include the war on terror. over criminalization. the drug war, the militarization of police tactics and gun control. since joining cato in 1991 lynch has published articles in a variety of periodicals and law journals and has appeared on innumerable public affairs programs. he's filed several amicus briefs in the u.s. supreme court in cases involving constitutional rights. he blogs extensively at the cato institute's national police misconduct reporting project found at policemisconduct.net, a site i wholly recommend. he is also the editor of in the name of justice, leading experts reexamine the classic article, the aims of the criminal law. and after prohibition. an adult approach to drug policies in the 21st century. he is a member of the wisconsin district of columbia and supreme court bars and earned a b.s. and j.d. from marquette university. jonathan blanks is a research associate and managing editor of the aforementioned police misconduct.net. his research is focused on law enforcement practices, over criminalization and civil liberties.

he has appeared on various television. radio and internet media including huff post live and voice of america. his work has been published widely and most recently in the case western reserve law review with an excellent piece entitled "thin blue lies: how pretextual stops undermine police legitimacy." we did have copies available on the outside table but i am told we are now out of them. if you want a copy, send me an e-mail or contact me after and i'm happy to get one for you. he is a graduate of indiana university. then we'll have adam bates, a policy analyst at the project. his research interests include constitutional law, the war on drugs, the war on terror and police militarization. bates received a b.a. in political science from the university of miami and both an m.a. in middle eastern studies and j.d. from the university of michigan. he is a member of the oklahoma bar. finally we'll hear from matthew feeney who is a policy analyst at the cato institute. before coming to cato he worked at reason magazine as assistant editor of reason.com. he has worked at the american conservative.

liberal democrats and the institute of economic affairs. matthew received both his b.a. and m.a. in philosophy from the university of reading in england. we'd do the usual format. each speaker will have ten minutes or so and at the end we'll open it up to audience questions. to set the stage, let's please welcome tim lynch. [ applause ] thank you, peter. good afternoon, everybody. right now i think it's safe to say that american policing is being discussed and debated like never before. to take just one example, the "washington post" some months ago earned a pulitzer prize for tracking fatal police shootings across the country. it's really astonishing when you think about it. of all the things the government keeps track of, it never kept an accurate tally of fatal officer-involved shootings.

so that's why "the post" earned its award for throwing resources and trying to come up with an accurate number for everybody so we can put police shootings in some kind of context. is it going up, is it going down, is it staying the same. recent surveys also show citizen confidence in the police has dropped to its lowest point in more than 20 years. so this afternoon what we want to do is offer our ideas on how policing can be improved. but before we get into a discussion of specific reform ideas, we thought it would be useful to start off with an overview of policing in the united states. so once we have some perspective on the big picture, then we can get to some concrete reform proposals. law enforcement in america is heavily decentralized. we have federal police agencies and we have state and local

police departments. everybody here knows about the major federal law enforcement agencies like the fbi, the secret service, the d.e.a. and the border patrol. but there are dozens and dozens of smaller federal agencies that have police powers. talking about the bureau of land management. there is a federal reserve police. and we discovered another one recently, the u.s. government publishing office police. if you go to their website, you'll see that their agents are armed with automatic weapons. so there are dozens and dozens of federal agencies out there with police powers, and even though the number of federal police agents has been growing by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years, most of the policing in the united states is done at the state and local level. we have about 18,000 police departments spread across 50 state jurisdictions. and we have about 800,000 sworn officers. a sworn officer is someone who

is authorized to make arrests and carry firearms. on the federal level there are about 150,000 sworn officers. now, sometimes people ask me why cato would bring its police reform ideas to capitol hill when most of the action is taking place at the local level, at the county level, at the city level. it's a fair question. there are several responses to that. the first one is that policing issues -- some policing issues apply to both federal agents and local police agents. back to police shootings. most of the controversial shootings that we have seen on the news over the past two or three years, walter scott, tamir rice, laquan mcdonald, these are shootings involving local police officers. just yesterday the supreme court announced that it is going to be reviewing a case involving a border patrol agent who shot an unarmed 15-year-old mexican boy.

so federal agents do get into controversial shootings and the supreme court will take up that case this term. second, the relationship between the federal government and local policing has become rather complicated over the years. adam bates will explain how the department of defense has been sending military weaponry and equipment to our local civilian police departments. congress also sends millions and millions of dollars in assistance to local police departments with various rules and regulations that come attached to those funds. matthew feeney will be discussing body cameras in that context. body cameras is a subject that hillary clinton has been talking about on the campaign trail when criminal justice issues come up. and john blanks will be touching on how federal and state police work together in the context of civil asset forfeiture in a program called equitable

sharing. the department of justice has also been called in to investigate many local police departments, to see whether or not there is a so-called pattern and practice of constitutional violations. over the past few years, the department of justice has been called into cities such as new orleans, cleveland, newark, miami, albuquerque, oakland, ferguson, and recently they issued their report on the baltimore city police department. and a federal investigation is now under way in the city of chicago where federal investigators are looking into that department for a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. we expect a report on that to come out anywhere in the next four to six months. we're also seeing the federal government get more directly involved in prosecuting local law enforcement agencies. or agents, i should say. just yesterday the famous sheriff in arizona, joe arpaio,

has been cited for criminal contempt by federal officials. he is going to be going on trial, it looks like, in just a few months, and there is a possibility that he'll actually face jail time. it's a remote possibility, but he is going to be prosecuted in federal court, and that is a possibility. and the former sheriff of los angeles county, l bacca, is also under federal indictment. so there is a lot going on. i should also note here at the beginning that we are aware that, when a police department is performing well, when it is maintaining high standards of professionalism and gets good reviews from the community, that's not considered to be news. it doesn't get as much in the way of a lot of media attention. so we do recognize that. but at the same time we also have to face the reality that many departments are beset with serious problems. and what we want to do is

identify constructive policy proposals that can help to minimize those problems. so that's just a quick overview of policing in the united states. my colleagues will now dive into some of the more specific proposals we're offering in the way of reform. thank you very much for your attention and interest in this subject. >> good afternoon. i want to talk today about something most of us have gone through at one point or another and that is the mundane traffic stop. when that comes to mind most people think, oh, you know, oh, crap, i got busted. i was going 65 in a 55. you sit there, you wait for the cop to come up. you're just thinking, i don't really want a ticket. can i get out of this? that's how you go about it.

that's the peek of your concern. that's not how all traffic stops go in this country, particularly for minorities. there is a different kind of traffic stop known as an investigatory stop. an officer can follow you for a while as you are going through a neighborhood. you're just wondering. it's been a mile, two miles, following closely. you're like, what's going on? and finally his lights pop on and he pulls you over. and he comes up to the car. you're like, officer, what did i do wrong? he's like, well, that little light above your license plate, it's out. or you swerved a little close to the yellow line. you're thinking, i have been aware of you for the past three miles. i know i didn't go near the line but there you are. and so, as you are waiting for your license and registration -- him to run it, you are nervous. when he returns, instead of just handing you the ticket or giving you the pass, he immediately starts asking questions about why you're there and what you're

doing. and you realize he doesn't really care about the light above your license plate. he is running an investigation. and he is going to try very hard for you to give up your right to not be searched. he can use all kinds of trickery. he can pressure you. he can say, you know, you should just make it easier on yourself, just give me consent. it's not about -- we can bring the canine out here. we're going to search you anyway. you may as well make it easy on yourself. now, here you are. you have done nothing wrong and you have a police officer sort of implicitly threatening you for doing nothing wrong at all. you know the names philando castile and sandra bland and you know this can get really ugly, maybe even fatal. so you consent. you sit on the side of the road. sometimes in handcuffs. cars drive by as police officers rummage through your things. and to all the world, you look like a criminal. and you're being humiliated.

the officer may find nothing. he'll send you on your way. maybe with a warning. no apologies. and in your mind this isn't like a speeding ticket where you know you got busted, you know you did wrong. this was illegitimate. you are just wondering -- that's not what's to serve and protect is supposed to mean. the stop was done under pretext. the entire reason for the stop is he thought you looked suspicious. chances are he thought that because you are black or brown skin. we all realize that curbing dangerous driving is an important police function, but, you know, when you get a ticket for speeding, you don't like it but it's not really a problem. when you have these pretextual stops that cause antagonistic interactions with the police, that's -- that has shock waves that go through a community. there are studies that show that one in three black men between 18 and 35 have gone through this exact thing.

and even more know people who have gone through it. that resonates. and it erodes police legitimacy in that community and actually makes law enforcement harder. it makes the police less -- it makes the community less safe because criminals feel emboldened because this contributes to the animosity between the minority communities and the police themselves. so you may be wondering, why am i talking about this on capitol hill? there's nothing more local than being pulled over in your neighborhood. well, as tim alluded to, the equitable sharing program is part of the doj's incentive program to get people -- to get police officers to enforce the war on drugs. and part of this is known as civil asset forfeiture. it's when a police agency can seize property that is tangentially tied to a crime. you don't have to be charged with a crime. you certainly don't have to be convicted of a crime for them to take it. unlike criminal forfeiture where

there needs to be a conviction. in civil court you have to go into court and prove it's legitament. it's expensive and time consuming. the way this works is if this officer was not a traffic cop at all but part of a federal task force, he was there in order to look for drug trafficking. one of the perverse incentives of this, because the police department gets to keep 80% of whatever cash they seize, is that, instead of stopping drugs and guns, we have police officers on tape saying, oh, no, we get them coming out of the major metro areas because they will be cash laden and they can seize it to pay for overtime, to buy new toys that adam will talk about. and it's just -- becomes this very nasty policing for profit motive. so what we -- what we have is a perverse incentive on a couple different levels. again, we're not -- if the police are incentivized to stop

the cash but not the drugs and the guns, what exactly is the war on drugs for anyway? this is supposed to be a public safety issue, right? if it's just to make police officers more money, that's not helpful. i am not saying that every police officer who goes through this is a bad person or that, you know, they don't care about what happens in the communities. but their incentives are all wrong. congress can make these little changes to diminish this and perhaps improve the relationship between these communities and the police. thank you. >> how's it going? thanks for spending your lunch listening to me drone about the police. as tim and john both mentioned, i am going to discuss the militarization of police and to show how that dove-tails with the federal involvement that john mentioned.

so, to carry on the theme of the federal government providing perverse incentives to state and local law enforcement, yeah, i want to talk about the militarization of our police over the past few decades. so i think we all saw the images in ferguson of the police with gas masks and body armor and assault rifles and in some cases sniper rifles. i think, for a lot of people, a lot of people, especially people in communities like ferguson, they're familiar with this image of american law enforcement. for a lot of people, people like me especially, this was a bit of a shock. you start to think, is this what law enforcement is -- looks like in america right now. so there is a long standing myth in america that s.w.a.t. teams and these paramilitary tactics are isolated incidents or that they're reserved for the worst of the worst. and in fairness, that's how s.w.a.t. teams started. s.w.a.t. teams were initially designed to be used for hostage

situations, active shooters, barricaded suspects, things of that nature. emergencies where routine law enforcement equipment and tactics were not good enough. but with the advent of the drug war, that changed rapidly. a few hundred s.w.a.t. raids a year turned into thousands. the best estimate we have right now is that police across america conduct -- how many raids do you think misconduct? in your head, how many s.w.a.t. raids do you think go on every year? our best information say 80,000 s.w.a.t. raids occur in america per year. contrary to conventional wisdom, these are not hostage situations, these are not active shooters. the vast majority of these s.w.a.t. raids are serving search warrants. only 7% according to the aclu, only 7% of these raids are those initial purposes, the hostage situation, active shooter situation. the vast majority of these are search warrants. the vast majority of these

search warrants are looking for drugs. just recently, you may have seen in the news a s.w.a.t. team in massachusetts reportedly accompanied by a national guard helicopter descended on the home of an 81-year-old woman in order to seize a single pot plant that had been spotted from the air. so -- that woman is fighting with all of her heart, bless her. and -- people need to understand, these are not peaceful law enforcement operations. they have become a bit normalized. we're talking about aggressive, paramilitary style raids. and they're dangerous. they're dangerous for the officers involved, and they're dangerous for the people who live in these homes. so we're talking about showing up at your house at 3:00 in the morning, 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. in many cases not even knocking on the door. battering ramming in the door. throw everybody on the floor. shoot the dog, perhaps. a side note. how many dogs do you think the police kill every year? this is shocking. the department of justice

estimates police in america kill 10,000 dogs a year during these police procedures. so, again, these are high intensity -- with a high potential for violent escalation and a high potential for violence. what does this have to do with you and your bosses and the federal government? well, that's another myth. that the federal government does not have much to say about what goes on in local police departments. while criminal justice is historically a state or local practice, the war on drugs and more recently the war on terror have provided the basis for the federal government to become deeply entangled in state and local law enforcement. and that -- the result of that entanglement is a big distortion of police priorities and police practices. through huge federal grant programs such as the urban area security initiative. through weapons transfer programs directly from the pentagon transferring weapons -- military weapons and military equipment to local police, through programs such as the

1033 program that many of you are familiar with, and through the aforementioned equitable sharing program, that is, the federal government creating a legal regime to help facilitate state and local police taking cash and property from people who are not charged with a crime or not convicted of a crime. they're merely suspected, usually of a drug crime, losing their property to the police. the federal government, through this program, provides incentives for state and local police to edge gaungage in this. state and local police then start to forsake local concerns and priorities in the name of fighting the federal government's war on drugs and the federal government's war on terror. some examples of this distortion, police in keene, new hampshire, applied for and received federal funding, almost a half million dollars for a mine-resistant vehicle by arguing that the keene pumpkin

festival was a target for terrorists. i am sure it's a fantastic pumpkin festival. i have not been myself. but it stands it reason that the keene pumpkin festival was not actually an al qaeda target. in fact, a keene city councilman admitted as much when he said we're not really concerned about the threat of terrorism but that's what you put on the application if you want the money. another refreshing bit of candor. the same official said -- by the way, what red-blooded american cop doesn't want to drive around in one of those? it's surely true. it's surely true that police and anyone would like to play around with these toys, but that is not the purpose of law enforcement. that is certainly not the reason that justifies the existence of these federal programs or the federal intervention in state and local police. another councilman called it a tremendous waste of money. the important thing to remember, because these are federal grant programs, it was not the money of the taxpayers of keene, new hampshire, this did not go

through the keene legislature or the normal appropriations process. this was money from the federal taxpayers. the federal government to keene to provide the equipment that otherwise they simply wouldn't have because nobody else would be paying for it. another example. police in tacoma, washington, decided the threat of i.e.d.s, improvised ex pinellplosive dev. th they cited the threat of i.e.d.s for another mine resistant vehicle. again, there is very little evidence that there has ever been or will be an i.e.d. threat in tacoma, washington. but that's what you have to say if you want the equipment. oklahoma put out a report in 2012 to highlight the prof la gacy of these terrorism grant programs. specifically the urban area

initiative. the study put out in 2012 had then given $7 billion to state and local law enforcement through the terrorism grants. yet according to the report there was little evidence to suggest that the communities were any safer. that this massive expenditures of federal tax dollars and massive intervention of the federal government into state and local policing was actually producing anything on the back end except for enriching these departments and producing this militarization effect. president obama commissioned a task force after the events in ferguson to explore the 1033 program and other weapons transfer programs and they concluded that there was not adequate training, there were not adequate concerns about civil rights and, in fact, per the recommendations of this task force the 1033 program was reformed so that police were no longer given tanks or tract vehicles. vehicles with wheels they can get but nothing on tank treads. they couldn't have weaponized

aircraft or rifles larger than 50-caliber, no grenade launchers and for the love of god they could no longer that bayonets. i can't figure out if they were ever actually deployed. but no longer. we're es chewing the local concerns and priorities. when this funding comes through these programs, you are not going through the normal process. you're not going through the representative process and finding out what the community needs and what the community wants. you are getting your incentives and mandates from the federal government instead. i do want to say i don't just want to rip on abuses of this program. some police departments, to their credit, have rejected participation in these programs for exactly that reason. brandon del pozo, the chief of police in burlington, vermont, voluntarily removed his department from the 1033 program and said, i do not like the way

my officers seeing things through a military lens. this does not look like law enforcement to me. it looks like military. that's not what we want police in this community to be about. this is not just us up here saying this. there are people in the police community out on the streets saying, this is not what law enforcement should look like, and we don't want to take part in this anymore. so, from equitable sharing to terrorism and drug war funding to outright military equipment transfers, to the secretive transfer of invasive surveillance equipment such as stingray cellphone trackers and some of the things -- things such as drones that my colleague matthew has written about, the federal government has forcefully injected itself into everyday policing, and the priorities, tactics and most importantly the legitimacy of law enforcement has suffered greatly in this country as a result. so the federal government may not be able to solve all the problems with policing in america but it can stop

exacerbating the ones we have. some of the police departments will have this regardless. some police departments will have s.w.a.t. teams, mine resistant vehicles and things of that nature because they can go through the local appropriations process, they can go to the local community and convince them that they need this equipment. places like keene, new hampshire, and all these places -- i can say because i'm from there, podunk towns in middle america will not have mine-resistant vehicles if they're forced to pay for it through the local process instead of getting what one police officer called pennies from heaven to pay for this equipment from the federal tax budget. so that's why the federal government does have a role to play here, despite the history of criminal justice being a state and local issue. now i'll turn it over to my colleague, matthew feeney. thank you.

good afternoon. this has been very cheery so far, hasn't it? i hope to -- so i hope to follow on from what adam and jonathan were speaking about to discuss police body cameras and the role that the federal government is playing in body cameras and also the costs and benefits. i see -- if you are on the right side of the room you may be regretting that you are not in view of my great powerpoint presentation. i assure you it's mostly -- there won't be too much that's informative. it's mostly pictures so you don't have to stare at me for the entirety of the talk. i thought it would be important to begin by discussing a town that they all mentioned by is ferguson. many of you all know that in november of 2014, a st. louis county grand jury declined to indict police officer darren wilson for the killing of michael brown. his killing sparked protests across the country. in the wake of the news that wilson would not be facing charges, the obama administration proposed a $75 million three-year, 50% matching

funding program for the purchase of 50,000 body cameras. and this isn't a surprise. body cameras have been a staple in policemen's conduct discussions. there is widespread believe that they bring on some kind of observer effect, that people behave better when they know they are under observation, whether you are a citizen or a police officer. there is some evidence to back this up. the most widely cited study on this took place in rialto, california. a police chief outfitted his photographe officers with body cameras. they recorded the incidents and compared that to the years before the cameras. in the years before the body cameras was deployed there was a dramatic reduction in complaints against the police and use of force. last month 4200 officers shifts in seven sites were examined,

and they compared, again, the year before and the year of body cameras and found a 93% reduction in citizen complaints against the police. there are a number of reasons why it may be so dramatic. for one, i think the study required officers to inform citizens that they were on camera before the interaction took place. i don't want to paint too rosy a picture. here are results from san diego. they were found in the year when body cameras were used there was actually an increase in use of force. although there was a decline in what's called greater controlling use of force incidents. tasers, pepper sprays and things like that. the only benefits may not be on the behavior of police and citizens. body camera footage and other footage have proven valuable in investigations into police misconduct. many of you will be aware of the walter scott shooting that took

place in north charleston, south carolina. the officer involved will have a murder trial at the end of this month. another killing was captured on cellphone footage, though the officer involved was not charged. when it comes to body cameras, many of you are aware of the samuel due bose shooting in cincinnati. ray tensing is facing murder and voluntary manslaughter charges and his trial begins at the end of this month. the prosecutor in that case described the body camera footage as invaluable in bringing charges. this piece of footage -- this is from albuquerque, new mexico, the killing of james boyd. he was a homeless, paranoid schizophrenic camping out in the foothills of the mountains. and it was actually announced yesterday that the second degree murder charges -- the trial here ended in a mistrial. this was announced yesterday. but the district attorney, when

this began, said that we have evidence in this case to establish probable cause we didn't have in other cases. so there seems to be pretty good evidence that body cameras have some beneficial effect on officers and citizens, though to what degree it's affecting citizens more than police officers remains to be seen and it's proven useful in investigations into police misconduct. it's also worth thinking about the costs here. police regularly interact with people who are drunk, high, mentally ill. they talk to children who have been sexually assaulted. they're first on the scene at many accidents. they talk to informants and agents. we have to be careful about the privacy concerns associated. i've taken pictures from footage to highlight this. the top left. a man stabbing a police officer. in the bottom left a man is undergoing a drug overdose in his car. the top right and bottom right

pieces of footage show a s.w.a.t. raid that took place in indiana. i am highlighting these screen shots because they give, i think, a good idea about what police are seeing. the s.w.a.t. raid footage is particularly, i think, disturbing because you are seeing the interior of someone's home. you can tell a lot about someone by what they watch on television or what's on the book shelves. political posters, religious icons and things like that. the man in the car is not a violent criminal. he is undergoing a medical trauma. i found that very easily on youtube. the man stabbing the officer, his face has been blurred but still has distinctive tattoos. it wouldn't be that difficult if you knew the jurisdiction to figure out who the man was. in light of these concerns i wrote a paper for cato highlighting what i think the right policy should be so we can get this balance right between accountability and privacy. i think the important thing is that incidents that take place

in private homes, that body camera footage should not be available to members of the public. it should be available to the home owner, their attorney or next of kin but not anyone to request. i don't have the same view about incidents that take place in public. i think members of the public should be able to see body camera footage that shows searches, shootings and detentions. now, today we have been discussing that, of course, law enforcement is primarily a state and local issue. but i think there is an important role here for the federal government. as i mentioned earlier, the obama administration, shortly after ferguson, indicated a strong interest in body cameras. body cameras are not cheap. they impose a bit of a fiscal burden on a lot of departments. the department of justice has issued body camera grants. what i want to stress today is that the department of justice has issued body camera grants to departments that do not have good policies in place, that do not promote accountability or

transparency. in 2015 the department of justice gave $23 million in body camera grants to 73 departments in 32 states. the los angeles police department was one of these departments. it received $1 million. despite the fact that the los angeles policy requires police officers under investigation to view body camera footage before they make statements. and the policy also did not explicitly have prohibitions on using body camera footage for general surveillance. this year there were $20 million awarded to 106 departments in 32 states. and one of the states where these departments were is north carolina. and many of you will, i am sure, have followed the news out of charlotte and have heard something about the law on the books now in north carolina which prevents members of the public like you and me to access body camera footage absent -- without a court order. this is not a policy that promotes accountability or transparency. i think if the federal government is going to be

involved in funding body cameras, the very least it can do is ensure that money only goes to departments that have demonstrated a commitment to transparency and accountability while also protecting privacy. and i'll finish very quickly with this note. body cameras are just a tool. they are not good or bad in virtue of their existence. they are made good or bad tools by the rules that govern them. with the right tools in place, they really are great tools for accountability and transparency as the samuel dubose shooting i think highlights. we shouldn't forget that, without the right policies in place, they're a rather terrifying tool of government surveillance. there is a number of things on the horizon that i want us all to keep in mind. very few departments have policies explicitly banning the use of facial recognition software on police body camera footage. it's also very important that departments have policies in place that limit the access that

photographe officers have to body camera footage. we don't police in their spare time to troll through footage to see who was where doing what, especially if there is no probable cause. that said, i am a long-term optimist when it comes to these tools. but i do worry about the federal government's role, the policies that it is adhering to. but ultimately it's up to people who work up here on capitol hill to ensure that those strict policies are put in place. thank you. [ applause ] all right. so we have 20 minutes or so to entertain questions about the topics we've discussed. we can start with whoever is ready to go. anyone? anyone? you, sir. >> my question is directed

towards adam bates but open to everybody, if you wish to give an answer. and it's regarding -- police militarization. i was wondering if you could talk about whether civil asset forfeiture funds are used to fund the militarization of police that we see in some of these cases. whether those two are related or not and to what nature they are related. >> they are absolutely related. it's important to understand when you talk about aseth forfeiture that all 50 states have their own laws about forfeiture. where the money ends up going can differ by jurisdictions. by and large it goes straight back into the budget of this police department. so, again, this is not going through the appropriations process. this is not going back into the general fund. it's going straight back to the police department, and they can use that money, in most jurisdictions, for anything related to law enforcement.

that includes, you know, paying for federal equipment transfers, paying for new equipment, weapons, things of that nature. so yes. there absolutely is a connection between the use of civil asset forfeiture and militarization. not just the financial connection. it's also the separation of powers issue, right? because now we're not going to the legislature to say, hey, we need a s.w.a.t. team, we need a mine resistant vehicle. .50-caliber rifles. you are not going through the normal process where people would have the ability to comment on the acquisition of this equipment, where you would have public debates or public notices and comments to say, hey, maybe we don't need this stuff. we're just skipping through all of that -- all of that legislative appropriations process and we're going straight to buying the equipment. so there is that angle to it as well. >> also, it's important to note that there has been some significant victories in the area of civil asset forfeiture

reform. new mexico, for example, has abolished civil asset forfeiture. it was one of these legislative battles where it was mostly behind-the-scenes opposition, but once it came up for a vote, the vote was unanimous in new mexico to abolish this controversial practice. in california, just a few weeks ago, they also significantly scaled back on civil asset forfeiture powers in that state. so there is some momentum but there is clearly a lot more that needs to be done. >> yes. >> there are a lot of other developed countries across the world that are a lot less problematic when it comes to their policing practices. when looking at policing here, do you guys also look at foreign countries, and if so, what examples can we take from them? >> the drug war has come up a few times and we've done international comparisons looking at countries that take a different approach than the united states' historic,

hard-line approach to waging the drug war. for example, a lot of people do not realize that portugal decriminalized all drugs in the year 2000. and so there was a lot of predictions that they were making a big mistake when they went to de-escalate the war in that country. and we did a study by glen greenwald who went over to study the results to see whether these dire predictions would come true, and he found that they're doing very well there. there is no movement under way to say, you know, we've made a mistake, we need to reverse this policy and go back to the american approach of ramping up the drug war. so, actually, more and more officials from around the world are going to portugal to see what they've done, to study the results, and to de-escalate the drug war in places like brazil and other countries around latin america. of course, we have got upcoming elections here where marijuana legalization is on the ballot in

many states. so these are steps in the right direction, moving away from the drug war approach, moving towards decriminalization and legalization. it's a tremendous waste of police resources to have agents doing these s.w.a.t. raids, helicopters over the property of elderly women with a pot plant in the back yard. tremendous waste of resources. these police resources should be redirected towards the fight against violent crime. >> and -- am i cutting somebody off over there? another -- i mean, a big aspect of this is that, if an interaction between the police and the citizenry doesn't happen, then obviously it can't escalate into violence, right? when we talk about things like marijuana legalization, we're not just talking about limiting drug-based interactions with the police, but we're also talking about something jonathan mentioned with the pretextual stops. if the scent of marijuana or the

dog hitting on your car can no longer serve as probable cause to search somebody's car or to start escalating this scenario, then the escalations that we see in a lot of these cases that end up with people dying simply don't happen. so i understand -- and you'll hear the argument that policing is a dangerous job. it is a dangerous job. that police officer is worried about his safety, but if we can limit the interactions between police and the community by decriminalizing behaviors that shouldn't be criminal in the first place, those situations never have a chance to blossom into violence, right? >> i will only briefly -- so, yes, i actually have an uncle who served as a policeman in england. it is true that the united states does stand out among developed countries when it comes to the number of citizens that are unfortunately killed by law enforcement. and i think everything that adam and tim said is correct. i will only add that i think it's worth examining treatment or response to calls that have

to deal with people with mental illness and those kind of things. there is very disturbing footage that came out of dallas recently of a mentally ill man with a screw driver who was shot and killed very quickly. that's something else, when it comes to training, that i think could also help. >> it was briefly mentioned the idea of the militarization of regulatory agencies. i'd like to hear more about the perspective on that. >> well, so -- as tim mentioned in his remarks, many federal agencies -- federal agencies that most people don't even know exist for some reason have been part of this militarization ramp-up in the federal government. it's not just the military equipment. it's also the surveillance equipment. i mentioned stingray cellphone surveillance devices. they're used to track people's cellphones and their locations. the irs has stingray devices.

why? why does the irs have a s.w.a.t. team? why does the epa have a s.w.a.t. team? aside from the general "we want the stuff" and it's available, i don't have a lot of great ideas about why that can't happen except that that's the natural growth of government when nobody's -- when it's not being checked in any way. if you live in d.c. and walk around, you start seeing police cars from government -- the u.s. secret service has their own police, the fbi has their own police, the treasury, the mint has their own police. yeah. i have the same reaction you have, which is wait, why? >> i think tangentially from that, another thing about -- the mission creep is you have, as he was talking about surveillance, that the information that is collected from federal agencies is sometimes trickling down into local law enforcement. and they'll be doing a terror investigation and they'll come across drug trafficking so

they'll pass it on to a local law enforcement and say, okay, this is the guy who is doing this. can you -- we can't give you this information. we can't tell you how to get this information, but you can set up what's known as parallel construction, come up with a plausible way that you came across this information and build a case that way. a lot of sometimes because so many people plead out, they don't go to trial, they don't find out how they got the information. when the government is scacallen it they usually say, we drop the charges. >> i should also mention, going back to a point that was raised earlier about the shooting of dogs, this is something that doesn't get enough attention in our view because, if you talk about, like, why there is growing resentment in some communities against police work, you know, when you shoot the family dog, i mean, these stories ripple out among relatives, neighbors, friends of people. and when, you know, everybody agrees that officers have to be able to protect themselves, but

when more and more of these incidents are caught on tape where you can see the situation and come to your own conclusion about whether that dog was threatening or whether the officer over-reacted and shot the dog, these boilerplate language that used to go into police reports, the dog was threatening, therefore, i had to shoot him, that's not cutting it anymore because so many of these things are caught on tape. an incident in new york city recently the civilian review board concluded an officer overreacted by shooting a dog. at another one of these things that's caught on tape. and, you know, this is an example where we can learn from what other agencies have been doing well. for example, the agencies have doing well. for example the united states postal service. all of these postal workers receive regular training on how to deal with dogs and it turns out there maybe a few bites a year but no serious incidents

involving postal workers because they have been given training on how to handle recognizing a threatening dog versus a dog that's nonthreatening and what to do in these situations and we have so many local police officers that don't receive this training. mental distress and have that training done for local police officers so some of these horrible violent ibs dents in the community can be reduced. >> it's my understanding that the police don't carry guns. i'm wondering if you can comment on the success or failure of

that policy. >> so it's not just british police don't carry guns not just in london but not anywhere. they can get access to them if they need to. there's specific units that can respond with weapon ifs they have to but britain is actually not unique but it's not necessarily the norm in other developed countries. there's other developed countries where police regularly carry guns. french police carry weapons pretty regularly as to finish police. not just american police that are armed. the discussion has to be when they use the weapons and under what circumstances so disarming the police might sound like an initial good idea but of course there's plenty of citizens in the united states that also have guns and that's something that police in most of the other developed countries don't have to worry about so i don't think disarming the american police is necessarily the right way to go but certainly training and under what circumstances they use those weapons is something that

should be looked at. >> i'd like to follow up on that a little bit. some people have -- excuse me, some agencies tried to move more toward tasers or other non-lethal uses of force although of course we also hear stories of people dying after excessive taser use. what some have found is that the use of a taser goes up when they're dpichb tasers instead of guns or in addition to guns because they're like it's not as legal so i can use this and it's quick to escalate so i can only reiterate that training is just as important or more important. >> one of the benefits of having a decentralized system and having police organized at the local level is they can try different policies and we can learn from one another. so there maybe a few jurisdictions out there that may want to try the english approach of going unarled. we learn from those experiences the same way we're learning from

colorado and colorado has stepped forward in the marijuana context. a lot of people said it would be a disaster so policy makers around the country are closely following what is happening in colorado. predictions have not come true so when the state experiments with a policy we can learn from it and then other policy makers and jurisdictions can make their own decisions based on the evidence. >> one question i had to another is we talked about federalism when we started. is there any merits to federalizing police misconduct in term of crimes? federal penalties? >> i mean, it's good that we have -- i think, given the decentralized nature of law enforcement that we have 18,000 law enforcement agencies. yeah, i don't want to say that the federal government has no oversight role especially when it comes to things that

represent constitutional violations. and pattern or practices sued and the section 1983 lawsuits that are federal causes of action against state and local officials. those are necessary to protect the constitutional rights but as far as some idea of federalizing law enforcement or federalizing the entirety of law enforcement that's probably a bad idea because the federal government itself is not -- it's not very easy to hold those people accountable. it's not as easy to hold the federal government accountable as it can be at the state and local level. so i would be very concerned there about the federal government being the soul and only word on police misconduct. >> well, we should maybe address, how about the war on cops? does it exist? what does the data say on that? >> i'll let tim have it. >> so, tim do you want to --

>> yeah, there is much discussion in the literature and on television about a war on cops but the evidence for that is rather thin. if you look at, for example, the violence against police officers despite the awful tragedy and ambush in dallas this year, pu look at it overall the statistics to violence against police has been going steadily down and the term or expression is more being used in the debate over policing. we're having a debate over how to handle police misconduct. we're having a debate over what police tactics are appropriate and should be immemented so we have people on different sides of these questions and people that don't like the policies being at dematerialization and civil asset forfeiture.

these things are upset about the way in which the debate is going and they mischaracterize i think as being some kind of war on police. it's an unfortunate mischaracterization because we all know other dpovrnmental institutions like our schools, we have to address them and it doesn't amount to a war on teachers because we want to reform our schools. we know that many of them are dysfunctional. and some place versus been dysfunctional agencies for a long time and to dress them and to fix them should not be mischaracterized as a war on

cops. >> it varies from department to department. running the police misconduct website i find all sorts of different -- how different departments handle it. sometimes a small violation like, you know, an inflammatory facebook post is going to get someone fired. and other times like the dog that, killed the dog in new york that tim mentioned he got off with, this is -- the review board said he violated the rules but he got off with a light reprimand. it just depends on union protection. it depends on the transparency in any given department with poid camera policies and how this goes through but what ultimately it comes down to is people paying attention to their own communities and bringing political pressure on the prosecutor and the mayor to make sure that they're in line because they're insulated but most places don't elect a police chief. a lot of people aren't thinking

oh what did he do today. >> we have time for one more. last year we did a full day conference on related issues and criminal justice reform area and december 7th we'll have another conference. so if you're interested in that please go and the next in this series will be on free trade and that will be on october 27th. so check your e-mail for that. i want to thank everybody for attending and i think we should thank our speakers. [ applause ]

>> we'll have more come pain 2016 coverage tomorrow. pennsylvania republican congressman michael fitzpatrick is retiring from congress but his brother will meet democratic state representative in a debate. that is live. 12:15 p.m. eastern on cspan. north carolina republican is seeking a third term in the u.s. senate. later in the day he faces deborah ross, a former north carolina state representative. live coverage starts 7:00 p.m. eastern also on cspan. on friday, former wisconsin democratic senator is seeking to win back the seat he lost to republican ron johnson in 2010. the two meet at 8:00 p.m.

eastern in a debate. live coverage on cspan and senate minority leader harry reid's retirement nevada has an open senate seat this year. he's running against former nevada attorney general. the two candidates debate at 10:00 p.m. eastern live on cspan. >> before the final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump were looking back to past presidential debates. and 1984 debate between president ronald ray dpan and former vice president. we must understand that we are a government by the people and when we move it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interest and end up with a stronger

country behind us. >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience. >> then the 1988 presidential debate between vice president george h.w. bush and massachusetts governor. >> you have a president that will work with the congress and the american people. you can bring that deficit down steadily. 20, 25, $30 billion a year. build economic growth. big a good strong future for america and invest in those things that we must invest in. economic development. good jobs. >> i wish he would join me in appealing for the american people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line. and that line item detail for the president and i think that would be extraordinarily helpful. >> and the 2008 debate with illinois senator barrack obama

and arizona senator john mccain. >> the situation today cries out for bipartisanship. senator obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue and we need to reform and so let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric. that's really part of your mistrust here. >> so we're going to have to make some investments but we also have to make spending cuts and what i propose, you'll hear senator mccain say he is proposing a whole lot of new spending but i'm cutting more than i'm spending so it will be a net spending cut. the key is whether or not we have priorities that are working for you. >> watch past presidential debates. saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan. watch any time on cspan.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the cspan radio app. >> next, officials from the clinton and trump campaigns discuss their candidates views on the u. s.-east asia policy.

other topics include u.s.-china relations and the nuclear program. they hosted this event. >> do you hear me? >> good afternoon, i'm the president and ceo of the korean economic institute and we welcome you here this afternoon. we have two surrogates of the respective presidential nominees. the honorable campbell for hillary clinton. and peter for donald j. trump

discussing foreign policy and security as those issues relate to the korean peninsula, greater asia, and the world as a whole. north korea's nuclear development is not just an asian problem. i've had the pleasure of knowing both of these speakers personally for several years and considered them to be extraordinary statesmen. extraordinarily qualified. let me stress this is not a debate but a discussion seen from the eyes of two viewpoints. you are not expected to leave believing either or both are correct or incorrect. foreign policy and security are did he recalled by the times. the world political players and develop over long periods of time. their influenced to an extent by the president, the cabinet and by congress. the development of foreign policy is not like planting a

seed in a green house and waiting for a fruit of vegetable and totally predictable results. there's the variety of seeds and nutrients and is it a giant outdoor area subject to win. and of course human interax. >> their perspectives are different. the diplomat and the member of the u. s. house of representatives. >> the university of california, san diego. certificate of music and philosophy from the university. >> the u.s. navy and the joint chiefs of staff and the chief of naval operations special intelligence unit. he taught in harvard and scored with annual rouse capacities including deputy assistant secretary of defense and deputy

special counselor to the president for nafta. i know him from his position and east asian and pacific affairs where he served from june in 2009 and served as the chairman of the u. s. house and foreign affairs committee. and and internationally businesses and organizations. and peter was born in holland and he moved to holland michigan at the age of 3. he received an a in political college and an a from the university of michigan and school of business and became affiliated with the furniture maker hermann miller where he stayed for 15 years eventually

becoming vice president of marketing. he's one of the few members of congress that's been a high ranking executive in a fortune 500 company. 1992 he decided to run for congress opposing and then defeating an incumbent in the primary and succeeded in the general election in november. and subsequent elections. congressman in 2004 was selected for membership on select committee and intelligence when he served with the congresswoman that's now the president and ceo of the woodrow wilson institution. he eventually became chairman of the permanent select committee and intelligence and that that capacity is one of a hand full of members to be briefed with a sense of information concerning the security of the nation. he also served on the education

and work force committee. he left congress after nine terms. the founder of his own consulting firm and he is a visiting fellow with a concentration on educational reform. he joined the investigative project on terrorism in 2014 as a senior fellow. he's a frequent contributor to cnn fox news and other television and media. members of the audience will be given an tubt to ask questions and i remind you the questions are about foreign policy and security. the questions are limited strictly to 30 seconds. that's it. no speeches because a lot of people will add questions and these people and not you. just your questions. both of these men are our guests. they have been very gracious with their time. and now i have the opportunity to hand the program over to our

kei vice president. mark is a 38 year veteran. career democrat. forgive me. >> saying it wrong. mark is a 38 year career diplomat. served as dcm in korea. and mongolia and other posts. and political affairs at american embassy in london. in marks various capacities he helps organize among other events in london the g-20 and international security conference in 2012 and the 2014 nato summit. he was awarded the award on his work on implementeding the peace

accords. >> congressman -- >> you'll never forget that will you? >> long forgiven. before we start let me emphasize again that this afternoon the event is not a debate about general politics. we're going to have a conversation about foreign policy. so the way we're going to proceed is, i'll have a few questions of my own. >> my friend congressman for that organization. thank mark for his service and it's a pleasure to see all of you here today. i agree this is an opportunity to explore. if you listen to conversations carefully there's the obvious

concerns. what's going on in china. a more assertive foreign policy. concerns about provocations in north korea. anxieties about regime change prospects in countries in southeast asia. big problems lurking in terms of maritime security. and territorial issues but right now i have to say probably at the top of the list there's not any of these concerns. the number one issue that animates the thinking of most people in asia is what's going on in the united states and i think that we have to recognize the united states has played a central role in nation's history. and operating system that has brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to asia and also it's been tremendously effective for the united states as well. bringing prosperity and opportunity and it has linked us in a specific community that has

been in the best strategic interest of the united states. over the course of this campaign, fundamental issues associated with that role have been called into question. will we support the continuation of the non-proliferation regime or will we encourage nations to break out of that? how will we treat our treasured and trusted allies? japan, south korea and others? how will we engage with china? will we take a purposeful approach or will we cut deals on the side? and in addition to the tone, timber of this campaign, the questions that will remain even after the resolution of this unfortunate political contest will continue and i believe personally the best person to address those issues and secretary clinton and hopefully

president elect clinton and the person that has -- than any person that has ever run to the highest office. and we'll be in a position to reassure asian friends of the strength of our commitment. the role we seek to play in asia going forward with the recognition that the share of the history of the 21st century will be written this. and just a down payment on what i hope will be a deeper discussion on specific issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah, great, thank you. it's great to be with you today. i wasn't sure exactly what my friend is going to say but you know, i'm one of those individuals that has made what many believe to have been a successful transition from the world of business to the world of politics. people are, you know, questioning can someone from the business world actually move

many to politics and be successful? and what we have seen is that, yeah, that can happen because many of the values and many of the practices that you learn in leadership in the private sector are very politics and business are very very different. and i got ready for this and one of the things that it seems that everybody has been. and a number of years. and the processes that develop together jointly. that it hasn't worked.

they haven't been successful. and korea and other places that are looking at the situation and said it's time to go back and start from ground zero. and go to ground and how do we work with our friends and our allies. and a successful strategy and have not been successful. and practice of using business all the time. and issues and bring people

together and to develop a consensus and move a strategy forward. we recognized and i just wrote a book on libya where we confounded a lot of strategies that you should have integrated into a foreign policy and turned it head over heels. and our objective from the trump campaign standpoint and president trump is to recognize that the strategies that we have in place and some of the key issues have not worked very effectively that we need to work with our friends in the region. and strategies to move forward and that it has to be developed in a colab arangers tif frame

work. and perhaps most important is that we need to develop those strategies in a collaborative manner. not only overseas but perhaps most importantly here in the united states because foreign policy is hard. it's difficult. there are no easy answers. no quick fixes to the issues and the challenges that we face. we need to develop the strategy that has by part is on support. and that is sustainable. we cannot be in a position where our friends and allies look to the united states. and elections become the topic of discussion because the fear is that with the change in

administration that our foreign policy will take a dramatically different course. foreign policy is hard. to move a ship and move it in the right direction and foreign policy takes a long time and need to develop policies that may have adjustments between administrations and you will not see major differences that people worry about in foreign policy and there has to be something sustainable. if america is going to continue to be effective on the international stage, we have to be a trusted and relied upon ally because we are predictable in the future. i hook forward to any questions that you have.

>> let's check into specifics and we'll start with trade i think. and suggested that u.s. credibility and dependable are in line with a transpacific partnership. the ttp. and are there changes that could be made to it. >> thanks. first of all, just as a general observation about the making a policy, the greatest aspect of foreign policy toward the asian pacific region is that it has been bipartisan and republican and democratic administrations working together based on common assumptions about the importance of alliances and the importance of our economic engagement and the durability and defense commitments in life. the shared goals in a constructive and careful responsible engagement of china. that has animated most of our

foreign policy security apparatus for 40 years. and it's important to note here that i didn't know of a foreign policy expert that works on asia that has endorsed plflt trump. most of them, many of the people that served so effectively in previous administrations have either suggested that they will not participate in this election or they will support secretary clinton. the hope in my perspective will be that we will have a continuation of bipartisan goals and objectives and i will suggest that some of the things that donald trump is suggesting is very much out of the mainstream. and will, in fact, risk the kind of things that the congressman has suggested he wants to avoid. look on the trade and economic piece there's an undeniable

recognition. there has to be a commercial component for the pivot and rebalance to asia. we uphold the operation system and includes and strong defense commitment but at the core of it is the recognition that the united states is an active optimistic player in the regional dynamics of the region. now the united states still today by far and away is the largest investor in asia. what it's primarily about is the term of trade going forward and i do not need to tell you that secretary clinton has been very clear that she cannot accept the trade agreement as it's currently been negotiated. at the same time she also recognizes that some form of commercial engagement will be necessary going forward.

my personal view is the united states has to be prepared to engage the cross the board. we have a commercial opponent and build new institutions and make sure that we're not reaching out just to our partners but new partners like vietnam and indonesia in addition it's a tall order but i believe that the united states is up to the task and it's also the case that frankly most of tin novation will be in asia. >> you know, the shot at mr. trump, you know, really isn't, really isn't necessary or

essential. he's not going to threaten or challenge the relationships over allies. you have seen frenlds be leiend hanging. in regards to ttp. we have gone through an administration and i think, you know, our friends and allies probably after they have negotiated with the united states for a number of years and signed an agreement that they're going to take back to their respe respective legislatures or whatever approval process they go through with the expectation that -- a high expectation that they have all negotiated in good

faith and that there has been a collaborative process between the branch of government that's been negotiating and the branch of government that will have to vote to implemented it here in the united states and it is disappointing and a mark against american credibility with our friends that rely on us that we have gone through this long negotiation process and hammered out all of these things and that this administration won't even get a vote in congress on approving it before it leaves office and that as it's going out the door that the two major

parties and the candidates representing the two major parties both disavowed the trade agreeme agreement. so what everyone knows is that ttp in the way it was negotiated is not going to be voted on by congress. will not be approved by the united states but will result in a new round of negotiations and yeah, that is disappointing and you would hope as this process moved forward that there would have been much more collaboration between the executive branch and congress. so that you wouldn't get to this point where it says oh by the way, here's now an agreement and the congress looks at it and the representatives of both political parties look at it and say, wait a minute, we can't buy into this. as a matter of fact, you're not

even going to get a vote and when i'm elected president we're going back to the negotiation table. that's a terrible place to be and it's a disappointing place to be and it doesn't have to happen that way and it didn't have to happen this way if there would have been more collaboration between the executive branch and the legislative branch as this agreement was being negotiated. it's disappointing. >> both candidates expressed concerns about china. either by trade policy or by security so how should the u. s. work with allies to manage china's rise? but specifically should you have more of a role to play on the south china sea issue? >> thank you, so china represents for the united states and the countries of the region an unprecedented challenge. we, going forward, are going to have areas where we have

profound issues of disagreement. areas like cyber security. issues related to dumping of certain materials in u.s. markets territorial relationship like the south china sea and relationship with neighbors and the like and the military and overall more asserted foreign policy than we have seen in years past. at the same time, the inner dependence is perhaps greater than between any other states in the national economic system and our destiny is to try to figure out ways to work together and to deal with those challenges but also have them offset by areas of cooperation or very specific

national reasons the united states and china work together in 2007 and 2008 in the aftermath of probably the worst financial crisis in our lifetime for sure rebalance the global economy. it was through the substantial of international pressure negotiated again largely between the united states and china. we have seen the maintenance of peace and stability across and we have been able to work as the united states engaged on a process that made clear our interest there is and how much we wanted to see china allow that process to play out. we have had imperfect but

necessary communication and mark will get to that as we go forward. in truth, this is what it's like to deal with a rise in power. it's going to demand more and more of our time and attention i will just tell you there's going to be friction in the relationship. that friction is almost a given. and, in fact, the absence of friction in certain circumstances probably means that someone is not doing their job. the key is going to be to recognize that this balanced relationship of cooperation and some areas of competition is going to be our destiny going forward and we have to manage carefully going forward. >> i think the issue that gets a lot of attention is how mr. trump talks about trade and

trade obviously is a key component with china we have a very complicated issue but one that needs constant reassessment to make sure that it's working for all of the parties involved i was there when nafta passed congress in the early 90s and in the business world kwour constantly going back and evaluating the relationships with customers and vendors and people that you may be in partnership with but isn't it amazing that after the trade agreement that's been in effect for over 20 plus years between

the united states, canada and mexico there's not been an on going assessment of every three years of every five years of every 7 years. is it working the way we intended it to work? is mexico working the way we thought it would work? is the united states benefitting and gaining the rewards that it thought it would get from the trade agreements? and if not how do we go back and adjust the trade agreements to make sure that closer to the original objective roles and working for all the partnerships

and make sure that these greelts and protocols are working for each of the parties involved and that they a and those will be fixed through and collaborative process. >> what issues come up during the campaign has been the relationship between u.s. and south korea? should south korea defend itself against a potential north korean attack or should they be integrated in a combined fwors the u.s. forces? >> this is one where i talk about earlier where there's so many people in asia looking for a reassessment to go back and figure out how not only that relationship is but also how other relationships now change and adapt based on the new

reality that north korea has a nuclear weapon. it's advanced it's capabilities of the last number of years and the new reality that says sanctions will be much less effective moving forward because with the iranian deal we have empowered one of north korea's key allies. you take a look at the leverage, so there's been so many changes that have happened but one of t you know, you have china has always been identified on what happens in north korea and another place was the relationship and what we did with iran. it's a key not only trade partner with north carolina but they have been in ballistic missile development and with

this agreement what do you have? a newly unleashed power house with iran. and then the numbers are all over the map but they're staggered in the low of 56 or $60 billion to as high as $150 billion at the disposal of iran to determine how they will use it ooechbd just last -- even

just last week the banking and financial transactions. that's the frame work we're dealing with that's going to enhance iran's capabilities as an economic power house and the agreement is going to provide north korea with more options and a new reality developed over the last 8 to 12 months and that's why there's a sense of angst in asia and it's the recognition that one of the people that helped prop up the regime in north carolina and iran is now a much more powerful and financial power house than what it was 12 short months ago

and you sit down and develop the strategies as we move forward. >> thanks. to the specific question about how to conceptualize the relationship between the united states and south korea going forward i know of no other bilateral relationship that prospered and asended so much over the last 10 or 15 years under both the bush administration and the obama administration and the u.s. free trade agreement. and more responsibilities globally and the key is to sustain that momentum and that going forward. now on the security side it's a combination of the two. we want to continue steps to integrate the united states closely into the alliance on the korean peninsula for the peace and stability because we're

still facing a deeply provocative regime in north carolina. and south carolina is seeking to play a larger role in international peace keeping and other circumstances that i think we should support it. and when we talk about what works and what has not worked in asia, my suggestion would be the non-proliferation regime as it applies to many countries in northeast asia. it's an outliar that all the other countries are trying to find the best matter to deal with but to ensure that south korea, japan, taiwan, other countries do not reconsider their nuclear choices requires a strong, steady, capable american

for a deployed role and what we have done is raise questions about this nonproliferation regime which i believe is the greatest success of the united states and region going forward. if one country decides to go down this line it will set off a chain reaction that i believe will have very negative consequences for the region as a whole. we talk a lot about sanctions. there's those that have been unsuccessful. i think there are more serious, more sustained sanctions that the united states and others can take. and what is necessary going

forward is a substantial internal reload between the united states and south korea and a quite dialogue in terms of more significant pressure on the regime to make clear that the provocative actions that they have taken will not be allowed and we have to roll back north korea's capabilities to allow the maintenance of peace and stability. >> will me follow up with you about the relationship. would secretary clinton want to reexamine the burden sharing? >> well, mark as you noel, if you look at our two alliances and particularly in northeast asia and japan and south korea, by some measures they're the most generous providers of support of any countries that we

station troops in. they're always difficult. and korea less. a much smaller country and smaller footprint. i would say that the calculus by which these decisions and agreements are examined has to be looked in a more wholistic way. i believe the deploiyment of ou forces in asia is a force multiplier for the united states. we do not do this to help protect and support our alabama li -- although that's a central role. it allows us to play a larger role and integrates us in a way that puts boots on the ground in

a way that serves the interest of the united states. i think a calculus of the kind that mr. trump suggested that i do not believe is in the best strategic interest of the united states and misses the entire role of the partnership between the united states and those countries. >> do we need to adjust or take a look at it. >> what i said earlier, you go back and you take a look at the role and how that has evolved over time. in the 1960s there was probably a burden sharing agreement that was necessary and appropriate. and that has adjusted. in 2016 and 2017 there's nothing wrong with going back and reassessing it and it will be a wholistic approach. recognizing the factors that go into it. benefits for korea and the benefits to the united states

and the benefits to the region. and there's a responsibility that we play as a global leader and investments that we make for global leadership but at the same time there's responsibilities to american taxpayers to make sure that we create an environment and structure with our allies that does not -- that is fair to our taxpayers and to our workers. i drive a car. my wife drives a car. it was made in korea, all right? so we have strong interrelated agreements on trade and national

security but if american, that's why it's so important to get these relationships on burden share manage that right because if it's the reality that american workers competing on a regular basis. but if the added cost of building that car in america includes providing subsidies that go beyond our global role and those types of things, it puts american workers at a disadvantage. just like they have a responsibility to their citizens to make sure that they provide the safe and secure environment, they also have a responsibility to their workers and their taxpayers to make sure that they have negotiated fair agreements that enable them to be

competitive. and that is the same responsibility that donald trump has to american workers and to american taxpayers and when that is in balance between korea and the united states of america then we have a good agreement. and an agreement that can move forward. that's all donald trump is saying. i will assess those agreements and make sure that they're fair because i have a responsibility and america cannot be in a position where we have slow economic growth and whether it's other places around the globe it's that we're carrying a disproporti disproportionate cost for doing that because it puts america at

a disadvantage in other parts of the extremely important relationships that we have. so yeah, you would expect the leaders in asia to do exactly the same thing that we in america are asking donald trump to do. >> can i just -- i actually like very much the way the congressman has laid this out in terms of the need to constantly reevaluate. in fact, that's the purpose of government. whether executive or legislative branches. you have to in a very measured careful way examine does this work. they both believe that any agreement has to be in the best interest of the american people. i actually listen carefully to

plflt trump. i actually do not hear him saying what you're saying. i hear you talking i think in a very responsible way about needing to evaluate and be careful in the process. i hear more sweeping statements. we're going to put sanctions on and we're going to lash out and i don't hear language that suggests a process of evaluation. i hear much more that i made these decisions. i'm going to do this on day one. things that i think would be very destabilizing and i also listen carefully and i don't hear mr. trump talking about our alli allies. it seems more negative and competitive and i wish the way you're describing the overall views were the way he's talking about it but i don't hear that approach generally.

>> you and i have been in this part of the world and developed political speak. for me it's been 20 years and maybe a little bit longer on your part but we have both been involved in a significant part of our professional careers we are perhaps a little bit more sensitive to exactly how the words come out and the flip side is sometimes people give the mitt cal answer and you in the audience will be scratching your heads saying what did that person just say? they talked for a couple of minutes and i can't really hear them -- i didn't really understand exactly what they were pointing to. donald trump speaks with these that makes people in the political class a little bit nervous but he also comes from the business world and knows

well when you're negotiating a contract, a major contract, you're never in a position to go in and dictate the terms to anybody. that it's a process of negotiations and you may come in with certain expectations. someone else may come in with other expectations but donald trump very much understands as i think is the name, the art of the deal, how you get from point a to point b and the same way i did it in the business world is getting from point a to point b is a collaborative process and negotiation process and a process that at the end of that both parties believe that they -- that it's beneficial to them and only then do they have a contract and agreement to move forward. so having done that in the

business world for years and years donald trump understands that's the same type of process that you're going to go through when you're working, when you're working and trying to come to agreements and he doesn't have the 20 years of developing how to talk and code language that sometimes it comes out a little bit more coarse than what some of us in the political world might be comfortable with. >> let me finish up with a couple of questions about north korea. how would a clinton or trump administration deal with

sanctions regime on north korea. and to take steps that send a very clear message that the testing of nuclear message, the most recent, you know, tests of ballistic missiles i believe with the congressman, this stated purposes and objectives of the leadership with the

united states, you know, is one of the animating features. we have to regard that as an extraordinarily serious matter and we ask to realize that our previous experiences have not been successful with regard to inhibiting north korean decisions. i think at the center of this is a different kind of conversation with china. so i would say almost the exclusive economic and social partner is china. china has played a remarkable role in facile tarting some kind of interactions and -- facilitating some kind of interactions and we have to go directly to china and make clear we want to work with you with some of the sanctions and the like. if you have inhibitions about working with us, we'll be prepared about taking these steps alone.

and we'll be clear that the developments in north korea are such that when the -- when they were talking about our primary responsibility. our primary responsibility is the well being of the american people. what's happening in north korea are steps that not only threaten the region, but potentially could threaten the united states over time. it is incumbent on the president of the united states to form that partnership, to make that case to china and to take those steps to make clear that the path that north korea is on is acceptable. i think that's the first step. a lot of people want to talk about the negotiating pair dime that follows. let's wait on that. let's focus now on the activation of a much more engaged purposeful sanctions regime that sends in unmistakable message to north korea. that's remember the steps they

have taken are not just provocative from our perspective, but the most recent tests of missiles were launched in the g 20, which was an enormous embarrassment. we've got to make sure what's going on in north korea -- what's changed is relations between south korea and south china have improved. united states supports that process. the whole pool being that they're aligned with the korea, the korea that's not serving their best strategic interest. i agree with the congressman. it's very challenging. it's very complex. it requires partnership and steadiness with our friends in asia, but it will be in asia pretty much job one for any new administration that comes to

power in january. >> follow up a little bit. north korea said repeatedly and loudly will never give up its nuclear weapon. i think you said that there's an option that we might have to any -- negotiate. do you see us ending at that position? >> i think that's a discussion -- that's what i said, you need to outline what your objective is and once you outline with your allies what the objective is, if the objective is to rid the pepe sla. . peninsula of nuclear weapons that leads to a new set of strategies. if you say, you know, it's a cap or containment, that is, you know, that's the process that needs to take place right now. >> personally i cannot imagine accepting a weigh station or an agreement whereby we would

simply cap north korea. so i believe that the basis of the sixth party arrangement has always been a verifiable, elimination of nuclear, of capabilities in north korea. in addition, frankly, the other issue that we have to be highly attentive to is the proliferation risk that north korea provides. so we again, mark, i think we all can agree on this, we have our work cut out for us. ultimately the northeastern asian community has to be much firmer and clearer about why it's in the best strategic interests of all the countries involved to see north korea backtrack substantially on the steps that they've taken over the last several years. >> that's a significant change of policy. because for the last, you know, the last number of years, you know, we're not talking about -- it's hard, okay. you know, you're talking about the country that's muf been

moving forward steadily on this path at a quicker pace. and, you know, there's one strategy that says, man, which i'm not sure that's in place right now, how do we just stop them right where they are. it's a whole other thing that then says, wait a minute, you know, hallelujah, we've got them to a point where we've got them to stop. what steps do you put in place that says, by the way, roll back all the progress that you've made in the last number of years, i mean, you're right. whoever the next president is has their, you know, has a very tough -- had a very tough assignment handed to them. >> i've got one final question. my last question is, some come men taters believe there can't be an issue without a summit meeting. so under what -- let me just

say, what i'm frankly most focused on, mark, right now, is a different kind of summit, which i hope will be a summit between the first summit of its kind between a woman leader of south korea and the united states. frankly that will take place as soon as possible. i'm much for focused on ensuring the partnership, the strength, the durability and the trust that's developed continues. frankly, i've had a lot of conversation with south korea, this is no time to rest. we've done a lot well together. i think both country's opinion polls have never been higher. we've worked together in so many different ways. the key is not to rest, but to

set even higher goals, to continue up the summit, up the mountain and that would be our expectation going forward. i believe that securing the ramparts of that relationship, mark, is essential feature of anything as we go forward. as i said, my primary focus would be on orchestrating the surrounding states in a way that sends an unmistakable message across the board in terms of financial sanctions, other u.n. sanctions and the like, what north korea has done is unacceptable. >> all right. >> i can't imagine any set of circumstances in the shorter intermediate future that would see the united states that would see president trump in a summit meeting with a leader of north korea. >> okay. now, we'll turn to the audience.

we'll start here. >> this question is for secretary campbell. you earlier said that if there are not tensions with china, then, in some areas, then somebody isn't doing their job. and then you also said that we need to work with china to implement much tougher sanctions on north korea. but considering that rougher seas are predicted for u.s. china relations, how do we address china's concerns about a reunified korea, you know, under sol leadership while tensions with united states continue to worsen in order to get china to take a more aggressive stand on north korea? >> there's a good question. there's much that's wrapped up in this. i would simply say in terms of relationship between the united states and china, we, the united

states has been blessed with a number of different kind of relationships. but, basically, we've had two different kind of big relationships. we've had very close allied relations with strong cooperation and then we've had relations with the country like the soviet union deeply antagonistic. try china represents a new that will be difficult for us going forward. i think we need to recognize that. i think it will embody elements of necessary, inevitable, purposeful cooperation, but also areas of tension and the most important thing in a relation like this is to be honest about those areas where we tend to disagree and where we have problems. confront them, try to address them honestly and avoid circumstances where we can have mistakes or miscalculations that spiral a lot of control.