l light that we have not heard from the panel. we've not heard from the members. we've not heard from the voss. when i listen to many of the vsos, there was only one out of seven of them present that was even a retiree to get at some of these issues and i think that's very important to bring that broadly because it will impact so many. so i would just ask for consideration in support of this amendment. i don't see it as a delay or see it as a gumming up of the works. rather, i see it as being able to address some of these legal differences. it's also unknown that as retainer pay there are legal constructs that are different than if it were a 401(k) or something like that. if you had division of property in a 401(k), that's under one set of laws. if you have retainer pay, the sats states have a say in that and how that property would be divided. these are issues that have not come up at all in any of the studies that i have seen to date. i hope that they will, and i would urge all of us today to

support this amendment so that we can get to what would be right and be a better retirement program and will accommodate all those members, and i ask for your support of mr. gibson's amendment. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back my time. >> gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield my time to the chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from virginia. i certainly appreciate the comments made, and we all have the same goal which is to try to come up with a program that will allow us to recruit and retain the best and brightest. the commission spent over two years trying to come up with that program and presented it in their commission's report. we had multiple hearings in the military personnel subcommittee. we had a full hearing from the commissioners here for the entire group. understanding it's going to cause confusion alongst those that are currently serving. those who are currently serving are not affected by the change. it's prospective. if they want to come in they can, but they are not obligated.

it's not going to affect anybody currently serving. we talk about the loss and what the potential changes to retirement may do on recruitment for retention. the numbers don't lie. in the enlisted ranks about 70% of those who enlist leave the service at the six-year mark. in the officer ranks, about 60% are gone at the ten-year mark. so the 20-year cliff vesting program is not something that's keeping those actively serving to any great degree in the service. as the chairman stated 83% of enlisted personnel leave without any retirement and 51% of officers leave without any retirement because they don't serve until 20. so, again, just for the sake of clarification, what we're trying to do is tell dod to come forward with an implementation plan for the recommendations as amended by us from the commission, as amended. come back march of next year with their implementation plan.

gives us plenty of finaltime for those who go out on what the currently serving members on what they think the impact will be on future additions to the maililitary military. concerns they might have that we can then address in ndaa next year so we can move forward with an implementation. if we wait in my opinion to get all this done until october of next year or march of next year, then we will delay implementation by at least a year because there's no impetus for dod to start planning to actually implement. it will be another report duplicative of what the commission has already done which will probably give us the same data that the commission did, and i can tell you if you look at the survey tool that the commission used it is statistically valid a very large sample across the country, all ranks, including dependents. so, again, i would appreciate support of the underlying base

language so we can continue to move forward with a plan that will recruit and retain the best and the brightest going forward and oppose the amendment. yield back. >> chairman yields back. gentleman from colorado mr. kaufman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from new york. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. just quickly for clarity, what we're thinking about then is putting it into law and then going to our service members and family and say, hey, at the wut it into law but we're still interested in what you have to say and i don't think that's the right way forward especially given the fact that, again, this amendment that i'm offering still requires the department of defense to do what it is that the subcommittee chair has asked them to do which is to come back to us, make an assumption that it's going to go forward as the recommendation that we worked it, but then also give us the benefit of your counsel if you would change it and tell us about the implementation of that. and i think that only makes us stronger, and let me also say

that, and i haven't only been here -- it's my fifth year -- but whenever we do something, like we put it into law and we say we can amend it as we go along, that hasn't worked out very well. i think we've struggled a little bit as far as that point. respectfully, i think that the best course of action right now is for us to -- is to have a listening period with our noncommissioned officers, with our officers, with our troops and families and continue to require the dod to come back with this implementation feedback to us and then be ready next year to put this into law, but i don't think we should be voting to put this into law and then going out and asking for opinions on it, and i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. let me just make a couple quick points. number one is there's always going to be an excuse for delay, and we've been hearing that for

years. i think this is the time to act. secondly it is absolutely not true that this means if you have been in 20 years you get less retirement. it means your define benefit check will be less, but every look at this says when you add it to the 401(k) for the new people coming in you're going to end up with more after 20 years, not less. third point i'd just make is we asked for another plan, next year is an election year -- this doesn't get easier. this is the time to do it. the commission has done the work. we can make the adjustments but we have got to get this going and this is the time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. those in favor say aye. those -- the nos have it. >> i record a recorded vote. >> it will be postponed. two things, number one is today is mo brooks birthday, so we're not going to sing but while the

night is still young, we'll wish him happy birthday. >> hear, hear. >> secondly -- no place else you'd rather be. secondly, there's food in the anteroom, but year not going to take a break until we have votes. if you want to eat you can go get you some food but we're going to keep rolling here so that we can make the post progress possible until we have the next round of votes. so it's barbecue and there better be beef, and i hope it's good. next amendment in this section, the distinguished ranking member has an amendment? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the clerk will please distribute the amendment. >> and this amendment does have a sequential referral issue, so i'm going to be offering it and

withdrawing it but this is an issue that's been worked on in a bipartisan way. it's actually modeled after a bill that congressman denham has and will be offered on the floor, so i wanted to bring it to members' attention to be prepared for that. and basically it would allow undocumented service members -- sorry, if you're an undocumented person and you join the military we give you legal status is the bottom line. try to encourage folks to join the military and give them that protection. i could go at great length about this issue and why it's important, but i'll do that on the floor and it's something we've debated before. i just wanted to bring it to members' attention as something we will be debating on the floor, and with that i will withdraw the amendment and hopefully help us move along more quickly. >> i appreciate that, and the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to this section of the bill? gentleman from arizona? >> mr. chairman i have an

amendment at the desk. >> if the clerk will distribute the amendment. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to tell you about a young man from my district named

jose. jose loved war movies and dreamed of becoming a navy s.e.a.l. in high school jose met a navy recruiter and told him about his ambition to fight for his country in the uniform. then he told the recruiter something else, something which has prevented jose from realizing his dream today. he told the recruiter about his undocumented immigration status. years later jose still hasn't given up. he says i want to serve my country and he wants to show how grateful i am for all this country has provided to him. that's why i'm offering this amendment. to enable brave young talented people like jose to give back to the country they love by serving in the armed services. it would simply encourage secretary of defense to consider allowing individuals who serve in the military who have been granted deferred action for child arrivals or daca by the department of homeland security. our military needs the best soldiers, marines and airmen it

can get. we shouldn't let our broken immigration system stand in the way of our military's recruitment goals. finally let me just tell what you this amendment is not. this amendment is not binding. secretary carter would not be compelled to do anything if we approve this amendment, and this amendment would not change current law. by statute the secretary can authorize the enlistment of noncitizens when it's vital to national interests and enabling the best and brightest in our nation to serve in uniform including dreamers is clearly vital to the national interests of this country. mr. chairman these youth are americans in every aspect except on paper. i fought in iraq and i know that on the battlefield what matters is whether you have the -- it's not whether you have the right papers, it's whether you have the right skills and the right character for combat. let's do what's right for america and for the patriotic young people known as dreamers who want nothing more than to serve our nation in the uniform of the place they call home. thank you.

i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes himself. just to make the point that as the gentleman acknowledges, this amendment cannot really do anything because it is not in our jurisdiction. as the ranking member just said to really do is is sequential referralal referral and the only place that can be done is on the floor. this committee has been hesitant to get into the immigration debates because it's not our jurisdiction and so to have some sort of debate when we can't really do anything basically has been something that we've discouraged. you know that has no comment upon the merits of these various proposals. as a matter of fact, i have co-sponsored legislation in the past about the status of people who serve in the military and then how they can get on a path to citizenship in some way, but

my opinion is this is not really the time or place to have that debate regardless of the merits. certainly our committee cannot do anything about it. so encouraging the secretary to review whether, you know, doesn't really accomplish much. is this further discussion on this amendment? question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. aye. >> opposed say no. >> the nos have it. the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments in this -- >> we request a roll call. >> gentleman from texas requests a roll call. the roll call will be postponed. the further amendments on this section, gentleman from texas do you have an amendment? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the clerk will please distribute the amendment.

without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentleman from texas is recognize for five minutes. >> thank you very much and i'd like to also take the time to thank representative guy ago for his particular amendment. mine is very similar but we need to keep raising awareness around this issue particularly because you may remember the mission report that came out. that's the group of retired generals that talked about the fact that there was a defense department report that said that 75% of our nation's children or kids or young adults between the

ages of 17 and 24, i believe, that they're unfit to serve. you may remember the mission report they called it too fat to serve if i recall correctly, and i know that also recently the secretary carter stated that our military has to recruit approximately 250,000 people a year just to keep up with the pace of those who retire or leave the service to pursue jobs or educational opportunities in the private sector. and i know because i have met some of these kids, i'm sure others have met some of these kids as well, that want to serve, and that's what this amendment does. it just allows the secretary of state to look into and commission a study on whether or not kids that are daca should be able to serve and help our military in the area of military

readiness. we're always facing challenges when it comes to recruits, and i can tell you that these young people, these daca applicants that want to serve in the military, they're ready, they want to make america a better place, they want to make america a safer place and that's why i have this particular amendment. i yield back. >> gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the intent of this amendment and the prior one but really they're not necessary because under the current military, daca participants are already permitted to apply. it's already policy so if you are here under daca status you can apply for an enlistment through the program currently. yield back. >> further discussion? gentleman from arizona? >> thank you mr. chair. and thank you, congressman, for introducing this. i think a couple things.

the current regulation says that only in the national interests can somebody be accepted into the military if they're under daca, but to speak to the bill or to the amendment that we're talking about, what he's asking for is a study. a study of the daca population and whether or not they would be helpful and correct me if i'm wrong, would be helpful in terms of dealing with the potential shortages we're going to have in terms of enlistment and i think that is something we should study and be able to understand because this population of daca students are in this country right now, they're being trained in our schools and could potentially be a very good recruitment pool for the future and that's why i support the amendment and i yield back my

time. >> further discussion? gentleman from texas, mr. castro. >> thank you, chairman. i, too, support the amendment. we know that the folks that are here who have daca status were brought here through no fault of their own. many of them have a genuine and sincere and deep passion to serve in the united states military, but the reason that this is also so important is because daca as everyone knows, is not a permanent thing. the next president is going to have to decide whether to extend this program or not, and it's exactly this kind of information that will tell us the benefits in this case to the military, obviously we will be watching for benefits in other parts of our society but i think something like this is critical for the next president, whoever that person is, to make an assessment of the effectiveness of daca. i yield back, chairman. >> gentleman yields back.

further discussion? question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. knows in favor say aye. >> aye. >> eopposed no. >> the ayes have it. >> i ask for a record vote. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> gentleman from alabama requests a recorded vote. the recorded vote will be postponed. next chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yet again i ask man news consent to call up a block of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection so ordered.

if the clerk will please distribute the amendments to be offered en bloc. >> without objection the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from nevada is recognized to offer and explain the en bloc package. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up en bloc package number three comprised of the following. amendment 146 r 1 ensuring that service members are informed of their right to a special victim's counsel before being questioned regarding a sexual assault. the preparation of the full record of trial in all special and general court-martials. amendment number 154 which provides victims of crime access to the article 32 report related

to that crime. amendment number 155 which directs each service secretary to submit information on sexual aharment, sexual assault and domestic cases. amendment 158 that directs the secretary of defense to ensure investigateive organizations maintain files for 50 years. ensures members and dependents are provided continuity of treatment for infertility. amendment 173 that requires a review process for implementing statutory changes. amendment number 173, that requires the establishment of uniform guidance to ensure mental health records of an alleged victim of sexual assault offenses are not released without an order from a military judge. amendment number 194 that directs a gao study of potential gambling problems in the armed forces. amendment number 199 requiring

the development of policy to coordinate the efforts on suicide prevention regarding the use of nongovernment organizations to help reduce the number of suicides. and amendment number 200 prohibiting the dod from taking any action on commissaries until the congressional review on proposed changes and the commissary benefit is delivered to congress. >> does anyone want to speak on the en bloc amendments? if not the question is on adoption of the amendment offered. say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will pass out the amendment. without objection, we'll dispense with the reading of the

amendment. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. and let me also say i want to thank my colleagues for their support of a number of amendments that were en bloc and i appreciate the support of their efforts in that regard. this is a very simple amendment. if i told you that i had an idea for a recruiting program that costs $56 million a year but gets you absolutely zero recruits, how successful would you say that program was? well, that's how much the national guard spent each year on sports marketing with nascar and indy car. luckily the national guard is finally come around and decided no recruits is a failure to recruit. they're joining other services that have stopped sponsoring nascar. the army stopped in 2012 after ten years having decided it was

the highest cost per lead in their entire portfolio. the navy stopped in 2008 because they found little marketing benefit to the program. the marines stopped in 2006 when they determined they couldn't even measure the effectiveness of the program. the coast guard stopped in 2006 and realized they had spent $9.6 million for only 350 leads. then we have the air force. the air force has renewed its contract. the only consider in a race to nowhere. without this amendment the air force will continue driving along as they have for 15 seasons and the other services can rejoin the race as they please. it's time to recognize that this does not generate leads. it costs serious money. money that can be used for a lot of other different purposes and i would request a vote on the amendment. >> gentle lady yield back the balance of her time? >> i do. >> gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you mr. chair, and i appreciate the amendment offered, and as we've seen when the services -- the individual services feel that they're not getting a return on their investment, they stop investing in those programs when it comes to recruiting. but i don't think it's our job to dictate how they should use their recruiting dollars to best try to get leads or recruits into the service and it's very difficult in this situation to assign a specific lead to somebody who might be at a nascar race or a hot rod race and see a logo on a car. it's also about branding which generates interest which then may make the person walk into the recruiting center and say, hey, i'm interested in joining the military. so we've seen where the army and as you mentioned other services have not seen a return on their investment and voluntarily have stopped utilizing it, and i think we should give the air force the same opportunity if they believe that they are getting value for their dollar by creating branding then we

give them a budget to recruit. they are in the best position to determine how to use their recruiting dollars to generate the interest that they need to bring people into the force and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered. so many as in are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. >> the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendment is not adopted. are there any additional amendments to the subcommittee mark. ? >> i have an amendment at the mark. >> clerk will pass out the amendment. without objection we'll dispense with the reading of the amendment and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining and offering her amendment. >> mr. chairman thank you. this is really a companion to miss davis' recommendation. i'm going to offer this amendment. i'm going to withdraw it because it was double referred but i

felt very strongly that we need to address this. this is the issue of for profit colleges preying particularly on those in the military. these schools charge five to six times more than comparable programs at community colleges. these for-profit schools often leave students entrenched in debt with no degree or with a degree in an unaccredited program that cannot get them a job after graduation. as miss davis pointed out, 40% of the gi bill dollars are now going to for-profit schools. over the past five years in california alone, more than $600 million has been spent in college assistance for veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan under the federal gi bill. interestingly enough, not any of these schools received state student financial aid called cal grants because they fail the accountability standards

implemented by the state of california in 2012. now, the rule that the department of education came up with was that you can receive as a for-profit school 90% of your revenue from federal sources, and you had to generate 10% of your revenue from nonfederal resources except they were able to slip into that rule the fact that the gi bill and department of defense education programs could be tallied as part of the 10%, which is kind of ridiculous because they're federal sources of money as well. so as a result, they tend to prey on those in the military. now, one of the things i have just became aware of we know that predatory lend something a problem in the military and yet the regulations that have been created by the dod as a result of this mark now is going to allow for the delay of these

rules to go into effect for payday lenders and we've heard ample examples of how the member of the military who takes out a payday loan for $2,600 ends up paying $4000. i draw attention that only because that is yet another example of how they are preyed upon by for-profit entities out there. so with that mr. chairman i will withdraw the amendment and yield back. >> gentle lady withdraws her amendment. the amendment is withdrawn. gentle lady yields back the balance of her time. are there any additional amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection we'll dispense with the reading of the amendment. the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you. mr. chairman many of us recall the scandal that occurred at

leak lackland air force base where 35 instructors were implicated in rape sexual abuse and other mistreatment of over 69 recruits and technical school students. that october members sanchez davis, and myself actually went down there and we spent time -- >> the house armed services committee's review of proposed 2016 defense department programs began about 10:00 this morning and is expected to continue late into the night and possibly into the early morning hours tomorrow. our live coverage of the mark up will continue on our companion network c-span2. here on c-span3, we will continue with our program schedule. speaking at columbia university today, hillary clinton called for every police department in the u.s. to have mandatory police body cameras to improve transparency and accountability. the 2016 democratic presidential candidate's remarks are about a half hour.

[ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. thank you so much. i am absolutely delighted to be back here at columbia. i want to thank president bollinger and dean jayno and everyone at the school of international and public affairs. it is a special treat to be here with and on behalf of a great leader of this city and our country, david dinkins. he has made such an indelible impact on new york, and i had the great privilege of working with him as first lady and then,

of course, as a new senator. when i was just starting out as a senator david's door was always open. he and his wonderful wife joyce were great friends and supporters and good sounding boards about ideas that we wanted to consider to enhance the quality of life and opportunities for the people of this city. i was pleased to address the dinkins leadership and public policy forum in my first year as a senator and i so appreciated then, as i have in all of the years since, david's generosity with his time and most of all his wisdom. so 14 years later i am honored to have this chance once again to help celebrate the legacy of one of new york's greatest

public servants. i'm pleased, too, that you will have the opportunity after my remarks to hear from such a distinguished panel to go into more detail about some of the issues that we face. i also know that manhattan borough president gail brewer is here along with other local and community leaders because surely this is a time when our collective efforts to devise approaches to the problems that still afflict us is more important than ever. indeed it is a time for wisdom. for yet again the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short. yet again, the streets of an american city are marred by violence, by shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of

force. yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare, and its bonds of trust and respect frayed. yet again brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. what we have seen in baltimore should, indeed, i think does tear at our soul. from ferguson to staten island to baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable. walter scott shot in the back in charleston, south carolina. unarmed, terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn't afford. tamir rice, shot in a park in cleveland, ohio, unarmed and

just 12 years old. eric garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of our city. and now freddie gray his spine nearly severed while in police custody. not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families. we have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in america. [ applause ] there is something profoundly wrong when african-american men

are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts. there is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. and an estimated 1.5 million black men are, quote missing from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death. there is something wrong when more than 1 out of every 3 young black men in baltimore cannot find a job. there is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities.

we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again. we should begin by heeding the pleas of freeddy gray's family for peace and unity echoing the family of michael brown, trayvon martin and others in the past years. those who are instigating further violence in baltimore are $respectdisrespecting the gray family and the entour community. they are compounding the tragedy of freddie gray's death and setting back the cause of justice, so the violence has to stop, but more broadly let's remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. [ applause ]

that is what we have to work towards in baltimore and across our country. we must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among americans, between police and citizens, yes, but also across society. restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets. between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically. this is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and everything we want to achieve together. it truly is about how we treat each other and what we value. making it possible for every

american to reach his or her god-given potential regardless of who you are, where you were born, or who you love. the inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what america can be and should be. i learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school, at one of those law schools that will remain nameless here at columbia. one of my earliest jobs for the children's defense fund, which david had mentioned i was so fortunate to work with mary ann wright adelman and then serving on the board of the children's defense fund was studying the problem then of youth, teenagers, sometimes preteens incarcerated in adult jails.

then as director of the university of arkansas school of law's legal aid clinic i advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families. i saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable. i saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. i saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison. so, unfortunately, i know these are not new challenges by any means. in fact, they have become even more complex and urgent over time, and today they demand fresh thinking and bold action from all of us. today there seems to be a

growing bipartisan movement for common sense reforms in our criminal justice system. senators as disparate on the political spectrum as cory booker and rand paul and dick durbin and mike lee are reaching across the aisle to find ways to work together. it is rare to see democrats and republicans agree on anything today, but we're beginning to agree on this. we need to restore balance to our criminal justice system. now, of course -- [ applause ] -- it is not enough just to agree and give speeches about it. we actually have to work together to get the job done. we need to deliver real reforms that can be felt on our streets, in our courthouses in our jails and prisons in communities too long neglected. let me touch on two areas in

particular where i believe we need to push for more progress. first, we need smart strategies to fight crime that help restore trust between law enforcement and our communities, especially communities of color. there's a lot of good work to build on. across the country, there are so many police officers out there every day inspiring trust and confidence honorably doing their duty putting themselves on the line to save lives. there are police departments already deploying creative and effective strategies demonstrating how we can protect the public without resorting to unnecessary force. we need to learn from those examples, build on what works. we can start by making sure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets. [ applause ]

president obama's task force on policing gives us a good place to start. its recommendations offer a road map for reform from training to technology guided by more and better data. we should make sure every police department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between officers on patrol and suspects. that will improve transparency and accountability. it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. for every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible. not every problem can be or will be prevented by cameras, but this is a common sense step we should take. the president has provided the idea of matching funds to state

and local governments investing in body cameras. we should go even further and make this the norm everywhere, and we should listen to law enforcement leaders who are calling for a renewed focus on working with communities to prevent crime rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions. as your senator from new york i supported a greater emphasis on community policing along with putting more officers on the street to get to know those communities. david dinkins was an early pioneer of this policy. his leadership helped lay the foundation for dramatic drops in crime in the years that followed. [ applause ] and today smart policing in communities that built relationships, partners, and trust makes more sense than

ever. and it shouldn't be limited just to officers on the beat. it's an ethic that should extend throughout our criminal justice system to prosecutors and parole officers to judges and lawmakers. we all share a responsibility to help restitch the fabric of our neighborhoods and communities. we also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don't talk about what's needed to provide economic opportunity better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own

children. today i saw an article on the front page of "usa today" that really struck me written by a journalist who lives in baltimore, and here is what i read three times to make sure i was reading correctly. at a conference in 2013 at johns hopkins university vice provost jonathan bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the baltimore neighborhoods of roland park and holland's market, but there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy. we have learned in the last few years that life expectancy which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the

same inequality we see in so many other parts of our society. women, white women without high school education are losing life expectancy. black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country. this may not grab headlines, although i was glad to see it on the front page of "usa today," but it tells us more than i think we can bear about what we are up against. we need to start understanding how important it is so care for every single child as though that child were our own. david and i -- [ applause ] -- started our conversation this

morning talking about our grandchildren. now, his are considerably older than mine, but it was not just two long-time friends catching up with each other. it was so clearly sharing what is most important to us as it is to families everywhere in our country. so i don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. the conversation needs to be much broader because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today. the second area we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison. it's a stark fact that the

united states has less than 5% of the world's population. yet, we have almost 25% of the world's total prison population. the numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows. of the more than 2 million americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders. people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts. keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families and communities. 1 in every 28 children in our country now has a parent in prison. think about what that means for those children. when we talk about 1.5 million missing african-american men

we're talking about missing husbands missing fathers missing brothers. they're not there to look after their children or to bring home a paycheck and the consequences are profound. and the consequences are profound. without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty and it's not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60% face long-term unemployment. and for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison. the price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year, and up to 60,000 in some states. that's the salary of a teacher or a police officer.

one year in a new jersey state prison costs $44,000, more than the annual tuition at princeton. if the united states brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we would save an estimated $28 billion a year. and i believe we would not be less safe. you can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues. it's time to change our approach. it's time to end the era of mass incarceration. we need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe. i don't know all the answers. that's why i'm here, to ask all the smart people at columbia and

in new york to start thinking this through with me. i know we should work together to pursue alternative punishment for low-level offenders. they do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don't want that to be a fast-track to long-term criminal activity. we don't want to create another incarceration generation. i've been encouraged to see changes i supported as a senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law. and last year that sentencing commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes. president obama and former attorney general holder have led the way with important additional steps, and i am so looking forward to our new attorney general, loretta lynch carrying of this work forward. [ applause ]

there are other measures that i and so many have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences that are long overdue. we also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble, to stay out of prison. i've seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment of individuals and communities. and please, please let us put mental health back on the top of our national agenda. [ applause ] you and i know that the promise

of de-institution list -- de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the creation of community-based treatment centers. we got half of that equation but not the other half. our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions. i have to tell you, i was somewhat surprised in both iowa and new hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health. what are they going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness? what are we going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons? what are we going to do when hospitals don't really get

reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients? it's not just a problem in our cities. there's a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small town and rural america as well. we have to do more and finally get serious about treatment. i'll be talking about all of this in the months to come offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities. i know in a time when we are afflicted by short-termism, we are not looking over the horizon for the investments that we need to make in our fellow citizens, in our children. so i'm well aware that progress will not be easy, despite the emerging bipartisan consensus for certain reforms. and that we will have to

overcome deep divisions and try to begin to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust. but i am convinced, as a congenital optimist i must be to live my life, that we can rise to this challenge. we can heal our wounds. we can restore balance to our justice system and respect in our communities. and we can make sure that we take actions that are going to make a difference in the lives of those who, for too long, have been marginalized and forgotten. let's protect the rights of all our people. let's take on a broader inequities in our society. we can't separate the unrest we see on our streets from the

cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods. despite all the progress we've made in our country, lifting people up him and it has been extraordinary, too many of our fellow citizens are still left out. 25 years ago in his inaugural address as mayor, david dinkins warned of leaving too many lost amidst the wealth and grandeur that surrounds us. today, his words and the emotion behind them ring truer than ever. you don't have to look too far from this magnificent hall to find children still living in poverty or trapped in failing schools, families who work hard but can't afford the rising prices in their neighborhoods, mothers and fathers who fear for their son's safety when they go off to school or just to go buy

a pack of skittles. these challenges are all woven together, and they all must be tackled together. our goal must truly be inclusive and lasting prosperity that's measured by how many families get ahead and stay ahead. how many children climb out of poverty and stay out of prison. how many young people can go to college without breaking the bank. how many new immigrants can start small businesses. how many parents can get good jobs that allow them to balance the demands of work and family. that's how we should measure prosperity. [ applause ] with all due respect, that is a far better measurement than the size of the bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings. [ applause ]

now, even in the most painful times like those we're seeing in baltimore when parents fear for their children, when smoke fills the skies above our cities, when police officers are assaulted, even then, especially then let's remember the aspirations and values that unite us all, that every person should have the opportunity to succeed, that no one is disposable, that every life matters. so yes, mayor dinkins, this is a time for wisdom, a time for honesty about race and justice in america, and yes, a time for reform. david dinkins is a leader we can look to. we know what he stood for. let us take the challenge and example he presents, and think

about what we must do to make sure that this country we love, this city we live in, are both good and great. and please join me in saying a prayer for the family of freddie gray and all the men whose names we know and those we don't. who have lost their lives unnecessarily and tragically and in particular today include in that prayer the people of baltimore and our beloved country. thank you all very much. [ applause ] with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2 here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you hearings and public affairs events. on weekends c-span3