c-span3, saturday evening, starting at 7:00 eastern, we're live from gettysburg college to mark the 125th anniversary of president dwight d. eisenhower's birth, discussing his military and political career with his grandchildren. and sunday afternoon, at 4:00 on "real america," an archival film document being the 1963 visit of the king and queen of afghanistan to the united states which included a meeting with president kennedy and a parade through washington, d.c. get our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. interior secretary sally jewel recently answered report questions on a variety of environment and natural resources issues that her agency regularly deals with. topics included the renaming of den n denali, highest peak in north america, the obama administration's policy on coal and the future of climate change

policies in the u.s. this is about an hour. here we go, folks. i'm dave cook from the christian science monitor. our guest today is interior secretary sally jewell. this is her first visit with our group. we appreciate very much her making time in her schedule for this. our guest was born in london, grew up in washington state, and earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the university of washington. right after graduation, she and her husband warren, a fellow engineer, started their career at mobil oil, then moved to commercial banking. she worked for 19 years. she joined the board of rei in 1996, became chief operating officer in 2000, and was named ceo in 2005. during her tenure at the

company, rei tripled in size. she was sworn in as the 51st interior secretary in april of 2013, and thus ended the biographical portion of the program. now on to breakfast mechanics. as always, we're on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way, to actually give us time to listen to what our guest has to say. there's no embargo when the session ends promptly at 10. we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have available. we'll start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments, then go to questions around the table. thanks for doing this, ma'am, we appreciate it. >> thank you, dave. it's nice to be here and see some familiar faces and meet some unfamiliar faces.

i'll keep my remarks very informal and hopefully short so that we can get to what you would like to talk about, which is what this is all about. i just want to say that today is september 15th, that is slightly more than two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, september 30th, 2015, which has meaning for the department of interior and the whole government in a number of different capacities. so let me kind of walk through why september 15th and that two weeks away from september 30th is so important to us and i think should be so important to you. first, we inherited a number of pending lawsuits around the endangered species act when the obama administration took office. a number of species had been petitioned for listing under the endangered species act, and essentially very little work had

been done on those. so my predecessors entered into a settlement which put a date certain on when the fish and wildlife service would determine whether a listing decision was warranted. a number of those had deadlines that had been coming up over the course of time. one of the major ones that is coming up on september 30th is for the greater sage grass. that is one reason we're 15 days away from a very, very important milestone in our history. and i'll talk a little bit about that to begin with. i want to pause and say another specie that was a candidate for listing was the new england cotton tail rabbit. just at the end of last week, i was in new england, new hampshire to be specific, to announce that the fish and wildlife service had determined that a listing of that specie was not warranted.

because of collaboration of all the new england states, it is endangered on some state registers, and they have been working collectively for a number of years to reclaim habitat that was critical cal for that critter. the event took place on the lands of rick and donna ambrose. he's in the construction business, but they've got 57 acres. and he said he knew nothing about the new england cottontail, but he learned about habitats which are a successional forests, which means forests where the canopy has been opened up. not tall trees but shorter trees. crab and manies. apple trees, fruit trees, and low lying ground brush. and that's the kind of habitat that the rabbits need to thrive. so i spoke with him. we were on his property for this event. another landowner, actually a banker that retired to a hundred

acres and knew nothing about habitat, clear-cut, which he said he wasn't otherwise inclined to do, and planted some of this successional growth forest. and it's those kinds of actions that have saved this particular specie, the new england cottontail, from extinction. the new england cottontail, like the greater sage grouse, is a specie that's an indicator of the health of an ecosystem. rick ambrose told me he has never seen so many birds and other critters on his property before in the time he's lived there since 1990. that's a preview of the epic collaboration happening across 11 western states. 60 million acres of sage grouse habitat on public lands alone. i think it is about 165 million acres of the sagebrush that's

been whittled away and threatened by a variety of different sores over the course of many decades. so on or before september 30th, 15 days away, the fish and wildlife service will make a determination on whether the greater sage grouse should be listed under the endangered species act or whether a listing is not warranted. i will say that the effort that's happened across these 11 western states, seven core states in particular, effort on behalf of states, private landowners, nonprofit organizations, energy companies, developers, transmission companies, grazers, ranchers, cattlemen, has been incredible. so i will remain optimistic and hopeful that we can have a similar outcome but we are all waiting for the fish and wildlife service to make their determination. that will happen before the end of this month. second, i want to talk about good legislation. legislation that has lasted the test of time.

and that is the brilliant piece of legislation called the lanham water conservation fund, put in place by a visionary congress, almost unanimously, the '88 congress back in 1964, that said as we open up the continental shelf, waters that are owned by all americans, let's take a small amount of revenue from leasing offshore oil and gas up to $900 million a year. no escalator. and let's use that in a broad sense to offset that impact by investing in public lands and waters onshore. that program has invested in states and public lands across every single state in nearly every single county, something like 98% of the counties. 42,000 different projects. things that people care about in every community across the country. and i've been to many of them,

including a community with senator shaheen in new hampshire which is doing a connecter on a greenway project. in a place like that, they've got greenway connectors in pocket parks, they've got the national wildlife refuge and the white mountains national forest. all of these are beneficiaries of this program. the program expires, the 50-year authorization, it expires 15 days from now if congress doesn't act. i want to acknowledge that the senate energy and natural resources committee, under the leadership of senators murkowski and cantwell, added a permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund to a bill, an energy bill that passed their committee that has not yet had action on the senate floor. so i appreciate that. the president's budget calls for full mandatory funding at $900 million. it was a much higher proportion, as you might imagine, of offshore oil and gas revenues in 1964 than it is today, yet the number hasn't gone up.

congress has appropriated less than half of that $900 million a year. so that is the second reason why we are 15 days away from a very important decision. and we are urging congress at every level, and this is bipartisan, senator burr from north carolina and i have been hiking together on the appalachian trail at a critical point where the trail could have houses right up to the edge of it on a connector piece between an existing state park and the a appalachian trail. so senator burr, using that as an example and a backdrop, made a very powerful statement in favor of the land and water conservation fund. that was quite a while ago. and there's still no action that has been taken, which is frustrating. of course we are also 15 days away from our budget running out. very, very frustrating, as a businessperson, now two years into this job.

my first year was a sequestration implementation year. and immediately following that was the government shutdown. i can't tell you how ridiculous it is to try and run an organization with 70,000 people who are very, very committed to their missions, which are of great importance to the american people, to have to work with them on shutdown planning right now because congress has not acted on a budget. very, very frustrating. obviously we are hopeful that a shutdown will not happen. and i think that that would be consistent with how pretty much everybody on capitol hill is feeling. but it is very frustrating to not have any certainty at all about whether the programs that you have in place will continue and whether the people that you have that are dedicated to this work at every level will be able to do the investments that they know are necessary to fulfill the mission that the american people have given them.

so that's another reason. it's a bit frustrating. >> i'm going to play timekeeper. >> am i over? i'm way over. i said i was going to be short. i'm going to end just by saying one of the critical parts of the president's budget is the national parks centennial. 2016, the 100th anniversary of the national park service. >> let me pick up on that and ask you about the national parks. i was at an event where i heard the national park service director jarvis talk about some staggering figure, if i weren't an old man i could remember what the figure was, for your backlog in terms of the national parks. in 2014 there were 292.8 million visits. what do you know so far about where 2015 stands for the parks, how bad is the backlog? >> the backlog is bad. the park service alone, we estimate the backlog to be in excess of $11 billion. about half of that is in road infrastructure. so the highway bill and the ability to fund our roads, oftentimes, which comes from

this transportation package, very, very important to the backlog in the national parks. the other half is the infrastructure, the historic structures, the facilities that people rely on. as we approach the centennial, we will have more visitation from around the world. we want to drive tourism, both internal to the u.s. and around the world. and i have had conversations with director jarvis about the kind of experience people are going to have, because we have not made the investments in the people or the facilities needed to really put our best foot forward. >> one last one from me. i want to ask you about fires. your department runs the national interagency fire center. can you give us an update on what you've learned from the fires, the ones currently raging in northern california and others this year? how does it affect your department's budget? have we learned anything in terms of -- i know you've talked about wanting to ask congress to change how they fund

firefighting. what can you tell us on the fire situation? >> it's very obvious right now to everybody watching the news that fire is capricious. you have really bad fire years, which we're having right now. you have fire years that are more benign. and you can't put in place a budget that effectively anticipates what kind of a year it's going to be. so there has been more than just talk. there's actually been bills on the floor to do this. the president's budget every year that i've been here has had a fire fix in it. and it's relatively simple. it says that let's budget for what we're pretty sure year in, year out, is going to be a level of fire suppression. and we calculate that by looking at our historical record, saying that 1% of the most catastrophic fires absorb 30% of the budget. so let's take that 1% and call

them the disasters that they are. what you see happening in california, in my home state of washington, and i was just there on the fire line, on the colville indian reservation, which is losing a massive amount of its future income in timber that's gone up in smoke, let's take that 1% of catastrophic wildfires and call them the disasters they are and put them under the disaster cap, which is where hurricanes are. funded and earthquakes are tundtun funded and tornadoes are funded. that is the disaster fund that has been authorized where the country goes when we have a catastrophe. not a catastrophe of the making of hurricane sandy, which had its own appropriations of $60 billion, but of the year-in, year-out kind of unpredictable disasters that happen like wildfires. take that 1% out, budget us in our regular budget for 70% of

our ten-year average of suppression, and year-in, year-out, some years that's going to be fine. but bad years like this, we're going to go to the disaster cap, as opposed to what we're doing now, this year, which is going to the budget that reduce the risk of fire, going to do budgets that do burned area rehabilitation, so we don't end up, which we will this year, i'm sorry, rain events, flooding, damage of infrastructure, like our water systems, like our dams, like our roads, which will happen if we aren't stabilizing those hillsides and that top soil and silt is allowed to run downhill. so right now we are taking money out of fire prevention, taking money out of purof burndz air b area rehabilitation.

taking money out of the kind of programs that enable us to bank seeds, to replant native fires are 52% of the budget of the entire forest service. this is the first time they've gone over the 50% mark and they are dim heavily into their pry prevention accounts this year as we speak. so taken collectively, it is crazy the way we fund this. companion bills are essentially identical in the house and senate to fix this. and it's relatively simple. >> i'll go to jennifer land kat

to start. >> basically i'm pointing out this is in conflict with the administration's statements on climate change. where would you say the administration is in terms of balancing the climate concerns and these fossil fuel development public lands and how do you see that fitting under your tenure as interior secreta secretary? >> i will say that we are a nation that continues to be dependent on fossil fuels and the president's climate action plan has said very clearly that we need to move to a lower carbon future. i am very proud to work for a president that has been as direct and forceful in his messaging as president barack

obama. his speech in june of 2013 was a very clear call to action to do things that are within our power -- because congress has not acted on this, as you know, to reduce our carbon footprint in this country. we're well on our way with some pretty dramatic goals that have we've continued to raise the bar. so that is an issue of reducing demand and providing other sources of energy to continue to power our economy. right now we are sitting under lights that are most likely powered by coal in the east. i can't imagine -- maybe some of you walked here but most of you have probable burned some fossil fuels in one way or another to get here. there are millions of jobs around the country that are dependent on these industries and you can't just cut it off overnight and expect to have an

economy that is in fact the leader in the world. i take my job very seriously which is thoughtful development, safe and responsible development on public lands, thoughtful regulations that need to be updated in some cases from some that are 30 and 40 years old. but i think it is -- over simplifies a very complex situation to suggest that one could simply cut off leasing or drilling on public lands and solve the issue of climate change. we all have a responsibility to act and there are things that we are doing and will continue to do to reduce the carbon footprint and put incentives in place for all of us to do a better job at how we use carbon than we have in the past. >> one of the things that's been talked about a lot is the coal program. what are you thinking in terms

of what interior can do to take climate into effect in doing these leasing? is it reducing the overall amount? is it charging higher fees? what is your initial thinking? >> well, there's a multiple issues i think at play with regard to coal in this country. we had our own inspector general report and one from the government accountability office that suggests that the taxpayers weren't getting a fair return on the coal that was being leased from federal public lands. so we have an evaluation under way right now with the office of natural resources revenue to take a look at that. for example to make sure that there are -- royalties are being padz paid on arm's length transactions rather than non-arm's length transactions. many communities are dependents on coal and there are, like this one for example, in terms of

power generation. there are also impacts -- the impact of mining, impact obviously on carbon as it is burned that we believe need to be highlighted and understood. the listening sessions is which we've had around the country get at just that. it is bringing stakeholders to the table. many of the listening sessions we've had have been in coal country where people's jobs are affected but where people's environments have also been impacted by coal mining. we've heard in each of these sessions a variety of different opinions about where people are coming from. i think it is important that we listen. we know that coal is a significant carbon emitter within this country. new power plant rules promulgated by epa are an effort to work with states to reduce those carbon emissions. i think that you need to pull up and make sure that across the

landscape the -- how carbon is accounted for is fair and is thoughtfully treated. that's what these listening sessions are all about. >> manuel. >> following up on that same question, some period during the listening session suggested some way of charging companies for the climate and other costs of coal leasing and mining. is that foreseen by the interior department at this point? >> we really are in listening mode right now. i think some of the things i have heard from people in coal country are if we're getting hit at the power plant with the power plant rules and if we're hit at the mine site itself or the sale of coal, when does this stop and what is reasonable. i think that you need to take all of these things into account and, frankly, the administration is doing the best we can to put the kinds of incentives in place

for thoughtful -- more thoughtful use of carbon or reduced use of carbon butreally need congress to take some action. there's been talk about a cost on carbon. that's not something the administration can do. that's something that the congress would need to take up. but i have spoken with a number of energy companies that don't think that's a bad idea either. right now we're working with the hand that we're dealt, but it would be helpful to have a partnership with congress on getting to a reasonable point that people agree will drive of the right kinds of incentives and behaviors to reduce the carbon pollution that we are experiencing right now. >> the senate energy committee passed legislation recently that would give the interior secretary the authority to extend services by up to ten years. what do you think of that idea and more generally when it comes

to ultra deep water or arctic drilling where technology for extracting oil safely may not be available today, does interior have the discretion and the authority it needs to extend leases? and allow -- >> i'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the energy bill yet so i can't comment specifically on that. we do have the ability to extend leases. we have the ability to choose not to lease. we have a throughoutful planning process under way for the 2017 to '22 period where we put a draft on the table, we have a draft for that period on the table now. we take input and make decisions based on that input on what the final plan will be. that will say which areas could get leased an which areas will be off the table for that five-year period. the length of the leases is

something that we have the ability to adjust. so there have been requests made to make the leases longer in a place like the arctic because the drilling season is much shorter. in the gulf of mexico you can drill year round. that's clearly not the case in the arctic. our job really is to make sure that whatever is done is done with abundant safety precautions where people can be reassured that the environment is protected and the impact of those activities are largely mitigated. so we will be paying close attention to what happens in the senate energy committee. we're going to be paying close attention to the input we receive on the draft proposed plan, five-year plan. and working on what an appropriate course of action is in the future. >> on the offshore leasing, you had a recent sale in the gulf of mexico that had relatively

limited interest. does the -- are low oil prices and low gas prices sorts of dampening the call from the offshore industry for additional leasing for more offshore production? >> well, given the results of our most recent sale in the western gulf of mexico, that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. you've got oil companies that have experienced significant drops in their revenues. as a business person and person that used to be in the industry you obviously look at how much money you have available and where to spend your resources. when the money you have available drops a substantial amount you are pickier about where you make those investments. i suspect that's exactly what's happened in the western gulf. i suspect that that will influence some of the feedback that we receive on the areas that people are interested in pursuing in this draft five year

plan versus not have had intere pursuing. gas and oil prices have a significant impact on them. >> your expectation is maybe that it is going to be a listing of unwarranted and -- right? and if that happens, do you think you'd be able to win congressional support for the blm plans and is there anything new on cecil, the lion? >> the last part? i'm sorry. >> cecil, the lion. >> cecil, the lion. okay. the decision rests with the fish and wildlife service. i remind optimistic that a not warranted listening is possible. but i have stayed completely arm's length from them in terms of that decision. i will say that there have been all kinds of writers on various

bills working their way through congress that deal with critters. most particularly the greater sage grouse. what has happened in this collaborative work is really the way i think the endangered species act should work, which is people recognizing that it is about habitat and if we work together and collaborate, we can find common ground that will protect these landscapes for the things that the residents of the landscapes, visitors of the landscapes, hunters and fishermen enjoy, as well as having thoughtful development, whether it is energy, human expansion, roads, transmission lines, mines, all of the above are impactful. i do believe that there will be support for the blm to do its work and support for the fish and wildlife service to do its work if we are able to actually

get a budget out of congress. the discussions that took place in the house and the senate on both sides of the aisle generally showed support for the kinds of land management requests that we had in there relating to the greater sage grouse. so i think that there is an understanding with 60 million acres on public lands and a relatively limited budget, we have to do the job that people expect us to do and one of the key things to tie it back to the fire question, cheap grass is an invasive specie from asia. it will take off after a fire and basically repopulate otherwise mature sagebrush landscape with sheet grass and exacerbate that fire cycle. to replace that with native bunch grass requires a lot of work, pa lot of native seeds, a lot of effort on planting. these are things that western states, elected officials no

matter what party want to see happen. so i believe we will have the kind of support we need in our plans -- in our budgets if we get the budgets passed. with regard to cecil, the lion. you know, it is a very, very complicated issue. i think that in that case, the country zimbabwe is not a place where the fish and wildlife service has approved of the importation of trophies from -- i don't know specifically about lions but certainly rhinos and elephants because it is not a country that has demonstrated that the funding that a hunter might use to invest in a hunt there will go to conservation. i think there's just two countries that fish and wildlife service will allow importation of trophies because they have a demonstrated track record of

investing in conservation. it's obviously very emotional issue, very difficult issue. i think that the incident around the famous lion helps raise everybody's awareness about the challenge of species of wildlife trafficking and that has been our primary area of focus is how do we reduce the illegal trade of poached species particularly african elephants and rhinos, a pangelin, a specie you may not have heard of but that's in real trouble because of wildlife issues. . silver lining of the situation with the lion has actually raised awareness and given us the platform for wildlife trafficking in general. >> as you know, you talk about

the delegation sent you and the president letter begging that there is no national monuments named in the state of utah. my question is whether the president will act if the public lands initiative does not happen. secondly, 15 days away from a shutdown, is there any agreement with the western states, other states, to keep parks open if there is a government shutdown as we saw a couple years ago, there were states that kind of acted to help keep them open. is there anything in place to keep them open? >> so there is -- for those of you that aren't aware, there's a very comprehensive effort going on by a couple of congressmen in utah, rob bishop who chairs house natural resources committee, and jason chaffetz whose district a lot of reeally

spectacular landscapes exist. some people are interested in those landscapes being preserved. i've heard from a number of tribal communities who don't oftentimes agree on things and they are united in agreeing that there are lands in southern utah that warrant protection. those are lands that congressman bishop and chaffetz are working to protect in some ways. i haven't seen the public lands initiative in any detail. i've seen a very small map that doesn't kind of overlay things. i appreciate the fact this they worked very closely with local communities making sure they are also working closely with tribal communities will be essential. there's certainly an effort on their part to push this through and that's what we are working with them on at this point in time. so i'm not willing to suggest that there is any kind of firm plan if their plan doesn't work. we need to see a plan.

we need to react to that and we look forward to seeing it at their earliest convenience because i know a lot of work has been done on that. but as you know in the southern part of your state there are some amazing cultural and natural resources that right now have little or no protection. was there a second part to your question? >> yeah. i was asking if there is a government shutdown, is there anything in place? >> oh, yeah. well, we profoundly hope there is no government shutdown. that is the basis on which we're operating. we have to do shutdown planning. unfortunately we're getting pretty good at that. i do not believe there will be a shut dourn and i have not put in place anything that addresses that if there is other than two years ago i did work with a number of governors who recognized that national parks and public lands were critical to their economies and the economies of a number of their communities. and should there be another

shutdown, that situation will not change. we had 15 weddings on the national mall that had to be canceled. we had a bride that had spent $20,000 on a wedzing in shenandoah national park that had to be canceled. but these are the visible things that governors get called about. what they don't see is the hidden catastrophe of a shutdown in terms of losing, for example, a year's worth of scientific data because there is a three-week-long gap in that data. they lose the ability to make sure that our satellite data is well interpreted for things that people rely on like google earth. so there are many, many things that aren't as visible as national parks that are impacted by a shutdown. i would say it is very, very important that congress not go down that path again. if at tthey do, certainly the national parks will be visible

but so much more is not visible in these shutdowns that they need to pay attention to that i just hope we don't get there again. >> david ivanvich. >> you spoke a lot about supporting president obama's efforts to support climate change. lbm is now trying to come up with a rule to prevent flaring and venting on public lands. assuming the president assuming u.s. climate talks in paris, will he be able to take a new blm rule with him when he goes there? >> we will not have a final rule by december. there's no way. we are working hard on releasing rules on venting. make, have we actually put a draft rule out yet? >> should be going over to a wire soon. >> the process of rule making is

cumbersome and probably should be. don't want this easy or without input or without thought. or team is finalizing a rule. it will go to omb. they will review it. when it comes out from that there will be a public comment period. once that public comment period closes if it is not extended then we can do a final rule. so definitely not between now and the paris talks. but i will say that it is crazy to vent natural gas into the t atmosphere when there is a fuel that can produce electricity with a smaller footprint than other sources like coal. it economical in some cases for companies to flare or vent natural gas -- typically flaring it, meaning burning it at the well head because their target

is oil. that's not okay. there will be emergency situations where you got to shut in a rig, you've got to vent the gas from a pressure standpoint or you have to flare it. but there is no reason that we shouldn't be looking at capturing that valuable public resource, getting a royalty on that resource and using it in a more constructive way than just either blowing it up into the atmosphere or burning it. so those are the kinds of things our rule will address. the epa is also addressing the new source performance standards and that is for new well activities venting and flaring. so we are working on those. that's been a transparent process, continues to be transparent. but we won't have it finalized. >> greg cork from "usa today." >> you mentioned a couple of aen verse r anniversaries happening in continue tear yo

interior. you ordered that mckinley be renamed denali which was celebrated by a lot of alaska native groups but there's also a number of other controversies out there. one is harney peak in south dakota which a number of indian groups find it offensive because it is named for a particularly brew it will a general thbrutal. your predecessor had an order in 1962 that ordered the plank kbl renaming of any feature named for another "n" word epithet. i wonder under what circumstances would you consider using that power that you just used a couple weeks ago to order other features to be renamed? >> i didn't realize that i had the ability in the case of denali to make that change. i will say as a climber and a

northwesterner, i have always called the mountain denali, as most people do from that region. the alaska state legislature in 1975 under the leadership of governor jay hammond passed legislation overwhelmingly requesting that the board of geographic names change the name of mt. mckinley to denali. after that time the park service charged the name, i think with the support of congress, ever national park to denali park and preserve. but there was legislation filed by members of the ohio delegation at that time to continue the name mt. mckinley. the board of geographic names has a provision that says if a name is -- if there's existing legislation regarding that name,

they then they will not act. this is the new part -- until a reasonable period of time has passed, at which point the secretary of the interior may act. i consider 40 years to actually be an unreasonable period of time. every year the ohio delegation has just put legislation out there. i don't believe it's been heard. i don't believe it's been voted on. it is just out there and the board of geographic names had not acted. but i have the ability to act after a reasonable period of time. i am not aware of any other circumstances like denali where there is legislative support from a state and a counter proposal as was the case in the mckinley-denali situation that would trigger the secretary stepping up and saying a reasonable period of time has passed and we should look at a change. i think that the board of geographic names would welcome input from local communities and elected officials onx&6éy what

believe sites in their states should be named, and that would be taken under consideration. but in the examples that you referenced, none of them have been brought to my attention as those that would trigger potentially secretarial action or that are under consideration by the board of geographic names. i actually haven't met with the board of geographic names but denali specifically was a very obvious case. >> mike doyle. >> the department has reached a settlement on irrigation drain a drainage. have you been personally involved with this case and how do you respond to those who say it is a sweetheart deal? >> so short answer is no, i have not been personally involved in the case. deputy secretary mike connor was the commissioner of bureau of reclamation. he is a water rights expert.

he knows the situation in california inside and out. so on issues relative to water i'd defer to him. but i will say that we have a water catastrophe in california. i know in this morning's "washington post" talked about a drought that hasn't been seen for 500 years based on tree ring records. that's consistent with the kind of data we've been looking at in the whole colorado river basin drainage and going west. we have a lot of very, very difficult circumstances betweeningbetween agricultural users, water contractors, and those who want to see appropriate flows for ongoing environmental health, whether it's the bay delta or the rivers and the sound that depend on them. i'm not familiar with the westland situation. mike connor is more familiar with that but i do know that we

are being very thoughtful in trying to strike a reasonable pathway recognizing that water rights typically are the purview of the states and our role generally is as a provider of water, as a seller of water, working closely with the states and their interests on a reasonable path forward at a time when there's just not enough water to go around. >> so as you know, a judge in wyoming is going to rule soon on whether he's going to block the deal on fracking rule. are you confident that the rule will withstand legal scrutiny, and why are you? and in the course that is blocked can you talk about what action you'll take then? >> let me start with last question which is the judge in wyoming has basically stayed the rule pending us providing additional information. i believe we've provided all the additional information that's

been required and the judge is now assessing that. we have stayed our rule going into effect while that legal action is pending. so that will continue. the blm rules are over 30 years old. i fracced wells before. i started my career in oil and gas. i understand the process. and the rules that the blm currently has in place were the ruse that were in place when i was in petroleum engineering. i'm 59 years old. there has been a lot of change that's happened in the industry technologically since that time and yet our regulations have not kept pace. you've got now directional drilling. which we didn't have to any significant degree now. so you can go vertically and then drill horizontally for two miles. you've got staged fracking over a very narrow band. you've got far more fluid than was ever used back in the days the rules were created.

and you've got different mix of chemicals that have evolved over time that are used in the process. so blm's rules modernize our fracking regulations. you've soon a lot of controversy around fracking, a lot of fear on the part of communities. what communities expect of their regulator, whether it is the federal government or state governments is that whatever practices are being done in their communities on their lands in their states is something that's not going to damage their health or damage their environment. that's what the american people expect of their regulators at every level. that's what our rules do. so ultimately i'm confident that our rules which are common sense, which are based on science, which basically take into account where the industry has gone, will be put into place, whether it's in the exact form, whether there are changes,

one challenge in wyoming might have a different challenge in another state. i will also say this -- that we have provisions in our rules to take into account state rules that are more stringent than hours. so the blm rules for fracking are baseline minimum standards on federal lands. if a state has more stringent rules, they will apply. we have a process of aligning those rules so operators will just have one set of rules that they have to abide by. that will be true in wyoming, which actually has some provisions i believe in their rules that may be stronger than what we've put in place. so we hope to work with states in a constructive way that reassures their citizens that these activities are safe, but also recognizes that 40-year-old rules with modern practices does not make sense and we will continue to make that case and hope that will be heard thoughtfully by the judge and others. >> a quick follow-up on what

you've been saying on fracking. the ap in june ran investigation that stated the bureau of land planningment "was so overwhelmed by the boom in drilling techniques known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking that it's been unable to keep with the inspections of some much the highest priority wells." and they stated in one state for example, wyoming, 45% of those high-impact wells hadn't been inspected. are you confident that things have improved since then? >> no. in short, we have a government accountability office, i think an inspector general report also, that criticized the blm for not inspecting our high-risk wells. and while the blm has done everything in its power to focus the limited resources it has on the highest risk situations, we are under resourced. and when you look at what's happened to the blm budget over the last few years, you will see

that demand. let's charge a fee as we do for permitting and inspecting wells back to industry. so when there is a boom, as we have seen, particularly unlocked because of hydraulic fracturing in places like north dakota and the permean basin, then those fees come in necessary to process those permits but also inspect those wells. so let's match those two things together, which we do have the capacity to do offshore. that has not gotten past the committee in congress. so we have an appropriated budget, which has been declining relative to the workload that we have. you have a ramp-up of interest even though current oil prices are dampening that a little bit right now, and we have a major

backlog of inspections that people expect us to do on public lands that we are not able to do because we're resource constrained. so that's a quick snapshot, and it makes no sense to not match supply and demand and have industry cover the costs of inspecting these wells and also the cost to process the permits in a timely period of time, and frankly, to make investments and things like automating that process that speeds it up and requires less work from them and less work from us. >> generally speaking, as you try to reconcile competing demands of competition, it almost seems like upsetting the industry one week and environmentalists another week, so forth and so on. is that the goal? >> welcome to my world. well, i have a complicated job.

and most of the decisions that are required of my position will make some people happy and some people very unhappy. there are a few instances where that's not the case, but generally that is the case. i hope people love their national parks as we come up to the centennial of them, but not so much that they've chosen to fund them appropriately. we're not attacking back and forth. that's not the way i look at it at all. we have expectations that have been put on us by legislation over the years that gives us a mandate to develop resources thoughtfully but also protect natural resources. sometimes it is within one agency, sometimes it is between agencies. u.s. fish and wildlife services' job is to understand the species that call the united states home, and actually they're involved internationally as

well, and create an environment where those species are not at risk of going extinct. they have a tool box called the species act that addresses that. they don't want to use the endangered species act, they don't have the resources to take over management for the states. they would rather a species not warranted because of things being done on the ground. the blm has worked closely with the fish and wildlife service, and part of the plan that has been put out there by the blm and the u.s. forest service in their environmental impact statements is asking that i withdraw 9 million acres of land from mineral extraction, notably mining. you know, there will be people unhappy with that that want to be able to mine everywhere, but it's a tradeoff and a balance that says how do we maintain these critical ecosystems while also allowing the thoughtful

development of our natural resources that are necessary. i mean, we're all carrying smartphones of some sort. there is a lot of metals in these devices that come from mining activities. how do we do that in a thoughtful way? and that is the way we look at it. safe and responsible development, long-term health of ecosystems, the economy of the united states, all of those things factor together, and one more thing on the blm which has a mandate of multiple use and sustained yield, many people interpret that as every use on every part of land. we're not. we're saying that multiple use may mean that this land is more appropriate for conservation use, and you've seen that with some of the monument designations and the wilderness study areas and so on that have been set aside, and some land is ideal for development of some sort, oil and gas mining

otherwise. so it's conflict. >> we've got about two minutes left. gentleman from the hill. >> your agency has been keeping a close eye on shell's drilling. from your understanding, how has that process been going this season for the last month and a half or so or two months that shell has actually been drilling? >> bessie is the bureau of safety and environmental reinforcement. it's the agency charged with safe and responsible development. it has been on-site 24/7. it is holding shell to the highest standards that ever really been put in place. it is making sure that if there is an incident in their drilling activities that we can address that incident during the time frame necessary before the ice moves in. all of that has been going as planned.

shell had a problem when one of its vessels ran aground, as you all know. that vessel carried the capping stack which is one of the requirements bse had. they had to be approved before going into the ground. they had a storm that occurred a few weeks back that was a pretty epic storm for them. shell voluntarily shut their offices down. i think they lost about five days because of that. but they are taking the right kinds of precautions to make sure that things are done safely there, and our people are up there to validate those circumstances, and if need be, ask for additional action. so i'd say right now things are going well in terms of the relationship between bse and shell, and we will continue to hold them to the highest possible standards, and that's what people expect us to do.

>> unfortunately, we have people wanting questions but we're out of time. i want to thank you for doing this so much. thank you very much. appreciate you coming. >> thanks, everybody. student cam is cspan's annual contest for students in grade 7 through 12. it allows students to think of issues of national importance by creating a 5 to 7-minute documentary in which they can express those views. it's important for students to get involved because it gifrz them an opportunity and a platform to have their voices heard on issues important to them, so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for

every documentary we get is going to be content. we've had winners in the past created by just using a cell phone, and we have others that are created using more high-tech equipment. but once again, it's really the content that matters and shines through in these documentaries. the response from students in the past has been great. we've had many different issues that they have created videos on that are important to them. we have topics ranging from education, the economy and the environment really showing a wide variety of issues that are important for students. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts to better serve the tulsa community and the businesses inside it. >> since a car cannot run without oil, we've definitely come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the individuals with disabilities education act or the ieda, students with disabilities were not given the opportunity of an education. >> this yearie theme is road to

t -- this year's theme is road to the white house. what is the most important issue you want discussed on the road to the campaign? there are many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirements in creating a documentary is to include some cspan footage. this footage would complement their point of view and not just dominate the video, but it's a great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their points. >> the first bill i'll sign today is the water resources and development act, also known as wrda. >> we've all heard the jokes about school meals growing up, the burnt fishsticks and mystery meat tacos. >> it's especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go to our website. it is studentcam.org and on that website they'll find more information about the rules and requirements, but they'll also find teacher tips, rubrics to

help them incorporate their classrooms, prizes from cspan video and ways to contact us if they have any questions. the deadline for this year's competition is january 20, 2016, which is exactly one year away from the next presidential inauguration. here's what's happening on c-span3 tonight. first a discussion on policing and criminal justice including attorney general loretta lynch. later, several sessions from a conference on data and transparency, including congressman darrell isa from california and an update on implementation of the data act signed into law on may 2014. pope francis' visit to the u.s. continues at 10:00 a.m. eastern with a preview of his speech to the u.n. general assembly. the speech is at 10:45. later at 11:30, the pope gives a

multi-religious service at the 9/11 memorial. our live coverage here on c-span3. on the next "washington journal," pope francis' visit to new york, the second city on his u.s. trip. then a review of the pope's speech to congress with tom roberts, editor at large for the national reporter, including the tone, topics, religious significance and political implications. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. and we welcome your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. attorney general loretta lynch will be in richmond, virginia tomorrow to meet with the city's police chief and mayor. then she'll hold a private round table discussion aimed at improving relations between police and residents. the attorney general spoke about policing and congressional reform at the black caucus conference last week along with

congressman john conyers. this is two and a half hours. good morning. i will try one more time. good morning. >> good morning. >> my name is chief goff, and i hope we can find reform. when i was asked to moderate today, i did what i normally do and i went straight to bible study and thought, well, what wisdom can be offered on the issue of race and policing in contemporary america? as is frequently the case with

my bible, which is wiser than i, i opened it, went straight to proverbs 4:7. it says, wisdom is the principal thing. therefore, get wisdom. and in all that getting, help me understand. somebody say wisdom. >> wisdom. >> in a moment when black lives matter is not just the call but the response, it is not just the art but the science, i came to meditate on the wisdom of what does it mean, what are we called to do? what is required of us when a person or group of people matters to us? what is required of me that i know you, not that i just understand you, but i get to know the things that influence

you. if i have a child, i am not a responsible parent if i love that child and ignore the friends the child is hanging out with. if i have a partner that i'm thinking of marrying, it is not responsible for me to love him or her and have no idea what their friends are saying about me. and if black lives matter, it is not responsible of us as a people, as a nation to be loving black folks while ignoring the law enforcement that is affecting their lives every day. if i want to get wisdom on how to make black lives matter, i need to take seriously the idea that we need to increase our literacy on police issues. we need to understand policing. okay? and i don't just mean that we need to reed about it in the paper. i mean we need to be able to answer some fundamental questions about the character and the content of policing.

so i have some fundamental questions here. how many people were pulled over in their vehicle by police last year? raise your hand if you know the answer. raise it high, because we all want to know. we'll skip that one. how many times was force used by a police officer against a citizen of the united states last year? go ahead, raise your hands up high. we need to know. all right, maybe we'll skip that one as well. how about this. our residentially s-- are resi e integrated communities more likely to be arrested than integrated communities? raise your hand up high because i need to know. our lack of literacy on police issues to this date is a national embarrassment. we ought to be ashamed of

ourselves. and all of us who want to proclaim that we need to do better, myself included -- now, i've gone from the bible, i have to go to my mama -- you can't be loud and wrong. you can't be loud and ignorant. so we need to know, if black lives matter, then we need to take seriously the project of coming to understand policing, of becoming not just literate but fluent on the character of policing on its own terms, on its own sake, in the way we need to understand the friends of our children, the parents of our partners, and the character of this country. if black lives matter, we need to take policing seriously. somebody say wisdom. >> wisdom. >> so that is the goal of today. and up here we have some of the nation's best at fixing our national embarrassment of a lack of data and a lack of understanding. i'm proud to have partners up here in the center for policing

he cequity equity's national database, the first and largest collection on police behavior. and we're going to be hearing people that from their tireless efforts, from their lifelong commitment, and from the jobs they're doing right now today right before they showed up and right after they leave this meeting are helping to correct the embarrassment, the lack of wisdom that we have. on how we can make good on our requirements of making black lives matter. okay? so everyone up here, and those who will come in at a later point, we'll get about sill get minutes to speak. we want to make sure there are questions we get from you all. make sure to stay with us, stay engaged. i'll be giving very, very brief introductions for everyone. okay? then they will expand on their particular topic. we may not be in a black church,

but we bring a black church with us so it's okay to have a response today. you may not be moved to say amen, but you're able to. coming from the end of my panel, i'm going to pick on one of my very good friends, the director of cops' office, ron davis. i think he felt safe sitting in the middle, but i think it's important to hear from federal voices on terms of how this is moving. ron davis, spending a long time in the service in oakland and a chief of the nation in east palo alto, an innovator of policing is the first national director of the cops' office and has been doing tremendous work in collaborative reform and working on consent decrees and giving carrots to police departments and not just sticks. i'll let him introduce his topic now. >> want me to sit here? >> however you want to do it, but i prefer to see you stand. please join me in welcoming

director davis. [ applause ] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i would say thank you, phil, but i'm not. i'll get you back later. it's great to be here, i think this is probably great timing, a great topic, and as phil mentioned, i spent 30 years in law enforcement before coming to the cops' office. 20 years in the great city of oakland, a very diverse community, an outstanding community, one that faces a lot of challenges, though, and eight and a half years plus in east palo alto as chief, another great diverse city that faces challenges. when i came to the cops' office, i think what i brought with me was this understanding of watching the evolution of policing in the last eight years. when i was a cop in 1985, they had a special program for 12-year-olds -- see if you catch it -- when i got hired in 1985 as a rookie cop, where we are in a profession, and for those who were around for a while, that's right in the beginning of the

crack epidemic. when i think of how it was evaluated, what policing was about, and it was really heavily about enforcing. in fact, the way you accelerated in an organization was by making more and more arrests. if you came to me in 2005 saying, do you believe in reindustry entr reentry, i would say, absolutely, my job is to put every criminal back in prison. as we've evolved, we know that's just not the case. despite our efforts, we've made a loft progress since the 1980ls. we're more diverse, more evidence based, we're engaging in more policing, but the things we haven't done have left a lot of communities behind, and dr. goff is good at this in framing it. the first part we have to start with is the acknowledgment of the role law enforcement has played throughout history in repressing certain communities. we have to acknowledge that because that creates the generational mistrust that exists today. when you see people that are demonstrating, you see people

frustrated, that's because they're disconnected, they're disen franchised and the system isn't serving them like they should, so we need to address it. in my 30 years here, i've never seen such opportunity. i was in the police department when the rodney king incident occurred, i've seen crises come and go, and it usually seems to come ask then go. this, i think it's fair to say, i believe, that we're amid a new civil rights movement in the united states. the question for my colleagues in blue and in uniforms, what role are the police going to play in the civil rights movement? in the '60s, we played a role in suppressing it, trying to prevent it, and i think in the 21st century we'll play a role of facilitating it, supporting it, being a part of it because we need to make changes. if you'll recall, based on a lot of things that were going on in the country, in december of last year, president obama announced the creation of the president's task force in the 21st century policing. i'm going to turn to that because i think that supplies a

road map for us. he identified 11 outstanding members to lead this. i was honored enough to serve as director of the task force. they were police chiefs, they were academics, they were young people coming off the demonstration lines in new york, they were academics and civil rights attorneys who admitted their whole career was suing police departments. this diverse group had such diverse views that people wondered, could we come together to build anything, and i think we learned that diverse views are not divisive views. with this diversity, they were able to come together and build a consensus. so the first lesson the task force puts out there, you can still bring views to the table and still build a consensus. but challenges will bring people out of their comfort zones. so they had a list of 60

evaluations which we'll have a chance to talk about throughout this session on how to build trust and how to make our nation safer. when the president charged this task force, he was very clear. recommendationsv(":x to build t between the police and the community, but he also wanted to make sure we would continue enhancing public safety. i think that's what the task force was able to do. this is the report that is out there. i think now the charge is going to be to make sure this report does not sit on a shelf, that it becomes alive and it's operationalized that people are embracing around the country, that the departments are using it as a road map, and we're starting to see that. i'm traveling all over this country and i'm seeing police chiefs reporting to the community those things they've already implemented, those things they need to implement, working with the community to advance it. this has to be driven by everyone, not just the police. we are co-producers of public safety and communitying policing togeth together. i want to end with this, phil, and a couple comments that drive me to be a police chief.

as we start talking about crime and violence, it's sometime in that fight that we begin to lose our way. as we struggle with crime rates and violence, we want to think the only thing we're supposed to do is reduce crime, and we lose sight of the fact that it's not just fighting crime but also the preservation of justice. so i want you to think about this. if you think about a neighborhood, whoever controls the open public space of the neighborhood controls the quality of life for the people that live there. think about your neighborhood, think about where you grew up, especially in our urban centers. whoever controls that open space controls the quality of life. if gang leaders and drug dealers control it, people live in fear. if the police control it, people feel oppressed. the job is not to stop and frisk, not to take thousands of people to jail, it is to empower

and work with the community to take control of their own public space so that they can be alive, well, and that their activity will reduce crime. it's all about regaining control of these neighborhoods by the community, with the community, and not against it and not fighting it. so in 30 years i would tell you we're at a defining moment in american policing history. we have a small window of comfort to conquer any crisis. but the window of opportunity will close very quickly and is usually replaced by past mistakes. three let's not go down that road and keep repeating mistakes. let's talk about excessive force. let's talk about supporting officers and not every cop is bad, not every young person is bad. we need to have the courage to talk about discussions, we need courage to talk about the future, we need to come together. when it's time for me to leave this office, i want to be able

to say that we came together, that we worked together and that the country is better for it. i'll tell you something, when i look at the officers right now -- and i would tell you this -- look at the leadership that travel this country. take solace in knowing that i'm seeing a new generation of officers that are smarter -- people will get mad at me for saying this but i'm saying it, anyway -- that come across more diverse environments. i'm seeing police want to learn, so let's not make this a fight or a debate. let's make it a dialogue, let's work together. i look forward to the questions you have. i'll get you back later, phil, but thank you. [ applause ] >> it is now my absolute pleasure, it's an honor, to introduce the representative of michigan's 13th district and the man who has introduced more civil rights legislation than any other individual in the history of this country, representative john conyers.

[ applause ] >> top of the morning, everybody. great to be here, and i'm pleased to be here to help convene the annual forum on criminal justice reform. this year we're joined by policing practices experts to help us gain a better understanding of the challenges to resolving the growing divide between the police and minority communities which they serve. i say that carefully.

we want to understand the challenges to resolve the growing divide between the police and minority communities which they serve. the tragic deaths of michael brown, eric garner, walter scott, freddie gray have sparked pain and outrage in communities across the nation calling for congressional action. now, for many in our communities, the death of these men, along with many others, represents a continuing and dangerous cycle of disproportionate use of force against men of color. we must find here, today, this weekend, concrete solutions to

stop this pattern. we need to ease racial tension in america by rebuilding our communities in a balanced way where everyone receives equal education. that's where it starts. job opportunities and a fair shot at the american dream. equal education is where it starts, but the home is where it really starts, isn't it? it's the home. the sad truth about this kind of an incident is that its root causes are tied together with societal racism that brand black citizens as predators and police practice that treats them as potential perpetrators.

breeding distrust between law enforcement and the community that they are bound to protect. responding to this destructive cycle requires a broad-based approach. to address police practices, i 3z proud to pass 42 usc 14141, the federal statute, as part of the 1994 crime bill to allow the department of justice to sue or provide local police departments with resources necessary to address dangerous and discriminatory practices that result in excessive force or racial profiling. this law has been used successfully across the nation

to reduce the number of police-involved shootings, illustrative of the end racial profiling act play a crucial role in breaking historically unjust practices of law enforcement. racial profiling is an issue that affects many people of color on a regular basis, let's face it, and is just one piece of the greater issue of unjust practices directed toward minorities in different communities across the nation.

hr1933 was introduced to directly address the issue, the legal use of race by law enforcement agencies. it represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the riff caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system. the constitutional right to the equal protection of law by changing the policies and procedures underlying the act of racial profiling. and further, i've introduced hr2875, the law enforcement trust and integrity act. this legislation provides incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that

incidents of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management training and oversight protocols, and that if such incidents do occur, they will be restored. the bill also provides police officers with the tools necessary to work with their communities to enhance their professional growth and educati education. we must continue the discussion on criminal justice reform, develop legitimate plans to make local law enforcement agencies more accountable to their communities. until we develop a concrete plan to address the root causes, we

can only wait to see tragic events repeated across other communities. and so this panel will feature experts from the department of justice, law enforcement and the advocacy community to provide an overview of the continuing challeng challenges in police community relations, law enforcement accountability and transparency and racial profiling. i'm pleased now to turn the floor over to professor phillip atiba goff from the center on policing equity. thank you, and it's good to see all of you here. [ applause ]

>> so as the professor, i feel there are lots of different modes of learning that we have available to us. i'd like now to turn it overa@( the far end of deas to miss tanya bennett. tanya bennett was the council for the house judiciary committee -- sorry. like i said, tanya's voice is here present with us, her spirit is with us. i apologize, tanya.

let me have you introduce yourself so i don't get any more of the details wrong. i apologize. [ applause ] >> so good morning. >> good morning. >> can i push this down? so i am tanya clayhouse, and i'm the policy director with the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. and i am going to be speaking to you today on behalf of the lawyers' committee, but i will say, as some have already heard, i will actually be leaving the lawyers' committee -- well, my last day was actually tuesday, but i'm still here on behalf of the lawyers' committee. and i will be heading into the department of education as the deputy assistant secretary.

[ applause ] >> so, of course, some of the issues that i want to talk about today are dealing with school discipline. so we'll get to that as well. i do appreciate, thank you, phillip, for the introduction and thank you for mr. conyers for allowing me to be on this panel today. i've been able to participate on these panels for a while, and it's really a great opportunity to have all of you come here today and hear so many things that are going on, because we don't often get that chance being we're here inside the beltway. but you need to understand exactly how things are really working. and so as the lone woman up here today, i also want to talk about a couple issues with regard to black women and policing and some of the distinctions and unique factors that are faced. so let me, without further ado,

kind of go into a few things. with the lawyers' committee, our mission is to eliminate racial discrimination. we are founded by former president john f. kennedy back in 1963. not only to eliminate racial discrimination but to protect our civil rights laws. part of that mandate requires we engage on issues that we see that there is an inherent discrepancy, that there is discrimination, that there is disparat disparities that are occurring. the criminal justice system has been one of those for years. recently, with highlighting what happened in ferguson, what happened with eric garner, what happened with raquia boyd, what happened with sandra bland, we're cieseeing across the coun a larger focus on community issues, but we need to keep it in perspective.

with this highlighting, it's been going on for years, but with the advance of cell phone and cameras, we're seeing more of it now. this police council he was formed and we nemeet weekly. we bring together activist organizations, state organizations, the grassroots activists, and we try to have some strategy and try to figure out, what are the things we need to be doing from top to bottom? so i really appreciate the conversations we've had throughout the months with ron davis. we had many conversations, he knows us well. we've had many conversations with the department of justice. in fact, we just met with them tuesday. let me just inform you of a couple things that go into what i want to talk about. part of our conversation with the department of justice was, where are we on a lot of these investigations that are occurring? what are the updates? how do we get this information out to people to know how are things being pursued? and i think it's always

enlightening for us to get this information because we often know that those beyond, you know, a lot of us in the organizations, people don't understand how that process is working. and so it was good for us to have that conversation because right now what we're going to do is we're going to be putting together a webinar to really bring together everybody and say, this is how the process is really working at the doj. this is all the investigations. this is how long is actually takes. you need to understand, things are going on. things are actually happening in baltimore, things are happening in ferguson. there is no consent decree yet, despite what people think. things are happening that happened in ohio, and things are happening -- they're continuing implementation strategies going out of louisiana. so this is good work the department of justice is doing, but we know there is so much more that can be done. part of that work needs to engage, needs to be about policy reform. and so while we absolutely

appreciate the creation of the president's task force on 21st century police reform, we also know there are some things we need to still continue to work on. for example, the broken windows policy, which is kind of just a policy that is engaged on across the country by many law enforcement agencies that utilizes more aggressive tactics on lesser crimes with the idea that that is somehow going to stymie further criminal activity. what we actually know is this action simply leads to racial profiling, and this harassment, the stop and frisk policies we're all aware of in new york, this is a result of these broken window policies. so that is something we've got to significantly address. that has to be done on a policy level. that has to be fundamental change within law enforcement agencies. and in addition to that, as i said, we mentioned we talked with the department of justice also about the issues of women. because we often hear, obviously, about, and

necessarily so, about the impact that the profiling that we'll hear more about is having on black men, but black women have a unique perspective on this as well, because there is the dynamic, the power structure that is much different when it comes to the policing of women in general, but particularly black women. because first of all, we're oversexualized. yet at the same time we're made to feel that we're overly aggressive. so then you combine all of that, and so there is a lack of respect, a lack of appreciation, and then there is overaggressive tactics that are engaged often upon black women because of the differing power structures that are engaged. we've heard about sandra bland pulled over for changing lanes. and then ends up, you know, dying in police custody. obviously there is a concern about what is going on. is there a real change happening and we're going to follow that situation. but we haven't heard as much about raquia boyd and we haven't heard as much about many of our

other sisters, ra dkina jones. we had at least five women who died in police custody. these are statistics we have to get out there and this gets to the issue of data collection that i think we'll hear more about as well to make sure we're actually getting the information in to know what we don't know. right now there is so much happening across country. lastly with my, i think, two minutes that i have left, let me just say, i wanted to focus on where a lot of this is beginning, which is the policing, you know, as of men and women often begins in the school. we have -- right now there is an overcriminalization that's happening within our schools. we have what are called school resource officers, which are just police in schools. mostly they're within schools that have a high proportion of minority students.

and so what often results, what happens is that you have our kids being arrested -- who was it -- a third grader being shackled and cuffed because he had an outburst. now, he has autism, but he was shackled and cuffed in school and screaming for 15 minutes because nobody understood that all -- there were other techniques that could be used in order to work with him. we have kids that are being arrested for bringing a volcano that ex ploeldploded in the cla and all of a sudden they're arrested and sent toal alternate ty schoo dalternateal alternate --- alternative schools. i i have a three-year-old and a six-year-old. they're all a little bit hyper.

my goodness. when we were growing up, this was not the case, so we have to deal with what's happening in our schools and beginning with that relationship between our children and the police. they're getting that early on. and our kids are being taught not only early on to fear police, but then the police are being, you know, they're being taught that our children are not worth the respect and they're not worth -- they're not human beings. they are only looked at as potential criminals, and this mentality has to stop. so i urge all of you, as we continue this discussion, to think about this on a comprehensive level, but think about this from the beginning. we have to deal with what's happening in schools, we have to deal with the overpolicing, the racial disparities and our school disciplinary policies which is leading our schools into the prison pipeline. i do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and i look forward to continuing engagement. i'm going to say and apologize this is not a result of my changing jobs, but i overbooked and so now i have to hit another panel as well, so i have to

leave a little bitterl early. but i love you all, so i'm staying as long as i can, and i want to have a great discussion overall. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> thank you, tanya, for your graciousness as well. i want to echo something tanya had to say. when we're looking at the ways in which law enforcement are engaging with our communities, we're seeing the images of the way in which black masculinity, black men are being violated. because that's what happens on the streets. the cameras will catch that. they will not catch responses to domestic violence, they will not capture things that are happening many times in custody, and they will not capture things that are happening undercover when we're talking about human trafficking or sex work. that's where women are most vulnerable in our law enforcement system. so as we move to reform, let's make sure we keep in mind we don't resubstantiate the sexism out in the world in the way we reform law enforcement. that's a perfect note to bring

gregory thomas to the front who is the president of the national organization of blacks in law enforcement. gregory has been a forward thinker on all of these issues for, really, quite some time. he's got three books, 17 blogs, 15 tweets in the last 10 minutes that you should be reading. he's an innovator both from the old school and the new school, and he's an essential voice in making sure that we're able to see the humanity of these communities and the humanity of the officers who must be sworn to protect them. so please join me in welcoming him. [ applause ] >> so improve police community relations, the officials recommended that an evaluation process to assess discriminatory practices and policies of police. they further recommended the development of police units to teach students to pass police

entrance exams. finally, they proposed the establishment of departmental guidelines for field investigations, stop and frisk procedures and eyewitness identification, all in an effort to reduce harassment. to better define the role of the black police executive, officials recommended that black police executives write and public policy papers. it was also recommended that black police executives advocate every examination of assignment practices and promotion procedures to ensure equal opportunity for advancement. the officials also recommended that black police executives seek to establish executive career development programs to assure the upward mobility of black police officers. moreover, it was recommended that black police executives encourage black police officers at the entry level ranks to prepare for promotional exams by initiating study classes. lastly, it was recommended that

black police executives be accountable to the black community and that they be urged to speak for the black community within the department and in the community at large. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> the recommendations that i just read to you are a very, very small bit of paraphrasing are recommendations that were made during the course of a law enforcement symposium held here in washington, d.c., a symposium that was attended by over 60 top-ranking black law enforcement agencies. a three-day symposium that was held to exchange views about the critically high rate of crime in black communities and the socioeconomic conditions that lead to crime and violence. this symposium i'm referring to was held here in washington, d.c. on september 7 through the 9th, 1976. it was during this symposium

that the black law enforcement executives was formed. now, since these recommendations were made over 39 years ago, it looks like the 19th century critic at lex carr seemed to ha got it right when he said, the more things change, the more they stay the same. ferguson, missouri and baltimore, maryland, for example, will forever be seared in the american conscience as days when policing went bad and have caused a tide, and some may argue, a tsunami of recommendations from policy interest groups, policy experts and those in the public who think they're experts on how to fix a broken law enforcement and criminal justice system. so here we are again, close to 40 years after the founding of noble, 40 years after the founders of noble met to discuss some of very same issues in

policing that we are discussing today. here we are again putting on our collective thinking caps to resolve a problem or problems that members of noble already knew how to solve. so i'm proud to say that noble is involved in this conversation. we have been, as mentioned earlier, ron davis mentioned the task force that president obama put together to look at policing. we're a member of that task force particularly and we did a lot of work traveling the country to make sure we heard the voices of our members and members in our community in regard to policing in a different light. we've also been part of work done in other police officers' offices and the work of representative conyers to look at police reform, but also at the same time make sure it's reasonable accountability, that we can reach those ceilings you're referring to when it comes to assessing police departments and making them better across the board. i also take pride since i was here since tuesday evening, a got a phone call midday wednesday from the white house

where the president called me to meet with noble on what we can do to advance this situation in police reform. noble was involved in 1976 and is involved today to make sure we get this right. also to make sure we have a balanced conversation the fact that there is no doubt singular acts that have been conducted by police officers around the country. we get that, we know that, but not all police are bad. we have to make sure we raise the level of expectation for our police officers, but at the same time recognize those who are doing their work well and keep them on the forefront, because i don't know anybody in this room that expects to call 911, no matter where you are in the country, and that nobody answers. right? you want somebody there, but you want them to be there in the right context and the right respect for your community and who you are in that community. as we continue to discuss the need for police accountability and reform, i would ask that we not discount and forget the lessons and challenges of the past, because if we do, if we

do, we are surely doomed to repeat them. thank you. [ applause ] >> it is now my pleasure to introduce mr. duran mckessen. those of you who are on twitter are aware that duran loves his blackness. dure does not speak for the movement, but when he does, many in the movement hear their voices echo. he's been an invaluable voice at making sure that those who are in institutions of power, who have positions of authority, who have the capacity to change institutions and to use it for the good are held accountable and kept accountable to the voices of those who are not used to participating in this great democracy. it's my honor to bring dure mckessen to the front.

>> i apologize for being late. i'm humbled to be here. i am a protester. i am one of the ferguson protesters going to many cities standing around the protesters across the country. i do have a big social media platform, so in august of last year, i had about 800 followers on twitter. i have about 200,000 now and work on the messaging and movement and work to develop capacity. a few points that come up often, one is this notion around community policing. one of our pushes to people when talking about community policing, it's really racially coded. community policing so often means let's have police sort of all over communities. for so many people that means another form of surveillance that is not the type of policing when we think about the upper west side, it's not what we think when we think about georgetown. those communities are safe not because they're flooded with police but because they're

resourced differently. when people talk about community, it often means something that is racially coded, and there's this thing about, you know, if the police are in the community and if they play basketball with people and like if they knew it, neighborhoods would be safer because of relationships. and what we say is you don't even need to know my name not to harm me, right? when you think about the upper west side, those kids walking to school, the police aren't escorting them and saying, what are you doing today after school, let's go play basketball. the notion we think about policing, especially community policing, race is always at play. i was just on another panel where somebody said, you know, join -- sort of join the police, be a part of the change you want to be a part of, right? like you should think about joining the police department if you want to be a part of the change. what we say to people is, you know, i don't need to be a police officer for the police to do their job well. i don't need to be a teacher to expect great education.

i don't need to be a doctor to expect great health care. we can expect from the institution because it is a public institution. i also want to complicate the way we think about crime. i was on another panel, and somebody said, one of the police members present said, you know, police know where the crime is, right? that was sort of her response. and i said the police are not on wall street, the police are not on the upper west side where people are selling heroin and cocaine, that is absolutely not true. when i said that, the response was, let's complicate what we mean when we say crime. crime used to be this big, non-invasive thing. crime becomes domestic violence. it becomes insider trading. but when we talk about black people, there is this seizure

va -- seizure vailing part of it. there is really fascinating research coming out. we talk about bias, we talk about police and testing. there is also new research that came -- i think this is your research about masculine insecurity. i was like, yeah, that's him. you should read his research, everybody, it's great. but about testing masculine insecurity -- we got to talk -- as a better predictor of better policing than racial bias might be. fascinating research, and samson out of harvard also came out with interesting research about -- we talk about burke's research, we believe that is important. he calls that spublic disorder. what he is saying is private

disorder is actually what's leading to a lot of community violence. this idea that it is in a personal drama, it is domestic abuse, it is landlord tenant disputes that actually ripple into violence that we call community violence, with the myth of a person hiding behind a car ready to steal your purse is not about out bound communities. can we work with police, what does it mean to work with police? we believe we can. it requires an acknowledgment of the institution of policing that there is stuff to be worked on, right? so the police is saying it's always a conditional apology. we overpoliced the protesters in baltimore because they shut down the street. it's not like we just should not have pepper sprayed that man who just had his hands up, right? that's not how we ever approached a space. i can tell the police are willing to come to the table with the full acknowledgment of things they may not have done. i don't know how we work

together, and i say that as people willing, we met with the sanders' campaign, met with so many people, and it requires this willingness to tell the truth about actions. two things, one is a response to the police, but there is something about the institution of policing that is problematic for many people. i think about campaign zero we just launched, but it's policy solutions around policing because we believe we can make structurally to sort of end police violence. we can live in a world where the police don't kill people. the police have killed people every day this year except for nine days in all states but three and over 900 people. we believe we can end it structurally. we also want to compound this notion of safety. safety is is a much more expansive notion than policing in that we need to decenter

policing in the way we think about what it means to be safe. so we talk about jobs and development and all these other things. i'll i'll talk about police contracts. i think they get no play. this is the institution of policing. police officers files are purged so discipline is removed in one, two, or three-year cycles. you're like that police officer has no discipline history. not because they were never disciplined. they are literally purged. there's a lot of places where the officers can't give statements in the first 48 hours. all the protections accountability. a standard is not held to the people police arrest, right. so we want to complicate this conversation and we struggle

with things like community policing and we struggle with the way the police come toing the table to talk about how to move forward. i thankful and apologize for being late. >> all kind of people being discovered today. the next introduction it is my privilege to make is of hillary shelton. i'll read the formal title she presently serves as the directser -- i need the fans to go ahead. have your moment. have your moment. but currently serves as director of naacp for informally serves as 101st senator. he has been instrumental in bringing forward civil rights act of '91, the voting rights restoration ability, and every civil and justice and rights and

race he's been a part of. join me in welcoming the man, the myth, and the legend. >> good morning. i'm honored to be here. i'm going to actually sprint through a marathon. as we talk about the issues and challenges of policing in our community, it is a comprehensive problem. it's a comprehensive problem that requires a comprehensive approach. i'm honored to sit on this panel. so much of what we're talking about now the assistance, the research, the assessment, and the implementation is done by many of those here. sitting next to ron davis, for me, is almost like the story of you hear about the weekend fishermen that loved to tell the stories about the big ones that got away. i'm the weekend fisherman and he's jonah from the bible. i appreciate the work. and all the brothers and sisters on the panel now and those

coming later. i would be remiss if i didn't thank john conyers. lord have mercy, john conyers. every piece of legislation we worked on, john conyers lead the charge. we were delighted to be there as our general made sure our issues and challenges in the communities are taken care of and we're able to be involved and addressing the concerns. we have to talk about the issue of ending racial profiling. mr. conyers introduced the end racial profiling act. let me stop for a second. on a table right outside there, and i hope on your way out, you'll grab the packet. i'm going to talk about a number of bills quickly and we'll discuss them during the context of the particular conversation. but i hope you'll grab this. the particular details are there as well. the understanding and explanation of these and solutions of these are in this packet. we know this meeting and this discussion is laying down a foundation in understanding what the issues are and the approach

must be taken. that approach is there it's going to require us from this room on from this moment and beyond for us to be actively involved in a process that is stalled for years and years on good common sense approaches to address community policing problems in our society and throughout our communities. the end racial profiling act begins that process. we lost the trust in law enforcement because we have many police officers that involved themselves in racial profiling. again, let me stop there for a hot second. when i say the words racial profiling. it is fascinating to me that the man who lead the charge just walked into this room. i hope you'll give him a huge round of applause for mr. john c conyers. thank you so much. i ask him to collect data so we can address these issues from a good policing approach. there's not one professional law enforcement person that will tell you we need to have change of policy without data. that's what they tell me all the

time. good data leads to good law enforcement. for some reason, some of those within the law enforcement community stopped us from collecting the data. i'll never forget our good friends from call names. a lot of times passed. our friends at police unit f.o.p. it was on the tip of your tongue, too. the fraternal order of police sent a letter to john conniers when we introduced a data collection bill. we oppose your bill simply to collect data on routine traffic stops. and in that he said the reason is we don't want our police officers, quote, unquote involved in sociological experiments. so on one hand we want data to draft a policy. on the other hand we don't want to collect a data tand that's a real problem. it's collecting the data holding

law enforcement accountable making sure they do what they're supposed to do and not target us. those that drove down highway 95 in the last study that was done a number of years ago, what we determined 70% of the driving population was african-american. we also determined here in delaware 70 percent of the routine traffic stops african-american. we have a real problem but only the data will tell and the data must be collected. thank you, mr. conyers, for making sure that happens. we have to change our policies around policing. we talk about police training. training is only as good as the policy in which you train. in essence if we don't have good solid policy on what we do when we get stopped bay police officer. at what point can they use force leading to deadly force? i think we've been amazed as to what happened including 12-year-old kid playing on a playground for some reason it became acceptable in every single one of the controversial cases what we saw is whoever the

chief's spokesperson for the law enforcement agencies coming to the microphone and saying they did it by the book. everything they did was right. it was consistent with the law. i thonk god that john conyers recognized this and thinking if this is what the law says. we got to change the law. so in essence, as we move to pass this law enforcement trust and integrity act, we set policies for what it is acceptable to use certain forms of force. when can and should they use the taser. when and can they use the night stick and how. when should they pull out the gun and when is it acceptable? it's not essentiacceptable to p to the playground where a kid is reported to playing a gun and within 12 seconds shoot him in the chest. there's a problem when the police officer leadership steps forward and said this is okay. he did it by the book. we have a dead 12-year-old kid that was playing with a toy gun on the playground.

at what point is it acceptable for a child to play with this toy if it's not on a playground. i don't know where it is. let us pass this bill as quickly as we can and thank you for your leadership on that as well. one take but don't be fooled. in essence we want body cams. we thank god for dash cams. we want to make sure our policies are in place and what point we have to leave them on. there are police officers using body cams but somehow they have become obstructive. the policies must be in place to hold them accountable for how they use the body cameras that must happen. it's not just there. the naacp wants in addition we want gun cams and taser cams. of us thought the taser was the non-lethal form of force to be utilized. we had a case two months ago where young man was taserered once and three more times before

they stopped. the cause of death wasn't the decadeser froze up and fell off the roof. he hit the head on the corner of a curb. it wasn't he was a pregnant woman that was tased and lead to premature delivery. it wasn't that child was tasered and they died as a result. he was tased four times and the official cause of death electrocution. so indeed as we talk about this, we want to make sure there's a camera on the taserers as well and the taser cover has been making one for over 125010-years. we can get past that and we need it and want the things recorded. it keeps us safe and the police as well. i want to make sure we have in our communities police accountability review boards. and not this whitewash stuff we've been seeing where the head of the police department conv e convenes a number of citizens to collect data and report back to the police chief what happened. shoot, that's like saying, brother, if you have a problem with the irs it's on you.

in essence, what you can do we have a problem. what i should be able to say is great. i would do a full review of my taxes. i will do a duplicate report, i will share it with you in 12 font and double space to make sure you know what happened and i can tell you every single case not only did i not pay enough taxes, that i paid too much taxes. you whole me a lot of money back. having internal affairs at police departments overseeing police behavior is wrong and it has to stop. in essence, it happens and helpful in some cases. but not in these cases. in too many of these cases they say the same thing. the policy isfine. they adhered to the policy. a document is a number of policy principles that we recommend for local police accountability review boards. it includes everything from collecting data, it includes independence, you should not go into the police department to complain about the police