>> so let me try to run through those as fast as i can, mr. chairman. and i thank you. we have raised in the most recent discussions. and you ask how we can tell they'll negotiate in good faith. we're negotiating on that reactively right now. and, again the proof will be in the pudding whether we can achieve something or not achieve something. it's a little early to make that prediction on both accounts. on the release of individuals that we're trying to get back as well as on the nuclear agreement itself. congressman, on the subject of the aumf associated persons removing assad et cetera. we have to operate under international law. this -- this authorization is

specifically targeted against isis itself. and it would be very hard to see how there would be any stretch that would fit any legal authority whatsoever to direct that. there are other legal arguments availability to deal with president assad. let me make that clear. not the least of which is the fact that if he were to join in an effort that actively engaged with isil or we had evidence of that in some way. he could be thereby aiding and abetting. there's an extensive argument you could make. but, no not directly out of the aumf. that would not be anywhere in what is envisioned or allowed by it. with respect to the drc and exit permit, we have raised that

issue. i've talked to the president about it personally. we've had -- we have an ongoing effort to try to make some progress on that and i'm hopeful that we will finally get some kind of success. these are those difficult internal kinds of, you know, negotiations that take place. they're very -- i think this may be tied to the prospects of the potential election that may or may not take place in the drc. we're waiting to see what happens. i will continue to push it. with respect to congressman boyle on the subject of northern ireland, we are deeply engaged still. with the president's consent i appointed former senator gary hart to be engaged in those talks. he's been very active. there's $7.5 million commitment in the existing peace impact

program plan. and the funding is there for 2011, and we have no reason not to be releasing it and engaging in it. we will continue to be deeply involved in that. with respect to congressman zeldon on the allowance of offensive operations the limit of authority, i thought we were talking about so this is a good opportunity for clarification. i was talking about in the context of any potential of american ground forces and the limits of the enduring language. but obviously we are engaged in offensive operations. the air power could not be more so, and we are engaged directly needless to say. and arming you know, assisting, training and assisting. now we have the overt title 10 training and assisting program. so those are offensive operations that the united states is going to be supporting one way or the other. but we're not talking about

american ground troops. and there is no authorization in here putting american combat ground troops into an enduring, offensive combat situation. i think that's what i was really trying to address. and congressman emmer, on the economics and tpa, i'll just close by saying one of the great changes that we face in the world today is the enormous increase of much more powerful competitive economic entities. none of them match the size of the united states. but they're getting bigger more active, there's more global market competitiveness than there has ever been before. and if you were you know anybody engaged in international business knows how quick you have to move, how voracious you have to -- how disciplined you have to be in grabbing market share and knowing the markets

and working with other partners. it's a different marketplace than it was in the 1960s '70s when we were the dominant, single economy. and so this kind of trade regime that we're talking about putting together under the tpp or the ttip is far more critical to american jobs to american growth, to america's influence, to america's ability to continue to play the important leadership role we have played in the world. and so if we don't get this kind of an agreement written to the higher standards of international business behavior it will go down. the standards will go down. the protections will go down. the ability of people to have legal remedy will be reduced. the ability of people to protect

intellectual property or have rights by which workers are protected. all of these things would be diminished if we are not able to achieve these kinds of trade agreements. and tpa is critical to the ability to have those agreements because other countries will, their leaders will not make the difficult political decisions necessary to take one interest or another in their country and change the structure in favor of a larger set of rules because it costs them politically. if they know that what they're doing that when they make that decision is going to be subject to a renegotiation with congress rather than the passing of what has been negotiated they won't make the agreement in the first place. so we actually hurt ourselves in achieving our larger interest of

trade and growing our markets if we wind up trying to micromanage it through congressional day-to-day without the tpa. tpa is what actually empowers the negotiators to be able to close a deal and allow those leaders and other countries to make the tough decisions they need to make. so in the end, 95% of the world's customers are in other countries. and we cannot grow our nation increase wealth do better if we are just thinking we can somehow only sell to ourselves. we have to sell in the rest of the world. and it is better for us to be helping to lead the effort to reach agreement as to what the rules will be by which we sell and raise those standards rather than leave it to somebody else and see them lowered. that's why tpa is so critical. >> we appreciate the secretary's time today including today's

lightning round. and we have a ton of issues to get through together. we thank you and we stand adjourned. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has agreed to introduce homeland security spending bill without language blocking the president's immigration executive order. on the next "washington journal," we'll get some congressional reaction. at 7:45 a.m. eastern, oklahoma republican senator james lankford will join us to talk about the topic. and a half an hour later, it's a democratic perspective with california congressman javier bacera who serves as the house democratic caucus. those conversations plus your calls, tweets and e-mails. our show is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 pacific on c-span. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2's book tv saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on

afterwards, alan ryskind talks about the communist party in hollywood during the 1930s. and sunday at noon on in-depth, our live three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author. her books include the tyranny of the majority, lift every voice, and the miner's canary. and on "american history tv" on c-span 3, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war. a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina, following the surrender of the city and his troops in 1865. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on oral histories, an interview with former consultant to the nixon white house daniel elsburg on the pentagon papers a classified study on vietnam which he copied and gave to the "new york times" in 1971. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400.

e-mail us comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet tweet @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. nato's top commander spoke to reporters about u.s. and nato support of ukraine and the ongoing situation with russia. this portion of the briefing from the pentagon is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. it's good to be back in this room and be back with you today. as many of you know and may have watched, i just completed my testimony with house armed services committee. i'd like to start by thanking undersecretary for her time and her partnership. for those of you who did not listen to my testimony, i'd like to review a couple of key points i made to the committee before we proceed to your questions.

i told them compared to just one year ago, europe faces a very different and much more challenging security environment. we have concerns that a resurgent russia is exercising power and influence. not only in neighboring countries, but also in the region more broadly. and around the world. the challenge is global, not regional and enduring, not temporary. the most visible manifestation of russian aggression started one year ago with the occupation of crimea followed by its fueling and continuing the armed conflict in eastern ukraine. these actions violate international laws and norms and we all agree the best way to bring the conflict to an end, an acceptable lasting end is through a political solution. what we have seen recently, though, and frankly over the course of the whole conflict

gives us cause for much concern. since the beginning of the conflict in eastern ukraine, we have seen evidence of direct wide ranging russian involvement from the supply of basic military equipment to logistics command and control, air defense and the list goes on and on. there are the unidentified russian specialized troops our little green men who first appeared in crimea which now direct and train the pro-russian separatists. additionally, there is very clear evidence and proof that russia fired artillery over its border into eastern ukraine during the initial stages of the conflict and transferred more than 1,000 pieces of russian military equipment into ukraine including tanks, armored personnel carriers heavy artillery pieces and other military vehicles. these have been used on the front lines against ukrainian forces. these actions do not aid the

reestablishment of normal relations. actions matter much more than words. and what we see on the ground is a russia that does not play by international rules or norms. their activities are de-stabilizing to neighboring states to the region as a whole, and as i have mentioned have global impact. at the same time, europe also faces a surge of violent extremism. the inhuman public execution of hostages and captives by isil shows what a deadly threat they pose. european nations are rightly worried about foreign fighters returning home to europe from the fight in syria and iraq. with new skills and malign intent. attacks like those in france, belgium and denmark are only likely to become more frequent. foreign fighters are part of a much broader pattern of insecurity all along the southern border of europe, which flows from everything from

migrants to criminal transit routes, et cetera. the spread of instability into europe and the reach of transnational terrorism has a direct bearing on the national security of the united states and our homeland. and to protect the homeland from abroad. u.s. ucom is working with european nations bilaterally and as a member of the nato alliance to meet and counter these challenges. addressing these challenges means our own u.s. efforts in europe remain utterly essential. more important now than any time in recent history. last year at the beginning of the crisis in ukraine we rushed land and air forces to the baltics and poland to reassure them. and the nato alliance in our commitment to their security. the reason we could respond quickly is because we were there, forward, ready and postured correctly.

there's simply no substitute for our forward presence in europe. it is the bedrock of our ability to assure our allies and to deter real and potential adversaries and to respond in a timely way if, god forbid deterrence should fail. that forward force presence -- from supporting our sister combat and commands to fulfilling our commitment to the defensive israel. rotational presence is no substitute as permanent ford presence is in building relationships or signaling our commitment. but genuine and fully funded rotational presence can play a role in helping meet the requirements in our theater. if it is heel to toe and properly resourced. it is, after all, easier and cheaper to prevent a problem than to have to retake a piece of land. lastly, i told the committee

that the budgetary challenges and tradeoffs we face now based on the budget control act have already forced ucom to assume significantly greater risk. our time lines are longer our preparations are less robust. and our fundamental ability to deter and defeat in a timely and effective manner is less sure than it could be. the security challenges in and around europe are only growing sharper and more complicated. had a great conversation with the committee, and now i look forward to our conversation. so with that, i'll open it up for your questions. >> from cbs radio, if sanctions can't stop the conflict in eastern ukraine and providing weapons to the ukrainian military still won't enable them to win the conflict what really can nato and the u.s. do to end this conflict? or is the answer simply nothing?

>> so an excellent question. and what i would say is that all the tools that are available to us are, i think the recipe that brings us to a position where we can force mr. putin to have a new calculus in his decision making. we currently have sanctions on board. that is an economic tool. we have non-lethal aid going into ukraine from several nations, that's a military tool. we still have diplomatic and informational tools to employ. and as you know, the disinformation campaign that russia has out about this conflict is quite pervasive. and so we need to get on to the field and the information field and further on the field in the diplomatic field. so what i advocate for is that russia is placing incredible

pressure in all four elements of national power. diplomatic, informational, military and economic on ukraine. answer in all four tools of national power, as well to change his decision calculus about what he should take on in eastern ukraine. >> you also said during your testimony that it just emboldens him when the measures aren't working. and doesn't seem anything to this point is. >> i'd like to correct. i don't think i said that. what i said is it could embolden him. we do not know what mr. putin's reaction is to a change in any of the instruments. for instance, if we were to apply too harshly in one area, it could have the same reaction as possibly in the military area. so the bottom line is, we have to understand the risk calculus

of what we're doing and find a way to change his decision calculus in eastern ukraine. >> can you talk a little bit about russian posture in the black sea and long-term prospects for nato presence in that part of the world? >> so we have not seen any great change in the actual naval surface combatants as far as the posture in the black sea. what we have seen is that crimea has been transformed in some fairly significant ways as far as weapon systems in the crimea. you've seen this talked about. and these weapon systems from air defense systems that reach nearly half of the black sea to surface attack systems that reach almost all of the black sea area have made the platform of crimea a great platform for

power projection into this area. but as far as actual the change in postures, numbers and types, surface combatants, we haven't seen a big change. of course, the black sea, many or several nato nations are black sea nations. and their navies operate routinely in the black sea. nato vessels operate routinely in the black sea. sometimes the u.s., sometimes other nato nations. i do not see a change in that, nato will go into the black sea and exercise with its partners and we will work with turkey a great ally in the context of the convention to meet all the requirements of those limitations. >> when you just run across them you know during regular maritime are they courteous?

talking and squawking like they're supposed to? >> well so we have seen several different manner of interactions in the black sea. most of them i would call professional. at first, as we were having some of our nato vessels go closer to the crimean peninsula in the black sea maybe i would call them a bit more confrontational engagements. but by and large professional in accordance with the way sea going vessels carry on their business. >> general do you favor army ukrainian forces? >> okay. tom, thanks for the question. what i would say is this -- we have had a lot of interaction with the ukrainians, as have other nations of nato. what the ukrainians have said they need has been pretty consistent across the conflict.

u.s. european command has had a deep relationship with ukraine for some time, but certainly even more close for about the past year. our joint commission has set up a structure where we have engaged them at all levels of their defense ministry and in their fielded forces. and our introspection, our inspection and interaction with their forces gives us pretty much the same picture of requirements that they need. so we have a good feeling of sort of the broad categories of intelligence communications, counterbattery, countermobility capabilities. and so based on all of those interactions, i've prepared my advice and passed it up through my chain of command and that -- that is now in the process of being considered. >> can you at least talk about the pros and cons. and those like senator mccain

who want to arm the ukrainian forces say you have to send a strong message to putin. that he'll pay a price. and opponents say, listen, if you arm the ukraine forces it's only going to escalate that putin will up the ante. and he knows you're not going to go to the mat for ukraine. >> so it's an interesting set of words. i'll repeat yours back to you. putin ups the ante. let's examine what mr. putin has done already. well over 1,000 combat vehicles. russian combat forces. some of their most sophisticated air defense. i would say mr. putin has already set the bar and ante very high as far as his interaction in eastern ukraine. we have to be absolutely straightforward to say that none

of us knows what mr. putin will decide. if we take action -- he might take another decision. i think it's appropriate that we judge and find another way forward. it is getting worse every day. >> well to quickly follow up on that -- if the u.s. is to continue on without giving them the javelins or small arms or

whatever else could, would we expect the russians would continue to escalate. >> you really asked two questions. could we and would he? but so -- again, we cannot know what mr. putin will decide. i like to talk about looking at the capabilities and capacities that he puts in the field what options does that give him? and from those options, then we derive what he could do. we'll never probably truly be able to predict with clarity what he will do. and so could this escalate in the absence of any change. that is what's happening now. we've seen a steady escalation. remember, as they first and try

to create -- try to create ambiguity to confuse whether they were actually in there or not. being used in that yaer et cetera, et cetera, so the facade of trying to hide behind this equipment stolen from the ukrainians, et cetera et cetera. these false narratives have crumbled. so literally now, we see that mr. putin is all in and that they will proceed to their objectives are accomplished. >> quick clarification on something you said here and in the committee this morning on permanent, the possibility of permanent forces in eastern

europe. obviously, the nato/russia agreement says nato will not permanently station forces on the eastern border. but is it time, do you think in your judgment, to look at that again given the russian behavior? >> so let's go back to the question i was hoping you would ask, which is about structure in europe. and i'm an advocate for strong force structure in europe. and the need for permanently forward stationed forces. again, if we look at what happened when russia first went into crimea and illegally annexed crimea, we saw that as i talked to the committee about this morning, the 173rd out of germany was able to respond to the forward area to our three baltic nations within 96 hours.

and get troops in there to bring reassurance to our allies. our aircraft out of other places in europe responded in less than a day, 18 hours, some from go to show. to be able to bring assurance to our air policing detachments in poland and the attachment we opened. so these permanent forward forces are the key to being able to react at speed to these provocative issues that we see now facing us in these new russian tactics. i answered the question, i want an answer, now i'll answer your question. as to permanent forces in these forward areas we don't have any vision for that right now. what we have is as you know a rotational set of presences there which is going very well. the feedback from our baltic

nations of our presence. lit lithuania lithuanian man of the year was a soldier. so our interactions with these countries in this rotational capability, which is a part of this larger assurance construct that nato has put forward, i think is the right way to go. >> you can watch this entire pentagon briefing with nato commander general breedlove at our website. go to c-span.org. the federal communications commission holds a meeting on open internet rules and access to broadband. they'll be examining a proposal by tom wheeler that would give fcc authority to assure they

give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis without favoring or blocking some sources. you can see the meeting live tomorrow here on c-span 3 beginning at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. next weekend, we've partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> with the opening of the suez canal in 1869, sailing ships were almost dealt a death blow. with that opening of the canal coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east to those markets, so sailing ships needed

to make their own living. coal, oil, cotton, et cetera. alyssa found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a fast pace. really unique in that she sailed and arrived here back in 1883 with a cargo full of bananas. it was real important to find a vessel with a connection. saturday march 7th on c-span 2's

book tv and sunday march 8th at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> this task force on policing practices was created by the white house to examine the relationship between local law enforcement and the communities that they serve. philadelphia police commissioner charles ramsey co-chairs the task force. good morning, and welcome to the president's task force on 21st century policing. today is a special day. we have one distinguished and i will say the final panel. be careful saying we save the best for last because all of our

panels were outstanding. in many ways we save the best for last. and i'll leave it to the co-chairs to explain what the thought process was and why we're closing out the public listening sessions in this way. it's an outstanding way to close out. as you know on december 2014, president obama announced 21st century policing to deal with what was really simmering at the time the issue of trust between police and communities. not all of our communities, but many of our communities. and put together a task force that's going to be led by two dis distinguished co-chairs. for office of justice programs and to her left, philadelphia police commissioner charles ramsey who is not only the philadelphia police commissioner and also the former police chief here in washington, d.c. he put this task force together

and asked them to come up with concrete recommendations on how to build trust and do so in a manner that we are still enjoying and achieving the kind of crime reductions we've had over the last 20 or 30 years. and we've put in a task force is responsible for providing the president report on march 2nd which will be next week, next monday, and a total of 90 days to put this together. in doing so we've had a series of public listening sessions. each one has been outstanding. that means we've heard over 150 witnesses, we receive even more written testimonies and at today's warning panel, we would be able to work together, deliberate and come up with the recommendations on what to give to the president. and so today is the last public listening session as far as panel discussions and so there's no better way to end it. at this point, i would then like to now turn it over to -- let me say this before i continue.

in the back of the room is a lot of staff in the cops office. and the co-chairs have been very gracious and thanking them each and every session. as we close out the public listening sessions i want those watching to really know what that means when we talk about the cops office supporting it. when the president created this task force, he then identified to make sure -- was tasked with providing those services. i would say tasked and honored to provide the service to support a great tame. team. thank you for the work that is yet to come. we still have to crunch a report

out next week. so, but, thank you for that. with that, i do want to turn it over to the co-chair so they can lead the final panel and lead us into the conclusion of this process. and i'll start with the co-chair, commissioner charles ramsey. >> thank you, ron. and thank all of you for being here this morning. this has been a very fast process we have embarked upon over the last 90 days. it seems more like a week or two when you think back on how compressed it's been. but a lot of good work has come from it. i want to thank all of you for your testimony today but all of those who have testified before you, participated in the audience. it's really been very helpful in us framing what will be the final recommendations that we will present to the president next week. i'm not going to go over anything in terms of how this came about. ron did a very good job of that.

soon you'll be introduced to the other task force members as was already mentioned, chuck ramsey i have the honor of being a co-chair along with lori robinson who we've, i think, made a pretty good team here over the past few months. i am currently the police chief in philadelphia seven years i have served in that capacity. i was police chief here in washington for almost nine, and began my policing career in chicago, i'm a native chicagoan. and started as a police cadet in 1968. i've been around for a while and seen a lot of changes in policing over the years. very dynamic profession and this is just a period of time again when we've got challenges to meet. we will meet those challenges. and as we talk about and as we discuss things that would really assist us in better serving the public today, we wanted to put together a panel to lean forward

and look at tomorrow and what lies ahead. and that's why you all are here today. so, again, thank you very much, and i will now turn it over to lori robinson. >> thanks so much chuck. it has been such a pleasure working on this super speed panel task force. particularly with my co-chair chuck ramsey. i've been in this field for more than 30 years working with the american bar association, about ten years with the department of justice. and more recently in academia. and as chuck said our time on this task force has been compressed. but really remarkable with the opportunity to hear from so many witnesses bringing such expertise before us. but our intent with this panel as he said was to look ahead.

and i would characterize it that we do have a superstar group here. and that was our intent. i'm looking forward in a minute to introducing our panel. but before that, i want to give our task force members who, by the way, have been wonderful to work with and what an opportunity to get the chance in what i would describe as kind of a bunker mentality as we've moved ahead. and it is something that i will think about for really the rest of my career this opportunity to work with them. i'm going to start down at the end with roberto and we'll move down the line. roberto? >> good morning. as lori said my name is roberto, i am the chief of police for the city of tucson, arizona. i grew up in that department. i've been with them 35 years, i've been the chief for the past six years.

this has been the culmination experience for my career. and having the opportunity to provide input and to receive input at this level and from such distinguished members as yourselves and then also working with this group here. it's like instead of attending 150 different schools, i was able to bring 150 professors to me. and just sit there and be awed by the information that they gave and to try to pick the little pieces here and there that i think would go toward providing a framework of best practices. it's been a wonderful experience. and i'm excited to get to today's work of deliberation. although it will probably be long, i'm sure that we can come to consensus on a lot of the topics. so thank you. >> good morning my name is brian stevenson. i'm the director of the equal justice initiative. i'm an attorney and spent most of my career providing legal services to poor people people

convicted of crimes, people imprisoned, people facing conviction and sentence. i also want to just express my gratitude to my co-chairs for the remarkable leadership they have provided through this process to the cop staff who have organized these convenings. and to my colleagues on the task force. this has been remarkably intense but really incredibly insightful and educative process. and we really appreciate those of you who are here today to help us complete this process. i am looking forward to working with the task force members and the administration in hopefully doing what we can to add to the quality of policing in this country and, perhaps, you know, encouraging the debates and the dialogues that are necessary to make policing what we hope it should and can be. just want to thank all of those who have organized this and express my gratitude to you this morning for being here. >> good morning. i'm the director and chief

counsel and the treasurer of the national association of police organizations. over the last 20 years, i've dedicated my professional life of advocating on behalf of rank and file police officers in various forms, including before legislative bodies at court and the bargaining table. i'm especially excited about the panel today. because i came up and as a student of criminal justice at the time that community policing was really starting to filter out into the country. and starting my career working with law enforcement as a practitioner and later on as an advocate, i've had the opportunity of seeing the ebbs and flows. and departments of all various sizes. as large as chicago and as small as a place like granite city illinois. and on a national level.

so i'm -- i'm really excited and encouraged. and i have to say i'd like to express my gratitude to president obama for empaneling this task force. i think it was a courageous thing to do. i think it certainly was the right thing to do. and he put together a tremendous team. i'm honored to serve with the rest of my colleagues here on the task force and look forward to closing out our listening session. >> good morning. started my career in law enforcement 35 years ago as a deputy sheriff working patrol and it was somewhat on a lark. and 35 years has flown by. my last seven years of my career, i was the elected sheriff of the metropolitan area around seattle. and i never in my wildest dreams thought i would have an opportunity like this.

i think anybody having being able to be part of this panel would say this is amazing. we've got the greatest minds in this profession coming together. so anybody that says federal government works slow, not in this panel. not on this task force. it's been quite a miracle. and just such a privilege to be part of this movement and like shawn, i'm very very optimistic about the future. we are at a cross roads, and we've got good people, good will, and a lot of great ideas. so i'm looking forward to putting it together. thank you. >> good morning everyone. my name is tracy mirrors. i have been for the last 20 or so years a legal academic. first at the university of chicago law school, and now at yale. my research has focused on criminal law policy and criminal procedure and trying to understand the dynamics of violent crime in urban

neighborhoods and how to address it. more recently, i've been focusing a great deal of my attention on issues of procedural justice and legitimacy in policing. and so this work that we've been doing over the last six weeks has been extremely gratifying professionally for me. but it's also you know like my co-panelists have said, an amazing opportunity not only to hear from experts like you but to hear the voices from the community from people who have, you know, lost their children and who struggle every day trying to deal with both issues of crime in their communities and how to best come up with a strategy to have policing and law enforcement be accountable to them. so i am extremely glad that we're ending with a panel on policing for the future because -- and it's my hope that our report will be a launching pad for change.

>> good morning. my name is brittany packnit. and you never would've convinced me i would spent the last six months standing on streets very close to my childhood home. standing up for justice, standing up for some of the 20,000 young people i serve in my full-time job as executive director of teach for america in st. louis. and standing up for young men and young women who look like my brother and myself. and trying to create change from tragedy. and so this is not the only work that is going on in that remalm, but deeply thankful to be a part of this step. i never knew as an educator i would know this much about policing. and i am thankful to have had the opportunity to help be a voice for young people in this process.

and so i am hopeful i'm feeling incredibly urgent about the work that is ahead and thank you all for joining us. >> good morning. i am the lead organizer at the make the road new york. we're an organization based in new york city and new york state that combines social services and community organizing to work with our 16,000 members to advance mostly public policy around different issues at both the city, state and national level. i am -- as an organization, we're also a member of cpr, communities united for police reform and unprecedented campaign in new york city that started initially to challenge the nypd stop, question and frisk program. and the youth power project at make the road is currently in the final stages also of our partnership with the public

science project at the graduate center where we're working with about a dozen youth researchers to study the impacts of the stop, question and frisk program on young people between the ages of 14 and 24. so thank you all for being here. >> good morning and welcome. i'm currently public safety director in dekalb county, georgia, and also serve as the national president of -- my career started actually in 1977 in florida, tallahassee, orlando, and subsequently in dade county where i left i think, about 1992, decided to go back to school and become a clinical psychologist and i'm still trying to determine whether that was a good idea or not. but nevertheless, that training certainly has helped me a great deal in moving through this profession and helping this profession change, as well, too. but with that being said i

think over the last 35 years and i remember back in 1980, and many of you may remember the riots during that time, and those riots actually grew out of a whole lot of years of distrust and quite frankly, police brutality that had been occurring throughout that community for a long period of time. and the reaction of that community after the loss of a life in the hands of police officers really changed the course of that community and changed the course of that police department, as well too. and being an alumnus of miami-dade police department, they -- that agency, that community have really done a tremendous job over the last 30 something years in order to change the trajectory and relationships that exist to this day in that community. so there is plenty of opportunity here, i think, for us to continue to progress the

field as i often hear ron davis say in who has been brilliant at leading us through this, as well, too. i'd like to say thank you and look forward to dialoguing with you this morning. >> thank you, dr. alexander. and let me turn back now to ron davis for some announcements. >> so, once again for those that are watching thank you for your patience as we go through this process. put out a lot of thanks. i'll just skip to and i have to apologize. so give me a moment to recognize them. as part of the process we brought besides the outstanding cop staff, the team, we have two great executives sitting at the table who are kind of behind the scenes but they've been valuable assistance to the cops team the task force thanks for your participation and leadership. also, want to remind people before we get to the first panel, this is being live stream web cast. we are encouraging comments from the community at large you can

provide comments by going to the cops website. there is an icon you can click on that says president's task force and you can leave comments for the task force, recommendations, and it's a good venue. and we do receive them. and you can also shoot us comments through twitter @policetaskforce. and take advantage of those venues to do so. and with that, i think we're prepared to start. >> excellent. now, introducing the panel in order to leave time for the testimony and questions, i'm just going to make very brief introductions. the full bios for these witnesses are on the cops' website. if i were going to go into the full bios, we would take up the entire hour and a half. these are very distinguished and accomplished individuals. and unfortunately, we don't have time to go into their full backgrounds.

we're going to start out with dr. phillip goff. he's a professor at ucla, a welcome and look forward to your comments. >> thank you madame co-chair. thank you, also to the task force for all of your work, all those working behind the scenes. my honor to be here today and on this panel of distinguished individuals. five minutes. for the past decade my work has a researcher and as president of the center for policing equity has sought to bridge gaps between social science laboratories and the laboratories for democracy that american citizens and law enforcement negotiate daily. today, i want to talk with you about the need for a stronger evidence base in policing and for further in corporation of social science in using that base to ensure fairness and criminal justice particularly in the area of raise. what i want to suggest is that social science can set the table for traditionally adversarial forces to come together and move towards the future. so as a scientist both in my

full-time job and in my spare time, it bothers me no end there's an important question that lacks a satisfactory answer. and i have never been more bothered by that tendency than i was late one night, september 2008. i was writing a piece on racial disparities in law enforcement. and as the son of a reference librarian, i'm fairly good at finding things. at least i thought i was. i began at about 10:00 at night one night and 13 1/2 hours later i had to take a break to go to lunch. not only had i not found anything and the research staff trying to help me find things, i called my mom and she couldn't find anything. and as the task force understands, people in this room understand, that's because there are no national data on police use of force. there are no national data on police stops. there's no national data on police behavior in general. and what arrested me stopped me in that moment was not just the embarrassing lack of data on something so fundamental as what

police officers do and how that might affect the community, but that the data were a part of human behavior. something that we as social scientists know more about than anything else. anything else in the policy domain. what i want to talk to you today is about at least three things that we would be considering differently if we took the social science insights seriously. first, social science has revealed for quite some time that we engage with others to the degree that they make us feel about ourselves. much more than the degree we feel about them. so in close relationships, you're much more likely to make a commitment to a partner because they make you feel good about you than because you're particularly attracted to them. in race and social justice context, the work of jennifer richardson, myself, shows that concerns with how you might appear in an interracial interaction are frequently more important than any level of prejudice. and what that means if we were to take it seriously, we

wouldn't just put an emphasis on procedural justice and how we treat the community but the perception, the experience of procedural justice for law enforcement would be fundamental. the second social science insight. social scientists have known for quite some time that attitudes predict about 10% of behavior at best, at best. that includes racial behaviors. now, that means that if we were to neutralize all of the racial prejudice implicit or explicit, we would only get rid about 10% of discriminatory behavior at best. and that leads me to my third social science insight, which is that situations are often more powerful predictors of behavior than character. and if we take those insights seriously, it means that in addition to focusing on training, we would also focus very heavily on the policies and understanding what policies lead to chronic situations making people vulnerable to their own biases and stereotypes.

now, the center of policing equity, our goal has been to take these insights seriously. and the most notable success of that model is probably what led me to here in the first place, the aggregation of data. so the national justice data base is the first national data base to aggregate police stops and use of force. we now cover about 25% of the nation's population with those committed to doing that. but more importantly than creating that database, perhaps, is the way it came about. chiefs commissioners and sheriffs came together and said we need this. we want to do it in the best, most objective, scientific way. and they came to the scientists to ask for our help. what concretely would i ask the task force to do in light of these promising observations? first, i would ask the task force to encourage federal funding, to aggregate national statistics on policing. second i would ask the task force to encourage federal stake holders to facilitate more

opportunities for law enforcement communities to learn from social scientists and vice versa because this evidence base is only growing. and third, i would ask the task force to recommend expanding technical and financial assistance from departments that want to benefit to the approaches to fairness but lack the means to follow through on intentions. cep doesn't ever take money from the law enforcement partners, but we are constantly approached by a department that can't even afford to task a lieutenant with being a project liaison. if we want to take seriously that law enforcement wants tooed the right thing, i hope the task force will recommend there are the means to accomplish that. i began by saying as a scientist, an important question without a satisfactory answer. i do not believe that social science is the answer. but i do believe that it can help set the table for divining what the answers would be. and i hope the task force allows us the space to continue doing that. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you so much, dr. goff. our next witness is jim mcdonald

who is the sheriff for l.a. county. welcome. >> thank you very much very honored to be here today. thank you for allowing me to address you today. nearly three months ago, i was sworn in as the sheriff. the first person in over a century elected from outside of the sheriff's department. i took command of a law enforcement agency facing many challenges. i also took command of an agency flown below the radar for years not always acknowledged for the cutting edge work and expertise. i speak to you today as both a new sheriff with an agenda driven by a need for a change as well as somebody who has become fiercely proud of the organization i'm now privileged to lead. the los angeles sheriff's department is the largest sheriff's department in the country and the second largest policing agency in the nation. we serve a county spanning over 4,000 square miles with a population of over 10 million people. we also run the nation's largest jail system, police 42 of l.a.'s

cities and protect the safety of the nation's largest court system. today, i want to focus on what managing complex law enforcement organization as well as a large jail system has taught us about the challenges and opportunities facing policing. well, we clearly need more resources and support. we're equally in need of fresh thinking and new strategies that can enable us to rethink the job of policing and learn from each other as we do so. the l.a. jail system provides housing -- we are facing many challenges. our inmates security and threat levels. most of our facilities are antiquated. past poor management resulted in unacceptable inmate abuse and recidivism rates are far too high. many in our custody need to be separated from society. for too long and too many jail has become a default placement and the latest step in a recurring cycle. while i've seen these

challenges, i've also seen how far we've come. we have education programs that enabled over 300 inmates to secure high school diplomas last year. we're also increasing drug treatment programs targeting the homeless for housing assistance. yet we can and must do more. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008