the soldiers are happy. the employers are happy. we've got a good force. >> thank you very much. i'll be submitting a few of the questions for your consideration so expect that. mr. cochran? >> senator, thank you. i've given to your staff some questions about re-assigning aircraft that now are based at keisler air force base-biloxi. and i hope you can take a look at those and address a response to the committee as soon as reasonably possible. what we're concerned about is the readiness, of course, of an operational reserve and how that may be affected by the air force's restructure decisions. do you have any comments that you can make as a way of

introduction to what your thoughts are on that subject? >> senator cochran, i can do that. and let me just refer to the previous panel's remarks especially those of general wyatt as he was discussing some of the same kinds of issues as we look at downsizing some of the fleets that we have as a result of age or as a result of requirements. and that's the tricky part of this is how do we look at this across the systems in the c-130s in this example and ensure that we meet the requirements of the combatant commanders which, if we do that, will allow us to reduce the numbers that we currently have. we did have a very rigorous process that we went through and there are four very major tenets of the kinds of things we looked at that include no negleative impact to the combat commanders, make sure we don't create any new bills, increase rates, there's a requirement when we do

this and then we need to look at all the locations that we've got out there, apply that criteria and in some cases there is judgment that needs to go into it at the end. but we will certainly come back to you very quickly with the questions that you've asked. i use that as a prelude and we work it through our corporate structure general mckinley and general wyatt mentioned in their testimony to come to the realization that we have in the fiscal 2013 projection that those were the kinds of things that need to be done to ensure we don't become hollow in other parts of this force as well. so we'll get back to you very soon. >> i'm looking forward to going down to the mississippi gulf coast for the christening of the "uss mississippi." the newest submarine that will be joining the fleet. that will be an exciting occasion for all of our state. identify very closely with the navy's presence down there and

the ship building capability along that gulf coast and personally serving in the navy, i'm a little bias. about the importance of the u.s. navy. but what is the prospect of this budgetfoap ship construction an maintenance and adding new ships to the fleet. is it robust enough to take care of responsibilities for national defense that falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the na navy? >> yes, sir, and i would respectfully like to defer that question if i could. primarily because in the navy reserve, which is my responsibility, obviously, we do have a reserve fleet of now nine fr frigates and as we're retiring those frigates, we're bringing more in to replace them until we

retire all of our navy reserve frigates. as i look forward in the future, our involvement once those frigates are retired will primarily be with combat ship program which, as you know, is ramping up and we're in active discussions with navy and where we in the navy reserve will play into that. the larger question of the entire ship building program is one that i would like to defer obviously to the secretary and the cno. i will say from may own perspective having been in the navy for 35 years that the fleet today in the mississippi is a great example of it is far more capable than any fleet we've ever had in the past irregardless of numbers and if we had to use that fleet, i would rather use the fleet we have today in looking into the near future than any fleet we've had in the past both the capabilities of those programs as well as for the training and the dedication and the honor, courage and commitment of the sailors who serve on that fleet today. >> thank you very much.

thank you for convening the hearing and let me say to all of the panel we appreciate your dedication and your commitment to helping strengthen and maintain the best reserve components of our military establishment. thank you very much. >> i'd like to join my vice chairman in thanking all of you for your testimony and for your service to our country and to note that as general stultz pointed out the critical role that you played and continue to play in the middle east, most people in the united states don't realize this. they think it's just active component but the role that the reserves and guards play a very, very important. this committee appreciates that very much. this subcommittee will reconvene on wednesday, june 6, at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony from

outside witnesses and now we'll stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. coming up here on c-span 3, new york university law school hosts a discussion on race and law enforcement. that's followed in an hour and 25 minutes by a forum looking at terrorist financing since the 9/11 attacks. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we'll talk about jobs and the economy with democratic senator mark begich of alaska. we will take your questions about the book "the death of liberalism." and we'll be joined by "washington post" writer eli saslo, the author of "ten letters -- the stories americans tell their president." "wash journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

right now i want to you take a look around you and think not where everyone has been but where they are going. the guy in front of you could win an academy award some day. the girl behind you could be a future president of the united states or even, better than that, the mayor of new york city. the guy sitting to your right to be a future nobel lawyer yacht. okay, maybe not the guy to your right but certainly the one to your left. >> memorial day weekend watch commencement speeches, politicians, white house officials, and business leaders share their thoughts with the graduating class of 2012. saturday through tuesday at noon and 10:00 p.m. eastern. there's an extra day of book tv this holiday weekend on c-span 2. h.w. brands on a different side of the new york politician and vice president saturday night at

8:30 eastern. and on afterwards, the former direct or for asian affairs at the national security council, victor chaw on the impossible state, north korea. >> the dialogue on human rights is kind of a ridiculous dialogue because you can tell them you need to improve your human rights situation, and their response to you will be, and we've had this conversation at the official level, the response to you will be, well, you, the united states, have human rights problems, too. i mean, that is not a comparable discussion. >> that's saturday night at 10:00. also this weekend, marcus luttrell details operation red wing from "service: a navy s.e.a.l. at war." three days of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. now a discussion on race and law enforcement. panelists included the camden, new jersey, chief of police as well as law professors from

american university and yale university. topics included the trayvon martin shooting and proposed legislation by congress prohibiting racial profiling. from the center on the administration of criminal law at nyu law school, this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> you're welcome. >> if you can take your seats, i want to welcome you to the center on administration of criminal laws fourth annual conference. a new frontier in race and criminal justice. for those of you who are v veterans of these conferences, you know what important issues they tackle and what great panelists they get and, actually, very recent isly nyu press published the proceedings of the first conference. i was published last year on prosecutors in the boardroom using criminal law to regulate corporate conduct. and i know from my perch that

was very influential set of papers and a very influential volume. i'd like to thank the director, rachel barkow, a professor of law and policy, and she will speak in a few minutes and tell you all the important stuff you should know about the conference. i'm just a filler to make sure everyone sits down before rachel talks. and then you'll hear from rachel in the third panel on race sentencing and mass incarceration. as i believe all of you know, rachel is one of our nation's leading criminal law scholars. she has written some of the most important work on sentencing over the last ten years. and has also cast herself -- has basically started this new academic field of looking at criminal law as part of the system of administrative law and regulation. and that has been an extremely

powerful paradigm, and rachel's work has been enormously recognized for its path breaking nature. so she runs the center and the center has done extremely significant things including has written some very important briefs recently both on the side of government and both on the side of defendants that have been cited extensively by our appellate courts including the supreme court of the united states recently. i'm really grateful for all the scholars and practitioners who are here today and to our keynote speaker, michelle alexander, author of "mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness." so it's a great privilege for a law school to host a center, to host these annual conferences

and to have all of you here today. and now that it looks like everyone is seated, it looks like an appropriate time to turn things over to our leader, rachel barkow. thank you. [ applause ] >> thanks so much, ricky, and thank you all for coming today to our fourth annual conference. as ricky mentioned our center is an organization that's dedicated to promoting good government pr practices in criminal justice and we do that in a variety of ways. we participate in litigation. we engage in public policy outreach. we produce scholarship and hold events like the one we're holding today in the hope of getting a conversation started on an important issue. and we hope these efforts will help change the law in a positive direction. now you can read more about us on our website. i have to make a couple of pitches while you're here and a captive audience. so a couple of recent things we're working on. one, we filed briefs in a case being argued at the supreme court today on how to treat the

ra ratio between crack and powder cocaine, the cases in the pipeline after congress passed the fair sentencing reform act. when the initial 100-1 ratio ws passed no one considered at that reflection and we're hoping that helps the court to treat those cases in the pipeline. we filed a brief cited by the supreme court and relied upon it extensively in the two recent cases dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea-bargaining stage. those were cases where the court held that just because you get a fair trial, if you had an effective assistance of counsel, that fair trial doesn't necessarily remedy the defect. in terms of policy outreach, we're currently working on a report right now that highlights the best practices in prosecutor's offices for dealing with wrongful conviction, so we're highlighting conviction integrity programs that work and work effectively, so i hope you'll look for that report come early fall. and we hope that today's

conference will lead to positive changes as well. so before setting the stage for today's events, i do want to thank a few people. i want to thank dean ricky revesz, the ford foundation also for its general support of all of our activities and particularly today's conference, we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction integrity project and so we thank them and also the manhattan district attorney's office for partnering with us on that. i'd like to thank the former executive director of the center, anthony barkow, who is now in private practice but who was instrumental in planning today's events and inviting all the great panelists you'll be seeing today. my assistant who has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly, i owe a huge debt of gratitude to. and the distinguished group of panelists and presenters, i thank you all so very much for the time that you have devoted to give today to this effort. and all of you for coming. so c-span is here, and i wanted to tell you that just so you can

be excited by it but, also, if you choose to ask a question, you are, thereby, consenting to have c-span air you on television asking that question so you are aware of that and you can decide if that affects your ability or desire to ask that question. so in terms of today's events, i've had several people say to me recent isly, what great timing for you that the trayvon martin story is taking place right now because it's really bringing the issue of race and criminal justice to the attention of the nation. and while i agree that very tragic event has been a wake-up call in terms of talking about race and criminal justice, i have to say it's a bigger mystery to me why we weren't already galvanized to talk about those issues even before that happened. and for all of you who rsvp'd before that happened, i think you had an interest that predated the issue. and the reason i think it's

important to think about it in a much broader scale than that one incident is the statistics alone should call attention to what we're talking about. so we'll hear about more of them as the day unfolds, but i'll just give you a few. so there's more than 2.3 million people who are incarcerated and over 7 million under the supervision of the criminal justice system, and of those people who are incarcerated, more than 60% are racial or ethnic minorities. one in every ten black men in their 30s is in prison or jail every day. two-thirds of the people in jail on drug offenses are people of color. and those statistics, not just the one anecdote that captures the nation's attention, it's those mass statistics that we'll be talking about today and how the different institutions of government lead to those statistics, what they can do about it, how we want to think about it. we call this new frontiers to address racial imbalance in the united states because our hope is that we're going to talk to you today about the best res

research out there, the best of what we know and what we can be doing about these problems and we're going to start that with this first panel on policing and then after lunch we'll have panels on prosecution and then mass incarceration and sentencing. and then our keynote comes at the end for scheduling reasons michelle alexander is wonderful to make time for us today even in light of some personal circumstances that made scheduling difficult, so she is going to close out our event at the end of the day. and you know her as the author of "the new jim crow" and in the book she says the book itself is intended to stimulate a much-needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating a racial hierarchy in the united states and so this day is a day we will immerse ourselves in that conversation. and to get us started is this panel on policing. it's going to be moderated by david sklansky, a professor of law at berkeley, one of the leading experts on policing. he collected for abner on the d.c. circuit and blackmon on the

supreme court. he was an assistant u.s. attorney in los angeles. he has served as the special counsel to the independent review panel that was investigating the l.a. police department's ram part division scandal and he's a brilliant human being. without further adieu, please welcome and i look forward to your discussion. [ applause ] >> thank you, rachel, and thank you all for coming today to join with us in discussing these very important questions and issues. we have a wonderful panel here this morning to talk about the issues of race and policing. let me introduce them all briefly and then we'll get started with the discussion. so to my immediate left is lisa daugaard, a public defender in seattle, who supervises the racial disparity pro jukt did i works to reduce bias in the criminal justice system and focus object drug arrests in seattle.

to her left is song richardson, now a professor of law at the university of iowa and a leading scholar on the role of race and social cognition in law enforcement. to professor richardson's left is kami chavis simmons, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at wake forest university and a nationally recognized scholar of police accountability to professor simmons' left is scott thomson. joined the department in 1994 and has received repeated recognition and awards for his exemplary service and leadership. and to chief thomson's left is professor tom tyler, professor of law and psychology at yale law school, world famous on the ways policing practices and the conduct of other officials help to shape the legitimacy of law and legal institutions. so over the last two months, much of the country has been transfixed by the shooting death of a 17-year-old teenager,

trayvon martin, in sanford, florida, who was unarmed and walking back from a convenience store when he was killed. much of the ait tensittention h focused on the role of race not just in the shooting but the police investigation and against arresting the shooter, george zimmerman, or charging him with any crime. last week zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. this morning as we speak the senate judiciary committee is holding hearings on ending racial profiling in america. so, professor tyler, let me start by asking you as a psychologist and law professor, what do you make by the controversy over the trayvon martin shooting? how does it relate to the long-standing debate about the role of race in policing? >> let me begin by saying that i agree with rachel in saying we need to put this latest in a context, a whole series of incidents of this type over the last several years but really

over our entire history of the united states. and this is just one example but it's a good example both in terms of the degree of outcry, the prolonged nature of the public outcry about this latest shooting and also the evidence of the clear difference the way this shooting is understand in the white and minority communities, as was true with the gates incident, a while back, when you do public opinion surveys you discover that the white community and the minority community understand these events in really profoundly different ways, the motivations of the people involved, their trust in law enforcement. those are really noteworthy. it's certainly far beyond this most recent event although

that's a good example. we ought to ask basically why is there this gap, and i think the thing that we should recognize is that we're just looking at the tip of the iceberg. if we look at national level public opinion data in the united states, we see a gap of 20% to 30% in the level of trust and confidence that the white and the minority community express in the police. furth furthermore, we see this gap has persisted over time. there's no evidence the gap is closing. in addition if we look at the entire population of the united states, we see that trust and can haonfidence of the police i terrible but it's not great either. around 50% to 60% of the population expresses confidence in the police and, again, that

is not increasing. if it we look over the last 30 years we'd see no evidence that trust and confidence in the police nationally is improving. so we might ask the general question why is trust and confidence low? why is it not improving? and why is there this large racial gap that leads to the kinds of things that we see when there is an incident of this type where we see vastly different understandings of the even events and vastly different can confidence in how the authorities will deal with the particular incident. what i would emphasize is that one of the reasons that we see this persistent gap is we do not see that the strategies, policies and practices that the police are using, are focusing on the legitimacy that the police have in the minority community. they're not focused on trust and confidence. if we look at what the police

are using as their framing strategy, there are two concerns that are typically addressed. one concern is lawfulness, the police look iing to see if the actions that they're engaged in are consistent with the law, go to a police training academy. you'll see the cadets walking around with big manuals full of laws that they're learning so that they can try to make their conduct lawful. and the other is effectiveness. police officers trying to do the things they think are effective in terms of lowering the rate of crime, suppressing crime, in particular gun crime. and there's less attention to other issues, issues that, for example, in an earlier era were called community policing issues. it's really a very strong focus on lawfulness and effectiveness. the interesting thing about lawfulness and effectiveness is these are not the issues that we

find that people in the public are concerned about when they evaluate the police. when they think the police are a legitimate force in their community. the public is concerned about, and particularly minority communities, whether they feel the police exercise their authority fairly. whether they make decisions in fair ways, whether they treat people fairly, and when there are these incidents, we see that the concern of the community is often framed in terms of these issues of fairness. for example, in the trayvon martin case an immediate question of consistency of rule application. would this have been handled the same way if the victim was white? is it being consistently applied. when we look at discussions with

police in recent years, they're thinking about these issues from a different point of view, this point of view of lawfulness and effectiveness and not from the point of view of legitimacy. when we talk about racial profiling endless discussions about is that legal? we talk about the vast program of aggressive street stops in new york. we have a question of if it's lawful and does it really suppress crime and most recently mosque surveillance. how has the government responded to questions about mosque surveillance? really two things. one, the nypd didn't do anything illegal and, second, an assertion in this particular case with no evidence behind it that this program of surveillance has prevented terror attacks. so the police are not really talking about legitimacy in a

community that they consider in their policy and practices. and as a consequence they're not building legitimacy in their community and we're not seeing it rising. because legitimacy is so much lower in the minority community, we're it particularly likely to see low levels of trust and confidence in that community, and then we see the way that's brought into an understanding of an event like the trayvon martin case. i would go further and say that actually the things the police do undermine legitimacy because when the police deal with the public in terms of legality or effecti effectiveness, they're look iin at the people they deal with on the street as potential criminals, potential suspects, and they're focusing either suspicion or the application of force or threat of force on those people. communicating suspicion about their character, undermining relationships in the community, focusing basically on risk and

sanction as a definition of the relationship between the police and the community. so i think the point i would make is that if the police would address issues of legitimacy in the community more directly by focusing on how their policies and practices shape legitimacy and if they do that they will discover that it's really a question of what people perceive to be fair in terms of the exercise of authority and principles of fairness such as allowing people voice, explaining decisions, being respectful of people and their righ rights. if the police do those things, then they will really be addressing the underlying problem that's causing the kind of reactions that we're seeing in incidents like the martin situation. >> so, lisa daugaard, based on your work in seattle, does it

seem to you that the issue of race in policing is really an issue of fairness and legitimacy? >> yes. who is next? >> tell us why. >> so let me just give a little bit of background about the context in which i'm working. i have the surprising privilege and opportunity to work with a police department and two prosecutors' offices which are voluntarily choosing to discontinue techniques that were long established and i think have contributed to delegitimizing law enforcement among poor people in communities of color in seattle and king county. although the seattle police department is currently -- was the subject of a department of justice civil rights division investigation and may be subject to a doj consent decree soon, these measures that i'm going