they were here. one of those is the concerns was this question. is there anything you would like to say in regards to your alleged behavior as outlined in this report? but they took the fed unfortunately. colonel, you said, and i agree we have to do something to bring back the trust. and you had superiors you have to answer to the fate

kept giving false information when you are in a situation to answer to your superiors. says they have been on this committee we have requested and subpoena people to come before us who should automatically come. but yet you agree you feel that you should have you had the answer to your superiors the you were revised not to come. do you see why the american people feel like they are being lied to?

another member said that you are gaming the system. is probably perception of that is the case with the v.a.. i have a v.a. on the edge of my district i believe the majority of the people provide the best possible service they can but let me also tell you the american people don't trust the administration and many who are out to serve themselves and can you give me the answer? they have asked me had a mystery to now the v.a.? >> congressman i cannot disagree with what you have said all my friends are veterans brothers, every time i time iak

because of how they perceive the va. we have a bunch of people dedicated that have been under mandatory overtime the last two years they're doing the right things but has until the chairman before that doesn't matter because the perception of the american people i feel more confident now with the leadership that we're going in the right direction to hold people accountable. to say i have to come to this and want to do the right thing so somehow we have to figure that out we have to stop this and move forward you'll always make mistakes and never be

perfect anybody who says that, it is not true but how do we use those resources? >> when they should do because we're supposed to be the voice of the people asking for information given us the information and necessary we believe the job you do should be done for the betterment of our veterans. we cannot do it if we say hide that from them. that is the advice i'd like to give you. >> so the compensation of

moving expenses is that relegated to the veterans administration for those within the federal government? >> those are for all federal agencies that choose to use it. >> when i look at the v.a. with corruption where there is corruption there is money that this is so out the need to be that what we are arguing here is the fact that they forced so the data for current position but it is 274,000 and that is the

standard error the criteria. that is incredibly of courageous the wonder people are doing what they're doing. that relocation allowance for the most senior officer in united states military $4,200,514 and $0.25 for the four-star officer and as the commandant so we give these incentives or compensation packages that our outrageous and we wonder why there is corruption that forces people that take these

incredible amounts of money. just like the scandal with the wait time that you could earn a cash bonus to figure out within this corrupt system that they could move the veterans on to the secret waitlist to make it look like they bring it down in the military when people are promoted bad people are devoted and the only cash

incentives are part of the pay the when we recognize good behavior in the v.a. system hundreds of millions of dollars per year with these cash bonuses for this bureaucratically incompetent system they're good people and the veterans administration and they want to do a good job but they come forward with these incredible problems and they make those problems public in their the people that are retaliated against bided v.a. i don't see the leadership in the sector he

is merely a place holder only when it gets so bad of public awareness that is collectively had reluctantly taken. with over $1 billion of cost overruns nobody has been disciplined unbelievably extraordinary. >> these things are happening in the united states military people would be court-martialed there would be relieved in the military your job is not a right and thank god even the state's military does not have the values of leadership of the v.a. if we could say one good thing tonight but now we have to

clean up the v.a. but the president has to care that secretary has to care and i don't see that. i yield back. >> i will yield to miss brown for final question. >> first of all, i agree with the president and the secretary i want to start by thinking all fee-for-service and commitment i have a couple of quick questions as you decide to decentralizes but is down into the right with those of the citizens a petersburg we worked for years to get it straightened out that i don't care what

you do about the rest of the country don't touch florida because we have so many veterans we're finally getting the benefit of this on track. you are interrupted when you're talking about the number of benefits that you offer somebody said we don't care the u.s.a. we serve how many? peggy finish your thoughts on that area i want to give you a chance to tell your side because there is good things we are doing. >> yes. for solid is never by a decision to shut down in the office i could never make that call i just gave my opinion. >> your opinion carries weight. >> just to put it into a nutshell we did claims

1.4 million veterans this year more than ever but we still need to do better we pay more money to more veterans with higher quality but now we have to show the american people the numbers are real there is honesty and truth behind those members. we have an incredible work force at the v.a. to work very hard we're trying to get the right people in the right place i absolutely believe the military, it's. i believe they have the best interest of veterans at heart they want change and accountability they push towards that but the time in this position i don't know

but you have my commitment i will hold people accountable to this committee. >> what are your comments? you thank you have the best people in the position for those offices? >> yes congresswoman. people would say you took one out of minnesota. >> he was doing a great job by checking account because he was doing a wonderful job he got it squared away he got the union under control in all respect him highly every day is going so well we put somebody else and it could take care of it now i will take his expertise someplace else that i need and he is so good i have to

use him to put in another position we needed a leader he is a leader. he is changing things in a couple more years whoever takes my place made moved him someplace else. >> one quick question you mentioned 23 did you did not agree with the ig report? do we have a copy of that? or have i not seen that? >> it was an interim report. . .

>> that is a program that comes from this agencywide program. and we need to change it and we need to change it not just for this but for all of the 13

agencies. and i'm sorry that you all just give them $4000. they are being cheated. because clearly if you have to relocate it is a problem. but unfortunately the weight of this program is set up, we need to take a look at it because it's in seems as if they are getting different appraisals and i understand that california is different from minnesota. but we definitely need to look at the program to see how we can correct it or put some into that. >> i think one of the things we're not talking about here is their salary in what we call pay for performance. and that is the way to go, keeping the lines clear that its

true performance that determines any bonus. but the military gets locality, adjustments, no matter where you are at. this corps in america does not get that. you get your base salary. >> those are all of the factors that we need to consider and i really think that part of the problem that you all have had something to do with the salaries and of course with how we dumb down and don't talk about the good things that you all do. there are problems in every agency. there are problems in the congress, we are all fighting for the betterment. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. just to clarify for the record,

this program, is it suspended or canceled? >> is suspended. >> okay, that is not the direction that i actually got. >> i believe it is suspended. i can check. i will call your office first thing tomorrow morning. i believe is a they look at everything, they check everything out and they find whether or not we can use it before they do anything with it. >> sir, i want to go back and confirm. is it your testimony that you never contacted the secretary's office in any way to express a desire to get back to philadelphia were to the east coast? >> that is correct. by the secretaries office, i i d

respond with a reassignment. >> after the reassignment, you never asked come back? >> i have not. >> i have not. >> i can understand that. i think it is apparent from your testimony tonight you will go where you're told to go and i appreciate the diligence with which you approach your job, the exact same thing, to be sent to an office where an undersecretary would say that the life what would be sucked out of you if you went there. that is a testimony within itself that you would be willing to go there and again, we thank you both and as i understand it, it's your testimony that you did feel pressure to make the move to baltimore. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> it has been a little bit difficult tonight, you basically

we're glad to go to l.a. >> yes, i am glad to do this mission, mr. chairman. i think my children and that is army corps values. >> i think that if you were given any mission you would take that mission. is that not correct? >> of your talking about a job here. >> no one is offering you a job in the house, you need to do it right where you are. i appreciate what the ig does. we have been crosswise the fourth and interestingly enough, they brought up an interesting dichotomy where the va office of inspector general goes back and forth and negotiates with the the va as to the final report.

i do not understand how that process evolved, but obviously it has over the years. so i guess that is why it is are easy once the report comes out that the department signed off with all the recommendations because they already knew what the recommendations were going to be before they got a copy of the report. i will say that i appreciate the area where you put in the report it and i think it is important that you accept it or you don't accept it and that discussion is very important for us to have and again, this hearing tonight was only held because people would not come to testify at the hearing that we held two weeks ago. i do not believe that you would've not comments had someone said not come.

we had to subpoena you in order to get you to come here. you obviously were subpoenaed because the gentlewoman left her position and i suspect that we may invite her to appear before us at a later date. the wit that if there are no further questions we are now in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> john kasich has announced that a special election to fill john boehner seat will be held. the winner will send out the rest of his current term. it is scheduled for march 15.

the ohio sixth district includes the cities of troy and westchester. >> coming up we are giving students the opportunity to discuss what issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow the road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, radio and online at c-span.org. >> coming up the communicators features representative the top democrat on the technology

subcommittee after that, a forum on hispanic voters in the 2016 election. >> on the next "washington journal" we are going to talk to jim mcdermott about the u.s. health care system and the current open enrollment for the affordable health care act. then tim murphy on mental health and gun violence. congressman murphy cochairs the congressional mental health caucus and you can join the conversation by phone or on this book and twitter. "washington journal" at five every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tuesday, charlie cook provides a 2016 presidential election preview. see it live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> who will you next read about and there's only one person, i thought, about who i would write if i were to write a second biography. i remember and i thought i'm going to be standing next to the president with the most important people in the world. who knows how i will feel in a moment, i don't know. so i had the idea that i might do that. i thought maybe i'd give him the books later. if i feel this to be able to pull off the goofiness, i will do it. >> this sunday night, we have this special author and the book he wrote in regards to religion and politics.

>> there are people that have made an idol of politics, sort of worshiping an idol rather than god and i think that it's a fine line and it's something that i talk about fairly often. >> sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> c-span is created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and bought to you as a public service by your local cable and satellite provider. >> anna eshoo is the top democrat on communications and technology and she is our guess on "the communicators." thank you for coming back to the table. >> thank you. i'm glad to be here with you.

>> since last time we talked about you, net neutrality is the law of the land and it has been in effect for a couple of months. you have any regrets or do you think that it has been successful? >> i think that we are in a strong position in the course i am thrilled that on june 12 the fcc order went into place and i think that we are on a strong legal ground that was a challenge by an opponent to delay the implementation and the court denied that. there is another challenge by the appeals court and of course i think that we are on very strong legal ground and the first legal test in the passing of that was very important.

and i also think that it is important that senator merkley and myself launched this brief that was signed by 20 members and senators and in that it was in many ways a reminder that both of us were there when the telecommunications act was written. we were both on the huge legislation and so we believe that this is a following of what the intent was. and so we keep going. i think that so far so good and

i think that the expression of millions of americans is something that i never forget and nice. it was unprecedented between .5 million americans contacted the fcc and said that we want the internet to remain essentially neutral. we don't want different speeds, we don't want any of that. and so i think that all of this effort is based upon the public good and it is exciting. there are always dips in the road but i'm pleased with where we are right now 2 you mentioned this and a lot of you have done work on changing this or

updating the telecom act. >> i think that when we talk about it, people think of the telecom act that was passed in 1996 and we have had many generations of polity since that time. i see it firsthand because it is my district that produces so much of it. and so that was a long time ago. but i think that we are going to go have an update that we need to have a mission and define what the principles would be, what are the areas, identify the areas that truly need to be upgraded. what we need to do to meet the 21st century standards and with tech knowledge he we have to be very cautious. because you cannot really define

specifics with technology. i've never done technology specific because it has changed. so i do think that their areas that we can work on and i think that if you just go at it without any kind of definition whatsoever that it could end up needing like this. but i think that we need to play some parentheses around it and then use that as a roadmap for the work going forward. >> let's bring into our conversation kate who covers technology for that publication. >> i wanted to ask about this policy which i know is something that the subcommittee turns to a lot. there's a lot of talk about this

and also people are paying attention. what do you hope to accomplish in this term? >> i think that the spectrum is part of this. we have seen so much of the move to mobile which requires all the downloading, the movies, videos, the license and unlicensed which is very a very important platform for innovation and the auction that is coming out which will be held in march of next year has had in enormous amount of work done with the subcommittee's and hearings and the fcc preparing for it. and so this is the first time in

the history of the world that a spectrum auction is set up the way that it is. and so it has set up rules of the road for broadcasters where there is going to be a reverse. the preparation for it and then also moving forward. so what the broadcasters are willing to give up, once that is completed we will know how much can be offered in the rest of the market, so to speak. but we also have to keep scrubbing and finding new ways to produce more spectrum both within the federal government because there is considerable spectrum held and across the executive branch.

and so i know that the chairman and myself, based on the work that we did some time ago is going to replicate that working group because you have to have conversations with people. not everything happens together in a hearing. but if we don't produce the spectrum that is needed that will really start to choke the markets that are out there. so we have quite a tall order. but i'm pleased with the progress that has been made and i'm just dying to see what comes out of this auction and we have prepared for it and the fcc has done enormous work to shape it and who wants it and now it is not that far away. >> i also want to ask about broadband deployment. you mentioned this coming back.

is that kind of the big push that you're planning to make? >> i think it's a very important policy and i've been on it for about six years. there is two clocks on the wall, one is regular time and one is government. it is directed to broadband. and so in order to bring this into communities all over the country, and we have many areas of the country that either have non-or very little, rural areas especially. so looking at how broadband is brought to people, you have to dig to place the conduit into the ground and it cost a lot of money if the road is built and

then you have to tear it up in order to do the deed. so the legislation, and i'm thrilled that the chairman is the republican lead on the legislation, to move this forward and to have a policy that you only did it once. whatever federal dollars are spent, this will be done. it encourages local jurisdictions to do the right things at the right times. so it is smart policy and it's so common sense that i shouldn't even be adding sentences to it. but i do think that it will advance broadband in a far more

efficient and less costly way. >> we have mentioned this a couple of times and so is the top democrat on that committee, what is your relationship like the max. >> i think that we have a very good relationship. it becomes tense at times when we don't agree with each other. but we have a mutual regard for one another. we like each other. until relationship is never going to be a good one must you work at it. you can never take a person for granted or assume what they are thinking. so the more that you do this, the better you know an individual, i think and it helps

to produce things. so i think that we have a wonderful relationship and i have a great deal of respect. we disagree, but we agree as well. and so it is a healthy relationship and we have been able to be productive. and i think that that is part of it. >> before we go on to another issue bringing this back, do you think that the spectrum, that there is enough set aside? >> i always opted for more because it is so essential for many of the startups that i have

met with, these are babies that are just being born. they could have seven employees, 11 employees, 42 is a lot. but they were highly instructive in terms of what they were looking to launch based upon the licensed spectrum. and they said over and over again to me that we don't have that platform and we will have to shut the lights off and lock it because we will be out of business. so i worked hard to get this in the bill and an understanding that was created amongst the members of how important this

is. and when to use this term you don't talk about it in that way. but it reminds people of this and they get it. >> there is a reason publication going from silicon valley to the house of representatives and when you go home when you come back here to washington to these two areas understand each other? >> i think that it has improved in congress and i think that the reason for it is that technology and the internet and telecommunications has permeated

everyone's day-to-day life you cannot help but have an interest in it. the children of members are teaching them because they are digital natives. and so i think that it has improved. it is an area in terms of legislation that is enormously complex and members have to work hard to understand at. and i think that it has improved this since i was first selected and technology is moving at such

a rapid speed that it is a completely different time frame than the legislative side. and it is designed for the wheel to move slowly. so there are different time frames and that is why it is very important not to write anything that is technology specific. it has to be broad so that it will keep up with the future. so that is an observation of mine. >> talking about patent litigation reform, the last one

was wildly supported, this time it around it seems to stand on this. are you hearing from constituents who say that they want this or are people looking forward to this? >> it is very much on the front burner for the reasons that you just expressed. and there is some very strong disagreements between the various stakeholders and patents and it is like punching a pillow. he put a dent in it and then something else pops up. so that is where it a bill is designed and introduced really around the whole issue and it's a very expensive undertaking in terms of litigation and what is

the most troubling to me as if they are going into these budgets in order to pay for this, to pay them off. it is extortion, is what it is. but there are other important stakeholders in this as well. and so there is a huge interest especially the pharmaceutical industry. and it wasn't brought to the floor. it has not been brought to the floor cents and right now i think that there is a huge demand that the corrections be made throughout silicon valley and it is the first issue that people raised with me, where is

the bill, what do you think. it is not good enough to have a vote in the house and have a repeat in the senate. and so whether there will be further negotiation to bring together something where everyone wins but they have to compromise, that i don't know because the question is still out there. but the patents are in the constitution. period the inventors that they were, the innovators that they were. they saw the importance in what we have in the patents system and in silicon valley we are absolutely thrilled because we

now have open a regional patent office and one out of 10 patents in the entire country comes out of silken ballet. and debate opening was about a week ago and it was a wonderful celebration. >> they are meeting this week in dublin and they have been here and since they announced that they wanted to be a part of this. there has been trouble in terms of accountability reform and people agreeing to be more accountable. so how involved in that debate are you getting in is this something and can you talk about these issues and what is the

temperature of that debate on the hill? >> you know, it's something that we spend a great deal of time on and deservedly so. the meeting is taking place in dublin i think is moving in the right direction because accountability is front and center. and i think that we always must remember that both republican and democratic administration has supported multistakeholder framework that no government is in charge of it. it's a multi-stakeholder model and i think that a lot of what we did and a lot of what the congressman led the effort on,

those are all in terms of what is taking place but it is essential that the end of all of this that accountability be a part of it but it must be a multistakeholder framework because this does not belong in the hands of governments that want to suppress and fight with other governments such as our democracy and reflecting our values. that is why this multistakeholder model is so important. and i think moving forward.

>> do you think that it hurts that the senate has not passed this act because senator ted cruz has a hold on it? does that make it seem like the u.s. government has been left behind in this model? >> i think it would be better if the senate could take action. it's an important bill it's very well designed and it was totally bipartisan but it would be much better if it was taken up debated and passed. >> before we run out of time i want to make sure that we bring up cybersecurity legislation. i know that you have your own bill and i wanted to talk about that. but the fact that the directors e-mails were recently hacked, does that add a little bit of

things getting this passed? smell i think i think every day things come up, it's not just a threat but taking place around us with namebrand company is in the public sector. 90% of the issues in the air, 10% of the government, the federal government functions including the defense community are all very sensitive as well as important. and billions as far as consumer information goes has just been gone. but what i am stop by is what analysts have instructed as if there are two main pillars

relative to cybersecurity that need to be honored. 90%, up to 90% of these are due to two factors. a lack of hygiene in the system and a lack of security management as well. so my legislation directs itself to the two pillars and it directs us to come up with standards in cooperation with homeland security and i can't even armor the other agents to you. and i think that these standards, but congress pays more attention to, i think, is what you do in the aftermath of the breach. you have to notify coming have to do this, you have 60 days from you have 90 days and all of that. but it's so predictable that if you leave the keys under the mat of your front door that you

really cannot question how someone got into the house and stole your jewelry. so i think that these standards are absolutely essential. in the office of her snow management with the records of hundreds of thousands of people. they have no system like this in the 21st century. so if these two items are the pillars for securing this and have been followed, that could not have happened. so i think it is important legislation and i think that with some 40 some pages it really didn't establish in my view what this legislation was actually about. and so i think that this is

going to be important for businesses and for the government and we can move forward and be protecting ourselves and it has to go on an ongoing basis and we have to remember who is checking out. everyone should know what the standards are and i think that we can reduce this considerably. there is a huge cost to this as well. >> is this an issue that you hear about back home? >> oh, yes, absolutely. consumers worry about it. people ask me, what is my recourse. we really don't have a recourse. whatever my file is, i don't know what they would do with it. i guess that i will find out. one day or another.

but the high cost of businesses, the house intelligence committee and for any of those to be breached with national security is the top responsibility of congress and it is across the board that everyone has an effective diet. and so we can do something about it. it is predictable, what will happen is that the system is less than hygiene. >> we have one minute to go. >> quick question. next year things are going to change quite a bit. president obama has his term and he will be out of election soon, there will be some reshuffling. what do you envision happening and how does this change when all the new changes will be in

office? >> well, you know there is going to be change. at the personalities in the styles of leadership of individuals essentially remain the same. so whoever is chosen to lead the committee, the subcommittee, they will be individuals that i know. who they will be, i do not know, but they will be chosen by colleagues and i will know them and they will know me and we will get to know each other even better. and so it's fun to look forward to but the work, i think, this is serious. it's serious work that takes time. you need people to come

together, that is what the american people are planning for her. it's an exciting area to work in and i want america to be number one. across the board. with technology, innovation, because we are the leaders, we are the innovators and we need to be aggressive in a very positive way in advancing policies so that more innovation can take ways and i'm very positive about the future of the committee and its work that has a very powerful jurisdiction. this subcommittee is really responsible between 18 and 20%

of the national economy that keeps growing. so what an honor. >> representative anna eshoo, thank you for being with us. >> c-span is created by america's cable company 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> coming up on c-span2, a look at the impact of the ferguson on policing in the united states and after that a forum on hispanic voters in the 2016 elections. that's followed by a hearing on abuse and misuse of funds and the va department relocation program.

>> on the next "washington journal" we talked to jim mcdermott about the u.s. health care system and the enrollment timeframe for the health care act. and we have congressman murphy who is cochairing the congressional mental-health congress. when the conversation by phone or by facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> on tuesday a house oversight committee hearing on security. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> a signature feature of the tv is the all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction

authors. here's our schedule this weekend. we will be in massachusetts for the boston folk festival. in the middle of the month it is the wheezing and a book festival in baton rouge. at the end of november we are alive for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international this fall on booktv. >> coming up next, a look at whether law enforcement has become more difficult after the riots in ferguson, missouri. this 45 minutes. >> joining us next is heather macdonald who is a fellow at the manhattan institute for policy research. here to talk to us about the effects after civil unrest and ferguson and other incidents,

police related incidents and also the state of the criminal justice system, heather mcdonald, thank you for being with us. >> thank you so much for having me. i appreciate it. >> we saw your article on the national review and we welcome you. the issue has come into more usage in the past week or two after some comments from the fbi director. when you hear that term and when you wrote about it, what did you mean? >> i missed the fact that police are backing off from proactive policing. the type of discretionary policing that the gentleman identified as the key to the historic crime drop this nation has enjoyed over the past 20 years. these are the type of discretionary stocks and someone seems to be hitting up the gun,

getting out of your car and asking if you've westerns, police are not backing off of mandatory responses to 9/11 calls and they are continuing to do their duty. but the type of proactive policing that has been the target of a lot of police protests over the last year, officers are backing away from that. >> james conley picked up on that term as well and commented just a week or two ago. what are some of the comments that you are getting. >> in today's youtube world, officers are reluctant to get out of their cars and do work that controls violent crimes. the office is answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys were standing around with guns. i spoke to the officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with

mobile phones held high, taunting them when they get out of their cars. they said to me that we feel under siege and we don't feel much like getting out of our cars. i have been told about a senior police leader in this country that urged his horse remember that there is political leadership that has no tolerance for anyone being involved in the next viral video. so the question that has been asked is are these kinds of things changing police behavior all over the country. is that what explains the math in the calendar. the honest answer is i don't know and i don't know that that explains it entirely but i do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through law enforcement over the last year. sumac heather macdonald of the manhattan institute. what do you think of the director's comments? >> i thought that his speech was an extraordinary vindication of

the law-enforcement revolution that has saved thousands of lives overwhelmingly in minority communities over the last 20 years and on this idea of mass incarceration and he simply pointing out the obvious. he is the expert on policing and crime and he has the at his fingertips. he describes very movingly his work in richmond, virginia and allows the community to force because of leasing and he rightly warns that we are at risk of losing this because of the excessive vilification of officers. >> we welcome the radio listeners to the conversation.

we have woken the lines down regionally for eastern and central time zones and if you are in law enforcement, called a the special number that we have for you as well. so you wrote in your national review piece back in august about the reluctance of police and they say that this reluctance to act is affecting individuals from traffic stops to others and some are vilified as a racist and a restaurant 60% in may compared with the rest of previous year. i wanted to ask you how you are tracking evidence of this post fergusson affect? >> some police departments are

very transparent and they post not just crime data but data on the police enforcement activities and what we are seeing is a big drop-off in precisely the type of proactive enforcement that the direct your rightly said is key to bringing crime down. in new york city all arrests are down compared to the same time last year. but more crucially these are the low-level public order enforcements like someone standing on the corner publicly drinking and if you allow that to keep going on at 11:00 p.m. at night that may result in a fight or a shooting or turnstile jumping, trespassing, those types of stocks are down over 25%. in los angeles arrestor down

10%. so this is documented, the drop-off in discretionary activity that works in opposite directions from public safety and so when officers back off contrary to the claim of the black-white smatter movement, it's not just for the law-abiding residents who want the police and need them, the result is the type of love bath that the director said is happening in cities across the country when you've got homicide spikes up to like 75%, over 50% in baltimore, 60% in st. louis, the victims overwhelmingly are minority males and that is something that should concern all of us. >> the hill reporting their

headline that obama, sparring over the fergusson affect, on whether or not this effect is real. complicating the president's push to loosen the sentencing laws. let's hear from the viewers and go to thomas who is in glendale who is in law enforcement. please go ahead. >> hello, i have been a police officer for about five years. [inaudible] but i'm telling you that very recently i had a 32nd video clip about one of my coworkers who had the media protesting and on this occasion he received a call

for a robbery in progress. and in the video clip you see two white police officers stopped a young man and as a police officer he has to handle that called to serve. when we later found out and found the person who called, we found out that it was not a robbery in progress but a person worried about getting robbed which is a dramatically different thing. so of course the young man was sent on his way. when we arrived on the scene initially the young man decided to draw. [inaudible] the approaching gentleman told him to stop. that situation again the next day with people in the streets

stopping traffic, protesting, the situation is we have police officers now that i work with who may not necessarily do the extra proactive police work after worrying about getting in trouble, losing your job. i still have to take care of myself and my family. >> thank you, thomas. heather, what are you hearing in his thoughts. >> i'm hearing what i hear from police officers across the country, what is happening now is very disturbing and i think that we are seeing a breakdown of the legitimate's legitimacy as a law and order. officers face hostile environments when they are engaged in trying to help people

i spoke to an emergency services officer who was trying to extricate a woman who had been pinned under a car after an accident and someone walked to the accident scene and stuff his cell phone camera and officers face and tried to bait him into an argument and when the officer asked him to give that to the curb he said he can make me do that. authority is breaking down. in cincinnati in july there was a 4-year-old girl who was shot in the head in a drive-by shooting in the officers came to the scene and started trying to make arrests for outstanding warrants and in order to prevent a retaliatory shooting. instead they were surrounded by angry crowds shouting profanities, preventing them from making arrests, this happens again and again and it's putting everybody's lives at

risk. and the individuals would say that cops are racist for acting on their good faith behavior is going to result in more use of force. the justice department has explicitly determined that the most salient factor in predicting whether an officer uses force is how the civilian response. with more and more people resisting arrest, unfortunately we are sort of in a vicious spiral where officers are going to be provoked to use more force themselves, thereby fueling what i think is a not fair discourse about policing. >> we have a call from des moines. >> morning. yes, i would like to say to

ms. macdonald that i have to give respect. .. she is wearing a bikini and she is being thrown around. virginiathis girl and and they slide her across the floor, what do you expect them to do? he didn't have to put a hand on the girl. the man in texas -- the girl was wearing a bikini. why is he sitting on her back? you have a few bad officers who are making bad calls. they need to be held accountable when they do something wrong. hold them accountable, prosecute them. host: heather macdonald. guest: