any statutory structure. collected telephone and internet metadata as well as content. it was so secretive, that for a few years, the nsa itself was not allowed to see the legal reasoning. the legal reasoning effort provided -- the legal reasoning has been provided by an attorney

within the olc. oh lc has since repudiated the memos that he wrote at the time. as the program -- a concerted thatt was made to shoehorn program into the existing legislative framework. this is how we get that absurd reading of relevant, where everything is relevant. find a way to stick it into existing legislative framework. transferred toy the intelligence surveillance act. we already have legislation that covered how we record numbers dialed from an numbers that call somebody for foreign intelligence purposes. the way that all internet

metadata was precisely the same, by saying that all internet metadata was relevant, therefore we can collect all internet metadata. this is an extraordinary -- everythingeast is relevant, then everything is relevant across the board, not just for national security but for criminal law purposes. this program was officially ended in december of 2011, but internet metadata collection continues through a program called evil olive. issued of the orders under section 215, there are 711 orders that we know have been issued under section 215. we do not know the other programs that have been continued underneath that section.

in 2012, there were 212 applications alone in that one year. considering the statutory interpretation that is taking place, this could implicate millions of americans records. in 2008, congress added a new section to the foreign intelligence surveillance act to give it more flexibility in intercepting international content and traffic. the reason for this was strong. had a bad guy you or bad girl -- say we have a bad person in london calling a bad person in paris. previously, that phone call would go right across the channel and the intelligence companies in the united states should not be expected to go to a court every time they want to tap anyone international, especially bad people. the problem is that in an internet generation, when e-mail is now being carried to servers

in the united states, those same communications might go through domestic borders. the argument was exceedingly strong. we should not have to go to record every time a bad person in london tossed person in paris just because they have views -- just because they happen to use an american isp. for non-us persons believed to overseas,. over the past two years, we have discovered that the nsa has used , collectingon massive amounts of information about u.s. citizen, including intercepting conversations of an entirely local character in the united states, because it turns out that if i were to text or e-mail somebody sitting here

from here, it might go to canada. that can now be picked up through section 702. it turns out that not just national -- not just community should come domestically, but our domestic communications are carried internationally. the first program, prism, draws apple, some yahoo!, of the largest indications providers, making the information that can be obtained substantial. e-mail, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, network details, etc. the second is called upstream collection under 702, and that amounts to collection of information directly from the backbone of the internet facilities. it monitors all traffic crossing

certain cables, not just information targeted at a specific internet protocol address or telephone numbers. by 2011, the nsa was declaring around 26.5 million internet transactions per year through the upstream collection. notably, the nsa interprets the to ore to me not just from the target. there is one order with 85,000 targets. it is to, from, or about those targets, so content is being monitored. the fbi routinely used databases for completely unrelated

criminal activity to look for evidence of wrongdoing. a rule change allows law enforcement agencies to query these databases using u.s. persons information. other forms of personal information have also been undere of fisa guidelines. first internet -- first introduced by reagan in 1981 provide the framework. while the full scope is not underwent program called mystic, the nsa protections -- the nsa collects data from countries and in some cases, the content as well. systems some of these appear not to be for foreign intelligence purposes, such as narcotics trafficking or smuggling.

basically, traditional law enforcement concerns. ,he data being collected extends to e-mail lists. chq, is one of our big partners, the nsa counterpart in the united kingdom. 2008-2010, g-8 cq files -- --whether the user was a foreign intelligence target. during 16-month period, they collected data from 8 million yahoo! users. turns out that nudity is a big problem, they are trying to figure out ways to keep the regions from looking all the nude photographs but they are finding it hard to filter out.

not messages are similarly immune. the nsa collected almost 200 million text messages per day globally, using them to ascertain travel plans and details. thise be clear, information is being collected on individuals who are not themselves suspected of any illegal activity. locational data is also being obtained, about 5 million records per day is being collected with more than 27 terabytes of information now associated with that. this information is subject to almost no oversight. acknowledgesein they do not form oversight of these programs. a similar argument for collection under this program is -- thisy the argument

is the promise of big data and the technology age. what it means is that massive amounts of information can now be collected. anticipate individuals who might engage in wrongdoing. that approach is what the founders rejected. while this information is being affected -- being collected, and -- in certain circumstances it can be used and is being used. the problem is, our communications are now global. counted onorically the borders of the united states to protect us but we no longer bound by geography and how we communicate. our conversations go internationally routine yearly -- routinely come in when they do they can be monitored under myriad programs. our papers and

documents couple used to happen in our home with her kept under lock and key or in a filing cabinet. .ow, they are held on the cloud companies over which we have no control placed on servers around .he world at the same time, networks have converged. it is no longer just military dispatches that the nsa needs to focus on. these threats can't be separated from ordinary communication networks. to intercept important information, they have to intercept information from the same networks that ordinary citizens use to communicate their thoughts, ideas, and believes. means that all of this information can now be analyzed. more is available than ever before and it can be subjected to sophisticated algorithms generating new knowledge in the process.

this large mass collection at the same time looks a lot like what the founders were trying to avoid by preventing the government from using promiscuous search authority. what gave birth to the fourth amendment. , in 1946, churchill warned us from this very place about the dangers attached to tyranny. that great power will erode the ancient rites by which english-speaking people rely. concernt without great that i returned to his words. face new enemies, it is our liberty that continues to define who we are. of centuries, the rejection general warrant was essential for our understanding of the rule of law. but due to emerging technologies in the government's effort to

, this fightnologies is not ours alone. the united kingdom, one of our closest allies, has itself been featured in the pages of "the guardian" and "the washington post" in participating in massive collection of information. his father, lord randolph churchill, carried the line of lord of marlborough, while his mother was an american. he became the first honorary citizen effort of the united states -- citizen ever of the united states and only the second to be awarded an honorary citizenship during their lifetime. he said security is gained through freedom. the united states and the united

kingdom have, throughout our history's, pay a high price for the protection of liberties that we both hold dear. shall we not falter as we move to the future and the dawn of the digital age. [applause] >> it describes the whole effort to bring the natural world and demand world into harmony.

begins with trees and flowers and landscaping. first signature issue as lady. she was a natural campaigner, a successful businesswoman, and savvy political partner to her husband lbj. c-span's johnson, on original series "first ladies" and their influence on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama. >> "washington journal" visited the correctional facility, a maximum-security facility in maryland. we spoke with the officials about the rehabilitation of

inmates, prison safety and providing mental health and substance abuse treatment for prisoners. this is two and a half hours. summer, president obama laid out his vision for reforming the criminal justice system, highlighting the work by the montgomery county, maryland, correctional facility. [video clip] pres. obama: our prisons should trainlace where we can people for skills that can help them find a job. not freedom to become more hardened -- not train them to become more hardened criminals. [applause] like itwant to pretend is all easy. some places are doing better than others. montgomery county, maryland, put

a job-training center inside the prison walls to give folks a head start in thinking about what might you do otherwise than commit crime. that is a good idea. , oneis another good idea with bipartisan support in congress, let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they can be -- complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat offense. [applause] innovative new approaches to link former prisoners with employers. help them stay on track. let's follow the growing number of our states and cities and private companies who have box on jobban the application so that former prisoners who have done their time and are now trying to get straight with society have a decent shot in a job interview.

[applause] and for folks who serve their tribe -- time, and have reentered society, should be able to vote. [applause] communities that give our young people every shot at success, courts that are tough but fair, prisons that recognize that eventually the majority will be released and seek to prepare these returning citizens to grab that second chance, that is where we need to build. about 30 miles northwest of washington, d.c. is the town of boyds, maryland.

the correctional facility is there which houses over 1000 inmates. joining us from there is the former warden, robert green. thank you for your time this morning. let's begin with where you are sitting right now. what is this room used for? guest: i am in one of our housing units at the montgomery county correctional facility. it is a 64-bed direct supervision housing unit. host: what is this room used for on a typical day? guest: montgomery county corrections facility is built around a theory called direct supervision. that is where the officer is resonant with the inmate population 24 hours a day. we have 27 units that are similar to this. 64 individuals that would be housed here and this idea of direct supervision provides us with the opportunity

to provide one good safety, inmatey to the population but also affords the opportunity to bring programming into the units. we have a model called therapeutic community. we are trying to take issues, 64 men or women depending on where they are housed and concentrate on issues that are important to them that have maybe brought them to the facility. one is a substance abuse treatment facility. we are one of four maryland counties. orare not talking about aa na, but we are providing substance abuse treatment. they could be education units or life skills. one of the more complex units for us to run is the crisis intervention unit where we are dealing in quite an increase in the serious and persistently mentally ill coming into the systems. host: it is a maximum-security facility. how do you keep order in an open

room like that? looking at you are county jails and how we generally function, the difference between jails and prisons -- i heard you say earlier, it is very distinct. jails are primarily pretrial facilities. confinement less than 18 months. it is not by the number of staff you have but it is really to a good objective jail classification system. we spend about 40 man-hours using instruments and tools to classify individuals, looking at all of their psychosocial needs. what we can do to benefit them while they are incarcerated here. it is really a science. begins with a physical plan that you want to be safe and designed in a manner that it does not lend itself to abuse or misuse. the big piece for us is the model that we use -- i'm losing

my piece, the model that we use to classify our population and provide them the information. the piece not to be overlooked that all is the well, tuned in, correctional staff. we often think about correctional staff as just officers in uniforms. we have everything here from mental health therapists to case managers to correctional officers and social workers. that whole myriad of staff that you bring to bear on the population while they are here. our focus is to make sure that everybody who leaves the facility leaves better connected and has the resources to exist back in the community that we are sending them to. if you look at the data in america's jails and i think this would hold true whether it is montgomery county or across the country. 90-94% ofetween

individuals are returning back to the streets. often readunity, we with great interest there will be 650,000 released from america's prison system. we know that in 2007 when we began studying it that a love and million people will pass through america's jail systems. we are the deep end of the pool in that context and the programs and how we use the units and the staff that we have -- we can really make a difference. host: tell us about the numbers. how do you know that? how can you prove it? say thatr us, i would dealing with this idea of mass incarceration from a government county has been a marathon and not a sprint. it really started looking across the board of what we could do for our incarcerated population.

1989, we took a look at things like pretrial diversion. in some areas you don't have pretrial programs. pretrial diversion is the opportunity to really do a risk analysis were you are not looking at bond or monetary bond. the sole issue that keeps an individual in jail. if i were arrested, maybe i am given a $5,000 bond within our state. to some people that may be a low monetary amount to secure my freedom and for some that may be 5 million. montgomery county started looking at pretrial detention. what can you do to manage people in our community? when you look at the statistics, we have 2500 under supervision in our system today. of that number, 71% are under supervision in the community.

allowsve a program that them to work off their sentence in the community. of thosek assessment individuals that we place in those communities. or those programs. today, 678 are incarcerated inside the walls. pretrial.with we try to follow the science. it is not new information. we have known over the last 20 years that focus on education -- i heard one of your colors talking about her son was able to receive a ged. thenow from studies out of a receipt of florida and others on education that if we can get an individual the basic education, they are 43% less likely to recidivate and return back to jail in three years. we know if we can get them past the three-year mark focusing on

other things like employment, education and substance abuse treatment, and making sure that everything we are doing here in the jail has a level of continuity. again, i think that is something that we do so well in montgomery county. it is not a criminal justice system managed just by the director of corrections. i am responsible for it, but we have a very strong, collaborative, working relationship throughout county government. through our communities and nonprofits that provide a service. all of those things make a difference and we are trying to follow the science. look we are taking a inside the correction system in this country with a visit to montgomery county correction facility in boyds, maryland. roberttalking with green, a director for the montgomery county department of correction and rehabilitation.

talk about the inmates at the facility. why are they there? how long do they stay? are they partners in these programs you offer? questionat is a great and one that we receive frequently. the average length of stay here is about 48 days. that is the individual who is arrested by one of our police agencies and comes into the central booking. we receive individuals from all of the agencies in the county. that is an individual that is here maybe eight hours are 10 hours going through the initial intake process and released to an individual that will spent 18 months in the system. i think that the inmate population is a willing partner. one of the first things you have to do is that people have to be safe. we can talk about all of the programs we do here, which i am

very proud of, but that is all built around the aspect of safety and safety starts with an individual coming into a system where they don't feel they will be preyed upon. we have people. i would look at our population as a bell curve. about 20% coming in the door are very motivated to change their life and they want to do it this time and get out the door. 20% on the backend are sitting on the cusp of potentially a life of crime or a career of crime. 60% of individuals that fallen that curve. it is the opportunity that we take for the first time they may be safe or sober in their life. in thesetrate services units. the population is a willing partner.

any given day we have 500 or hoursarticipating, eight a day, some 24 hours a day in this therapeutic community model where they try to change their lives. forve been in corrections 31 years and i started off in a correctional officer in housing unit. if you give them dignity and topect and the opportunity engage something in their life that really has a focus that has held them down and engages the soul, you see change. those that are not ready for the ready toe have to be house them safely and securely away from the population that wants to be involved. we always have to be ready. based on that point in their life. , and opportunity that they know they are ready for this change and we need to be nimble enough to bring them into the program.

they are here for a defined period of time. what we do with them and how we treat them and the opportunity we give them, that is a very important to find period of time. years ofh 31 experience, mr. greene is here to take your questions in your comments. a special line for those of you with experience in the correctional system. walid into one lead -- pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i like what he is talking about. my whole thing, i was on hold before he came on the line, but giving people opportunities when they, the line. people don't want to go back to jail. we don't have opportunities, but what are you going to do? you have to survive. the way that they got in there is probably to get money. a lot of times people are doing things just to do it, there

trying to get a little bit of money. my thing is, give people opportunities and give them respect. i've never been down, but i have been locked up. once i came home from that stint, i got myself together. i have been working by the grace of allah, i have been fortunate. like i said, he is talking some good stuff and everybody needs to do this. these guys are not all bad. give them the opportunity and they don't want to go back to jail. they want to take care of themselves and their families. they're not demons. appreciate your sentiments. it is a perfect lead-in to where we are going. , theat we are focusing on reentry programs.

in 2005, we started really hearing about this word, reentry. the first thing that i want to say is there were great faith-based organizations called the going home programs. we built this facility. the director in the county. that we wouldm help people prepare just for the journey that the gentleman explained. with 94% going back to the streets of our community, how can we make sure we are putting these transitions in place. in 2005 or 2006 we started looking at this idea of reentry for all. reentry prerelease and program that was community-based in montgomery county for 40 years now. we are individuals that qualify and have the appropriate sentence and can live inside a facility and work in the community. and prepare for the journey home. 25% of the about

total population being released. we took this focus of reentry for all. what can we do for the individual that will be here for eight hours, to the individual that will spend six months or a year and prepare them for reentry. the idea was just to start bringing these community services in the door. for all of us, life can be a challenge. down foryou have been six months or a year, losing that community contact, going out the door, perhaps having that reentry requirements from the courts that say, we want you to go to three aa or na meetings per week. we what you to find a place to live and get a job. tickets.our three bus good luck. we decided we were not going to be that kind of a county. but we think we were,

really wanted to focus on the return to the community. that is why we brought the one-stop workcenter. we are told that we were the first. maybe it is a bit sad that we were. i'm glad that we opened the door for others. why waitthis idea of, to engage in employment when you have left out the door -- why not start engage that here? so we put the one-stop workcenter in play that has really focused on preparation for job, interview, for life anding up to an employer being able to look them in the face and you can say i have had a felony conviction, here is what i have done in my life, rather than engage in employment. we really started focusing on the reentry programs. billed did, greta, was reentry programs where -- the

only place you can find them wasn't in jail. we took what already existed in the community and brought it inside. we did not want to jail-based, one-stop, workcenter. we wanted a good program that happened to be in the jail. to be our third site which sets inside the jail. substance abuse treatment programs, making sure the programs they had access to inside our walls was the same program they would engage in in the community. that is continuity making sure we opened our doors to the community providers that want to help, bring them in and let them engage in that population here so when the door opens and they are headed out they have all the tools in their hand to help them get in line. i had an individual as clean one day -- you are putting people to the front of the line ahead of me. that is not factual. what we are doing is trying to teach people how to get in line.

these relationships with montgomery college, our health and human services is one of our key partners in helping connect people to the wealth of programs that they have. and that connection happening here before the doors open is really key. host: are you saying that employers are coming to the jail to talk to these inmates about to be released? how do you convince them to make that trip? -- theit starts with one-stop workcenter, america's job center that we put here in 2005, it has the appearance of a workcenter that you would see in the community. the first piece is showing the dignity and the respect to the person walking in the door to say this is your opportunity. this is what you will see when you leave here.

it is getting them prepared for that initial interaction. spending time there watching individuals go to the interview preparation, watching them go through the preparation and understanding what can they do in life? what are they good at? being able to go through those assessments with our job coaches. they are absolutely incredible. more to the point, we have employers now coming in. we are doing job fairs. hire thisthat want to population and even employers interested in this population. so they can understand what these men and women going through? in preparation to come out and be a good employee? we just had a really good session with montgomery county nonprofit that works with our small business community. they came in last week and the week before that brought a

number of small business leaders in to see what we are doing. in montgomery, we focused on been the box. allowing individuals to get that opportunity to sit in front of not be ruledand out of the process by a checkmark on the application. to sit in front of the employer and let that employer make a judgment based on what that individual is telling them and what they have done in their life. that is a big focus for us. host: the lines have lit up for you. i will get into more calls. foremost, letand me qualify what i am getting ready to say. i was in the first class there in washington, d.c. when it was called the city college. in our fortunate enough prison institution that we had a number of prisoners that came

into class with us. knowany cases we did not they were prisoners, but they enlightened the class. the learning, the education, socially and academically. it was something entirely different. many think that we were naive. today it explains so much and i learned so much from these people. done,ing is, what we have in harming these people after they have served their time. when they get out, they can't get a job, can't get education or housing. can't get welfare and last but not least, they can vote. for all practical purposes they are a man without a country. why don't we treat them the same way that we people -- treat the people walking across the border? let them work. if they mess up then penalize them, but let them get a job. the best thing you can do for a person in this life is to get

them a job so they are able to take care of themselves and their families. indiscretionsul that some of these people have done. right here in tulsa, oklahoma, the have a 16-year-old -- his 19-year-old brother killed five family members. stabbed the mother 48 times, but they are pleading on the mercy of the court because the 16 your was just a youthful offender. at the same time that was a 15-year-old black kid with three joints in his pocket and he is locked up. when he gets rate to apply for a job, what is he going to do? check the box, no we can't take him. the recidivism is created by us as a society. host: i will leave it there because i wanted to share his thoughts. comment within

the intelligence of what is happening in different jurisdictions. i can tell you what works here. i spent time talking to the inmate population, as does our staff. one of the things i mentioned that his key is this element of direct supervision. our staff are in direct contact all the time and they do a great job. an individual as a human being not just one behind that cell wall. that is an important focus for us. the things you have talked about with reentry, that is how we do it, science says it will work. systems.re and more we are at this renaissance moment looking at what will work. well i know is i have a population here for a defined period of time that i do not control.

the courts control, and bring to me. our mission is to do good more -- do more good than harm, and prepare them to go back out the door. i think we do a good job of that. i wish other leaders well. we are open to those conversations. i see a lot of change happening. i see a real renaissance moment in corrections where these programs -- i just had the opportunity, i was with the macarthur foundation in chicago last week. in their program, they are 20 jurisdictions, counties, millions of dollars going into help them really look fromat their practices are incarceration, but what they do inside their jails, andy programs they offer -- and the programs they offer. it is happening. i think it is where we need to be. host: we are live this morning

inside the montgomery county correctional facility, inside one of the housing units there, talking to mr. green, director for the county department of rehabilitation. thomas, go ahead, you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is thomas, i limit the i live in des moines, iowa. i am a license therapist. i need to give mr. green credit because he seems to be a sincere individual invested in change. i will value there is enough blame, responsibility, and complicity to go around. blame the inmates, there behavior, from an ethnicity standpoint, wife lame blacks, blacks blame whites, when in reality, there is enough

responsibility for both to go around. the complicity comes around when it comes to the judicial system, there is a factor that we fail to look at. anbecoming incarcerated problematic because there is a financial incentive from the institutions. until i was involved in the correctional system from being incarcerated for a simple misdemeanor, and then be told that unless you take the plea bargain, we are going to put you on a hold, in order to force you to take the plea bargain. on top of that, there is a financial incentive for the judicial system to do that because in iowa, if you spend a day in jail, that is $75. host: i what mr. green to talk about that. is there a financial incentive

jail up?to fill the ge guest: absolutely not. , any not charge a bed fee of that. there is no financial incentive. our population is reducing. we are down 23% over the last eight years. .here is no incentive i will say, in our county, the judiciary is very involved in our criminal justice court in any committee. it is an extremely strong organization of stakeholders -- our attorneys, our judges never miss the opportunity to come and talk about how each element of the system impacts the other. we look at a really holistic solution. there is no financial incentive here. we do not collect a fee inside

yhe system for a day stay. we do not charge a fee for a meal. it is the opposite. our incentive is to appropriately reduce our population, were maintaining the safety of the public, the community, impacting a citizen -- there is no incentive. host: talk about super max versus maximum-security at the facility there. guest: we are not in the super world. that comes out of the prison environment. i do not hear much about super maxes anymore. we are maximum-security based on this definition. behold everyone in a local jail

that has had a crime of theft to individuals, allegedly killed two or three people. we have held individuals here -- i held the individuals here involved in the sniper trials many years ago. we have to be prepared to fulfill that mission across the scope. that is why we are maximum-security, but it is quite a spread of individuals and behaviors. we deal with very serious people as well. some of the not ready for these programs of change. as i noted, we are here when they are. host: jess and myrtle beach, south carolina. you are on the air. andler: i spent 30 years -- i'm retired down in south carolina -- in a massachusetts system. i know it was the state system, so a prison system, not the jail system. all thesebout

wonderful things you are doing, but even my wife, in the gel system, you only have the guys there for 100 or something days. my experience, after they graduate from the jail, and are sent to real prison, they come in, and you have to classify them based on how violent they are. it is not as simple as everyone is going to reenter. they are all going to reenter, but most of them are substance abuse, alcoholics is the biggest , and unless you can correct that, they are not any good to employers. they have to get their ged's, , they haveo go to aa to go to work, even though it is not required. if you are not going to get to the lowest level which would be maximum to minimum --

host: mr. green, what you make of his comments? this is a jail in montgomery county, what can you do if your average day is 50-100 days? how can you correct the haber in that short amount time? guest: you look at the time you have. it is a snippet of time. if you have someone for eight hours, you can give them something they did not come in with. in eight hours, it is the information and resources available in our community in order to engage it. prison is not my world. i have never worked in a prison. i can tell you this, there are 30 states and the united states that have really started focusing on justice reinvestment. that is at the prison level, where they are looking at and really studying what services jail.ave inside a

justice counsel, and we are in the process right now. 30 other states have actively engaged, and i can tell you what we are looking at in maryland, we are looking at program opportunity, the length of stay. the motivation can be much different for a person who has light at the end of the tunnel and is a year away from release versus the person who is 10 years away from the release date. we are systematically studying that in american prisons and have undertaken that in maryland. if there is an interest by the office if they go to the of gun control website, he can see the work that marilyn has done with the justice thre counsel, and look at work from

other states around the country. that work is truly underway. host: good morning, eric. i used to be a correctional officer myself. i really want to say thank you to director green and what montgomery county is doing. not only for the inmates, but also how they treat the officers . we often forget about the people who spend the most time with the inmates. the police make the rest, the judge makes the sentence, but the inmate spends the rest of their sentence with the officer. usually the officer is not really appreciated. see on tv -- people

look down on correctional someers, and also reflect the on offices. look at the nation's capital, washington, d.c., the d.c. jail does not have proper retirement for the officers being i just wanted to say thank you, director, thank you for the job you are doing. officers are very important in the rehabilitation of inmates. host: mr. green? , as thell staff are gentleman said, do a tough job every day. all the pieces working hand-in-hand, we were able to build a facility that gives them an environment to do quality work.

our staff are absolutely exceptional. in our county, we tried to make sure we compensate our staff well. to those, much is given, much is expected. they do an incredible job. we have great longevity. our staff come, they stay. i cannot give you an average, but out of 524 full-time staff in the department of corrections, we have a considerable number that are business.ars in this we are very fortunate and proud of what we have cultivated. our county has helped us colts of a really great staff and support structure. host: when you look at the figures, the cost of personnel at the jail makes up 90% of the budget. we spoke with a couple of employees at the jail, when we were visiting, and talk to them about what they do at the job

center there. this is what they had to say about why this work is important to them. [video clip] victim of aually a crime. when i was in middle school, my ,randfather was an entrepreneur two robbers came to our home, and they shot and killed my grandfather. i was a victim of a crime. what i want these individuals to see is there is a face behind what you do, there is a victim behind it do. if i can help them go through what the men who killed my grandfather went through which , then i-life sentence am doing what i was placed here to do. >> for me, it is very personal. my dad went to prison when i was 10 years old. he served at 15 year sentence. this is a personal for me. the statistics show that the children of incarcerated tend to

jail at alarming rate. i want to break that cycle. host: two of your employees, mr. green, there, who helped with themes, trying to prepare for life after gel. you think it is important that it is personal for them? guest: i think everybody has their story, greta, and why you do this work. day.es come out every both of those ladies, and how they address the population, the things that they do, the passion they bring to the work. i think we all have our stories. perhaps we don't always talk about them. for me, my story is i have been in corrections for 31 years. looking through the door, at a friend, someone i grew up with, and having him ask a question of me -- i knew your mom, you knew my mom -- why i took my fact

that you took your past, now, what can i do to change that. that was very impactful for me in 1986. why don't we have more programs to help us change our lives so my story looks a little more like yours. -- one,ation comes from watching, and be involved in how we manage corrections over the years, and seized the opportunity to make the change now, and knowing what works. again, everybody brings a story. it is important what motivates you. host: outland, a democrat in brooklyn. caller: it seems to me that there are overlapping trends that can be connected to some recent news. we have a very dysfunctional congress where people do not seem to represent the population for their fair share

of power in the republican house. they cannot alight a leader that represents their voices. at the same time, there is a background of people convicted of crimes and an excessive number of people denied their vote because too many took a plea, instead of going to court, because they could not afford bail. we have an incentive by a government that can lower the apparent unemployment rate by having fewer people looking for jobs, and all the people who are taken off the streets are no longer counted amongst those seeking work. ishave a trade policy that taking more and more work from .hese minorities manufacturing jobs have been reduced. we are creating the appearance that there is less unemployment then there is.