lot of people languished in jail notwithstanding the fact that somebody knew the evidence that convicted of them was inaccurate they mentioned hundreds of cases that could be involved and no one should be in jail on a crime they didn't commit. >> what do you think happens on this issue? >> guest: the justice department i think is following through on it and taking everything they know because there is this problem and the justice department is handling the best that you can years after the fact. >> host: the started reviewing the case in the 1990's after the report by the examiners of the lab producing unreliable forensic evidence. >> guest: there is a suggestion that information which prosecutors and nothing happened. all of that is within the justice department, and i would

assume the justice department is going to be taking action. i will also assume converse would be having hearings and with the chairman of the committee any more than i would certainly expect something like this to be a subject of a hearing. .. that day was giving a plea

bargain and they were to testify at this young lady direct to dad or had something to do with connect in them, but a large drug dealer. so when they went to trial, he was found guilty and the prosecutor said that if they were to testify in court, that this lady was kind of like an in between person, that they would get a reduce of their sentencing. but the person that they testified tuesday that she was there a connection, she's never even had a speeding ticket. but she got life in prison and i think they ended up with 10, 15, 20 years. >> host: congressman, your reaction. >> guest: i can't comment on the case. i don't know anything about -- you have to look at the details of the case to figure out whether something went wrong.

one of the problems generally is when you have that your company and heritage that people can be subject to two and put them in a situation where they may plead guilty under plea bargain for lesser charge to avoid the possibility of getting too big than having to serve decades in jail. they can also use this as leverage to testify against people. when people testify against someone else, in order to get a reduction in their sentence, it adds credibility of whether they hear the truth. if they don't have any evidence, then they have to serve the full time and they get a reduction. they have an incentive to fabricate and offer huge discounts if they testified. it undermines. >> host: from indiana, grant. >> caller: how are you doing this morning?

>> host: good morning, caller. >> caller: have you ever had the experiences before with drugs? >> host: what are you trying to get at, caller? >> caller: i was just wondering because certain states have different punishments like the criminal punishments for doing drugs. have you guys ever had the experiences doing drugs before? >> host: will take this as a state-by-state issue. >> guest: well, there are different penalties, particularly with marijuana and there's much more liberal sanctions that are trichotomy and end it's a issue. >> host: independent and make a georgia. >> caller: my question is about i guess a lot of the time i see young black kids get profiled, but then when i think a lot of people think it's racism, but if you see if you see presorted raggedy clothes raggedy closeout site of the market you profiled him to be

homeless. if you see a bunch of young african-americans and came close dc-10 as that. as to the case would trayvon martin. i believe that mr. trayvon martin had on a few. i don't think he would be at the. to the question about the juror. >> host: i'm going to leave it there appeared her student finishes are both related to racial profiling. >> guest: one racial profiling means you are using race, not close, not other issues. it doesn't work. he makes a lot of people appeared which you have to do is look at behavior and other preventing crime, not just look

at somebody's race. and again since the time and the fact that one of the things that's been significant is that drug use and prevention of early intervention. i said not only judiciary committee the education and workforce committee. they are very much related because the young people see in schools and get a good education and job training of higher education or whatever. and they'll be involved. so we need to put more of a focus on the work about doing an education workforce of investments in a job training bill. we put a lot more focus on that and will have less effect do you and the crime committee. wanda, democratic caller. >> caller: i just want to know by the government thinks that the war on drugs is not just a

war on ourselves. the money that they spend going after people every day normal people and a little bit of tracks cost a whole lot of money. that money could be better spent on educating our kids, giving more money to kids to go to school. the drug situation is not going to change in this country. the more you criminalize it, the bigger it becomes. the more you tell people that they can't do, it's what they want to do. take it out of the drug sting in that people make her own choices. >> host: congressman. >> guest: you look at some of the money we spend on drag several months ago was around a magistrate were one of them got 50 year and the other 35 and just multiply that out and that's a million and a half to one that we spent over a million dollars. two and a half million dollars dealing with the drug problem

when the territory will probably be taken up shortly thereafter by somebody else. at two and half million dollars make-a-wish who spent half a million dollars locking them up in $2 million of funding for afterschool programs, police and schools closed so that young people can get on the right track and stand there a tribe. we have a disproportionate amount of funding dealing with the drug problem, going towards incarceration and not enough and prevention and early intervention. >> host: what is happening next? >> guest: one of the things i'm trying to do us a new promise facts, which would fund comprehensive funds to get people in the right track and keep them on the right track and save money in the process. we insist that the money that it saves will go into continuing the programs that they put a sign. >> host: congressman bobby scott, we're out of time. thank you for visiting with us this morning.

>> guest: thank you. >> in a few minutes racial profiling in the u.s. >> let me read to you what ms. white said in her affidavit. i implore a padded to depose then stay and 1999 or 2000, and he told me he had had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger admitted to him using human growth hormones.

mr. clements, once again to remind you you're under oath. you have said your conversation with mr. pet it never happened. if that was true, why would laura pettit remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> again can i think he this remembers the conversation we had appeared is close enough to know that if i would've known he had done hgh, which i now know, that if he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh, we would've to about the subject. he would come to ask me about the effect of it. >> now a hearing on racial profiling, particularly related to how law enforcement officers interact with african-americans

and the effects of immigration laws and arizona. this is a little more than two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> -- are hearing today will focus on a civil rights issue that goes to the heart of america's promise of equal justice under the law. protecting all americans found discourage of racial profiling. racial profiling is not new. the dawn of our republic, roving bands of white men known as slave patrols suggested african american freak men and slaves to searches, detentions and brutal violence. during the great depression, many american citizens of hispanic descent were forcibly deported to mexico under the so-called mexican repatriation

and during world war ii, tens of thousands of innocent japanese americans were rounded up and helped them find in internment camps. 12 years ago, 12 years ago in march 2000, the subcommittee held the senate first-ever hearing on racial profiling. it was convened by then senator john ashcroft who would later be appointed attorney general by president george w. bush. in february 2001 in his first joint address to congress, president george w. bush said that racial profiling is quote wrong and we will end it in america. and the pope. we take the title of today's hearing from the promise president bush made that night 11 years ago. in june 2001 come our former colleague senator russ feingold of the, in my predecessors have another set to me how the senate second most recent hearing on racial profiling. i was there. there is bipartisan agreement about the need to end racial

profiling. then came 9/11. and the national trauma that followed, several liberties came face-to-face with national security. arab-americans, american muslims, south asian americans face national origin and religious profiling. to take one example, special registration program targeted arab and muslim visitors, requiring to promptly register with the ins or face deportation. at the time to call for the program to be terminated. there were serious doubts it would help us in any way to combat terrorism. terrorism experts have since concluded that special registration wasted homeland security resources and in fact alienated patriotic arab-americans and american muslims. more than 80,000 people registered under that program. more than 13,000 placed in deportation proceedings could even today many innocent muslims face deportation because of

special registration. so how many terrorists were identified by the special registration program's? nine. next wednesday the sprint corp. will hear a challenge to arizona's controversial immigration law. the law is one example of the federal, state and local measures in recent years under the guise of combating illegal immigration has subjected hispanic americans to an increase in racial profiling. arizona's bob requires peace officers to check the status of any individual if they have quote reasonable suspicion, close quote that the person is an undocumented immigrant. what is the basis for reasonable suspicion? arizona sky and son-in-law tells police officers to consider factors such as how someone is dressed and their ability to communicate in english. two former arizona attorney general joined by 42 other state attorneys general filed amicus brief in the arizona case in which they said quote application of the law requires

racial profiling, close quote. of course african-americans continue to face racial profiling on the streets and sidewalks of america appeared the tragic killing of trayvon martinez in the hands of the justice system, but i note found by investigators do you choose profiled trayvon martin and assumed martin was a criminal, close quote. this innocent young man has been a wake-up call to america. and so, 11 years after the last senate hearing in racial profiling return to the basic question. what can we do to end racial profiling in america? we can start by reforming the justice department's guidance issued in 2003 by attorney general john ashcroft. it produced a superb fund the federal law-enforcement and traditional enforcement activities, and of code and

that's a step forward. however, this ban does not apply to profiling based on religion and national origin. and it does not apply to national security and border security investigations. in essence, these exceptions i license to profile american muslims in panic americans. as a nonpartisan congressional research service concluded, the guidance code numerous exceptions may invite circumvention and profiling of latinos. today, congressman john conyers and i are signing the letter signed by 13 senators and members of the house asking attorney general holder to close the loopholes and the justice department's racial profiling guidance. congress also passed the end racial profiling act and i welcome the attendance of my colleague and a former member of the committee, senator curt is maryland was taken up the cause from our colleague, senator feingold and easier today to

testify. let's be clear and i want to say this and stress it. the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers perform their jobs admirably, honestly and courageously. they put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. the appropriate actions of a few who engage in racial profiling and they hurt all police officers will hear testimony that has been done in a positive way to do with this issue by superintendent of police. that is why so many life for us that leaders strongly oppose racial profiling. racial profiling undermines rule of law and strikes at the core of our nation's commitment to equal protection for all. go here from the experts of our panel today, the evidence clearly demonstrates racial profiling simply does not work. i hope today's hearing can be a step towards ending racial

profiling in america at long last. senator graham is running the money. senator leahy is out of the senate this morning. it was kind enough to allow me to convened this hearing. i'm sure we'll have a statement to the record. i'm going to open the floor to senator graham when he does arrive, but for the time being because we have many colleagues here and busy schedules of their own, i want to turn to the first panel of witnesses. at the heck, i do want to note that i invited the department of justice to participate in today's hearing, but they declined. we are honored to be joined today by our colleagues from the senate in the house. in keeping with the practice of the committee, first we hear from members of the sun and members of the house a practice which i looked in the house, but now we run the show i'm afraid you have to live with house colleagues. each witness was three minutes for opening statement predictably written statement will be completed in the record. first finesses undercard, former member of the committee. senate sponsor of the end racial

profiling of which i'm proud to cosponsor. this is senator cardin second chris for the subcommittee testifying before slusher at the first-ever hearing of this committee of the civil rights of american muslims. senator cardin, we are pleased to join us today. please proceed. >> senator durbin, first for me thank you for leadership on the subcommittee. the fact with subcommittee is a testament to your leadership in making clear that civil and human rights will be a priority of the united states senate. i thank you free leadership and thank you for calling this hearing. it's a pleasure to be here with all my colleagues, but i want to acknowledge senator conyers and his extraordinary leadership on behalf of civil rights and these issues. congressman conyers is a real mentor to me when i was in the house and we thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. senator durbin, you pointed out the nation was shot -- if i could ask you this consent of my

entire statement about to go out with a list of the organizations supporting the legislation that i've filed, as 1670. as you pointed out, senator durbin, the nation was shocked by the tragedy that took place in stamford, florida was the tragic death of 17-year-old trayvon martin, apolitical dad. the question most people are asking -- we want justice in this case and we're pursuing a and on behalf of the department of justice investigation, what to see the investigation carried out, not only to make sure that justice is carried forward as far as those responsible for his death, but also to have the investigation itself handled. but i think the question that needs to be answered is whether race played a role in trayvon martin being singled out by mr. zimmerman. and that of course would be racial profiling, an area that we all believe needs to be -- we need to get rid of that as far as legitimacy of using racial

profiling in law enforcement. and not tober of last year, i've filed the end racial profiling act and as you pointed out, and carrying on senator feingold's efforts on behalf of those legislation. i thank you for your leadership as cosponsor. 12 members of the senate cosponsored legislation, including senator harry reid is a cosponsor. racial profiling is un-american. it's against the values of our nation. contrary to the 14th amendment to the constitution equal protection of the laws. it's been keeping us safe. it's wasting valuable resources we have and it has no place in modern law enforcement. we need a national and that's why encourage the committee to report 1672 the floor. it prohibits use of racial profiling from using race, ethnicity, national origin server that should in selecting which individual needs to be

subject to a spontaneous investigation, activity such as a traffic stop, such as interviews, such as risk, et cetera. it applies to all levels of government and requires mandatory training, data collection by local and state law enforcement in a way of maintaining adequate policy procedure is designated end racial profiling. the states are mandated to do that or risk the loss of federal funds. the department of justice has granted authority to make grants to state and local governments to advance the best practices. as i pointed out it has the support of numerous groups hearing from some of them today. for me just conclude this may seem it would get the details of the legislation by quoting her former colleagues, senator kennedy when he said civil rights is the great and finish business of america. i think it is time that we move

forward and guarantee to every citizen of this country equal justice under the law in as 1670 will move us forward in that direction. >> thank you, senator cardin. i was sadly a capacity in the sermon anyone been able to in at the ruble have an overflow room in dirksen g 50, which is two floors before us here. senator graham suggested we proceed with the witnesses. next up is congressman john conyers, how sponsor the end racial profiling act, house judiciary committee serving in the house of representatives since 1965, john conyers is the second longest-serving member. i think second to another member from michigan if i'm not mistaken. commerce and conyers has cited both previous senate hearings in 2,002,001. congressman conyers, were honored to have either as a witness on the floor is yours.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and to your colleague, who is another former house member if i remember correctly and senator ben cardin as well, all of you are working in the back drop is a huge discussion that has been going on for quite some time. when i came to congress a nice to go on the judiciary committee in the house and that was granted, an annual salary was the chairman who did such landmark work in the civil rights act of 1964. and then we followed up with the voter rights act of 1965.

and from that time on, a group of scholars, activist organizations, civil rights people and americans of goodwill have all began examining what brings us here today and accounts for the incredible long line but is waiting to get into this in the holding room today. i come here proud of the fact that there is support growing in this area. only yesterday we had a memorial service for john peyton, known by most of us here for the great work that he has done and

contributed and civil rights, not just in the courts and the law, but in what i think is the purpose of our hearing here today, namely to have honest discussions about the subject so that we can move to the conclusion of this part of our history. and so, i am just so proud of all of you for coming here and continuing this discussion because it is going to turn on more than just the legislators or the department of justice and namely to you in improving some of their recommendations. and i commend eric holder for

the nrs job that he has been doing in that capacity. but this is a subject that is a part of american history. the one thing that i wanted to contribute here is the racial profile of is and put racial profiling isn't. racial profiling does not mean we cannot prefer to the race of a person if it is subject specific or incident specific. we are not trying to take the description of raise out of law enforcement and its administration. what we are saying that racial

profiling must not be subject specific or incident specific and that is what we are trying to do here today. it is a product is that it's hard to root out. i join in praising the overwhelming surety of law enforcement, the men and women who want to improve this circumstance, but you know what is the greatest riots -- race riots in detroit that occurred was because of a police incident was started. we have industry right now in coalition against police brutality, ron scott, at today's

and a law student is working on that. and i've been working for years. and so we encouraged not only this legislative discussion about an important subject, and we praise our civil rights organizations that have been so good at this, and the naacp, the legal defense fund of naacp, the american civil liberties union and scores of coalition says community and state organizations that have all been working on this just as we have. and so i believe that there is going to be a time very soon when we will pass the

legislation that you've worked on in the house and the senate and that we will enjoy that day forward by ruth celebrate this movement forward to take the discussion of race out of our national conversation, not because we are sick and tired of it, because it is not needed any further. i thank you very much for this invitation. >> it's an honor to have you in the senate judiciary committee meeting. our next witness is our friend, congressman luis quinteros, representing the fourth congressional district has done so since 1993 in chairs the congressional hispanic caucus and is a longtime champion for immigration reform. there are many outstanding hispanic radical leaders in america, but none more forceful

and articulate and more leader than leader than a collie, congressman quinteros. >> thank you for much, chairman durbin, ranking member for inviting me to testify here today. i'm one of -- the proudest things about being sick of illinois the senior senator from his date and i'm so happy and delighted to be here today. i've traveled from coast to coast to visit dozens of cities and communities and listen to in the current stories. some might call it that visited cities that are here with me today. immigrants everywhere tell me they are regarded with suspicion. they tell me they are frequently treated differently because of the way they look, sound or spyware that came. and alabama i am a 20-year-old martha, a young woman raised in the u.s. by midafternoon while driving she was pulled over, arrested for driving without a license so her status to be checked because

a u.s. citizen has been without precedent precedent, the alabama born to a son was taken from the backseat of her car and turned over to the welfare agency. a south carolina, who'd been in the u.s. for 13 years was married father to south carolina born kids who work hard and earned his own home, catena was stopped because it is pointed to his mobile home community to more than three other hispanic residents stop that evening. he was arrested without driving without a license and was then placed in deportation proceedings. we cannot guess why the police chose to stop divina and martha. profane hispanics and images is a sufficiently to give somebody ported. but you can't tell someone is undocumented by the way they look or dress or where they live. in chicago, the puerto rican constituent of mine was detained for five days under suspicion of being a documented. indeed sadly come to senators, there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of unlawfully

detained u.s. citizens and legal residents in the united states each year and violation of their constitutional rights. some of them have even been deported and then brought back to the united states of america. that is the story of today. the federal government took a step in the right direction when it legally challenged to show me your papers in south carolina and arizona because the state laws are unconstitutional it interfered with the federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration policy. but it makes no sense to file suit against unconstitutional laws on the one hand and on the other hand a lot of the same was in deportation pipelines. gambino has been denied relief from deportation because he has been stopped many times according to the federal government for driving without a license. the government is complicit in such the appropriate because other states cannot deport

gambino and break up the same if american citizens, the federal government is doing just that in programs like 287 g and secure communities and up with tens of thousands every year because of the racial profiling, the program incentivized. if we're serious about truly in need racial profiling, what a tobacco lawsuit actions that protect families and citizens and children and oppose the constitution. i guess the gist of it is i'm happy when the federal government says this is racial profiling, were going to fight it and they go to federal court in arizona and south carolina and alabama. but until we tell the local officials, if you continue serial profiling, we are not going to deport those people and they're going to continue to do it. it just incentivizes, so i hope we can have a conversation about that also.

thank you for having me here this morning. >> thank you, congressman gutierrez. >> senator keith ellison of the fifth congressional district cochairs the congressional progressive caucus. congressman allyson enjoys a moment in history here as the first muslim elected to the united states congress are previously he served two terms in the minnesota house of representatives. congressman allyson welcomed. the floor is yours. >> thank you, senator durbin and senator graham for holding this court hearings. also thank you for urging attorney general holder for adjusting the racial profiling guidance. it's very important as you know the loophole allowing law enforcement to profile american citizens based on religion and national origin. what any profiling americans be some great, if that's the disturbing, it think it is an port and also to note that it is

poor law enforcement. law law enforcement is a finite resource, using law-enforcement resources profiling as opposed to relying on facts based on behaviors suggesting a crime is a waste of the law enforcement resource. it leaves us less safe and more at risk or we don't target based on behavior suggested other crime, but other considerations inform a prejudice. my comments today will focus on religious profiling of american muslims. two and 6 million americans oocyte to look at the suspicion. although muslim americans look hard and play by the rules and infinitesimally small number to. many even lived the american dream and send their kids to college and earn a living like

everyone else. yet many know all too well what it means to be pulled off of an airplane, pulled out of line, denies service, called names or even physically attacked. like other americans, muslim americans bought law-enforcement to uphold public safety and not be viewed as a threat, but as an ally. when fbi shows up at home synopsis of american muslims who haven't done anything to comment and makes them feel targeted and under suspicion and it diminishes the important connection between one enforcement and citizens that is necessary to protect all of us. the muslim americans get pulled out of line in an era where, ask questions and these are questions that are actually asked, where do you go to the mosque?

why did you give them $200? do you fast? to you prior? how often? questions are asked which have nothing to do with behaviors suggestive of a crime, it erodes the important connection between law enforcement and citizens. no american should be forced to answer questions about how they worship. i was particularly disturbed when i heard stories coming out of the controversy in new york about kids being spied on colleges that the muslim student association. was very proud of my son was elected president of the muslim student association at his college, but i wonder, was meeting-year-old son subject to surveillance, the kids were in yale, columbia hennepin? is a good kid who's never done anything to do my worries to think that he might be in somebody's bio simply because he wanted to be a growing campus.

i am a great respecter of law-enforcement and i recognize and appreciate the tough job they have to keep us safe. but i think it is very important to focus on the proper use of law-enforcement resources and not to give an opening for someone stereotype. as one administration official website, religious or racial stereotyping is simply not good policing and it threatens the values americans hold dear. to fix this problem once and for akamai urged the attorney general to close the loophole on the justice department's racial profiling guidance and urge my colleagues in congress to pass the ad racial profiling act. thank you. >> thank you, congressman ellison. i could've opening misting the comments made by bush and 9/11 which were solid statements of constitutional principle, particularly when it came to

adherents of the muslim faith. but i war is not against the islamic religion, but against those who would corrupt it, distorted and misused in the name of terrorism. thank you for your testimony. congresswoman judy chu represents a 32nd district since 2000 night. she was the first chinese-american member of the the congress here she chairs the congressional asian pacific american caucus, formerly served in the california state assembly and we're honored you're here today. please proceed. >> thank you, senator. i am grateful for the opportunity to speak here today about ending racial profiling in america. asian-americans and pacific islanders like other minority communities have felt the significant effects of racial profiling throughout american history. from the chinese exclusion act of the japanese american internment in the post-9/11

racial profiling of arabs, sikhs, south asian muslims. we know what it is like to be targeted by our own government. it results in harassment, bullying and sometimes even by violence. in the house judiciary committee we listen to the english test dummy of sikh americans constantly humiliated as they were pulled out of lines at airports because of their turbans and made to live in glass cages like animals on display. they were pulled into rooms to be interrogated for hours and even infants were searched. this has forced sikh americans and muslim americans to fly with us fly with us for going or remove religious attire just to accommodate the targeted practices. just last year i was shot to learn about the activities of the new york police department and the cia secretly spying on most americans. despite the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, officers are monitoring muslim american

communities and new strapping on families, recording everything from where they pray to the restaurants we ate and. the n.y.p.d. entered several states in the northeast to monitor muslim students organization for college campuses. the students had done nothing suspicious. the only thing they are the key of us practicing islam. this type of behavior by law enforcement is a regression to some of the darkest periods of our history, where we mistrusted arab citizens and spied on daily life and it has no place in our modern society. when law enforcement uses racial profiling against a group, it replaces trust with peter and hers communication. the community law enforcement instead need to be partners to ensure the safety of all americans. when the civil liberties is

violated, we all suffer. in fact, over 60 years ago during world war ii, 120,000 japanese americans lost everything they have and were relocated to isolated internment camps throughout the country because of hysteria and scapegoating. and again, not a single case of espionage was ever proven, but they were not enough voices to speak up against this injustice. today they must be those voices that will speak out. they must stand up for the rights of all americans. that is why i urge all members of congress to support the end racial profiling act. we must protect ideals of justice and protection under the law so that our country is one where no one is made to feel unsafe, unequal or an american because of their faith or ethnicity. thank you. >> thank you, congressman.

maxis frederica wilson. she represents the 17th congressional district, which is as i understand includes florida. previously served as florida house of representatives from 1999 until 2002 in the florida senate from 2003 until 2010. thank you for joining us today. proceed. >> i represent miami, where trayvon is from. thank you. thank you, chairman durbin, ranking member graham and senator blumenthal and other members of the subcommittee. after 40 days and arrest was made in the shooting death of my constituent, trayvon martin. trayvon was a 17-year-old oily walking home from the store. he was unarmed and simply

walking with skittles and ice-t. he went skiing in the winter. his brother and best friend is a senior at florida international university in miami, a middle-class family but that didn't matter. he was still profiled, followed, chaste and murdered. this case is captured action and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling. it broke my heart again i have. so many young black boys is extremely traumatizing for me. when my own son, who is now a school principal learn how to drive, i bought him a cell phone because i knew he would be profiled and he was. he is still fearful of law-enforcement and what they might do when he is striving i have three grandsons.

they won, three and 50. i hope we can solve this before this license. i pray for them even now. there's a tension between black boys and police at not just perceived, but real. have your been racially profiled? everyone will raise their hand. boys and girls. they've been followed as they shop in stores. they've been stopped by the police for no apparent reason and they know i'm a young age that they will be profiled. i'm a staunch child advocate. i don't care what color the child is. as a school board principle, state legislature and i desperately care about the welfare of all children. they are my passion. backwards in particular are at

risk. years of economic and legal disenfranchisement, legacy of slavery and jim crowe has led to serious social economic and criminal justice disparities against black boys and men. trayvon martin was the victim of this legacy. this legacy that has led to fear, the legacy that has led to the isolation of black males. this legacy has led to racial profiling. trayvon was murdered by someone who thought he looked suspicious. i established accounts on the social status of black men and boys in the state of florida was nice in the state senate. i believe we need to account for a commission like this on the national and federal level and everyone should understand our entire society is impact did. a federal commission on the social status of black and a boy should be established specifically to focus on alleviating collecting the underlying causes of high your race of school expulsions on

suspensions and incarceration, poverty, violence, as well as income, educational disparities in all black males. dropout prevention mentions for at-risk boys and miami-dade county public schools. it is called the 5000 role models project. waste our time not only how to be emulating mentors or role models in the community, they are also taught how to respond to racial profiling. it's sad we have to teach boys these things, just to survive in their communities, but we do. we need to have a national conversation not later. but time is not to stand up and address these issues and then fight injustice. enough is enough. thank you, mr. chairman.

hispanic thank you, congresswoman. unless my colleagues have questions of the panel allowed them to return to this in a house duties. thank you for being here today. we will let them take their place at the witness table. [inaudible conversations] >> before you take your seats, wait until everyone is the place to ask them. stand and be sworn when everyone is here.

[inaudible conversations] asked the witnesses to please raise their right hand. the testimony you're about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you very much. let the record reflect what this is all answered in the affirmative. first on trade as rhonda davis, chief of police in east palo alto, cal for since 2005. before that 19 years with the oakland police department come away roaster rank of captain. chief david served on the federal monitoring teams overseeing decrease between u.s. department of justice, washington d.c. and detroit. among other publications whose co-op third justice department monograph, not a correctly analyze racial profiling data. and reputation depends on it.

as other tests by both the previous senate hearings on racial profiling is that it's been so long since we've resume this conversation, but it's an honor to have you returned a few years later to bring us up today. at this point, chief davis, the floors are a survive minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. chairman and established a committee members. while davis, currently chief of police for city of east palo alto california that i am humbled to provide testimony at honor testifying at the hearings in 2001. when asked to what is actually questioned. what is changed since 2001 when president bush sensate racial profiling profiling is wrong the move ended in america. my testimony today is based on three diverse perspectives, versus racial profiling of

police executive with over 27 years experience, working in two of the greatest and most diverse countries in the nation, oakland east palo alto entered as a black man and father of a teenage boy of color. first of my perspective as an expert or think it is fair to say law enforcement has made project of addressing the issue of racial profiling. over the past 10 years the department of justice's civil rights division are his pattern of investigations has worked with agencies nationwide to provide guidance and best practices. the offices of the national network with risher reckons the shooting to further strengthen its relationships and reduce crime and violence in those communities. they do not have some type of policy prohibiting. this progress is fiercely undermined by two focal points. first, it existing national

standard definition for racial profiling that prohibits use of race, national origin or religion except when describing a person. consequently many state and local policies define racial profiling is using race as the sole basis for stopping police action. unfortunately this policy is misleading and the suggesting using race for anything other than the description is justified, which is not. simply put, mr. chairman, race as a descriptor, not a predictor. to use race when describing someone who is just committed a crime is appropriate. however when a person is suspicious or attach criminality to a person because of the color of their skin, b'nai b'rith iwaki nor the clothing they weren't, we are attempting to predict criminality through the problem with such productions as we are seldom write results and always on an approach for the same holds true within immigration context as well because a person looks a teen or mexican does not mean the person is undocumented should not be a

bear stopped when asked for their papers or get according to be some loss in alabama and arizona the police are not just encourage to make discriminatory stocks, they were actually expected to do so. most police chiefs agree engaging in activities actually make our communities less safe. this is one reason why join the police chiefs association 17 current and former law enforcement executives and challenged the arizona law. we need to pass to racial profiling act of 2011. this legislation puts forth the standard definition and requires evidence-based training to curtail the practice and provide support in developing scientific -based data collection and analysis practices. we need to revise the guidance regarding yousef federal law enforcement agents used in this will close as mentioned previously, loopholes that permit unlawful uninfected profiling. it makes sense to exclude religion or national origin for prohibition or provide art treat

other law-enforcement efforts. i also fear without this legislation we will continue business as usual. and only respond to issues of basic as to high-profile tragedies such as the great case in oakland the trayvon martin case from florida. the second affected under its progress is the dire need for us to reform the entire criminal justice system. the last top to bottom review with conduct that in 1967 through the president's commission upon person administration of justice. we must not save an entire system to a new prison that attacks against inequities such as racial profiling, disparate incarceration rates. i strongly encouraged passage of the national criminal justice act 2011. mr. chairman, from my perspective as police executive with 27 years i know firsthand just how effective racial profiling is. as an example in east palo alto my community are more than 95% of color, 60% latino, 30%

african-american and a rapidly growing asian and pacific community. in 2000 by the city experienced the second-highest murder per capita rate in california and the fifth highest in the united states. in january 2006, 6 and is serving as police achieved in east palo alto richie man was shot and killed in a line of duty by parolee just three months out of prison. with this crime rate of violence against a police officer, my community had two distinct choices. we could either declare war on parolees, engaging to the days further the disparate incarceration rate a gentleman of color or do something different. we chose to use problem-solving is a good relationships. we chose not to engage in racial profiling started a probe reentry program, first in california and which were contracted by department of corrections to provide furniture services are police officers now part of treatment and provide life skills and drug awareness

treatment programs and were able to reduce recidivism rate from 60% after five years the murder rate in 27 was 47% in 2005. perspiration rates have dropped in a very confident that we have better police relations. i think for me and my community we recognize that racial profiling on people of color, especially young men are more likely to a court of law enforcement uses race to start guessing. i am here to really reinforce that is a very ineffective policing this. it is sloppy, counting on guesswork. i think the notion we as a community or we as a nation must use racial profiling to make ourselves up your sacrifice liberties is not only false, it reeks of hypocrisy. if we were truly worried about national security in the sense of compromising civil liberties,

it makes sense we would also ask for those who were engaging in profiling for the prohibition of firearms. we have lost over 100,000 african-americans to gun violence since 2011. more than a terrorism, and afghanistan and iraq combined. i am not suggesting that there should be. after suffering the idea of compromising civil rights for national security does not work. what is equally troubling with race, national origin on a national security context suggested the most powerful nation the world, a nation equipped with law-enforcement and ask for a second to none must rely on iis and guests are to make ourselves secure versus human intelligence, technology, experience and the cooperation of the american people. i want to strongly emphasize the point that there's a reason to profiling the basis of race religion, national origin or

ethnicity. my last perspective is a black man in america that i mentioned earlier and the father of three but i have a 14-year-old oa and kline and even though i'm the police chief over 27 years experience, i know when i teach my son glad how to drive drive ms also teach them what to do and stop by the police. a mandatory course essay in my test barney and it was as much as i'm honored to be here today and i are to be here 10 years ago or 12 years ago i truly hope is no need to come back in another 10 years. thank you geared >> thank you, chief davis. >> since september 7, at the rear has been executive director of the civilization, oldest and largest civil liberties organization is more than

500,000 members was the first latino and openly man to serve in that position and co-opted in defense of our american to fight for civil liberties in the asia taher graduated from stanford university law school in print and universities would roll policy. please proceed. >> good morning, ranking member graham thank you for having me this morning that senator franken, senator bloom in all, and let us just by before. the national directory the american civil liberties union are nonpartisan organization with over half a billion members. in 53 state offices nationwide dedicated to the principles of equality and justice set forth in the u.s. constitution and our laws protect an individual right. for decades the aclu has been at the forefront against all forms of racial profiling. racial profiling is policing based on class stereotypes

instead of facts, evidence and good police work. racial profiling fuels the fear and mistrust between law enforcement and the very communities they are supposed to protect. racial profiling is not only an effect that it's also unconstitutional and violates basic norms of human rights at home and abroad. it lays out how race, religion, national origin uses proxies for suspicion and three key areas of national security, routine law enforcement and immigration. in the context of national security, recently released documents demonstrate how the yes ei target innocent americans based on race, if the city religion and national origin and first amendment protected political activities. counterproductive fbi -- damage

essential relationships and encourage racial profiling at the state and local level. in my native new york, the new york police department has targeted muslim new yorkers for intrusive surveillance without any suspicion of criminal activities. according to series the press articles come in your police department dispatched undercover police officers in the sound communities and cafés, nightclubs and infiltrated muslim student organizations colleges and universities such as colombia and yale university. when we tolerate this type of racial profiling in the guise of promoting national security, we jeopardize public safety and undermined the basic ideas set forth in our constitution. in the context of law enforcement, policing based on stereotypes is an entrenched practice routine law enforcement across the country.

the tragic story of trayvon martin is under national attention and raised important questions about the role of race in criminal justice system. while we do not know how this heartbreaking story will end, we do know that stereotypes played a role in this tragedy. and yet they have no place in law enforcement. racial profiling undermines the trust and respect between police and communities to protect. some citizens do not deserve protection under the law. and the context of immigration, racial profiling is exploding. state intrusion is a federal immigration authorities creating a legal regiment which people are stopped based on race and ethnicity into the immigration status. it needs to continue state laws

using robust civil rights protection. additionally, congress must defend the department of homeland security to 87 g insecure committee programs, which promote racial profiling by turning state and local law enforcement officials into immigration agents. when police officers, not trained as immigration law are asked to enforce the nation's immigration laws, they routinely resort to racial stereotype about who looks or sounds boring, but you can't tell by looking or listening to someone about whether or not they are in the u.s. lawfully. ..

otherwise america's rights and liberties are unnecessarily discarded and individuals are left to deal with their lifelong circumstances of such intrusion. on behalf i wish to thank each of you for your leadership on this issue and i also would like to think you, chairman and particular for your willingness to partner with our office to address the issue of profiling and i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. >> frank is the national second vice president and the colorado state president of the fraternal order of police and served for 23 years but then the county sheriff's department for he had responsibility for the courts and jails kept the commander in the training academy and it can

in the relationship and public information office. he's received numerous awards and decorations from the fraternal order of police and denver sheriff's department it's an honor to have you here today. please proceed. >> good morning mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and human rights. my name is frank and a 23-year-old veteran and the denver sheriffs apartment and told the rank of captain. i and the national seven vicepresident of police which is the largest law enforcement in the organization and country representing more than three injured 30,000 rank-and-file law enforcement officers and every region of the country. i'm here to discuss our strong opposition to f-16's to end the racial profiling act and begin by saying it is clear that racism is morally and ethically wrong and law enforcement is wrong that serves no valid purpose. it's wrong to think a person of criminal because the color of their skin but it's equally wrong to think that a person is a racist because they were in uniform and a badge.

this provides the solution to a problem that does not exist unless one believes the problem to be solved the patent universal training is based on the privacy and racism. the notion makes no sense especially to anyone who truly understands the challenges in the produce to the communities we serve. criminals come in all shapes, colors and sizes and to be effective as a law enforcement officer is on to be colorblind as to make determinations about suspicious activity. there's the mistake on the part of some of the ugliness of racism is part of a cultural law enforcement. i'm here today not only to challenge this perception that reviewed it entirely. we can and must rest for the bond of law enforcement and the minority community. to do so would require substantial effort to find real solutions. restoring this is important because the minority citizens often suffer more as victims of crime especially violent crime. i do not believe that in 1670

will repair the bond of trust and mutual respect between the law enforcement and minority communities and i believe will make it more difficult because it lends the appearance all cops are racist and that we are engaged in a tactic which has no other purpose than to violate the role of citizens. the notion is inhabited of building trust and respect and can result in a belief by the community that law enforcement officers should not be trusted or respected. this bill does not propose to prevent racial profiling which defines a very broadly and does not illegitimate by any law enforcement agency that i know of. in reverse the united states the supreme court made it clear the constitution prohibits the a first of all based on considerations such as race. further as one court of appeals has explained, citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law at all times of law enforcement of the office of policy and practice or in a given situation steps to initiate an investigation of the

citizen based solely upon the citizens race without more, and a violation of equal protection clause has occurred. the constitution itself prohibits racial profiling, yet here we have a bill that proposes to prohibit it. the premise of the bill seems at odds with common sense and current law. the bill doesn't prohibit racial profiling as the definition of racial profiling in the bill is far too broad and ends up providing officers from the exercise of the routine investigative action aimed at determining involvement in the crime or criminal activity. the bill purports to allow exceptions to the provisions when there's a race description provided by the trustworthy eyewitness or of the weakness of the suspects race or of mr. viewed in real life this is not practical. in the practice of routine investigatory action law enforcement officers received and of an information through a wide range of activities and met goods designed to identify suspects, prevent crime or lead

to an arrest. the bill would ban many of these methods there for a range of legitimate law enforcement methods would be prohibited beyond the already unconstitutional purely race based activity. the legislation also threatens to penalize the local and state law enforcement agencies by withholding federal law enforcement funding unless the agencies comply with requirements of the bill to provide officers training on the racial profiling issues, collect racial and other social local data in accordance with the regulation and establish the administrative complaint procedure or independent audit program to ensure an appropriate response to allegations of racial profiling. they've testified before you about the dire and dangerous consequences of the cutbacks will law enforcement in the past how can we fight the battles we propose the agency's then need them because they can't afford new training to dhaka and the allegation of racial profiling

issues. how can we achieve a color blind society of the policies of the federal law required a deal reporting of race when it comes to something as common as a traffic stop. but the officer is unable to determine the drivers race? will police officers be required to ask for driver's license, registration and proof of ethnicity please? at a time when many citizens and lawmakers are concerned with protecting their personal information via concerns about the real idea at, voter litigation laws or cybercrime it seems with common sense and sound public policy to ask it another representative of the government in this case a lot for some of us are over the federal government for analysis. why would something as simple and routine as a traffic stop requires such an extraordinary and position on the driver. i submit this to the committee that we do have a problem in the nation today. the lack of trust and respect for our police officers, police officers have a problem and that they have lost the trust and

respect and cooperation of the minority community. this is tragic, because as we have already discussed it is the minorities in the countries that are hurt by crime and violence. this bill however is not the solution to get it will make matters worse, not better. for these reasons, the police strongly oppose the bill and i urge the subcommittee to reject it. mr. chairman i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. >> thank you for being here. roger is the next witness, president and general counsel of the center for equal opportunity to read he's held a number of senior positions at the justice department during the ronald reagan and george h. w. bush and administration including deputy assistant attorney general and the civil rights division and deputy assistant attorney general in the environment natural resources division acting assistant attorney general of the office of legal policy and he's a graduate of the yale university law school. thank you for being here. please proceed.

>> if you would turn your microphone on its in the box in front of you. >> thinking very much, sastre durbin for inviting me here today. i'm glad to be here. let me just summarize briefly my written statement. toughest 1i make is that care has to be taken in defining the term racial profiling. and in particular, i think it's important to bear in mind that racial profiling is disparate treatment on the basis of race. a good police activity happens to have a disparate impact on the basis of race or not racial profiling. the second point i make is that the amount of racial profiling that occurs is frequently exaggerated and the care needs to be taken in analyzing the data in this area. all that said, racial profiling, as i define it, is a bad policy. and by opposing for the reasons

that many of my panelists here are giving. there is one possible exception that i would make, and that is in the anti-terrorism context. in brief, i think that it is quite plausible to me in the war ontario where we are fighting an enemy that has a particular geopolitical religious agenda that it may make sense in some circumstances to look at organizations that have particular religious political ties. i'm not happy about doing that. i think it should be done as little as possible, but the stakes are so high that i'm not willing to rule that altogether. the last point i would make is that there are problems with crime to legislate in this area in general.

and i think the end of racial profiling act in particular is very problematic. i don't think this is an easy area for congress to legislate a one-size-fits-all policy. it's going to apply to all while enforcement policies tall levels of government and in all kind of investigations. and i think it is also a bad idea to encourage heavy judicial involvement in this area. these are things of the racial profiling act does. let me also say that i think that the chief is a very good job of identifying some additional costs and in a racial profiling act. the fact that it is insulting the data collection is time consuming and that inevitably we are going to either have to guess inaccurately on people's racial and ethnic background or

else train the police on how to identify people racially. with respect to via the panelists testimony i will say briefly that in the terrorism and the border security context, as i read some of this testimony, they would equate racial profiling with taking a particular look at visitors from particular countries, considering immigration and citizenship status and considering language. i don't consider any of those things to be racial profiling. let me make one last point. i think that this is an important point to make whenever we are talking about racial disparities. as i said, mr. chairman, i am opposed to profile and particularly profiling in the

traditional law enforcement context where frequently it is african-americans who are the victims of that profiling. i am against that. nonetheless, we have to recognize that it's going to be tempting for the police individuals to provide us a long as a disproportionate amount of street crime is committed by african-americans. there's been a amount of street crime committed by african-americans for so long as more than seven out of ten african-americans are being born out of wedlock. whenever we are discussing racial disparity in the united states that is the elephant in the room and it has to be addressed. people like me and everyone else in this audience who don't like racial profiling is going to have to face up to this problem.

pittard estimate david harris is a faculty scholar in the research at university of pittsburgh law school. he's one of the nation's leading scholars of racial profiling and offered the book in 2000 profiles and justice white the racial profiling cannot work. in 2005, good cops preventive policing the congressman conyers and chief davis professor harris appeared both of the previous senate hearings and racial profiling so welcome back. i'm grateful for the chance to talk to you today. senator durbin's statement opened by calling for us and president bush's promise that racial profiling is, quote, wrong and we will end it in america. sad to say that that promise remains as yet unfulfilled. instead, we have a continuation of profiling as it existed then with a new overlapping second wave of propelling in the week

of such a real love and other witnesses have described directed mostly at the arab americans and muslims and now we have deferred overlapping waves of profiling, this one against undocumented immigrants. but the context and the mission of what ever these law enforcement actions or does not change the fundamentals. the fundamentals are dis, racial profiling does not work to create greater safety or security. instead, racial profiling, ethnic profiling, religious profile in all make our police and security personnel less effective and less accurate and doing their very difficult jobs. i would assign a racial profiling as the use of racial ethnic religious national origin or other physical characteristics of appearance as

one factor, not the sole factor, but one factor among others used to describe the questions for search or to cover routine law enforcement actions. this is very close if you look at it to the definition in the broiling guidance of the justice department. and i would note it does not include actions based upon description, a description of the unknown suspect, a person that has been seen by a witness. that is not profiling. that is good police work. all of profiling falls on the same set of data from across the country, different law enforcement agencies, different missions and it's all about the hit race. when we talk about effectiveness, what you're asking is what is the rate at which police officers and security officers succeed or hitch when they use the of the good parents, religious appearance as opposed to when they do not. and the evidence, the data on

the question is unequivocal. it comes from all over the country. when police use race or religious appearance the sky, they do not become more accurate. in fact, they don't even just stay as accurate. they become less accurate than police officers and security agents who do not use these practices. in other words, racial profiling gets us fewer. why is this? a lot of people find this counter intuitive. there are two big reasons. number one, profiling is the opposite of what we need to do as yet unknown crimes as on known suspects. that is addressed through observation, careful observation of behavior. when you introduce race even as just one factor into the next,

what happens is the observation of behavior becomes less accurate, immeasurably so come and police officers efforts are damaged and we stood. second is using a profiling to gather the crucial and intelligence and information from communities on the ground, and this is true whatever the context is in which profiling is used, particularly in the national security context, this is absolutely critical. if we are in danger, if there's a threat from international terrorists, and if as some say those international terrorists may be hiding in communities of arab-americans and muslims, the people we need right now is our partners we have never needed other partners, our people in those 11 american and muslim communities, and i want to say that those communities have been strong, effective, continuously helpful partners to law enforcement in case after case

across the country. they have helped, but if we put the target of profiling on these communities, we will damage our ability to collect intelligence from them because fear will replace trust. in response to some of the comments made by my fellow panelists, a bill like f. 1670 that deserves support is not insulting to law enforcement. it's all about accountability. and everybody that is in law enforcement or any of their pursuit needs accountability, just like i do as a professor, just like everybody else does. racial identification is not an issue. you will not have police officers asking what their race or ethnic group is. in fact, that isn't what we would want at all because it is all about the perception of the officer. that is all the would have to be recorded. black street crime respect when i have to disagree is not the

issue. the issue is how we deploy our law enforcement officers in ways that are effective, fair and carry off the most effective ideas of our society. so for those reasons i would support any effort to pass the f-16s in the end of racial profiling act and revise the department of justice profiling guidance. thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you, and i look forward to the committee questions. thank you. >> thank you, professor harris. >> you heard the testimony of officer gail that suggested in the strong appointed of language that raising this question on the racial profiling says unless you believe police are racist you suggest this is unnecessary. what is your answer to that? as i said at the outset, you

trust, we trust these men in uniform who risk their lives every day for us and the question he has raised is we cannot trust their judgment and assume they are going to violate the constitution we are suspicious of them when we should be more trusting hafed. the police department shouldn't be held accountable counter to the idea of democracy. we have the powers and responsibilities to the life and the power to take freedom, the idea that we could not collect data to ensure that that power is used would be counter to the sound of managerial principles. we collect the data every day, data on crime, data for the budget purposes and for our justification of existence. we told you we need to increase budgets to the states and to justify why we deploy the

resources the idea of using data means you're using intelligence and intelligence left policing prevents the need to do guesswork or by slicing. we should respect law enforcement as an officer riding there is no more noble profession but the idea that i'm exempt from the constitution were exempt from accountability is counter to why i got into the job and i don't think it is insulting. i think what is insulting is to allow police officers to come out to the perception under the threats of accusations of the racial profiling and not be in the position to counter it and not be in the position to make sure that your policies and practices do not make them on intentionally engaged in this practice. the laws are designed to set standards to hold accountable. it is a set clear message and i think that is what we are doing to the estimate before i turn to the officer i would also like to note that the celebrated case, the notorious case involving trayvon martin involved person being accused who was not real

law enforcement official per say he was part of a neighborhood watch. 49 states now, my own state being the only exception of the carrying law which allows individuals under some circumstances to legally carry a firearm. in this case, i don't know if mr. zimmerman comply with the florida law. that will come out on sure in terms of what it took to have a concealed weapon. but it certainly raises the question that wasn't before us as much ten years ago. we are not just talking about professionalizing law enforcement and holding them accountable. we are talking about a new group of americans who are being empowered to carry deadly weapons of the protection of their homes and communities which makes this a far more complex lean it was ten years ago. i would like your response. senate is certainly agree. the issue on the paray and

loaded firearms with minimal requirements, i think the idea people should be held accountable when quitting our community is very real. the issue of the racial profiling why it's important and we need the data is that in many cases, and maybe the trayvon martin case will bring this up later is where the law enforcement please in the oncoming and the bias. so when people call the police and say that there's a suspicious person walking in my neighborhood with make that person suspicious and the police must ask the question and the idea that we simply respond and stop without inquiring is their behavior, is the fact they were basically engaged in criminal activity or they were wearing a hoodie and they were black? this is where we need a justification with phil law of the community members. i'm not going to stop this person because he and she have done nothing but we need to look at the idea that will enforcement not only in forces along the also said in many ways

the moral authority on the community how to interact with each other. >> your statement was very strong but the conclusion of it raised a question coming and i don't have it in front of me but as i recall, and tell me if i am stating this correctly, you said that many members of law enforcement community were not trusted in the minority communities. can you explain that? you need to turn the microphone on, please. >> i think it is pretty clear from what we have seen in the media reports recently especially, but over the course of several years there is work to be done by the law enforcement in the minority community to rebuild that trust. and i say that openly to i think that they acknowledge that and in fact we are engaged in activities where we are attempting to help law enforcement agencies do just that through community work. so i think that's an important piece. i think the professor talk about the fact that a lot of times in

the minority communities you have people in those communities that are valuable resource to the law enforcement i agree with that and the aspect of law enforcement and the professional law enforcement is necessary to have people in communities where the crime is occurring assist with the activities and so i think the problem has become we seem to want to blame the enforcers for everything that goes wrong, and the problem with that is that the enforcers show up on the scene to deal with the situation, with the information they have available to them at the time, and our job when we show up is to stabilize the situation. >> i hope you don't quarrel with the chief davis's premise that the law enforcement community has extraordinary power in a moment, the power to arrest, the power to detain and to embarrass, and holding them accountable, to use that power in a responsible and legal

constitutional way, you don't quarrel with that premise do you? >> i don't think it quarrels with the fact law enforcement officers have that power nor the fact law enforcement officers should be held accountable in fact we are accountable. my testimony elicited situations the court had ruled that officers had to be accountable in the issues of race, and we accept and embrace that because we believe it is proper and appropriate. >> in number of things caught my attention. and you said you felt the war on her justified some measure of profiling. let me get the question and then you can explain your position. i wrote notes as quickly as i could. we need to look at the organizations of the geopolitical and political ties to but i think it's something that you said in the course of that. you heard testimony here from the congressman ellison and others about what is happening

to the muslim americans across the board. and many of them are not affiliated with any specific organization. they are affiliated with a faith, and it appears that that has become a promise for surveillance and investigation. i worry as an amateur student history how you could distinguish what you just said from what happened to the japanese-americans in world war ii where 120,000 were rounded up with no suspicion of any danger to the united states command of the property taken from them detained and confined because they happen to be part of a group which just attacked the united states, the japanese i should say attacked the united states, and therefore they were branded as possibly being a danger in the second world war because of some connection they might have with the geopolitical or political group. do you think that the internment camps were justifiable?

>> no, i don't, and when i say that in some limited circumstances some consideration of individuals and organizations, geography and religion can be justified in the war on terror. i am not saying that means that any consideration under any circumstances of ethnic profiling and religious profiling is okay. all i am saying is that i am unwilling to say that it can never be used. and i give examples in my testimony. for instance, you know, suppose that on 9/11 the fbi had gotten

reliable information that an individual on one of the ground airplanes, one of the jetliners have a backup plan and she was going to fly private plane filled with explosives into a skyscraper. >> but there is a clear distinction and let's make that for the record a predictor and descriptor. you talk about the class of people guilty for 9/11 and say why wouldn't we go after the class of people in training to fly and so forth and so on that is a descriptor that the law enforcement could use but when you conclude because they were all muslim we should take a look at all across the line. >> i didn't say that and i think the line that you were drawing between the pri victory and the prescription is inevitably a great one and a reason i think the legislation in this area is a bad idea. isn't it predictive when the fbi

and my hypothetical says, you know, the individual who is going to fly this plane into a skyscraper is not somebody -- it hasn't already been done. you know, we are trying to predict who is going to be. and we are going to look at the passenger lists and we have only limited resources and limited time working at the clock and we are going to start by looking at individuals with arabic names. that is racial profiling according to your bill but i think it would be eminently reasonable. >> i certainly disagree. i think that when you start going that far why do you stop with arabic names? why would you include all of the muslim religion? that just strikes me at the very core of the reason we are

gathering today to read that if we are going to say to people across america you have certain rights and freedoms because you live in america and we have certain values that it does create perhaps more of a challenge to the law enforcement. the police state, maybe not sure efficient. >> in my testimony i come in my whole organization of focus is on the principal of and i take that very seriously, mr. chairman. what i am saying is that there are going to be some circumstances where i think it would be unwise for the congress to say that law enforcement agencies cannot give some limited consideration to an individual or of an organization's geopolitical and religious background. >> i would like to defer now to senator gramm who has pleaded for his opportunity. >> thank you all.

i guess we are trying to highlight is so complicated this issue is. do you think you have ever been racially profiled? >> probably i can't say that i understand, because i don't. i've never been in that situation, but the fact that you are a law enforcement officer and you probably sometime in your life have been viewed with suspicion by police makes your testimony pretty persuasive to me in the sense that you are now sitting in the rule of law enforcement official trying to protect the community, and the zimmerman case is a private individual, not a law enforcement organization, and i just really -- i think i understand the problem. i just don't know where the line between the good law enforcement and racial profiling in this and begins. but me tell you one thing about

congress, we will be the first one to jump on you when you are wrong. when you get a phone call that somebody looks suspicious in the neighborhood and you ask a bunch of questions that doesn't seem to justify us going in and that person winds of killing somebody and we will be the first ones to blame you. so you are in an untenable situation. and when it comes to the war on terror, i couldn't agree with you more. the reality of the fact is i wish we had done more, not less. there are some websites the linker monitoring. there were some groups within america that are seeing some pretty radical things and i hope that we follow the leaders of the groups to find out what they are of two and the home grown terrorism is on the rise. how do you find that without finding the religious, how you fight homegrown terrorism without people that were loyal to america that the one to a

particular faith? i don't know, but i know this, that the law enforcement community in this country fails to find out about the signs to be the first one on the case. why didn't you follow this website? he said these things in these meetings and why didn't supervisor to the commander you got somebody that is out of sorts here. and as an air force officer when do you go to your commander and say this person said something that makes me feel uncomfortable and you do so at your own peril. so i just don't know what the answer is. i know what the problem is, and i think in the last decade we've made some progress, chief davis, and maybe having legislation that makes us focus on this problem or it might make some sense quite frankly. maybe we will look at redefining

it but just collecting information to show exactly what happens day in and day out in america so that we can act logically. i know you want to say something, but when it comes to finding of the war on terror, the fact of the matter is that great britain and france are going through this very similar situation right now where they have groups within the country that have pretty radical ideas and they just expel someone from great britain just today or yesterday who was saying some pretty radical things. i don't know when the national security starts and individual liberties again. what is your fault? >> i want to endorse what some of my panelists have said that it's very important info war montara that we have the cooperation, the overwhelming majority of individual americans

and arab americans and muslim americans. >> one of the great strengths of the country is even though homegrown terrorism is on the rise, generally speaking, american muslims have assimilated in our society and our culture, thousands serve in the military command we are the example to the world on how to assimilate. >> that's right, and stereotyping is very dangerous in this area. you know, most are not muslims. for instance i believe they are christian. you can't just look at somebody's name and conclude things about them. as my panelists said it's very important to have the cooperation and the trust of the arab-american communities. so why don't want to give the impression that i think that it should be open season on anyone on account of their ethnicity or their religion. i'm simply saying that there are going to be circumstances.

stat what we should be looking for is actions by individuals within groups, statements made that send signals that this is not where practicing religion should be taken on more. it's the activity on the internet. >> as the professor said -- how we do that i think is very complicated because when you monitor these websites, maybe you capture some innocent conversations come so that having the judicial oversight i think is important, but i guess that's what i'm looking for is sort of the objective indicators of this is getting out of bounds here. >> senator gramm, you're absolutely right. it's about behavior. that is the key to everything and making statements whether out loud or on the internet, that's action, that's behavior. here's the problem we have a few wore an air force member and you have a american muslim in the

group and they say something that alarms you you have to think if i say something in my going to get myself in trouble? thank you for yielding to me. i think part of the challenge we have in the country that's dedicated to free speech is how you draw the line in a way that doesn't cloud the speech we want to protect. i know perhaps my organization and you have different points of view on abortion for instance, yet i think that you and i would completely coincide from the moments i've shared with you anyone who dares to blow up an abortion clinic is a criminal. >> and that's not speech. >> yet then would you feel comfortable supporting the anti-abortion web sites for individuals that perhaps would be a willing to blow up an abortion clinic just because they may share the points of view the radicals to would blow

up a clinic i know you wouldn't feel comfortable. >> i know what you're saying. >> the context is that difference in the context of the speech that perhaps we find difficult but that is what america is about. a democracy is a great many things but it should never be quiet. if we all agree it's not the america we know and love. >> having faults against the government or expression yourself in an aggressive radically pro-choice, radically against abortion and you can feel the way you would like to feel and you can speak your mind, but they're comes a point in time the rest of us have to defend ourselves and our way of life, and what i hope we will do in this discussion is not ignore the threats that do exist. there is a looming threat against this country and against

our way of life and i hope that we would not get so sensitive to this dilemma that we would basically unilaterally disarm ourselves. when it comes to basically the immigration issue if there was ever a reason to fix the immigration system, this hearing highlights it. you have millions of people here that are on documenting and i would be greatly offended if our corporal coming back to afghanistan has a hispanic lastname and got stopped because somebody thinks i'm here illegally and i could be greatly offended, but the fact of the matter is there's a downside of the illegal immigration of crime and the way to solve that column is clear to me is the comprehensive immigration reform. thank you all. this has been a good hearing and we will see if we can work with senator cardin to find something more bipartisan.

>> one question the senator did have to meet you asked the captain had he ever been profiled and i will take a shot at that. unequivocally, yes, but what is telling only have i been profiled by the law enforcement officer i have profile and i think that is the part we bring to the table is that in many cases it may be implicit bias and no malice intended but at the end of the day the result is that you had a disparate affect on the people of color that you need to address the issue of the table so for us not to acknowledge that it exists and that the body as as a human behavior, for us to require that we are trained and we hold ourselves accountable so we don't have these disparate outcomes is what we are talking about and it's easy to focus on the small percentage. i agree on the opening statement. i believe it is racist but if it is simple as racism would be easy to fix. this is a much bigger issue and i think that we have a level.

>> thanks you, senator gramm and i'm going to take an extraordinary risk and put this committee at hands, senator frank and. in all seriousness we are in a roll call vote and senator gramm has to vote and senator frank -- franken i will let you monitor your own time used and senator blumenthal proceed and i will return. >> you may regret this. [laughter] i have the gavel now. in this case i will turn it over to senator blumenthal. >> if i may, i have a question to follow on the remark he made on senator gramm's questions. under what circumstances have you profiled come and if you could talk more about what a limiting principles you think

should apply to profiling when it is used legitimately if it can be used legitimately in your view. >> when i was a police officer in oakland and you would have an airing of the would-be -- we but identify as high crime, and this area was to the freeways we had a lot of out of town coming in to buy narcotics and quite often there are actually white. so the presumption on my part and the others that any white person in the neighborhood would then be lie in the narcotics. the problem with that assessment it touches, nobody to the entire neighborhoods of the only way that the neighborhood can be judged is based on the actions which leave your criminalizing everyone that lives there, and also suggests the reason why a person what is it is to buy drugs. so besides being ineffective, besides being insulting to the neighborhood, it didn't work. so as we got better and moved on we learn how to watch behavior. some of some one exchanging

money, somebody yelling signals that drove by was about to place or the police officers are coming works a lot better to be doing proper investigations. the circumstances of which i think profiling could work would be under the category of the criminal profiling when you look at the behavioral aspects of what a person is doing. in other words, a person, when they're selling drugs and engage in certain behavior is rather than how they derive, move in a car, something the would be specific to their actions. i cannot think of any context in which race is appropriate other than when you are describing someone has committed a crime and in fact i would say what race ends up doing is being a huge destructor so now we have seen this time and time again to repeated the operation pipeline in california where we targeted the so-called drug carriers and we basically didn't get what we were looking for because we were looking for black or brown people driving on the freeway. and we were proven wrong time and time again and then we lose the support of our community.

>> added to that problem is the difficulty of using the eyewitness testimony where somebody supposedly identifies a potential defendant in a lineup and would be just plain wrong because of race being a factor. would you agree to that? >> yes, and the fact is much work looking at some of the dangers of easing the convictions on the lineup because they can be inaccurate but if i may one of the questions that cannot earlier was about officers getting on race, and if i could say it's really interesting because we are supposed to assess race. i don't think we are suggesting that it has no place, so if you put something comes out on the radio that you were looking for a black male, six-foot tall, to under 25 pounds and very handsome bill would make sense why you were stopping. i could understand that.

>> objection. [laughter] stomach but the officer has to make an assessment at the time comes there is a time and place. just not when you're trying to predict criminal behavior. >> mr. gale if i could ask you to comment on the general principle that race or other similar characteristics alone used for identifying are profiling individuals can be either distracting or undermining the credibility, and really should be used in combination if anything combination with other, if at all, characteristics in the behavior and so forth would you think about that? >> the conduct is what drives it all. because i'm the commander of the training academy at my the

department we are training officers of the time to read one of the things we talked about this it is all driven by conduct. if you are going to properly teach that, you teach that it's driven by the conduct of the person and you were determined that their conduct indicates that they are involved in criminal law activities. >> race had a place in that. the destructor is that now you would have criminals that are involved in the criminal activity who where now used in the racial profiling as a destructive as the complaint for having been a trusted or stopped because of their criminal conduct and i think that there is a presumption by some and wrongfully so i believe that, you know, no criminals ever come in against police officers and no criminals ever, you know, don't just acknowledge they do crime. my experience in 23 years is that it's very rare tulip on someone engaged in criminal conduct and say you got me, i'm

guilty. they don't do that. they look for any way they can to try to get out of that process. the conduct is what drives all of it. if you pass a bill like this you are going to say is something you can use in addition. i think the court has already addressed it. the court already told all in for such agencies very clearly you cannot use race as the basis for how you do this. so the conduct is eight, and the bulk of my testimony is that i think we are trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed because you are trying to fix it with small as opposed to just saying there's a problem and the problem is that police work. >> i'm sympathetic as one that has been involved in law enforcement gradually more than 23 years combining both federal and state as u.s. attorney and an attorney general of my state and connecticut, and i would be very low to create what you have

called distractions, defenses, impediments to the effect of law enforcement. but i think that one of the roles of legislation is also to provide guidance and raise awareness and perhaps provide direction to the police or their departments who may not be as aware as your or even other witnesses. specs before, senator blumenthal officers gale, i must take some time to visit your city of denver because it doesn't look like any of the major cities that i visited in my 11 years as tenure of the director of the aclu and with all due respect, you will forgive me for having to point out that you're very optimistic assertion that all is well is not borne out by the data that we already have. let me give you the data that i know quite well in new york

city. the country's largest police department. there were from 2002 to 2011 there were more than 4.3 million street stops, 4.3 million. 88% of those, nearly 3.8 million were innocent yorkers. that means they were either arrested for some in, issued a summons or arrested. let's break it down by race because obviously it is a much better place if you are puerto rican like me and maybe live in denver and new york is not a good place for people that are african-american and latino. in 2011 a record 685,000 new yorkers stopped by police departments to a 88% were innocent of any crime. 53% of those or black, 34% were latino, 9% white, and a remarkable number of guns were

found on 0.2% of all stops. with all due respect, officer, i must dimmer when you say this is conduct driven, clearly the stock's big otherwise the fact is that there is a problem and i would assert the reason why, at one point that we agree, the order of police nationwide lack the trust from communities of color so i think i said -- use it as much you have a pr problem of people of color and i would assert the reason why you might have that difficulty with the communities of color you were there to serve is because they know these facts. they may not know them the way i know them that they experienced it and that is precisely why the end of racial profiling act is essential. the data that we have already tells us it's a problem, let's collect more data and put in place some remedies. you're point of the supreme court and the equal protection clause giving sufficient comfort

to those that have been wronged by the police isn't true. the case that i can cite for you basically allows police officers to make a stop based on race and ethnicity and national origin. it's awful lot of the land according to the supreme court. at times our supreme court gets it wrong which is why that we exert this congress and senate to step in and an act of all when we know that there is a problem that is not yet come to the attention of the supreme court so with all that thank you. >> my time is up. i want to thank all of the witnesses. it's been a very important and useful hearing and we have some areas of disagreement which i think we need to explore further but i want to thank particularly mr. gale and mr. davis for your work in the law enforcement and thank the chairman and the substituting chairman for their

tolerance and patience. >> by thank yoo jolie call me chairman. [laughter] >> that's the protocol. >> you know, i think i need the advice -- i have the right to remain silent. >> yes, you do. >> i do have to -- i have an appointment, going to ask my questions and then you will get the gavel and you will be the chairman and get everything due respect. thank you, senator blumenthal. >> everyone here has talked about the importance of the operation between law enforcement officers the communities served, and it seems everyone agrees that racial profiling can undermine trust in who the authorities and cause resentment among the targeted groups. minnesota is home to a large

population of somalia americans and my experience nobody, no community was more upset than the community when we learned that a few americans had been -- they had gone back to somalia and had become involved with al-shabaab. when i talked to both the fbi director mueller and maybe more importantly, when i went back to the twin cities and talked to the special agent in charge there, both said that the community had been cooperative in the fbi investigations, and i think it was because of actually very good police work and a very good work by the fbi making sure that the earned the trust of the community there.

and so we have to acknowledge that we may say it off with this lack of trust and confidence was one interaction at time. i think the first of all congressmen can do isn't take your head out of the sand and

acknowledge you have this terrific history. we should acknowledge that with the intentionally or not still engaged in practices that have a very despaired result with regards to people of color, we should put our defensiveness down realize we are to serve and not be served and we have to realize we are only going to be successful if the community engages with us and the more we engage, the safer we make our communities, the more they will impart with ice. time and time again at the major city community, the stronger the relationship between the place of minority communities, the greater the induction will be. so we took one interaction at a time by holding officers accountable and also by acknowledging that which is in front of us. there is no greater insult as a minority sentiment to look me at the eyes insult my intelligence by telling me it's not profiling wyatt everything about me knows that it is. that's what happened in our communities and we need to stop doing that.

>> officer gale. >> i think i agree with the cheese that you have to do it one person at a time. but i think you have to be more global more global and look at the community you serve in the different populations in the community and make a concerted effort to be in those communities and have a dialogue with those people and you have to listen. and it doesn't matter that you might not agree with the things that they say. your cigars and military mature leadership school may have manual but said any problem whether real or perceived is still a problem. and i agree with that. it doesn't matter if it's not the actual problem. it is perceived to be a problem by someone or a group of someone's and we have to listen invalidated a dialogue through. and i think we have to take agencies and train agents seized to understand that these populations are that they are serving about the concerns of those agencies are. i agree else with cheap data is

that, you know, we have to acknowledge the history of law enforcement has not always unwanted stellar combat anything that is being done in a lot of organizations. i think we talk about a very honest and very candidly with our membership and say this is the way you need to go to improve your relations with the communities that she serves. and so, it is important to do those things come in to hear what they have to say, but it's also important to explain to them at the challenges are, what we have to do for going to protect people, what were faced with is the challenges under protecting communities and it's important for us to illustrate that two individuals in the community because you know, no one is perfect. but if we understand each other better in dialogue more, i think there's dishonest misunderstandings, we can move

past them. >> thank you. you wrote about are very sent -- recently uncovered fbi training material that relying on bigoted stereotypes of muslims. i think we can all agree that those materials are not acceptable. the vi direct or mall or acknowledged that this materials damage the fbi's relationship and i commend chairman durbin for his recent letter to the fbi and the object and are working on a letter to express my concerns as well. mr. merrill, what action should the fbi tape to show it is serious about reform in its fbi programs click >> thank you for the question, senator franken. yes, what at first we know this is my muslim files and training

manual surprised us. when we used the information act, we go asking for documents that we don't know exist. and so we use the freedom of information i does democracy. how to get documents they need, questions, hunches. based on conduct of what we've seen already when the fbi has been tracking young muslim men between the ages of eight tenet 33 and asking them to come in for voluntary fingerprinting and photographing, mapping out mosques. we had a hunch they had to have some training materials that were going to be traveling and problematic in our hunches were borne out. i think frankly one thing via vi needs to do, which i encourage and director mueller is a man with whom we have great disagreements be a brief sudan dozens of times. hope he is a man of enormous

credibility. he's both under the bush and the obama team and whom i have the greatest personal regard and respect. and with all of that, i would encourage you to encourage him to take a much more active position on these threat assessments, which i fear are only the tip of the iceberg. the attorney general guidelines allow them now then to begin investigations on anyone they choose so long as they can claim they are doing it to gain information on criminal activities, national security or foreign intelligence. the amount of reporting on this threat assessments is rather limited as we all know. ask enough tough questions, how many threat assessments have been opened? how many are ongoing and allows them to collect physical surveillance. we urge the attorney general to retire threat assessments, but at least it's the very first step you can map the fbi to more

vigorous reporting, even if it's an camera. retraining is essential. all the folks who got the lovely little chart showing how to the arab mind is a cluster mind and i am quoting verbatim is a cluster thinker while the western mind tends to be a linear thinker. they were trained on those. so we retrained them and show them that is not the case, was never the case. they'll continue to do those activities. so i think retraining is essential in proving if the assessment and how those assessments have been used would be a place of important focus. >> thank you, mr. sub two. and thank you, mr. chairman. i noticed you are back. you are to take the gavel commented neocortex last night thank you, all.

>> senator kos. >> cheney back, chairman durbin for calling this hearing for your long and passionate vigilant advocacy for solar rights and for your real leadership. and my elbow, becoming a i retired and supervision of the 380 sworn officer department to ensure we had effective and strong outreach, not just traditionally subject to harassment or questioning communities like african-american or latino communities, but also post-9/11 making sure there is better relationships with muslim community given incidents that occurred at the lg bt, making sure we stayed as a policing organization engaged. and accountable and i just wanted to start, officer gale and chief database for your leadership in service of the public here to appreciate are

starting to helping the understanding what is the impact on the police force? that practices racial profiling, where it's either part of policy or training, part of history or current practice. what is the impact on a professionalism promotion and advancement in cooperation with communities that has been touched on because it boasts a number of us it had been added to step in and out. >> thank you, sender. if multiple parts if i may appear inside the recognition we did talk about the need to see it does engage in systemic or so profiling time usually has very low morale because you have those opposed, this engaging and causing within itself. and a community i would also argue the community is suffering not the practice in which they are losing touch with community and makes them. in fact it and quite frankly in today's society makes them much more expensive because now you have the cost of crime going on.

yet the cost of litigation because people are now seeking some type of redress through the court system and you have low morale issues to which means you increases and sick leave, workers comp claims. if in a very expensive adventure when you engage in profiling. you have a community that denies basic rights. celestin at the county executive cannot serve the community effectively if they don't trust you. so there's some historic trusts, always challenges and strains. to the extent there is a legitimate outreach and the extent we are trying tonight grieve with captain gale, we have a chance of being successful. the issue of racial profiling although we talk about race from a cheap respect they've come executive to export a material part is. and results in loss of revenues, support. like i said it causes internal strife.

>> is this that policing? does have consequences internally? >> guest: >> absolutely. consequences of bad judgment in any agency results in these perceptions in the community that are not responsive anarchic amazing citizens and somehow another broke for us. it all priced in a management philosophy and the cheapest rate. it does result in low morale. but it also results in low morale not just because you're going to keep when the agency that with the practice or the fact that there is no appropriate accountability for officers who were clearly operating out i had professional conduct. it has low morale when the community that we serve then becomes complaining about us being unprofessional about the reputation of the agency being

that of a victimizer is supposed we protect dear. and the chief is absolutely right. it starts at the management, the very top% and the top level people allowing these things to occur in individuals that they will hold accountable. as a captain in my agency, i believe it is my charge to hold people accountable when they conduct themselves unprofessionally and they do so. i think some people have said there seems to be some kind of great thing going on in denver or what have you. i love my city and it is a great city and please feel free to visit any time. but i'm just going to tell you, we hold people accountable in my agency. we hold them accountable and that is expected. we don't have to have specific rules that say you can't do this because we don't know what bad behavior is when we see it. if you hold them accountable,

the end result is officers which has shut down and not conduct any type of police work in the city doesn't give protect it. >> senator, there is a phrase we have the calls for a moment of loss. when an agency does not have the type of trust and confidence we are discussing come in many cases you have racial powder cake sitting there and if you look at our history there some type of incident and it gets confusing is quite confident entr'acte often these at it maybe a legal incident, something that by itself would not make sense to call such a response, but it reflects years of abuse and neglect and one of the congressperson's earlier enough is enough. so when agencies are blind to this by systematically engaging in it, they are sitting on these powder cake but an incident like a trayvon martin ordered oakland

can ignite it was a large demonstrations in race riots because it is not the event by itself as much as the buildup to the incident comes a lack of acknowledgment of where we were before. >> if i hurt all the members of the panel brady said that racial profiling is bad policy, it is not just a powder cake moments. it's also the simmering distrust, disconnect from communities seek to protect and serve that can also have an negative impact on your effectiveness, the ability to play something referred across the whole panel. i wanted to move if i could to a question about standards. if you look at reasonable suspicion to stop and question an individual is supposed to probable cause, profiling appears to me just at first blush to be much larger problem potentially in the area of reasonable suspicion. how do seem to play out? what is important in fighting

that standard and then i'm going to want to move to this though and why it might be necessary. >> thank you for the question, senator. you're absolutely right. you put your finger in something important. the standard arrives in terry versus ohio, the case that allows police officers to use stop and frisk when there is reasonable fact-based suspicion. the problem is and where this can intertwine with profiling is reasonable suspicion is a ferryboat legal standard. it is lower than probable cause. when a class i like to say probable cause is somewhere near my ways. reasonable suspicion is below my knees. and you have the standard you can use. but the lebanon takes it at the cannes police action. where we see this showing up in the context of profiling to give you one example is in the stop and frisk activity in new york city new york city over many

years and it's a good example because there is very significant amount of data on this. we often find that even though the standard is reasonable suspicion, there is hardly anything recorded and sometimes nothing at all reflecting reasonable suspicion with the idea is simply part of this boilerplate. so without love is standard, profiling and other ineffective approaches to law enforcement run rampant and we have the statistics that mr. romero recited a minute ago. >> mr. said to come of racial profiling can be a violation of civil rights as i know it is under a holding of cases, martino, these are not cases i'm familiar personally, but that is the line of analysis by the supreme court that has laid this out. by gina we not see more enforcement actions for racial profiling by department of justice clicks through a follow-up on professor harris' comment. how do we in the gap between

formal policies create police entities that his captain gail decides her accountable, professional and all levels are engaged in moving us forward towards a more just and affect that policing community. >> thank you for the question, senator koons. when you look at the testimony we submit it, you'll see we detail a number of the seminal racial profiling cases. in fact, some brought by david harris. what might be instructive to read a piece of legislation is essential is to track when the incident occurred and why the case was decided because you will note that many instances in the one i'm looking at now, you were looking at a span of several years of time between when you get pulled over by a police officer in a highway in the case of robert wilkins and

ultimately win that case was decided by a court. confirm any minority group members, especially those in our communities and families who lack resources to hire private attorneys, it is not simple or economic to retain private counsel, even when you've been wrong. we retain many come in many in individuals simply because we lack resources. we take on cases where we think we have the ability to have a high impact and change systemically at the highest levels. a number of heartbreaking letters i sent vaccine would understand the police then we will throw your fact scenario and the consent decree doesn't really give the individual resolve even if they're going to step forward much comfort. i think that is really what is that daycare. i think the burden on hundreds of thousands of new yorkers,

let's say the 400,000 plus that i cited have been wrongfully stopped by the police. the idea you would ask 100,000 new yorkers who were msn and gets out by the police to follow individual lawsuits come i can't believe any member of this chamber would believe that would be efficient use of our resources. that is one of the time by the senate taking action in putting in place a legal regime and being able to stop this type of race to the courthouse you do both the economy and our civil liberties a service. >> senator imai, the one question you had about the losses are what people can file the complaint is in many cases i think the bigger challenges than they actually follow a legal staff. this is what the legislation is critical and data collection is critical. we think of profiling people, the stop itself may not have legal cause. so we have police give a card in

two minutes but not for any reason to stop you. so the stock may be justified. cracked windshield, old tires. you'll see those go discretionary costs being used off in to get to a pretext for other things. so what makes the hurt on an individual basis, the person complaining about being stuck, but in fact they did have a crack daylight and a makes a heart for the individual case. you need to track holistically seen that is the 10,000 cracked windshield and 90% abi one group of color. >> i am well past my time and i appreciate the concerns raised by this conversation in the hearing today about the definition of racial profiling and the import of being narrowly targeted and the legislative response, but i'm grateful, chairman durbin for your crafting a bill that insists on training on data collection and a narrowly crafted response to a significant problem.

>> thinks. following up their question to mr. romero can probably back aside, when you join with issue the issue of whether race or it yesterday was the sole cause for this type, you run into the real obstacle. the static research and it turns out this is the first time congress has talked about this. arguing discrimination should only be prohibited if it is based solely on race and ethnicity has an unfortunate congressional lineage. segregationists tend to cut the act of 1964 by offering a minute it would abandon attacks based solely on race. senator clifford's case in new jersey argued and said this a place person attempts to prove violation in the section of matter how clear the violation was an obstacle so great to make the title completely worthless and said the word magnets that limiting civil rights act based solely on race would quote negate the entire purpose of what we're trying to do.

so courts have set a standard, which makes it extremely difficult and chief team is coming your olds might be a crack daylight with a reason they're being pulled over. what we found in my own state consent searches by illinois state police between 2004 and 2010, hispanic motorists in my state were two to four times more likely to be searched. african-american motorists, two to three times more likely to be subject to consent searches and white motorists. however, white motorists were 89% or likely than hispanic motorists 20% more likely than african-american motorists to have contraband in their vehicles. so it made no sense from a law-enforcement viewpoint to do this. and yet, it is done. i thank you for this hearing and i'm sorry to 10 years to get back together and i'm sorry we need to get back together.

to put it in historic historic perspective determinations very beginning, our founding fathers started wrestling with issues of race and gender and religion in this year's presidential campaign wrestles with issues of race and gender and religion. it's an ongoing debate in this nation. there have been moments of great leadership and moments of ignominious conduct. as far as accountability is concerned, yes this is what person accountable, but they hope to hold every person in our government accountable members of congress. and then we i can't do to this job same, remembering what bill clinton was when he was interviewed before he became president, is there an issue you will not compromise on? he said i will never compromise on race. he said that as a man who grew up in arkansas and saw segregation. i thought that is a good standard, turbine. holding that standard. as a back and remember in my

time in the house of representatives voting for a measure that turned out to have the dramatically negative racial impact. the establishment of the crack standard 100 to one. years later i was given an opportunity committee to make their bread and bring it back one-to-one. i couldn't get the job done because of the nature of compromise reduced to 18 to one, still a terrible disparity, but a genetic improvement. what happened as a result of that bad soap it back to my congressmen trust in the african-american community. many people said i'm not going to do this. i'm just not going to send that person a day for 10 or 20 years because of the crack violation. we lost their trust, unser gale and i can see what the judges came and talked about it. move back to establish trust in the community by doing the right thing. we need to be held accountable by the senator and all of us

whether we are an elected or appointed office in our government. we serve. we serve the public cannot accountability has to be part of the surveys. this is not going to resolve the issue. i think as i mentioned earlier it's more complicated today because of concealed carry them some standards established in state. more complicated today because of the war on terror raises legitimate concerns about the safety of our nation and how far will we go to respect her national security without violating our basic values under the constitution. i thank you all for your testimony. it's been a very positive part of this conversation, which we need to engage in even further. there's a lot of interesting today's hearings. 225 organizations submitted testimony. thank goodness they did come here to speak. we're glad to have your testimony will put it in the record without objection. looks good. it includes the episcopal church, the only chief of police

and coalition for immigrant refugee rights and japanese-american citizens league and conference for human rights, most advocates, naacp, national account of of immigration and rights working group as the coalition and the south together in southern poverty law center and schemas will be made part of the record which will be kept open for additional statements. it's possible someone will censure but question. it doesn't happen often, but if they do hope you respond in a timely way. without further comment i think i'll buy witnesses for patients in attending this hearing and i look forward to working with all of you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit. i., laura pettit do depose then state in 1999 or 2000, and he

told me he had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger at made it to him using human growth hormones. mr. clemens once again, i remind you you're underwrote. you said your conversation with mr. pettit never have been. if that was true, why would laura pettit remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> once again, thank you mr. members a conversation we had. and yeah nice relationship is close enough to know that if i would've no day he had done hgh, which i now know, that he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh, we talked about the subject. he would come to ask me about the effects of it.

>> the chairman of the senate budget committee, kent conrad says he'll introduce a budget resolution monday to begin barking mad. he says the proposal will reduce the deficit at more than $5 trillion over 10 years. this is a little more than a half-hour. >> thank you offer being here. i appreciate people's participation. tomorrow will begin a budget committee markup of a long-term budget for the nation. as may chairman's mark, i will represent the bipartisan fiscal commission command, also known as the bowles/ simpson plan, a plan i think best represents an opportunity in the blueprint from which to build a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement. but i am proposing is not partisan. i'm trying to break the business

as usual cycle that has been followed for so long hearing budget matters. to be clear, we are to have a budget in place for 2012 and 2013. the spending limits are in place. they are contained in the budget control act passed last summer that provided the spending limits and the enforcement measures for the budget for 2012 and 2013. the law states very clearly that the budget control act, and a quote, shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. that's about as clear as it can be. the budget control act stands in the same way, in the same manner as for a can stands in the same way, in the same manner as for a can stands in the same way, in the same manner as for a can stands in the same way, in the same manner as for a can of an

2013. so we have the budget for this year and next. it's the law of the land. what we do not have a long-term plan. that is what we must now work on and that is what i will be proposing tomorrow. the fiscal commission budget plan provides a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction framework. it's not perfect, but it does represent middle ground. it brings the deficit down and does so in a fair and balanced way. it protects the most vulnerable, phases and changes to avoid harming the economy and includes saving from across the budget and tax reform that raises revenues while lowering rates. i know she can this route will disappoint some. certainly some on both sides of the aisle.

some democrats will be disappointed there is not another plan to rally around and some republicans will be disappointed there is not another plan. but i am not interested in furthering the political divide. i am focused on trying to get a positive result for the country because i believe it is critically important that we do. i believe the best way to do that is starred in the middle, with a plan that already has bipartisan support, both in congress and across the country. so tomorrow i will lay out the fiscal commission budget plan and budget committee. it is clear, i believe, that we have to act. regarding him as 40 cents of every dollar that we spend and we are on clearly in sustainable track. gross federal debt is expected to reach 104% of our gross domestic product this year and then continue rising to 118% of

gdp by 2022. many economists regard anything about the 90% level as the danger zone and the long-term debt outlook is even more dire. we face both the spending and revenue problem. let me be clear. spending is at or near a six-year high as a share of the national income. revenue is at or near 60 year low as a shared national and done. so i believe both sides of the ledger are contributing to the problem in both have to be part of the solution. we also know the american people support a balanced approach to deficit reduction. in a recent poll by pew research conducted in november, people were asked what is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit? 17% supported cutting major programs only. 80% supported increasing taxes

only. 62% said we should do a combination of those. and that is what this plan does. fiscal commission budget plan cuts spending increases revenue through tax reform. it does exactly what the american people are asking us to do. i believe it is the kind of plan the american people will support. here's a brief overview of what is in the fiscal commission plan that outlines tomorrow in the budget committee. it includes $5.4 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years, including savings from masters budget control act and the final continuing resolution. it lowers the deficit from 7.6% of gdp in 2012 to 2.5% in 2015 and 1.4% in 2022. so it takes the deficit down

buffalo 3% level that most economists view as sustainable. destabilizes gross debt by 2015 and then lowers it to 93% gdp by 2022, including debt on a clearly downward trek three. he reduces overall spending to 21.9% of gdp by 2022 and reduces discretionary spending to an historic low. 4.8% of gdp by 2022. the ability and health reform its additional health savings and fully offset preventing a dramatic drop in payments to doctors who treat medicare payments. it calls for social security reform that insurers the 75 year saw the sea of social security and cause for social security savings to be used only to extend the program's solvency,

not for deficit reduction. finally it includes fundamental tax reform that will make the tax code simpler, fairer and more efficient by raising revenues. here is the deficit trajectory under the plan. as i noted, brings the deficit down to 1.4% gdp. by the end of the decade, well below the 3% level, which is this one, which most economists say is critically important to do. over 10 years of the plan spending averages with 21.8% of gdp, which is below the level we experienced during the reagan administration. let me say that again. over the 10 years of the plan, spending averages 21.8% of gdp, which is below the level we experienced during the reagan administration.

it brings discretionary spending, gross friends appropriated by congress each year from a .4% of gdp in 2012 to an historic low of 4.8% by 2022. the original fiscal plan does not reopen the health care reform debate. instead of built on health reform by providing additional cost savings. it provides an option to phase out tax solution for health care and the congressional bosses said it would be one of the most significant steps we could take down the cost curve on health care spending. as i noted, that fully offset the doc fix. to offset costs include savings proposals such as medicare beneficiary cost saving, reform in payments to health care providers, eliminating state gaming of the medicaid tax and extended dedicator creepy to

dual eligible for medicare part d. while the fiscal commission budget plan calls for the same social security reform is the original fiscal commission plan, it does not include in its numbers for savings from those social security proposals. that is because the congressional budget act of 1974, the law that established the budget process prohibits inclusion of social security and the deficit totals of the budget resolution. the social security reforms have to be considered separately. however, fiscal commission budget plan description doesn't include a policy standard comeaux support the original fiscal commission recommendations regarding social security. it is the policy of this resolution that congress should work on a bipartisan basis to make social security sustainable over 75 years.

legislation shall include following proposals. one, move to a more progressive benefit formula. two, provide enhanced minimum benefits for low-wage workers. three, enhanced benefits for the elderly and longtime disabled. sure, increased greatly in full retirement age based on longevity. five, provide flexibility for retirees to claim a portion of benefit at age 62 and remainder at full retirement age and add a hardship exemption. six, gradually restore taxable minimum -- taxable maximum to cover 90% of wages by 2050. next, adopt cpi for social security, other benefit programs and taxes. the next cover newly hired state and local workers after 2022.

next, drag social security administration to better inform future beneficiaries and retirement option and finally, begin a broad dialogue on importance of personal safeness. the fiscal commission budget plan also includes the kind of fundamental tax reform that needs to be adopted. this goes back tax expenditures and lowers tax rates. economic growth is america's global competitiveness. makes the tax code more progressive. specifically the commission's report included an illustrative tax reform plan that demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures can simplify the code while lowering rates. instead of six brackets for individuals, and clute just three of 12, 22 and 28%. the corporately would be reduced

from 35% to 20%. capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income although differential could be maintained if that were offset with a higher top reappear at the mortgage interest and charitable deductions would be reformed, better targeting those tax benefits. the child tax credit and earned income tax credit would be preserved to help working families in the alternative minimum tax would be repealed. overall, the fiscal commission budget plan would increase revenue to 20.5% of gdp by 2022. over the 10 years of the plan to revenue under the plan would average 19.7% of gdp, roughly the same level seen during the clinton frustration. i would remind everyone that revenue is at that level, we experienced the longest. of uninterrupted growth in

america's economic history with 39 quarters of economic growth and 24 million jobs created, the best job creation record ever. so that is the plan that i will lay out in the budget committee tomorrow. this comprehensive, balanced, fair and i believe it represents the best blueprint we have from which to build a bipartisan agreement. that said, i absolutely recognize adjustments will have to be made for this plan to be adopted. as i noted earlier, it's not perfect and it needs to be further updated to account for changes that have occurred since it was first proposed in 2010. for example, the budget control agreement. that said, i very much hope that this will provide a blueprint for going forward. the adjustments that i've reference will have to be negotiated on a bipartisan basis in those negotiations will take

time. i intend to give members of the committee to evaluate him or her the markup will end tomorrow. it will reach an agreement as soon as possible. the crisis overseas will drive this to come together sooner. i would feel than to conclusions as soon as possible and i recognize that many observed that his sunlight lay that we reach an agreement tallahassee election. precious reality. if you look at the original saturnine proposal, it was designed to be voted on right

after the 2010 election. it was designed because there was a recognition. it was unlikely to be in agreement right before an election. they only come together when we are closer to the above the tax cuts expiring and the sequester staring us in the face. so my own son is we are going to have to give it. here for negotiation and passion than i think we need to educate. i think we need to hopefully get people focused again on the need for a long-term plan. let me just conclude by saying, the fact is we have spending limitations in place for this

year and next. they are contained in the budget control act. so we don't need a budget resolution to deal with next year's spending novels. the appropriators have already been chosen their assignments with respect to spending levels for next year's budget. that is done. the party started working based on the spending limits contained in the budget control that. so we have those limitations be spending limitations for this year and next year. we have the enforcement provisions for this year and next year. that is also contained in the budget control act. we also had 10 years of spending cuts. usually a budget resolution only has one and the budget control act was not a resolution. the resolution was only an adoption that never goes to the president for the signature. the budget control act is a law. but we don't have is the

longer-term plan, a 10 year plan to get us back on track. that is what i hope, what i am laying down will stimulate discussion around. how do we put together a 10 year plan to get america back on track? that should be what occupies us in the days and weeks ahead here and i'm going to stop there and i'm happy to take questions people might have. >> what you see together from -- [inaudible] given the vote in the house on bowles/ simpson and a handful of others, [inaudible] >> first of all, i consulted members of the budget committee repeatedly. we had literally dozens of meetings. i have consulted the leadership

of our party repeatedly. i empathize them every step of the way. i've been amused to see some of the reports that somehow something i said cost somebody by surprise. i don't know how that could be since they were advised every step of the way as to what i was doing in the timing of which i was doing it. but that, i do not speak to their reactions with this plan. i've had a rule around here for a long time. i don't speak for others. i speak for myself. so i would urge you to talk to them for their reactions to the specifics here. in terms of the vote in the house, and think it is very construct is. and i was asked for advice on the timing, i said i don't think it's wise to vote win a date because right before an election people are probably not going to be ready to get out of their

trenches. it is probably going to take waiting till after the election. that is where the fiscal commission plan was designed as it was to have a vote in the commission after the 2010 election. some i am feeling is this is the runtime to vote in the committee. the runtime to vote on the floor. we have budget limits, spending limits put in place for this year and next, so we don't need to go to the floor for that purpose or through the committee for that purpose because we have the budget control act, which as i have said is they love. we do need to try to maximize the chance that as we get closer to the tax cuts expiring and sequester from being imposed, that we are ready to act. that is what i am trying to stimulate is the discussion any planning exercise to get ready for what we all know is coming.

yeah? >> you're going to get a lot of criticism from people -- [inaudible] >> well, we're going to market. i don't know what could be more clear. i am laying down the mark, so we are going to mark a. your first question. this is my first inclination. family went through another exercise for many weeks of going in a different direction. and that's the rhetoric, i concluded just putting up another partisan budget plans, probably is not going to contribute much. and went back to where i

originally started. >> why does this markup now? republicans have been saying a thousand days the democrats have had a budget and to bring it up for a vote. they're not going to reach an agreement until after the selection anyways. >> it's a very good question. you know, the answer may not be obvious. let me say after participating in the polls i'm turned bowles/ simpson commission what becomes clear is how long it takes to do this work. we need to start the discussion and negotiation now if were going to be ready for we all know it's coming at us at the end of this year. expiration of tax cut in the position of the sequester. it can't wait. those discussions can't wait.

i don't think will be prepared to vote before the election, but we do have to do the homework to be prepared for when we get to -- before we get to the end of this year. >> this woman is very patient. [inaudible] >> well, part of this plan is to replace the sequester with these other savings. so again, i can't emphasize strongly enough. and i know this is sort of stuff, but the hard reality is the amount of time it takes to put together these plans is

really daunting. ask any member of the group of six. ask anybody that served on the fiscal commission. this takes weeks and weeks and months and months of effort. and so that is why think it is important that we begin. we have the spending limitations in this year in tax. so the typical timetables for budget is just not very relevant. is just not very relevant. is just not very relevant. it's a long-term plan and that's what we need before we get to the end of this year. that work needs to be canned by the way. >> you keep putting out budget resolutions after, putting on some budget resolutions after the election -- [inaudible] >> i can imagine that there is. we've had budget resolution is

slated for cobra. my strong preference would be to act sooner rather than later, but there's got to be a negotiation that negotiation is going to take time. we certainly know that and it's going to be difficult. and it probably will not be concluded until after the election to produce honest ourselves. that is probably what is least likely to occur. depending on election outcomes, they decided to kick the can down the road a little longer and deal with this in the first part next year. i can see any of those things happening. i can also see -- one thing i have said to my colleagues says another reason we need to be prepared sooner rather than later arba external events that can change the timetable and i'm thinking specifically about all of you have solid events there closely. we sort we have. i don't think anybody can

project with precision what happens there. so getting prepared, doing the homework now makes a lot of sense. >> mr. chairman, how does this relate to the work i'm going? >> well, they could play a very constructive role here and bringing people together. and servicing options. one of the things i have said here and i hope it is clear, the commission plan needs adjustment because it was at the dawn in 2010. we've had other things have been sense, so we know there have to be adjustment and the those adjustments may be requires a lot of work and by the group of six and not the group of eight. >> just so i'm clear, over 16 of

the process to expect tomorrow has played down into march, but should you expect them to have votes on amendments on thursday? do you expect to vote on the actual adoption from the committee by the end of this week? >> you know, the timing there would be all wrong. if one is interested in getting a result, which is my interest, the time is not yet ready. nothing could be more clear. you couldn't have a clear message and a houseboat and at 38 votes. again, if you look at the way bowles/ simpson was set up, it was set up two of the vote on the commission report right after the 2010 election. and the reason was to maximize the chance to get a result and

that's what we've got to try to do here. i've also try to be clear. i don't rule out being able to act more quickly. if for example there an external shock, but i think the greater likelihood is they won't come until after the election. and so we've got a budget and spending limits are in place for this year and next. what we need is this longer-term plan and it's going to require a lot of depreciation and the negotiation is going to take time. >> what is this markup will have to cut? >> at the beginning of the market. >> -- >> be tied to markups that were concluded until a cougar. >> the bipartisan agreement of the house -- what have you heard? has have they endorsed the

reargue? >> i've talked to erskine bowles and the last several days. i think you'll be seeing a very positive statement from he and senator simpson and others as well who are interested in getting us back on track. >> t. think it will be months until there's an actual vote on them? >> could be. the election after i was months away. [inaudible] -- why not days ago -- why not earlier? >> i don't know how i could be more clear. last year a law was passed, not a resolution, a law. that law provided spending

limits for this year and next. [inaudible] >> that is true. but it did provide the spending limits, the spending discipline, spending enforcement mechanism. ..