really appreciated many of the recommendations. it's reflective of some of the things we were talking about. listening to you and having a chance to listen to mayor rawlings blake and mayor nutter, so i wanted to say thank you. >> thank you so much. >> so my question for you, are you officer smith -- >> yes. >> i remember when you came here with mayor johnson, but you didn't have a chance to speak. and you actually touched on my question which you know, you spoke at end. it has to begin somewhere. why not let it begin with you or let it begin with me. i was hoping you would say a few more words about that. you know we gave you limited time to speak. and i imagined in some sense it's easy to say well, it should just start with you as union representative. i'm sure it's a little more complicated than that. and i think this is really important. so, if you could say a little more about your strategy, i think it would be helpful,

because we know that you have a great relationship, or at least, you know on the distribution better than most. your mayor brought you here. you have twice monthly meetings with your police chief. but for someone who's starting not from a good -- a position of, you know relatively good relations, i think maybe there are some more concrete things you can say about how you let it start with the union representative. and if you could give us ideas about a strategy, that would be useful, at least for me to hear. like getting your membership on board or something. i don't know how you do that. >> it's a fair question. and we all have our own constituencies. and people sometimes try to overindicator to theirs. for example, if i'm expecting a public official to be the one to take that leap of faith, what you have to realize is that they answer to their constituency and that they're going to weigh that

very heavily. the chief answers in our city to the city manager who answers to the mayor and all the council members. they'll make certain members based on what they know is going to happen as well. and then i am voted into my position and i have to take that into account as well what works in our situation or what helped me take a leap of faith especially with the more recent events and to continue down this path instead of really falling prey to my vocal minority and my membership is that i sit in a position where there's no real threat with me as a union leader. if i'm unseated and somebody else takes my place in the sacramento police officer association, i'll go back to making the same money that's a lot more fun for half the hours in a week. my wife would probably be really happy about it. so, it was upon me and my organization and my board, i believe, to take that leap of faith in our organization, which would be different. it's not a one size fits all. but with us, it was an easy

decision to make. and we have a very charismatic mayor, very personable man who can connect with just about anybody i've ever met. and to bring him to my board and my membership and allow that opportunity for his character to be shown clearly and who he is and that we can trust him was very simple with him. and then a chief who grew up within our police department. and it's not a knock to anybody who was hired from outside an organization to come in and lead another organization because sometimes that is the best thing. in our organization, that hasn't been the case. we have continued to bring people up from within who know the culture who know the people. so when i meet my chief for the first time after he's been put in that position that was deputy chief summers before that, and i already have that connection and that relationship and that trust has already been building over the years. i used to have monthly meetings with deputy chief summers before my two meetings per month began with him as chief. so, as far as who takes a leap

of faith it's not a one size fits all but i guess it just -- my organization not just myself because it's sis for me to sit up here and say it's myself, but my board i work at the will of my board and the will of my members. that's really the message they want to carry forward. >> roberto villasenor. >> yes. i want to agree with your words of wisdom. i'm trying to figure how to frame this question. and it's something that probably is geared a little more towards mr. pasco and officer smith. we all agree we're all working together. you just touched on it officer smith, that everybody has the constituency that they work for and the people who you know they report to. and as union leadership, you report to your members and part of your job is to defend your members. and some of your members think that that has to come at all costs.

and that's where i have an issue sometimes, is i have seen things where management has known that the officer's conduct was wrong. the union knows that the officer's conduct was wrong. yet the union will come and defend the officer's conduct because that's what they're there for. i have a real ethical problem with that, understanding that. i'm wondering if i could hear your perspective on how we deal with that. >> can i start? >> you know, every day we see -- practically every day we see lawyers go for confirmation before the senate. and invariably they're challenged on cases that they've taken, either as prosecutes or as defense attorneys. and the course they've taken. and the answer is always the same, everyone's always entitled to a defense. and it's not -- it would be unethical not to give them a defense if you're in a position to do so and it was your responsibility to do so.

so, you're right from time to time police officers who have committed an offense which is actionable, possibly it was termination, are retained because of the defense presented by the union. and it's equally possible that officers who should have been retained were dismissed because of a vigorous prosecution by management. the fact of the matter is everybody has that -- has a job to do. and nobody whether they're a police officer or fireman or anybody in public service, checks their civil rights or due process rights at the station house door. so, it's part of the job. and we do it as vigorously as we can. or we would be acting unethically.

>> well put. thank you. >> i would like to respond a little bit to that as well. i've represented probably 95% of our officers in internal affairs myself over the past few years. and then on some of those high-profile case we'll bring in attorneys and other things. but we've always taken the -- the viewpoint that we're not defense attorneys. i'm not here to defend you for terrible acts that you've committed within the community. if there is an accusation made that you've had conduct unbecoming or the things we'll typically see in internal affairs, then it is my job to represent you the best i can and to find the facts. if those facts show you're wrong, we'll find a reasonable settlement or the discipline will be appropriate. now, if somebody does something terrible within the community which unfortunately swe have seen throughout the history of the sacramento police department and even a few years ago as i first stepped into the role of president there was a pretty heinous case in sacramento where a police officer had done something. we made sure we technically represented them properly but

then that same day, i reached out to the family and offered any support, can i fly in family members, can we put them up in hotels, can we supply meals what can we do to you, the victim family of this officer, to help you as well? it was really just a viewpoint of, i guess it's pretty simple to say, but dot right thing for the right reason. even in these types of representation you have that opportunity. and we don't typically criminally defend those that have done something terrible to society. it's if you've been accused of something within the scopes of your duties -- within the scope of your duty, we're there to defend you. if it's outside the scope of your duty and it's terrible, it is not my job to defend you. >> thank you. sean smoot. >> i sensed there wasn't another question so i'm going to ask dr. wexler. it sounds a lot like what officer smith is talking about when he says take a leap of faith or do the right thing for

the right reason. what he's really talking -- i think he's a little -- i think what he's really talking about is adaptive leadership. and leadership. and so what is perp doing to accentuate leadership models like officer smith on the side of management? >> probably not enough, but i think -- i think it is leadership. you know, probably the biggest challenge -- i want to pick up your question but what jim pasco's comment was, how do you change the dynamic here? i think the best way to change it is with examples. when people see the benefit. officers don't get laid off in sacramento when labor and

management work together. in camden they work together and they get an agreement and contract. when officers and management work together in prince georges county, lives get saved. when the fop and napo agree to the mandatory wearing of seat belts, lives will be saved because people will be required to wear it who normally think it's uncomfortable and their life will be saved because of that. leadership is on both sides, in labor and management. in boston, where i'm from we used to say management gets the kind of union they deserve. management gets the kind of union they deserve. so if you treat people badly, your union gets more militant. and i think the best example here, sitting right at the table is in ffl. what's happened with the philadelphia union. very militant union in

philadelphia. not to say it's not a strong union but now there's communication. i think a lot of this is leadership but it's a little idiosyncratic. you need the right personalities. i have seen over and over again whether it's labor management, someone will say and jim pasco can correct me if i'm wrong here is we have a new union president spoth now things are bad. or we have a new chief who doesn't think their role is to talk to the union. so when you have either a new union leader or a new police chief who doesn't have this kind of experience, they think they're supposed to treat the union a certain way. and the union leader thinks they're supposed to treat management a certain way. sometimes, whether we like it or not, and this is where -- what my friend jim pasco is talking about, if they get -- if they have to get elected because they

have to, you know bad mouth management publicly, then that's what my friend from sacramento was talking about in terms of character. have you to make a decision. is this job really worth me becoming a different kind of person to get re-elected? so, i think we have to do more with labor to educate new chiefs and new union presidents that you get more working together. now, if someone steps outside and, you know, is disrespectful that changes the dynamic. but we shouldn't go back to square one. you know the days of the public reading in the paper that management and unions and no confidence votes, you know no one gets helped by that. no one -- no one is safer because of that. we have enough examples. with the way the public feels about the police today we have a lot of work to do.

people talk about, we need to change the culture of policing. how do you change the culture of the policing without cops? right? chiefs can't do it by themselves. so somehow we need to recognize that we need the cops if we want to change things. the cops aren't the opposition. the cops you know the cops want better benefits. chiefs want happier cops so they'll be treating the community better. you know, we talk a lot -- tracey meares at the table, prominent proponent of procedural justice. we need more procedural justice in police departments. there needs to be more conversation. unions came about because people would be transferred overnight because they looked the wrong way at the boss or if they find out where he lived orr she lived, they put them in the most -- a farther district. all these things were done in an arbitrary way and you understand why people feel the way they do.

but it's a new day. we need each other. we're going to disagree sometimes, absolutely. we can get more accomplished together than we can at each other's throats. >> sean, i'm glad you asked the question because i didn't want to let jim pasco's question remain up in the air. so thank you, dr. wexler. i want to ask jim pasco if he wanted to weigh in on this again. >> well it's very discomforting to disagree with chuck wexler once in an afternoon, but here i am agreeing twice. >> we can keep it off the record, if you would like. >> that would be appreciated. i've got a job, too, you know. i think that what i wanted to say when chuck was finished, okay, let's go sell it. that's where i left off. that's what we've got to do. he makes a point. we within the fop for the last

12 or 14 years have been putting on a leadership seminar for newly elected state and local fop officers. and it's a four-day seminar. and we try to teach them how to interact with management with, you know, to getting to success. how to -- how to message to their members so they'll understand what they're doing. and how to -- how to interact with the public from a public standpoint, so they'll understand the police perspective without, you know, pyrotechnics. we have found it to be very successful. you see it's an incremental process. it isn't going to happen overnight. but if you look at cities and when we talk about cooperation and collaboration, the city that we like to point to is

cincinnati. and cincinnati, they were basically forced to the table in cincinnati by the justice department. the civic leaders were, the church leaders, the city government pp, our union. we're forced to the table. they went kicking and screaming. and they didn't like it at first. but they had to stay there. and over time they came to realize that the only way they were going to be able to ever get away from that table was to make something happen. they started working together cooperatively and collaboratively. cincinnati's not perfect. but it's a much, much better city to live in today to live in and police in than it was at the beginning of the process. these folks get together still the collaborative is gone, but they still get together voluntarily on a regularly scheduled basis and work together for the betterment of the city. one of the naacp leaders in cincinnati, and you may have heard this while you were out

there, was one of the biggest critics of the fraternal order of police. that naacp leader ran for city council with the enforcement and the active support of the fraternal order of police, now sits on the council and is a great proponent of resources for police. so, that's the kind of evolution that can happen when people come to the realization whether voluntarily or involuntarily, that they're going to have to work together and we need to find a way to make that happen, probably less -- with less force, but with more often as we move around the country. >> wonderful. thank you so much. please join me in thanking our panelists. i'm going to turn it back now to ron davis. >> so let me thank the panel again. great panel. great way to close the day. we'll take a quick five-minute

break wheel we get the cards. we'll go into the q&a feed dast back portion of the day. for any in the audience that want to make a comment, make sure the outstanding cop staff has your speaker card. and for those in line can you also send a comment through twitter. we will be reading those with jim after the break. so, how about we take a quick five madame co-chair? >> yes. >> outstanding. five minutes.

we're nearing the end of this day-long forum of the president's task force on policing. if you missed any of it, we'll be showing it again later in our program schedules. it will also be available online shortly to view any time at c-span.org. and at the u.s. capitol the senate gaveling in 3:00 eastern time when north dakota republican senator john hoeven, he's delivering the annual reading of president -- of president george washington's farewell address. that's under way. can you see that on c-span2. at 4:30 in the senate, lawmakers will return to the how passed homeland security spending bill, which includes provisions to block president obama's executive order on immigration and an hour later they'll be voting for a fourth time to limit debate to proceed to the homeland security spending bill. 60 yeas are needed. the house not back in until tomorrow. this week they're expected to debate a bill to expand the 529 college savings program and also

work on the no child left behind education law. they could also take up the homeland security spending bill before the current funding expires on friday. you can watch the house live on c-span. president obama's aware of the limited time to pass the homeland security bill. earlier today, he had this to say about what's going on in congress. >> we'll keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crisis and self-inflicted wounds that have so often bogged us down over the last five years. we've got one example of that right now. unless congress acts, one week from now 100,000 dhs employees border patrol port inspectors tsa agents will show up to work without getting paid. they all work in your states. these are folks who if don't have a paycheck can't spend that money in your states. it will have a direct impact on

your economy and it will have a direct impact on america's national security, because their hard work helps to keep us safe. and as governors you know we can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> a vote on that scheduled to take place at 5:30 eastern time. you can watch that on c-span2. waiting for the president he's task force on 21st century policing to resume getting audience participation and questions shortly.

just waiting for this meeting to reconvene. the president's task force on 2 1st century policing. they've been meeting all day. if you missed any of it you can go to our website, c-span.org. check it out in the video library library. up next they'll take audience questions. coming up this week, tomorrow the senate banking committee will be hearing from the chief of the federal reserve janet

yellen. she'll be testifying on the semiannual monetary policy report to congress. we'll have live coverage right here on c-span 3 starting at 10 a.m. eastern. more live coverage on wednesday when secretary of state john kerry will be talking about his fiscal year 2016 budget request. that will be discussed in a hearing being called by the committee advancing u.s. interests in a troubled world. the fiscal year 2016 foreign affairs budget. you can watch that live wednesday, 10 a.m. eastern also right here on c-span3. >> okay. welcome back. at this time, we will go into community feedback.

i'll turn to jim -- we have no online comments. for now i have two speakers from the audience. let me start with -- ahead of time, please forgive me if i mispronounce your name. i want to say aleupe comfort and followed by michael bell. please say your name -- >> aledepe. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm here today of course, with every civilized society we do need good cops. we need good policing. but my question to you is that of accountability. in case of cops' misconduct because i do raise my children that police are our friends.

and if they are ever in any need they see a police officer around, they should go to him or her. and they will get the help they need. but that's not what happened on november -- i mean, february 19th in silver spring where my son was brutally murdered. in the hands of a police officer. police officer jordan. and he said he told him to stop like 30 times in 30 seconds. and up until now, the contents of his backpack and his i.d. and everything is still unaccounted for. what do we do, i mean to resolve -- evidently there's a problem. they have to kill the people they are supposed to protect. how do we go about this that this doesn't -- because it was the worst pain ever for a mother to bury their child. and my family and i believe if

my son was white or is not african-american, he would be alive today. how do we resolve this? because it was the worst pain ever. in my own case, i felt like justice was not served. it was the worst injustice ever. he doesn't deserve to die like that. and no compensation. and the video the cop shot him, that he obeyed the police officer and everything state attorney and the prosecutor is like they're working together, like husband and wife. telling me that somebody mistakenly destroyed my evidence. how do you -- how do you -- >> thank you, ms. comfort. >> thank you. >> i can say this is not a question and answer period, so i apologize -- we won't provide you a response. i would recommend, however i have some outstanding members of the cops office team that you

can meet with afterwards that we can refer you to potential sources to help you answer some of the questions you have. but we're just not in a position as a task force to actually respond to comments. i apologize for that. yes, ma'am. next is mr. michael bell. >> good afternoon. michael bell here. i made a trip down from wisconsin. my flight was canceled 8:00 saturday morning and at 11:00 i said, okay i'm going to drive. that's how important it is for me to be here. in 2004 i had a 21-year-old blond haired, blue eyed boy killed under a spotlight. his hands cuffed behind his back. and i tried to work with law enforcement and also the government entities at the time. i'm a retired air force lute net colonel, i flew air refueler served in afghanistan, bosnia, kosovo desert storm. immediately after 9/11 i was refueling fighters over the

president's ranch in texas. my first response when my son was killed i feel that this investigation is going to go the same way as national transportation safety board and united states inspector general investigations. but in a very short period of time i found out that was not the case. so over the years we ended up winning a settlement in regards to my son's death. and i spent my entire portion of that and probably another $750,000 of my own money to bring the concept of independent review and external investigation to the process. because i knew that the way i kept myself alive and pilots under my command and those that i trained alive by teaching them lessons from the past. and i had recognized there were six core elements involved in an aircraft investigation and review and that led to its

success. and if you take a look at the chart i provided you in the handout, can you take a look at 60 years. we're at the lowest level ever. there is a that is successful and there is a profession that is a national crisis. and so i fought in the state of wisconsin for about nine years. on april 23rd of 2014, governor scott walker signed a portion of our law in the state statute, the first in the nation. i did not get that done by myself. i worked with law enforcement. law enforcement must be part of the solution. but essentially what i had recognized that those six core elements in investigation review weren't happening in law enforcement. therefore, we tried to change portion of that. and i asked for data. there was no data. i said, let's see the dash cam. it was withheld from me.

i asked for further investigations that were being sent out throughout the community so law enforcement could learn from it and it wasn't happening. we fought very hard. i sat down at the wisconsin professional police association headquarters with its director, jim palmer and i sat down and we crafted this legislation together and i gave it to representative gary bayh retired chief from dorchester county. he worked together with human rights advocate. over the course of several months we worked hand in hand and we got it through the whole process. one of the other things that i think is very important here is that there is -- we talked about officer safety today. the officer involved in my son's death committed suicide in 2010. and i do think if there was a proper investigation, and those types of accidents to occur.

sometimes we kill our own people in friendly fire. we know that by being a military man. i think that officer might be alive today. one of the things i did to help process my own emotions of losing a son is i worked with a group out of california. her name is laura mellon, she's a professor of family medicine at university of california-san francisco. she spent 20 years developing a method called emotions-based training. and earlier today we had the chief from tampa pay say she worked with emdr for ptsd, but i also strongly, strongly, strongly recommend taking a look at emotions-based training because if you want your officers to -- if they're sad, you don't want that sad emotion to go to depression. if they're -- if they're angry you don't want it to go into rage. and i strong -- and i know that laurel's group right now has been working with officers out in that area.

so, i'd strongly take a look at it. it's not counseling. it's emotional-based training. it's he a very important thing. i have information regarding that. if anybody needs to contact me please take a look in the back of the handout. i did not give my e-mail address, but if you call me i can go ahead and correspond with you that way. thank you. >> thank you, mr. bell. thank you for the travel. that's not a short trip. and do me a favor please give -- if you would give your card or phone number to this young lady right behind you nodding her head from the cops office, we would like to make sure the task force has all the material you have. thank you very much. with that, i'll double-check with mr. -- no other comments. anything else from the rest of the audience? no, sir. so, the co-chairs, you have the time. >> this has been yet another full day of testimony for the task force. i think our panels and witnesses have once again been remarkable

in bringing very, very intelligent testimony to us. the day has been full. i would just say it's been extraordinarily helpful. with that, chuck, i'll turn to you. >> well, let me just close by one, thanking everyone who appeared today to provide oral testimony, those that submitted written testimony or simply watched via the internet or television, whatever it may have been. your input has been very very important to all of us as we move forward to present final recommendations to the president. i want to thank the cops staff for the great work that they've done even with this short time frame, they have really been keeping up with what's going on, providing feedback for us along the way to kind of make it a little bit easier in trying to put together a report in such a short period of time.

sai, who has been working alongside c.o.p.s. providing a lot of the staff support, i want to thank them for everything they have done. and i don't know if you've noticed, but we've had sign interpreters there throughout the day, and they've been with us for all the different hearings for the deaf and hard of hearing. we really appreciate them being here and being able to community with that very important community as well. so, now we'll turn it over to the task force members for their closing remarks. and roberto villasenor, why don't we start with you. >> thank you, chuck. i, too, want to thank the staff from sai and the c.o.p.s. office for all they do to help us do this important work that takes a lot of time and a lot of

coordination. and your work has just been amazing. so, thank you all. the most fascinating part about this whole process of the task force has been the fact there's such similarity of thoughts throughout the country but that there's always unique and creative, different ways to do the same goals that we have. and to be able to gather as much of those as we can in one document, in one strategy to put out as a best practices for the nation, i think, is going to be very helpful to the profession at large and for individual agencies that are looking for -- to how to address certain problems within their own jurisdictions. so i'm very happy and excited to continue with our work. i finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. i'm just hoping it's not a train truck. but it's been i rewarding experience. i thank you for taking the time, those who came to listen.

>> co-chairs ramsey and robinson director davis thank you again to you and to the c.o.p.s. staff and sai for another fantastic day of testimony. the quality of the witnesses today and the subject matter, as you know is something that's very near and dear to my heart. and i think we got a lot to take away from today. and a lot of really good recommendations, witnesses today provided not only great testimony and rationale for their recommendations, but solid recommendations in most cases. and gave it to us in a way that we'll be able to turn around into our final report, i think, fairly easily. i really appreciate the fact that the task force dedicated a day to officer wellness and

safety. and the fact that officer due process rights and internal procedural justice was a threat that carried throughout the witnesses' testimony today. and so i thank you for that opportunity. on behalf of law enforcement. thanks. >> i'll jump on the band wagon and thank the c.o.p.s. staff and sai for your support. i think that's really important. i also wanted to echo what sean said about how much i appreciate the discussion about internal procedural justice. i think that's absolute key for us to expect our troops to employ procedural justice on the street. i want to thank the two parents that came together and express my deep condolences for your loss. i can't imagine how hard this is for you. and i really admire you for having the strength to come and share your story and i encourage to you keep sharing it so that we can keep getting better.

because nobody wants this to happen. he looks like my son. thank you for coming. i really appreciate it. >> like my fellow panelists, i thank all the witnesses for coming. and the contributions of those of you in the public who came here near and far to contribute to our deliberations. i said earlier today and i just to want say it again that hurt people can hurt people. and so officer safety and wellness is not just important for the officer's sake it's important for the health and safety and wellness of their families and for the communities in which they work. they are, in fact, part of the community, so it really is about community safety and wellness. and so it's important we spend the time thinking about this issue as it's as important as all of the other issues that we have discussed so far in our listening sessions.

assist we're coming to the end of this, i also want to take an opportunity to thank my fellow task members in addition to the great leadership of our co-chairs. we have been able to do a lot of great work together. we don't all necessarily agree, but we know how to speak together and work together in a way that, i think, will produce a document that we will be proud of and hopefully will be useful for the nation. >> i echo many of the thanks to the incredible c.o.p.s. staff to the team at sai, to fellow task force members and in particular to our co-chairs who have kept the train moving and kept us focused and on task. certainly to those who provided testimony today on this really critical issue i do agree that hurt people can hurt people. and so it is of collective importance that we have this

conversation. and i appreciate the clarity with which people made very clear and succinct suggestions today and all those folks who followed along with us online and in person. i thank you. i also would agree though, that i think the most important people to thank today is ms. comfort and mr. bell. thank you for making the journey. not just the journey to come here today. the journey you've been on every single day since you unfortunately lost your clirn. and i think your example, your continued examples remind us that the urgency of this conversation should not have to cost lives. but most certainly that this is a conversation that needs to continue so that it doesn't cost more lives. and so i thank you for reminding me personally of why i'm here and why we need to do this work. >> i want to thank everyone who came out today and folks who tuned in everyone who sat on a

panel, and my colleagues on the table here, and all of the technical support staff that has been working hard behind the scenes. i can't -- i also want to thank ms. comfort and mr. bell. ms. comfort, when you say that you believe that your son would still be alive today if he were white, i feel like that came at a moment we're about to go in as a task force to deliberate the recommendations that we put on the president's desk next week. and i hope that it serves as a reminder to everyone in this room and the folks on this panel that we need to have the conversations that we have been having, but we need to have them under the scope and under the context of race relations in this country. and so i want to thank you for coming out. i want to thank you for sharing

that story. same mr. bell, imagine that was a long ride out. so, thank you as well for coming out. and we have a lot of work to do on this task force, and we're running out of time so i'm committed to being here and working with you all. and hopefully next week when we bring that report to the white house, that could be the first step in -- on this journey on creating a process to fix all that is wrong in this country. >> i would just like to say in closing, without being redone tant and i think we pretty much heard it all from those that sit on this panel with me, thank you all. thank you all for being here. thank you all for the evolution of this task force both the leadership, c.o.p.s. office and new friends and colleagues i've had an opportunity to meet over the last couple of months.

more importantly than anything else, and i will say this very quickly, is that history is taking place in front of us. and this history of the -- all the bells and the ms. comforts in the world who have lost their children without a sense of understanding. and where we go from here and hopefully what we have learned here, the hours of testimony and the sharing that people have done -- that have come in here from across the country is going to be of value. and i truly do believe that. and this, to me, is not going to go into nowhere land. this is going to be meaningful going forward. i truly, truly believe that, mr. bell, ms. comfort. and to the rest of this country

as well, too, that this is -- truly has to be about change and what it is we can do better going forward because this is an age-old issue from the beginning of policing. and we're in a position and we're on a trajectory, i truly believe, that's going to change the course of history and policing in this country. and it's long overdue. and thank you all for being here. and i'd like to say thanks to all my colleagues and leadership in the c.o.p.s. office and the support staff, contractors, everyone involved in this process. it has been more than a notion, more than a pleasure and this is something i will carry with me for the rest of not just my career, but my life. so, thank you all very much for helping me to grow and develop and be a better human being, too. thank you. >> so let me thank my staff, the c.o.p.s. office and our

support staff and the team -- great team from sai. this is now the end of the sixth pillar. tomorrow, thanks to the great leadership of our co-chairs we will close out the listening sessions. i would say the hearing sessions with a panel on the future of community policing. if you think about it from ray timing point of view, there's no better way to wrap this part of the process up than to look in the future. i do want to thank all the panelists for coming. many tried to get here, they could not. i appreciate them still sticking with us, using skype for our audience participation. and today was -- to me was a reminder of a comment i heard both the president and the attorney general say. and that is as we look at the recommendations for the field, we know we need to make sure that young men of all -- of all colors have the fair and equal treatment when they step out of their house, that they're not going to be stopped or harassed because of the color of their skin. but the president also made it very clear as to the attorney general, that we also need to

with equal rigorous support and loud voice to make sure that officers who work here have the right to go home. and the threat to them going home is not as simple as gunfire. we learned today there's a lot of other variables. so, i think the task force is on a balanced trajectory to take a look at all the stakeholder groups. i'm impressed with the -- thanks to the leadership of the co-chairs of the diversity of the witnesses the perspectives the positions on the table. we've been able to agree. we've been able to disagree. as professor meares says to do so without being disagreeable. i hope those watching will embrace that notion. there's been a lot of reflections here and that's the diversity of the country. so this is going to be, without a doubt, a historical moment as has been suggested. it's one we should be proud of even before we finish the report because this process alone suggests the progress today. as i listen to the last panel i

think we can look forward to where we're headed in the country. we have elected officials, laborers, community leaders, those suffering a loss all willing to come together with solutions on how to advance forward. i think that's what it's all about. if i may on behalf of the administration and the president, the attorney general, thank the two co-chairs the task force those watching and everyone participating, our staff, sai, our technical advisers and i want to thank them now because we're about to work them more than you can ever imagine over the next couple of days to get this report done and give a good product for the president, for the nation. please accept that thanks and know we're internally grateful for your leadership. madame co-chair? >> with that, we'll be wrapping up this session and see many of you tomorrow for our last listening session. thank you all.

meeting of the president's tank force. we'll show it again in its entirety later in our tv program schedule and it will be available online shortly to view any time at c-span.org. on capitol hill today the senate gaveled in at 3:00 eastern. north dakota republican john hoeven delivered the annual reading of president george washington's farewell address. at 4:30, lawmakers return to work on the house to pass the homeland security spending bill. at 5:30 they'll vote for a fourth time to limit debate to move forward with the bill. 60 votes needed to move forward.

watch live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the house back tomorrow. this week they are expected to debate the bill regarding the 529 college savings program and the bill to reform the no child left behind education law. they could also take up the homeland security spending bill before current funding expires on friday. you can watch the house live on c-span. president obama is aware of the limited time to pass the homeland security bill. earlier today he had this to say about what's going on in congress. >> keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crises and self-inflicted wounds that have so often bogged us down over the last five years. we've got one example of that right now. unless congress acts, one week from now more than 100,000 dhs employees, border patrol, court

in inspectors, folks who if they don't have a paycheck will not be able to spend that money in your states. it will have a direct impact on your money and it will have a direct impact on america's national security. because their hard work helps to keep us safe. as governors, you know that we can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> join us tomorrow when the senate banking committee will hear from the fed chief, janet yellen. she'll testify on the semi-monetary policy report to congress. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern here on c-span3. more on wednesday when secretary of state john kerry will talk about his fiscal year 2016 budget request. watch that live wednesday, 10:00 a.m. eastern also here on c-span3. tonight on the

communicators, we spoke with two industry executives at the consumer electronics show in las vegas. senior vice president at ericson and cisco senior vice president talk about their companies and technology on which the internet, mobile phones and the cloud operate. >> in ewaldsson we talk about the network society. that is a society where everything that can benefit from having a connection will actually have one and we put a vision forward in 2009 in barcelona, in the trade show that's going on there, of the 50 billion connected devices in 2020 which has caught on very well in the world. and that i think opened many people's minds that the mobile industry is not limited to the smartphones and the devices that we carry around personally. it also is a great technology to connect so many other things and to be able to build a better society based on those kind of technologies. >> the internet started with this thing that people needed to

get to somewhere or somehow by dial-up connections, et cetera. we brought the internet from that thing somewhere to your home. we brought that internet from being your home to be with every device that you carry around or the mobile internet. the next stage of the internet is about taking it from all these mobile devices to things, to information and connecting not just people, but things with people, information with people and process these with people and things so we can actually create a whole what we call an internet of everything. he i think we are in the early stages of building the internet of everything. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. here on c-span3 we show you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story. including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key

events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf. with the best known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and leg siz of our nation's commanders in chief. luck turs in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. the new york historical society hosted a panel recently looking at whether hillary clinton is prepared for the presidency and what would be needed to elect her. the panel includes former "newsweek" columnist and author jonathan alter carl anthony and princeton history professor sean willis. the moderator is former abc news

correspondent, author of "hidden power, presidential marnlsriages that shaped our history. "this is about an hour. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen. it is such a pleasure to be back in this wonderful forum and to have three such distinguished panelists to discuss a subject that i think is of more than mild interest in this room. so our topic this evening is hillary rodham clinton and the white house. and i think sean jon and carl that we're working under the assumption that although no formal announcement has been made, that -- that this is a done -- a done deal. and indeed it's a deal that hillary rodham clinton has prepared for for a very long

time. i think rarely have we ever had a candidate more prepared for the role in so many areas. for the same of full disclosure i will disclose that i have a personal relationship with hillary but i will maintain absolute decorum as moderator but my husband was her advisor and was in president clinton's cabinet as ambassador to the united nations. so, gentlemen does she have that first class temperament that the presidency requires? sean. >> sure. >> okay. explain. >> no hesitation on that. she also has a first-class mind which is the second part of the equation. not just a second-class mind. >> you know the first to the

first-class temperament which was in reference to fdr. >> look, i think it comes across most clearly during her period as secretary of state where her temperament one was of calm in crisis and above all these days, i think that's one of the things that's required of any president of the united states, is calm in crisis. that's not inaction, that's not passive passivity, it is understanding a situation, taking a situation, then calculating and acting appropriately. yeah, i think she's got the temperament for it. >> jon? >> i think it is still an open question and i'm an admirer of hillary clinton in many respects. i think she does have a first-class intellect unlike fdr, description of him, the story comes from the 92nd birthday of oliver wendell holmes jr. few days after roosevelt was sworn in as president in 1933.

roosevelt went over to the justice's home to drink some bootleg champagne, which would be a little bit like obama going over to a justice's home to smoke a little weed. >> medical marijuana. >> but when he left, when roosevelt left justice holmes said second-lassclass intellect, first-class temperament. some historians believe he was talking about theodore roosevelt. but, you know, the question of temperament as the great political scientist said temperament is the great separator. you can have all the right experience. you can be smart. but what separates the great presidents from the merely good or mediocre presidents is temperament. it is a very complex quality.

a very elusive quality. a little bit the way the supreme court defined pornography. you know it when you see it. so i thought that president obama had a first-class temperament as well as a first-class intellect when he was elected. i now think that he has maybe a second-class temperament. that being calm in a crisis is not enough. that there's sort of a public temperament that is very important and the answer with hillary is that it is too soon to know even though we're very familiar with ler.her. pressures of the presidency, it is too soon to know what kind of public temperament she would have in office. >> carl, she's often compared more to president obama and contrasts with her husband. the point being that she is more

like obama in that she's very much an analytical -- hers is an analytical mind and, as already been pointed out first-class intellect. but the -- what jon alludes to in terms of having that magic something, which is so hard to quantify which her husband had does she have that? >> i think she has it at times. i think she's displayed it at times. i would say i'd have to reach back a bit. not too far back. in really finding a figure, a president, whose sort of even-handedness but perhaps lack of fireworks, maybe even -- not always a need or perhaps,

unwisely, not a desire to blow her own horn as much as get things sort of done. somebody she admires that i remember her talking about a lot was eisenhower. so sort of talking a lot about for example, an example she mentioned was how eisenhower had no problem with the kennedy administration justice department getting credit for a lot of civil rights but it was eisenhower who appointed a lot of the moderate republicans who were in place in the south. circuit court judges. and so that -- but i also see her eight years as first lady in fact as being more instructive to us now about what she would be like as a president. not that the years as secretary of state weren't.

but you know, when i look at how she handled health care and how she sort of dealt with thatnd a said this of course huge crush but, i will learn from this. and then went on the next year to give those four speeches in beijing on human rights. how during the president's impeachment crisis she during the worst kind of -- and humiliating kind of personal storm still kept her eyes on the most sweeping adoption reform legislation that she was working with tom delay on and getting past and not letting that distract her. so i see some of those -- that first-class temperament, that ability to even keep one's eye on the big picture and put whatever is going on personally aside for the moment. i think she has that. >> i think you probably hit what i was trying to say which is

that the word i think is perseverance and calm meaning taking bad blows and dealing with them and then moving on. and she has done that again and again. i think in the 2008 campaign even. i mean she was sidelined by that campaign. and yet, after iowa, she campaigned, she did much better. she picked herself up and that's really a hallmark of her career. >> i can only think of two instances where she kind of lost it, and one was in new hampshire when the famous scene where somebody expressed sympathy and she -- her eyes filled and she allowed us how yes, it was tough. >> that helped her immensely. >> that was terrific. >> and then the second time was whether she was being hammered

by -- during the senate hearings on benghazi and she just kind of -- threw her hands up and basically i think won the audience that time too, because it was -- it was such a human reaction and i think everybody else was feeling, by then, that this was a witch hunt and let's get on with it. >> the first time she did that was the '92 new york primaries where she said well, i guess i could have stayed home and baked cookies but i decided to pursue my professional career as an attorney. >> not a good move. >> that was a gaffe. >> that was one of her notable gaffes with are whereas i think these two shows of emotion and humanity have really helped and i, for one, would like to see more of that. jon? >> yeah.

i think so too. her resilience is clearly one of her great qualities, an important quality for a president. the temperament thing gets very complicated for two reasons. it's complicated enough when it is a male. but we don't really have any real template for what a first-class female temperament is like in high office. and so she's inventing it as she goes along and it is -- i think more than race. it is different. that the temperament of a woman and how that connects and the chemistry of that with the american public is different. >> you raise such a good point. >> so with roosevelt, like they compared meeting him to opening a bottle of champagne. he just made you feel better. made you feel better and that optimism, that quality that reagan also had that made people -- or certain people feel

better. we don't really know whether hillary has that quality. she's never held an executive position. she's been in the senate and in the cabinet. >> but she has -- >> if she had been governor with be we would have had a better idea what she would be like. >> but she has broken so many barriers and rewritten so many templates and she has been our longest running public performer. i can't think of anyone else who has sustained this level of public scrutiny. is there -- yes. >> i was just going to say, the one thing that she really has that's partly a temperament question, she has what in the military they call the habit of command, where when she comes in, whether it was when she was just out of law school and she went to arkansas to take control

of bill clinton's unsuccessful congressional campaign in 1974, she just came in and took charge. or -- one of the reasons she is greatly respected in the military and among a lot of her colleagues is that she knows how to take charge of a situation. i remember i first saw it in 1992 when bill clinton was under pressure for having dodged the draft and tried to get into the national guard and then the gennifer flowers business. and i remember being backstage at an event that clinton was taking part in. it was a television interview. right in the heat of the new hampshire campaign. and my -- i can't remember the specifics but i just remember hillary clinton was totally in

charge. >> yes. >> and she was going to take control of the situation which was even worse when lewinsky later on. but both cases, she just put the personal stuff aside, took charge of her husband's career, rescued him, pulled him up, and figured out what needed to be done. she was barking orders and, not in an unfriendly way but in a commanding way barking orders to staff people, here's what needs to happen. >> yes. yes. >> and that's a lot of what a president -- >> you've raised several important points that -- and time is short. first of all let's spend a few minutes with the bubba, bill clinton. of course, an enormous factor in all of this and yet again the clintons are on the brink of making history if she's elected, we have our first first gentleman which will be an

interesting topic for us to write about. but in the 2008 campaign bill clinton's role was at best, a mixed bag. what can we expect in the 2016 campaign? >> well, i'm so glad you brought that up. because i think that this is really fascinating, the idea of not just potentially the first woman president, but the first former president's wife as a president, because i think that actually would help. the visual familiarity of them as a team. you can't underestimate that familiarity of seeing them together. and there have been many a time when he was at the podium while he was president, and he was standing hindz her inging behind her. and i think it could also be

said a lot of people would say that during the 1992 campaign although she certainly a lot of people voted for him because of her, with the general population it is not clear-cut that she was an asset, per se, during the 1992 campaign. there were a couple of things where the opposition -- >> again the clintons are about to make history. sean, do we expect to see a different bill clinton by her side this time around? >> insofar as the world is different, sure. in 2008 the obama campaign came out of nowhere. so there was a lot of -- inside the clinton campaign a lot of scurrying and trying to figure out what to do. i'm sure that bill was part of all of it. president clinton was part of all of that. but now it is eight years later. he is, by all measurements i've seen, the most admired man in the world. >> in the world. >> he comes with that. and he spent a lot of time in

the foundation world which is -- different from politics. it requires a different tell prment inpr temperament in some ways but a different way of approaching everything. i think those eight years have season everybody around that. but to bring to the campaign that aura, which wasn't quite there in 2008. so it will be different. but mostly the campaign is going to be different so we're going to see. we don't know. we're going to have to see. >> in 2008 he was rusty. his political skills betrayed him and he said some really stupid things that hurt the campaign. i think he's disciplined enough to avoid that this time and it will be more like what they ran on in 1992 a two for the price of one. and it will be comforting to certain voters to know that you know, if the country runs into tough times that -- >> he's in the picture. >> -- he's in the picture. and by the way, he was president

during the biggest boom times since right after world war ii. >> what about obama's lack of -- obama's low poll numbers? is that a plus for hillary or is that a negative? she was part of his -- >> again depends on what happens. if the economy gets better if it keeps getting better it's going to be a good thing to be having obama around. i also think though the voters distinguish between the two of them. she's not martin van buren. right? >> i think she can agree on that. >> she will be distinct the way other vice presidents coming out were not or other former cabinet members were not. i think that's pretty clear. so i don't think that the president can hurt her particularly. i think that the economy as a comment on his presidency, could help her. >> it's so interesting how their fates are bound up with each other, these two candidates who wrestled so intensely in 2008.

he needs her -- >> obama and clinton. >> obama needs hillary to win to complete his legacy. it's extraordinarily important to him. >> i think that's why he did that "60 minutes" interview with her when she left the secretary of state job which was unprecedented. >> and she needs him to be successful in the last two years. if the economy were to tank or there would be some huge foreign policy mistake that would be hung around her neck no matter what happens. so he also is the greatest vote getter in 60 years. he's the only president since eisenhower -- the only democrat since fdr who won an absolute majority both times. and so you know -- part of that is because of the third party candidates.

but there is an obama coalition which he assembled twice and which she very much needs in order to be elected. >> will they come out for hillary clinton, the hard-core obama people? >> i think hillary has always been -- and the clintons have been popular with black voters. i think they will come out. there's going to be a battle two drive up spanish turnout. a lot of it is a turnout question and they -- they need -- and a lot of that will depend on the way the immigration debate plays out. as far as young people go that's the big question mark. obama did extraordinarily well with young people. came out in the presidential elections but not in the mid-terms, especially this last time. hillary might seem pretty 20th century to some of the young people. >> except for young women. >> exactly. >> i think for young women this is such a historic opportunity

and they have none of the historic baggage that you guys have been alluding to, the white house years. i mean i just know listening to my daughter and her friends, they are ready to go to work today for hillary. so will she make more of the fact that she is -- that she is possibly the first woman in the white house than she did in 2008 where she didn't actually highlight that as much as she might have? >> i really don't think she needs to. i think if she were to do that, rather than focusing on the issues. i mean it's obvious. the other thing though of course as we talk, sitting here in january of 2015 is, as we know how rapidly and suddenly the world changes. when you think about the fact that in less than a year the presidential election was decided by the supreme court and then the world trade center and the pentagon were attacked. i mean the world changes rapidly and first of all we have to be

sure of course is she going to run. but second of all, there is some discussion of some challenges. there's some discussion of martin o'malley. even though nobody at the moment looks like they can mount a credible campaign against her, they, for the way the media may focus, will raise issues and perhaps provide a voice that might suggest an appeal -- >> but maybe that's not a bad thing. there's peril in being the front-runner without anybody who is even near. i mean right now her numbers are -- she's got 60% to biden's 10% and to elizabeth warren's 12%. >> there's two ways of looking at that though connie. they're not used to see parties coalesce around a candidate early in a campaign. back in the 19th century it happened all the time. we may be seeing something that's just different, which is not in our experience. we're used to seeing lots of

primary battles and all the rest of it. it is entirely possible -- not saying it will happen, but it is entirely possible the party -- not just the voters but machinery, people out there who run the caucus and all the rest of it. if there is a coalescence around her, i don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. >> i think she'll win the nomination but she will be challenged. just in modern american politics, it's -- >> who do you see challenge her? >> well bernie sanders might run. jim webb might run who is a war hero. very interesting the little awkward candidate. martin o'malley might run. but somebody will emerge and if they don't it allows a lot of opportunity for misschief making by the press. because you have these 10,000 reporters. they need a story. >> mischief making probabilities are a real profession.

>> i agree with everything you just said except that on the issue of women, i think in order to make herself seem new, and in part because she failed to do enough of it in 2008 -- i think she will talk very explicitly about being a woman and what that means and that she won't just leave it to people's knowledge. >> you think she'll speak about her own perhaps experiences or feelings -- >> yes. yes. the historic quality of it, she will -- >> because that she missed the last time. >> she missed it the last time. >> her historic opportunity was with a trumped by barack obama's historic opportunity. it was really just an extraordinary collision of two moments of history and of course, we elected the first african-american. >> and if makes her seem new. that's the thing. that's her big challenge. >> plus, she is a new grandmother. >> she's a little bit -- she'll -- >> a little old.

she's at a risk of seeming too 20th century. but being a woman makes her seem new and america likes new. >> so what is the thing that can be thrown at her? we've agreed that nop contemporary political figure has been so scrutinized as hillary rodham clinton. so what remains to be -- what could possibly make her loss her balance? >> where the money is coming from. the obscene amounts of money that need to be raised more and more and more. there was some trouble last time -- i think it was a chinese-american bundler in california a who ended up -- it wasn't a big story but she also didn't win the nomination. i think that's always a potential problem, is where is the money coming from. >> well, that's not an issue the republicans will raise.

>> no. but it -- i really agree with that. she's been a little tone-deaf on some of those things. she gave speeches to goldman sachs. i think that will be an issue. she's still giving paid speeches and there is a populist element in it the democratic party that is growing and she's going to need to respond to it. and the way she responds to that i think will be the big question about her. her first outing on that was not encouraging for her supporters. she said at one point she was trying to show that she wasn't too close to wall street and she said, "businesses don't create jobs." it was a gaffe. it was a little similar to obama's gaffe in 2012 when he said, "you didn't build that." but the difference was -- and this was something that might indicate some challenges ahead. obama kind of said it when he was talking fast and he made a

gaffe. when hillary said it she was speaking very slowly and if you watch it on youtube it's really disturbing because her mind should have said, what are you saying. and it was almost like she was overcompensating for the fact that she knows she needs to move left and not be seen as -- >> i want to disagree though with you on the populist question. i think that was a speech and that was a gaffe and that was too bad. though she tried to require. >> only we are gaffe-proof. >> yeah, right. as i'm going to show you right now. she gave a speech at the end of the year. she got an award from the kennedys from the ripple of hope award. that was i think coming after ferguson and all of that stuff where she was really out on the line. she gave a speech that had that crowd pretty up. i was watching them rather than her. and she addressed the ferguson stuff. this is before all the things

that happened afterwards. she said we should not have a government where a banker can get away scot-free and a middle-class person has to struggle to get through to the next day. she was talking about those kinds of issues. i think if she addresses those issues, the 1% stuff -- youthe press can come down her for that. because she's in the 1%. let's face it. if you say the 1% can't represent anyone else, franklin d. roosevelt being the opposite example. my point is that she does have to find a voice on those issues but i could hear her doing it in that speech in a way that was persuasive. >> and she's conscious of it. >> who would be her dream candidate to run against on the other side? >> ted cruz. i like rand paul. >> since michele bachmann has left the field. >> well, that's another matter. but no. i mean the republican party is -- they talk about the clown car of the republican primaries. they all come out. >> rick perry's back.

>> right. there are lots of people out there with very strong powerful ideological convictions and i think that she runs a much stronger against someone like that. if they were to nominate someone like that, then i think she would see she would have the opportunity to do something that hasn't been done in american politics in a very long time, which is a 64 campaign. the republicans are crazy enough to nominate an ideologue like that than something gets -- >> a barry goldwater. >> yeah, exactly. then things begin to look very very different. i don't personally think they're going to do that. >> i can not imagine. because hillary in a debate, she would just have them for breakfast. i mean with her range of experiences -- we haven't touched on she was our senator after all. and she was a very good one. and having -- >> don't be so sure about the debates. because they're very very hard

to predict. i mean remember obama in the denver debate. i do -- >> she won't lose to mitt romney in the first debate, i would predict. >> yes, but -- and she did beat obama most of the time in 2008. but ted cruz, for instance and i don't think he's going to be elected, but he was one -- this is from professors at harvard law school. he's one of the brightest students who ever went through harvard law school. i think there is -- >> and a princeton undergraduate, i might add. >> i think there is a tendency because he's so nuts to just say he's not smart. that's not true. and in a debate i think he could be effective. rand paul, also has some political chops and is not to be underestimated. and the history of the too many to count presidential campaigns i've covered over the last 35 years is be careful what you wish for.

things could turn out differently in american politics. >> i think also you know, really would be weird, but kind of interesting if there was another bush-clinton challenge. because there's sort of at this point what the two of them have been through, in terms of really seeing and understanding things, the fact also that the families are somewhat close. they are in that sort of -- >> the elders. >> yeah. yeah. and bill clinton -- you know, it might actually create this sort of vacuum where there is a little bit more civility in the debate. and maybe, maybe as ridiculous as this may sound right now, maybe there would be an opportunity to focus on more substance and less sort of the distractionary stuff that -- >> but what an astonishing thing to have these two dynasties pitted against each other. >> i wish i agreed with that.

part of me thinks that maybe -- maybe you're right. maybe they have have a high-toned debate but i just remember the campaign that bush ran in 1988 against michael dukakis. maureen dowd called them the it wasp corleones. that was one of the nastiest -- >> or the campaign that george w. ran against john mccain in south carolina which was pretty -- which was just plain dirty, actually. >> little known fact. because he always writes a thank you note afterwards. >> yeah. i happened to be in misdemeanorccain's hotel room when they got the returns in south carolina. his wife said how could people do this kind of thing. and it was really low. so that -- but also, the other problem i have, just as an american with the bush-clinton campaign, it just feels too much like a banana republic. we just -- >> barbara bush herself said

herself, there is a lot more families that people could be picking on. >> the thing about the bushes though, people talk about clinton fatigue which i always thought was made-up during the impeachment. but apart from all that, it's early but she has 60%, 62% of the democratic party saying that they're in favor. bush doesn't have anywhere near that much. i think the republican party -- there's going to be more bush fatigue inside the republican party than you might suspect because george w. bush left office with a lot of people on the right wing of the republican party really disliking him. all the t.a.r.p. >> have you noticed jeb is already running away. >> now he's running to the right of his brother. >> he was quoted as saying don't you have a brother? don't you have a dad? so he's trying to carve out that he's his own man. but good luck with that. >> i know mitt's running to the right of him if he runs. we're here to talk about hillary clinton, aren't we? >> and hillary's not saying, don't you have a husband? she's -- she's proud of her

husband's record in the white house. and i think proud of her own record. one thing i want to quickly add, it is interesting in 2008 i think a really big mistake of the clinton campaign was they didn't come forward -- and i think nobody really knew how to handle this. and i think you particularly appreciate it. because a first lady is unleaked unelected and is unaccountable. yet hillary clinton was so much a part of the behind the scenes with the executive staff domestic legislation, working micro loans. there was so much across the board. but she really -- the campaign didn't really come out much and make a record of her years as first lady. so a lot of the media did get away and say well, what did you do as first lady? who cares, first lady after health care, you didn't do anything. and -- >> if she were going from being

first lady to the presidency, then i think it would be more valid. here i think it is more secondary because meanwhile, she was secretary of state for four years and she was united states senator. and so she has logged an awful lot of miles. >> but it is all part of that. >> yes, it is worth examining. >> so here's what karl rove -- >> -- the record of the first lady but not with minute attention. because she's had these subsequent extremely powerful roles. >> yes. but then we'll use them. so karl rove's main insight is you go after your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. so he went off john kerry's war record for instance. so hillary's strength it her great experience. she's probably the best prepared of any modern candidate for president. but you can already tell -- john mccain just said this the other week -- what did she do as secretary of state? what did she accomplish? so they're going to go right

after that resume and say that she didn't really put the points on the board, didn't really do anything to change the country. >> i have to believe she's ready for that one. >> she will be ready for it but it is tricking whether you are working for a president for her to say what she accomplished as secretary of state. i mean i traveled to central asia with her when she was secretary of state and you could see in the appearances what she was accomplishing, which was an amazing connection with women all over the world and raising the stature of the united states in the eyes of the world after a disastrous administration. but those are kind of intangible. >> yeah, but they're significant. >> they're significant -- >> she was the best public diplomat we've had probably since george marshall. >> but here i think there was a missed opportunity and the missed opportunity was her book. and if she'd written a book which was much more pointed, here are the events that mattered. here was osama bin laden. here was syria.

and told it with a little bit more drama then i think what you're saying would have been a little bit more apparent. the book's fine. i'm not saying it is no the. >> it is a serious book. >> it could have been sharper prp. >> it is not a page turner. >> in some ways, looking toward a campaign. i'm going to say something that may sound blasphemous but the best book like this was written by richard nick son. "six crises." and, you know, you got a sense of a man in battle. if anything, that nobled richard nixon in those years it was that book. i think hillary could have written something like that that might have been more effective. >> let's fast forward to the white house. hillary clinton is in the white house now. and what sort of -- let's start -- let's start with her relationship with the hill which of course has been one of the most disappointing aspects of the obama years was not through

his own fault but the dedzadlock between congress and the white house. can we expect hillary to do better than obama? >> i say -- i vote for perhaps her greatest strength. both because of the experience she had in that second clinton administration working with opponents and passing a lot of domestic legislation, and her full term in the senate which from the get-go, she reached out across the aisle. >> so she's one of them. and had a pretty successful time there. jon? >> there are just too many moving parts. it is very hard to know what the composition of the congress will be in 2017. will the democrats get control of the senate again, for instance? that's an open question. the house is kind of locked in for maybe ten years to republican control because of

gerrymandering and those guys are pretty immune to hillary clinton's charms. she was popular in private with republicans republicans, but then they'd go home and bash her to their conservative constituents. so it is a little hard -- i mean she wants people to think that she's an lbj type figure but even lbj, there is a new book by your colleague julian zellizer he needed that big 1964 victory. it wasn't just his skills. >> but sean, doesn't she enjoy sipping bourbon after hours with the guys on the hill -- >> she's more like that. >> she's more of a politician. >> but a lot of it depends on numbers. that's just going to be the case. again, if you have a '64 type election, which i don't think that will happen, but if you get that kind of switchover, we just

don't know. >> what i'm driving at is not her favorite drink but the fact that she's more of a politician. obama has i would say almost contempt for his chosen field. >> she is a political leader. and she knows how to do politics in a way that i think -- well, the president ran as an anti-politician in some ways. >> he makes no bones about that. >> makes no bones about it. that's the style of leadership we've seen. this goes back to temperament as well because she has a political temperament. >> don't forget, she spent 40 years with our generation's most brilliant poll significances. >> she was sometimes calling the shots so she has a sense of how politics works and she's learned a lot more about how politics works in the last 25 years. so i think in that respect we have a different approach to government than we've seen in the last eight years.

it would be different. >> so the big question for me about hillary in the white house is -- goes to her judgment. again, i think it is an open question. but, unlike sean -- and i don't know what your positions were -- i was for the iraq war. as was hillary clinton. and we were both -- >> i was. >> you were with me as well? >> -- terribly wrong. it was the call i made in my career in punditry. not sure she's quite come to terms with the fact that it was her worse o'callcall, too. that she was for that. obama was nominated in part because he made the right call and was against it. so -- >> he didn't have to vote on that. >> he didn't have to vote on it so his position was very clear. if he had been in the senate, he wouldn't have voted for that war. his position was crystal clear.

and so again in 2009 when they had the big debate over escalation in afghanistan and the military wanted a ten-year open-ended counterinsurgency commitment which would have us now only half-way through a commitment of 100,000-plus troops, hillary was on the side of the ten-year open-ended commitment. and biden was on the other side. their relationship actually suffered some in that period. i think you can make the arpg argument that she made the wrong call on that. on bin laden, she didn't really take a strong position and it's not at all clear if she had been president whether she would have gone for it because it was a high-risk operation and -- >> well, according to leon panetta's account, it was leon panetta who was the driver of that decision. >> his position was clear he was for it. but hillary was very much on the

fence. >> she's a supremely cautious person. there's no question about that. the military really like her. they have -- she's their girl. they -- i've had the opportunity to observe this. >> yeah. it's true. >> she gets along extremely well with the brass. now whether she's also, as sean pointed out, a person who is constantly learning from her mistakes and in constant development. so she's not going to replay, i don't think the iraq war decision if, god forbid, we have floer another such vote. >> and remember, you and a lot of people who supported it, including hillary clinton, were doing it based on false -- be strong false information. >> yeah. i wish i thought that was a more

comforting excuse. because there were a lot of people who got the call right. the same thing applies to her choosing people, which is one of the most important jobs that a president has. again, it's an open yes. i'm not saying she would do a bad job of choosing people but in the past she sometimes has chosen people for their loyalty rather than for their talent. not always, but sometimes. >> well with being, this has been a real problem with the obama administration, there hasn't been a real reaching out to the best and the brightest. he pretty much ha is the same people who he had on the hill who got him elected. i think three or four people basically run that white house and i think that hillary, who's been in some ways a victim of that closed shop, as secretary of state i can't imagine that

she would repeat that formula for governing, keeping that small a group in power. >> no the white house these days is pretty insular. it is a small group. >> they do need at least one or two real brain -- i mean people have been tried and true and really whose judgment they feel that they can trust. >> no. not every president needs people around them that they can trust but you make a lot of appointments and you have a batting average in those appointments. we just don't know. she chose some really incompetent people to run her 2008 campaign, for instance. >> politics. you're -- >> actually, her record of choosing people was much better at the state departments. she had some very high-quality people around her there who she did not choose on the basis of loyalty. although there was still an inner circle. >> some going back to the white

house. >> there is so much more for us to cover but we did promise our very patient audience that we would take some questions. so if you have a question, please ask a question. i'm sure you have great speeches to deliver but let's not deliver them tonight. and please identify yourself. we have two mikes. >> my name is greg tillman. could you be as specific as possible and identify the differences between hillary and bill with regard to first political beliefs, and second, administrative capability? >> who would like a shot at that? >> beliefs and -- >> i would just say in general that i -- at least during the white house years i always thought of hillary clinton as extremely focused in terms of

domestic initiatives. certainly with health care and of course that priority shifted because of her husband and his staff made that decision that it was essentially abandoned. but administratively, i would have to say i probably give her an "a," maybe where i give him a "b." >> more analytical than her husband. not as intuitive. >> that's exactly right. but in terms of their positions on issues and when to compromise, which is always a big thing in politics, the reason i would definitely not give her an "a" is that there were moments in the clinton white house when they could have compromised on health care and gotten a bill through, and hillary insisted that her husband not compromise. and so they got no bill. and so there were moments she

did not handle that process right. it was too secretive and she didn't compromise. >> that was her signal failure the health care. >> but the analytical quality is really important. i think she share bill clinton's pragmatic streak. i think they're very close in terms of the way they see public policy issues and they've had this mind meld. it's part of the secret why they're still married, is that they really connect on policy. >> but not only on policy. >> i think -- >> well, they've described this quality that they've been having this conversation for 40 years. >> i was there. >> they go home. you and i might talk about what we saw on requested mad men," they're talking about public policy issues and are really connected on those issues and they develop great insights that are not really very different

ideologically from one another. so i think the answer to your question is that they are very close on the issues even though they drill down into problems in a different way. >> one quick thing. >> we've got so many people. yes, sir. >> rick reese. i'm really hoping 70 is the new 50. but it's not. and no one up here has talked about health stamina age and whether or not one should be seeking the most demanding office in the world at a certain time in their life. be interested in your views. >> i mean i think -- jonathan knows this certainly looking at franklin roosevelt. i mean, you know, to a certain degree you get up there, you know that your health is going to deteriorate. i mean it's hard to predict. i mean eisenhower had his greatest health problems in his first term. went on to serve a second term. there's no evidence that his age and his health problems were a

detriment. ronald reagan in his first term, the oldest elected president in his first term, evidenced no problems. it was more apparent to many in the second term. so, you know, i think it is an individual thing rather than making a judgment per se on numerical age. >> i actually think it is going to be a big issue. because americans are very unsentimental when it comes to presidential health. if she has any kind of a mishap -- i mean bill bradley's campaign against al gore in the 2000 primaries was seriously hurt by him having a little heart issue in iowa. and so were she to have another health scare like she had, could be very detrimental. >> i can't imagine that she would run if she had -- >> i'm saying if something came up. >> i don't think we have a prima facie problem, but if something came up, of course. >> she would be about reagan's age if she is elected. >> that could happen to in he of

us, any time. >> li, i'm see rethatrena. i was wondering if hypothetically hillary clinton ever caused a scandal, not that she would, but would it affect her differently because she was a woman? >> if hillary would ever cause a scandal -- >> would it affect her differently? >> would it affect her differently than two affect a man. >> because of our society and how we -- >> you mean a personal scandal? like -- >> yeah. >> you know what? that is i think so beyond the realm of -- >> that's a great question. i mean it depends on what the scandal is. bill clinton said it depends on the meaning of the definition of "is" is. >> but to be serious, i think she's such a disciplined person and she's lived for 67 years without a personal pickcadillo

that i'm aware of. i certainly don't think at this stage when she's basking in being a grandmother that -- >> but financial scandal that carl raised earlier. that could happen. and the clintons did have a fairly scandal-prone administration. >> governorship. >> compared to the obama presidency. there were things coming up all the time. fund-raising issues. and lincoln bedroom issues. and so forth that did not relate to sex that were just financially related scandals, if you could call them that. and it's a really intriguing question whether the face that she would present to the public if she was in a defensive mode, if there was a scandal. of course, the white house press corps is always looking for scandal. it's hard to emergencyimagine that she would go through eight years with no scandals.

again, one of the fascinating things about this is that we just -- nobody can know the answer to your question because we've never had a woman president. >> yeah. it is a gender question generally but we don't know yet. >> yes. hello. my name is reba shamanski. i read hillary's book "hard choices" where you are mentioned in the book. she considered you and her husband good friends. >> which of us? >> miss martin. >> oh. >> and i'd like to know, as a good friend, could you share with us some anecdotes personal qualities, about hillary that we in the mainstream -- as a mainstream american we would not know and would surprise us. >> well, she is a very warm person. you force me to reveal my biases here. but she is -- i would like her to exhibit more of that personal warmth that she exhibited toward

me when my husband was very sick. and i think she knows how to be a friend. there is absolutely no calculation in her warm -- in her continued warmth towards me. it's all about her human qualities. she sat beside me in the hospital when we weren't sure that richard was going to make it and just sat there and held my hand and didn't -- we didn't exchange any words because it wasn't necessary. so that to me was a very strong indicator of the person. yes. >> you mentioned how hillary took over bill's campaign and was in charge. if she runs would we see bill

clinton having that same ability to take over and why was it missing in '08? >> who wants to -- >> he tried to take over a little bit and they had to bar him >> he tried to take over a little bit and they had to bail him to campaign headquarters. he was saying things like comparing obama to jesse jackson, that were not helpful to the campaign. he's way beyond the nuts and bolts of the management campaign. he's so involved and so smart about politics. he would still be involved at some level. and the way she manages his involvement will be very interesting to watch. obviously he has a lot to contribute but within certain parameters. figuring out what those parameters are, will be one of the great games of 2016. >> you know, one of the great

roles well first ladies is trying out the big speech. the state of the union, the acceptance speech the farewell speech because sometimes the spouse who's not leading the country has a little bit more of an ear for what they hear out on the street. and the way people are going to react. i think that that is now more of a role that bill clinton would play for her. and she would run a lot of her major speeches by him first. he would, perhaps say don't say it that way say it this way. >> the good ones always weighed it, the good first ladies and perhaps now a lot of first gentlemen. can we take -- one last question? >> we are out of time.

>> thank you so much. the legislative week getting underway at the u.s. capitol with the senate working on the house passed homeland security senate bill, which includes provisions to block the president's executive order on immigration. coming up at 5:30, 60 aye votes are needed. the house is back tomorrow this week, they're expected to debate a bill to expand the 529 college savings program, also a bill to reform the no child left behind education law. they could also take up the homeland security spending bill before the current funding expires this friday february 27th. watch the house live on c-span. and our hearing coverage this week includes the senate banking committee, with fed chief janet yellin, she'll testify at a hearing on the

semiannual monetary policy report to congress, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow right here on c-span three. more wednesday with secretary of state john kerry talking about his fiscal year 2016 budget request, that will be discussed in a hearing that's being called by the committee advancing u.s. interesting in a troubled world. watch that live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, also here on c-span three. tonight on the communicators, we spoke with executives at the electronics show in los angeles. talk about their companies and the technology in which the internet, mobile phones and the cloud operate. >> in erickson we talk about something we call a network society. and the network society is a society where everything can benefit from having a connection would actually have one. and we put this forward in 2009

in barcelona, in the trade show that's going on there of the 50 billion connected devices in 2020 which has caught on well in the world. that opened many people's minds that the mobile industry is not limited to the smart phones and the devices that we carry around personally. it also is a great technology to connect so many other things and to be able to build a better society based on those kind of technologies. >> the internet started with this thing that people needed to get to somewhere or somehow by dialup connections. we brought the internet from that thing somewhere to your home. we brought that internet from being your home to being with every device you carry around, the mobile internet. the next stage is about taking it from all these mobile devices, to things and information, and connecting not just people, but things with people, information with people, and processes with people and things, so we can create a whole internet of everything. so i think we're at the early

stages of building up that internet of everything. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on communicators on c-span 2. earlier this month, japanese prime minister shinzo abe said japan will never cohwer to terrorism. foreign policy issues and relation relations with china were discussed. this is 45 minutes. i would like to begin my speech with the terrorist attacks. we found profound grief that japanese nationals have been victims of terrorism. i express my deepest sympathies

and sincere condolences to the families of the victims. >> the government resolutely condemns these acts of terrorism. japan will never give in to terrorism. the government will continue to take all possible measures to consider the safety of japanese nationals at home and abroad. through humanitarian assistance, including food and medical assistance japan will steadfastly fulfill its responsibilities to the international community combating terrorism. to take back japan this is the only path forward. these are the words that i have lived by and expended every effort toward achieving over the past two years following the results of the recent general election and having been nominated by both houses, i continue to bear the heavy responsibilities of prime minister of japan.

press forward under stable conditions. this is the message the japanese people which was sent to me in the recent general election. together with the members of the ruling liberal democratic party and the party who are with us in this chamber i pledge to the people we will fully apply ourselves to responding to the mandate that we have been granted. economic revitalization restoration from disaster, social security reforms, the rebuilding of education, revitalization of local economies. women's empowerment as well as diplomacy and security. none of these paths for reform will be easy they will be the most dramatic reforms since the end of world war ii, we must press forward with these reforms, clearly disearning a vision for the future of japan. we cannot avoid these reforms. after witnessing for himself the

world powers of europe and the united states, where modernization had progressed. one of the buildings of the foundations of the state raurked as follows. japan may be a small country, if the people can work together with the single mind to build up our national strength. it will be by no means impossible for us to become a nation that participates actively in world affairs. there's no reason why the people cannot achieve what their predecessors achieved in the meji era. now is the time for us to press forward together as one, setting out along the path before us. let us embark on the most dramatic reforms since the end of world war ii. at the end of the war more than 16 million japanese were engaged in agriculture. today that figure stands at 2 million, 1/8 of its original number from 70 years ago, the average age of persons engaged in agriculture is over 66. sweeping reforms of agriculture

policy cannot wait any longer. what is the purpose of such reforms? it is to create a strong agricultural sector and to increase the incomes of farmers. we will carry out the first reforms of the agricultural cooperatives in 60 years. the current structure of centralized cooperatives has provided the agricultural cooperatives act will be abolished and the central union of agricultural cooperatives will become a general incorporated association. agricultural kwooptives will need to undergo an audit with cba. they will work together to combine their strengths to open up a new future for agriculture. including the development of branding of local proceed deuce for overseas businesses. for the first time we'll engage in agricultural reform of

committees. we'll develop a system in which hardworking people can take the lead and eliminate uncultivated land and further consolidate the consolidation of farmland. we'll relax requirements for agricultural cooperatives and serve to promote diverse participants into the agricultural sector. further steps will be continue to eliminate the practice of kulticultivated acreage. we will advance structural reforms to ensure the agricultural sector is competitive and market responsive. change is the only eternal. these words were spoken by a man who breathed new life into the tradition of japanese style painting and engaged in the challenge of reform during the meji era. we slu not be afraid of change in the face of tradition. agriculture is the very backbone of japan. it's bro tekted our beautiful homes and communities. it's for just this reason that we must