school education. and if you doubt that, i just want to give you some statistics. compared to a high school diploma, just getting a degree from a two-year school, going the a community college and getting a associates degree could earn you more than $300,000 over the course of your lifetime. and a four-year degree earns you a million dollars more than if you just had a high school degree. think about that. i mean, a million dollars, that's real money. so one of the things that we're trying to do is trying to make it easier for you to access free money for college to figure out how you can pay for your college without having a mountain of debt. and the key thing, as you know here at banneker, but i want all the students around the country to do this, and michelle and i and others have been emphasizing this is to fill out your fafsa,

the free application for federal student aid. how many people, how many seniors here have already filled out their fafsa forms? all right. how many seniors here have not filled out their fafsa forms. 'fess up, now. you sure? all right. i just want to make sure now. and juniors, you can start getting ready now. because what the fafsa does is it puts you in the running for scholarship, grants, loan, work study jobs, all to help you pay for college. and we've made it simpler than ever. and it's available right now at fafsa.gov. f-a-f-s-a.gov. since it's one of the most important events of your life, next year's affirmative action is will have something we call our college scorecard.

here is what this is. it gives you comprehensive information on every college in america. now some of you who have started applying for colleges, you know about these college rankings, right? it's this is the best school. and some of that information is useful. some of it not so much. but unlike traditional rankings that focus on which school has the fanciest dorm or the nicest football stadiums or is the most expensive or the most exclusive, what our college scorecard does is focuses on some of the things that really matter for your future, things like how many students actually graduate from the school. because it's not enough just to enroll the in college. you got to graduate from college. how much money do their alumni earn? what percentage of their students can pay back their loans? and what we've done is we've worked with companies like google to put this right at your

fingertips. for information this important, we want you to be able to comparison shop to figure out how to get the best value for your money, just like you were buying something on amazon. if you're buying a car or a phone or buying anything, especially if it's a pretty big purchase you want to know ahead of time is this legit. and what this does is makes you think about what your options are. you have some great counselors here. obviously you should work with them. but not every student may be going to a school like banneker that has as many good counselors to think about their college education. and using this college scorecard is going to be helpful for them to do a little comparison shopping. you don't want to go to the school just because it's the closest one, and it turns out it's more expensive and doesn't do as good as a job if you were maybe willing to travel some place else and it turns out you could get the financial aid you need to go to a school that is more suited toward your needs, right? so we also reform by the way the

student loan system. when i came in office, you had tens of billions of dollars that were going to big banks serving as middle men for your student loans. we said well, let's cut out the banks. let's give the money directly to the students so they can afford college, and we can make the loans cheaper and afford pell grants. now what we're doing is push to make two years of community college free for every responsible student all across the country, all across the country. [ applause ] and we're starting to work with colleges and universities around the country to bring down the cost of college so that the end of four years of college you're not saddled with a whole bunch of debt. because nobody should be priced out of a higher education. so the bottom line is higher graduation rates, higher college attendance rates, more money for

pell grants, and work to make sure that the interest rate on student loans haven't gone up. working to expand early childhood education and preschool, continuing to watch and work with states as they try to implement reforms to make k through 12 better, holding colleges more accountable for giving information so that students can make good decision. we've made a lot of progress. we have made a lot of progress in terms of making sure that young people across the country get the kind of great education that you're getting here at banneker. and i'm really proud of what we've accomplished. i'm proud of what the district of colombia has accomplished. but i just want to be honest with you. we've still got more work to do. so as i go, i'm giving you kind of a final report card transcript on what more we got to get done. there are still too many states

that are cutting back on public education. and part of the reason tuition is going up is because states aren't putting as much money into state education university, community colleges, as they used to. that's why if you're 18, by the way, you got to vote to make sure the folks represent you actually deliver. we still got too many states that have not really worked in a serious way to raise standards and improve performance. in too many school districts, we still have schools that despite the heroic efforts of a lot of great teachers are not fully preparing our kids for success because they just don't have the resources to do it or the structure to do it.

we still have too many high schools where a third of their students do not earn their diplomas on time. for too many students in america, zip code still determines how far they'll go. and that's not acceptable. some of you probably have friends or family who are just as smart or talented or as capable as you, but they didn't have the same support or the right opportunities or didn't get in the right school. and so now don't have the same shot at success. am i right? because i know that's true in our family. michelle and i, we've got cousins and friends who we've known since they were shorties, little kids. and they -- we though how smart they are, because they were just as smart adds we were. but just the luck of the draw was they didn't get the same chance as we did. and that's not right. so that's why i started something called my brother's keeper initiative. because what we want to do is help more young people, especially kids of color get

mentorships and the resource and the guidance they need to succeed. and i'm going to stay involved with that even after i'm done being president. [ applause ] because we all have a part to play in making sure every single child has every single opportunity to achieve his or her dreams. that's what banneker is all about. that's what you can see in somebody like an incredible young lady who is going to succeed because she has an incredible school in addition to an incredible family. so we're so proud of her. [ applause ] there is another person i want to just call out, amar'e mcduffie. where is amari? there she is right there, right

in front. a, amari, i'm going going to talk about you for a second. so amari was born with a heart and a lung condition. and sometimes she had to miss a lot of school because of her illness. and, you know, banneker is a pretty rigorous school. so she was worried about staying on top of her work. but everybody in this family rallied around her and made sure she was keeping up. her history teacher, mr. goldfarb, where is mr. goldfarb? where is mr. goldfarb? is he here or did he cut assembly? so mr. goldfarb came to visit her when amari was in the hospital for weeks. brought a card from the whole class. and so amari, you know, she was talking about the support everybody here gave her. and she said i believed in myself because my teachers believed in me. and that's the kind of community that we want in every school.

where you're looking out for each other and you're taking care of one another. and so now amari plans to be a doctor so she can help kids who had illnesses like hers. and that's what is possible -- [ applause ] that's what is possible when we're all committed to each other's success. when we understand that no matter what you look like, where you come from, what faith you are, whether you're a boy or a girl, that you should have great opportunities to succeed. and that requires you to put effort into it. michelle and i talk a lot because we travel around the world. and sometimes we forget that there are places around the world where people have so little, but the kids are so hungry for an education.

and they -- they don't even have an actual roof over their head in some of their schools. and so even if you're really poor in this country, you can succeed if you want to invest and the teachers and the community and everybody raises standards and believes in each other. and that's what we want all of america to believe in every kid. because there is magic in each and every one of you. and we just have to help you unleash it and nurture it and realize it. and by the way, it's because of young people like you that i leave the presidency never more optimistic than i am right now. because i've met so many young people around the country whose energy and excitement and how you treat each other with respect, that gives me a lot of confidence, a lot of faith for our country.

so i know you guys are going to keep working hard. you're going to keep making our communities proud. if us adults do our part and we stay focused on making sure every school is as great as this one, and that every young person has those same opportunities and everybody has a teacher like mr. goldfarb look out for them, i've got no doubt that we're going to continue to build a country where everybody has the chance to make of their lives what they will. and that's what america is all about. all right? proud of you, bulldogs. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. fill out those fafsa forms! thank you! president obama and the first lady welcome in italy's prime minister to the white house tuesday for what is likely to be their final state dinner. we recently spoke with a fashion critic about the occasion and the influence first lady michelle obama has had regarding her fashion choices over the

years. >> robin givhan, describe michelle obama's style. >> her state dinner style? >> her state dinner style and apply that to the state dinners general. >> i think mrs. obama dresses for these grand state occasions, the thing that really distinguishes her sensibility from that of first ladies who have come before her is i feel like it's much more rooted into a very contemporary hollywood idea of what is glamorous. and by that i mean she's not wearing anything that is particularly revealing or high slits or anything like that. but there is a certain kind of modern edge to it that really taps into what we're used to seeing coming down a red carpet. it's less regal and more glamorous. >> has it changed over the past eight years, her approach to the state dinners?

>> well, i think her look has gotten to be in some ways a little more relaxed, if that makes sense. sort of within that framework of glamour. i think -- when i think back to her first state dinner which was for india, the dress was gorgeous. it was a naim khan dress. her hair was up. she had bracelets, the whole shebang. and she looked wonderful. but then i thank to some of the later dinners where she wore a dress by carolina herera. even though it was still quite a grand dress, there was i think an informality to it. it felt more like glamor sports wear as opposed to a full sort of head to toe look. >> what do you think the impact has been of her choices for these state dinners on the role of first lady but also on some have called them diplomatic art, on diplomacy?

>> well, you know, i think the first thing is we all want to be proud of the people who are in the white house. and in that way we want to be proud of their hospitality. we want to -- you know, we want them to put their best foot forward. in that way i think very simply she's presented herself in a way that i think makes most people feel like, yeah, you know, we can stand up on the world stage alongside of, you know, folks from france and italy where the notion of fashion is really something that's embedded into their culture. the other part of it is that, you know, these are really momentous moments that, you know, the photographs are going to go into the history books and for any design house that is enormous. it not only puts them into the public vernacular in a way that red carpets don't but it also puts them in the history books.

so it lends a certain gravity to what they do. it sends a certain gravity to the idea that the american fashion industry is just as important of an industry as the food, the auto industry, all the things, other things that go into creating that state dinner. >> how does she go about choosing her dress and choosing the designer? >> well, when we paint each other's fingernails and brush each other's hair she tells me. no, i'm kidding. my sense is that the first thing is that she wears what she loves. and she wears what she feels comfortable in. that said, i do think there is some attention paid to the country that's being honored, a desire to acknowledge that either directly by working with the designer who perhaps has, you know, that sort of ethnicity

in their background and sometimes it's just a matter of paying tribute to a particular color or flower or something that is important to that country. >> last fall you wrote when you were covering the state dinner for the chinese premiere that she chose a vera wang dress. you said by choosing that it wasn't an apology, it wasn't a mea culpa, but it was a diplomatic clarification. can you explain? >> now i'm trying to remember what the dress looked like. >> the black dress that she wore, the vera wang dress, the blackmer maid style dress as opposed to the one she chose for the first chinese state dinner. >> right. well, the first chinese state dinner, it was a beautiful dress, it was red. it was designed by sarah burton from alexander mcqueen, which is a british fashion house. and vera wang is a very

well-known chinese american designer. and the first go-round she -- mrs. obama had gotten criticism from particularly the american fashion industry, particularly oscar de la renta who felt that this was one of those occasions when she had the opportunity to elevate american design and to wear a dress by an american designer. and he felt -- many in the fashion industry felt that she had missed an opportunity. and i think in many ways they felt hurt that she looked outside of seventh avenue for a dress for the occasion. so this was a bit of a do-over. and i think there was a little bit of an acknowledgment that perhaps the first time was a misstep. >> do you have a favorite dress from these past eight years, state dinners? >> you know, i thought the carolina herera dress was

particularly elegant, and in many ways was rather traditional. but i'm also really fond of the last one she wore by brandon maxwell, and that's in part because it was such a surprise. one of the things i think she does quite well, and one of the reasons people are sort of eager to see what she is going to wear is because she doesn't just go with design houses that have been around for decades. she doesn't go with the tried and true, the vetted designers. brandon maxwell hasn't even been in business for more than a year. jason wu who she wore twice for her inaugural gowns had not been in business very long when she first reached out to him. so i think that's -- that's really nice to see. because she really is supporting small businesses in the true sense of the word. >> robin givhan, thank you for your time. >> my pleasure.

as the nation elects a new president in november, will america have its first foreign born first lady since louisa adams, or will we have a former president as first gentleman? learn more about the influence of america's presidential spouses from c-span's first ladies, now available in paper back. first ladies gives readers a look into the personal lives and the impact of every first lady in american history. first ladies is a companion to c-span's well regarded biography series and features interviews with the nation's leading first lady historians. each chapter also offers brief biographies of 45 presidential spouses and archival photos from their first ladies in paperback, published by public affairs is now available at your favorite book seller and also as an ebook. next, a look at the situation in colombia between the government and the revolutionary armed forces of colombia. a rebel group that has been at odds with the government for the last 50 years.

the colombian ambassador to the u.s. talks about the conflict and what's next after a peace accord was narrowly rejected in a referendum vote earlier this month. from the american enterprise institute, this is an hour. >> welcome, good afternoon, everyone. i'm roger noriega, visiting fellow at the american enterprise institute. you're very welcome. i told the ambassador estas su casa. let me say at the outset if you silence your cell phone, it will make it agreeable for all of us and less embarrassing for you in case a baby-sitter calls or something. i'm going ask our distinguished guest to make some initial

comments after i introduce him. and then we'll throw it open to questions for the balance of our hour together. ambassador juan carlos pinzon has been colombia's ambassador to the united states for 14 months. previously he served for nearly four year as colombia's minister of defense where he led that nation's armed forces in dealing severe blows to the operations and infrastructure of the farc, the alen and the criminal bands operating in that country. this has resulted in improved security conditions throughout the country and the lowest homicide rate in 35 years. during his tenure, the armed forces equipment and training were modernized. no less important, the welfare of the men and women in uniform and of their families has improved. and he put in place a transformation plan that will lead the armed forces forward for the next two decades. what most people do not know is

that colombia is an exporter of expertise in the security area. having lent its expertise to 60 different countries in how to deal with criminal organizations and drug trafficking. before serving as a defense minister, ambassador pinzon was chief of stoof president juan manuel santos and vice minister of defense. he is a native of bogota, colombia. he holds an ms degree in economics in colombia. he received a masters in public policy from princeton's university woodrow wilson school. he has also completed a advanced studies at international relations at johns hopkins and in science and technology at harvard. so clearly you're prepared, well prepared for many tasks. and we welcome you here today. ambassador, as i've said, in the

past, some of my most skeptical colombian friends were rejoicing on the night of the plebiscite. others quite frankly were devastated by the results, harshly criticizing the no campaign and the popular vote. i fell somewhere in the middle because i had reconciled myself to the fact that the plebiscite would probably approve the accords. and although i'm deeply skeptical about the farc's intentions, i saw the accords as an opportunity with strong support from the united states to hold the farc to some concrete commitments and to demobilize thousands of guerrillas in that framework, many thousands of whom were really kidnapped into the guerrilla movement. in the weeks since the plebiscite, you have seen president santos meet with his predecessor, president uribe. i heard that was for the first time in six years that they had met. perhaps that's true.

maybe not. he also met with president andres pastrana. both of who were part of the no campaign. president uribe on behalf of that camp offered a 26-page critique that raised many concerns that also presented some sort of red lines that have been regarded as rather reasonable and practical. indeed, he adopted more practical positions on a number of critical issues. i think this may be a function of the fact that regardless of the results of the plebiscite, student marches and other mobilizations, a letter from business leaders have made it very clear that the colombian people are essentially committed to some sort of negotiated permanent end to the hostilities. but as a result of the voting, president santos has had to sit down with these skeptic thes and hear them out, to take their concerns back to the negotiates

table with the objective of improving that accord in a way that would broaden its support among the colombian people. so maybe that narrow victory on behalf of the no in the end will actually improve the process for a durable peace reflecting a national consensus. in other words, in the words of the legendary political theorists keith richards and mick jagger, get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find that you get what you need. so, ambassador, where is colombia's peace process today? what condition is it in? do you feel more or less optimistic today than the night of the plebiscite and why? >> well, first of all, thank you very much. it's a great honor to be here at the enterprise institute, especially having these beautiful new venue that you have here.

i'm very impressed and very happy to be -- i'm sure i'm not the first, but one of the first commentators in this new venue. second, you have been inviting me to enterprise discussions for year already since i arrived. i say yes and suddenly, there was a big coincidence between my "yes" and the current juncture. so i'm happy to be here and it's good to have this opportunity to discuss. you always have been interested about colombia, and one of the things i learned to appreciate the most about washington is that we have even more friends that i knew. washington is full of friends of colombia, and there are many reasons for that. the success from u.s. policy perspective that has happened in colombia is quite interesting. it's been bipartisan.

it has been long-term, sustained effort, and has resulted in the most valiant country in the hemisphere, not to tell that we had a point, the two most valuable cities in the world to become now exporter of security, a country that somehow is finding a final way to peace, is in transition to peace, if i can call. and all that, no doubt, with the determination and commitment of colombian people, of our leaders, at the same time, with very important u.s. support. u.s. support came to colombia to enable colombia, to allow colombia to be effective in its institutions. from security, and that part i saw, and with justice, would develop. that package is what we know as plan colombia. i know here in washington

there's a lot of people that feel that in one way or another, as happen in colombia, there's a lot of contributors to this effort, and i see it as a positive. to your comments and to your question, i think we are in the middle of a very interesting time in colombia. first thing i would say and underline is, it's interesting to see the strength of colombian democracy. there are very few democracies in this part of the world that can handle such an event, such a political debate with the intensity and commitment from all the sides. and somehow be able to have that as a result. second, i believe it's important to see the strength of colombian institutions. every process that we have live in the past years in colombia,

is absolutely related to our constitutional framework, to the separation of powers, the president has express and proposed ideas, but those have been discussed in congress and later on judged by our judiciary system. so i think that's another important event. when you think about the result, the first word president santos used was, not only is he the president of every colombian, but that his main objective was to keep presiding the institutional stability of the country. immediately, he opened the room for a political dialogue and a political discussion with every sector opposing to the government proposal in the plebiscite. so i think that's another interesting feature. and the third element that i believe is now part of our political discussion is,

somehow, opportunity. and this word has been expressed by president santos, but by several experts from different type, right, left, center, international leaders, colombian leaders, it has come to that word. colombia is in front of an opportunity. and this is why, because we have been moving from, let's say, peace-making with the use of legitimate force, that's what we did for a a while. you know, people can talk about long or several decades of war, but i can tell you when colombia state and colombian people decide that we were going to confront the threats of crime, violence, and violation of human rights, started really 15, 16 years ago. and since then, we became very effective.

degrade the farc to 30, 35% of what they were. but the same happen to the criminal bands that inherited the existence after the auc, the so-called paramilitary. so i think that effort to degrade them put colombia in a position of precisely moving towards an effort for peace from strength. and i think that's another important area. the country has been building its discussions and its political process from strength. and that is why as of today this has been the only time in which farc has agreed with colombian state. colombian state was able to sign an agreement, political agreement, a very complex discussion, i think nobody can hesitate to call them different way. this is a very complex political discussion, but at the end, for the first time ever, there was

an agreement signed about this. i think, on the other side, it's important to see that that opportunity as described, is seen from the perspective that if we were doing peace-making by the use of force, and starting four or five years ago, we start to transition to peace, through a political process, what happened probably as consequence of the plebiscite, that transition to peace is going to take some more time. and what i can tell you, nobody knows what that time is, but it's part of the process. and that's the way i would see it. and of course, next phase will be peace in colombia and the execution of the implementation of the consequence of the agreement.

so with those three words, i will describe where are we today. we have strong institutions, we proved that. we have strong democracy. we proved that. and now we are in the middle of a political process towards an opportunity, and to see how that translates and how the colombian people will result into something specific. the importance about democracy here in america or in colombia, or in places where democracy is mature and strong, is that things are not solve by one single will or by the desire. they're discussed, they are part of a process, they are debate, and then they result into something specific. i also believe that they're all features that happen after the plebiscite. the fact that president santos was recognized as a nobel prize winner for peace, i think, is an

important issue, an important international signal to colombian efforts to peace, of course in recognition to the president. i keep saying that any colombian should feel proud about this, just because it was colombian, the president of colombians, who granted that recognition. and that has been the consequence, as i insist, of, you know, being effective, with the use of force, with legitimate use of force, defeating threats, but in consequence, moving to political tools, moving to diplomacy and making use of those to produce a result, an agreement. that's what i think has been recognized. of course, we gotta let the experts from oslo to describe how they got to that conclusion, but somehow that's what you can summarize. i think that's an important element in the current

discussion. the other element that has been interesting is, the public, political activity, from different points of view and different perspectives. it's not only granted to the natural leaders and the leadership of colombia and different political views, but it's almost any colombian these days, giving a point of view, giving an opinion. another interesting element that came out in these weeks, has been the clear conclusion, if anyone had doubt, i never doubted, but if anyone doubted, that colombians were hoping and are willing for peace. but of course, what is in discussion is different approaches to that result. but i think that's another interesting element. and finally, i think that -- the fact that the government was

able to announce very recently and as a conclusion to the recent events, the other guerrilla is starting a formal public peace negotiation with the colombian government. so it proves somehow that all the elements that are required for a peace long-term in colombia, are now on the table. not to forget that ceasefire was immediately requested and recommended, not only by president santos, with his authority as commander in chief of colombian armed forces, but immediately it was suggested and requested by different opposition leaders and immediately was somehow accepted and discussed even by the farc. so for those who were expecting some kind of turbulence beyond the political debate, nothing as

such has happened in the country, and what we have right now is a ceasefire that actually has formal elements coming out, not only from a government to farc and farc agreement, but also by u.n. presence and u.n. mandate to contribute to -- in the country. so i believe, sure, we are interesting time. no doubt, we are extending our transition to peace. no doubt there's an interesting, challenging, political process as part of all this. through democracy, with strong institutions, but in addition to that, the country continues to move forward. you know, when you see what happens to the markets, to the u.s. dollar, whap happen? didn't climb up. it went up 15 pesos, moves down 15, 20 pesos.

and frankly speaking, nothing substantial has been altered in the colombian economy and markets. and by the way, for an interesting discussion, on how to strengthen our competitiveness and our economy through a tax reform that is now under discussion, and we're in a process of finding how to keep moving forward, to attract investors, to attract jobs, to keep moving to the future. that's the way i would describe it, not to underestimate the challenges. not to underestimate the debate, but to value somehow the importance of what we have right now, and the political realities that are at hand right now in colombia. >> thank you very much for that initial scene-setter. >> so can i leave now? [ laughter ] >> can somebody get some water? i don't think -- do you have water there? >> yeah, i have. >> okay, great. i couldn't see. whether you had.

um, thank you very much, ambassador. let's talk a little bit about what's transpired recently, last thursday, president uribe put together this plan, this vision for a national peace accord. and what's been remarked upon is that he sort of pulled back on a couple of essential issues. and i know there's a limit to what you -- how you want to characterize things particularly from your diplomatic post, but, for example, he had insisted in the campaign, and many others, and had made it an important part of their opposition, that there would be potentially some of these farc commanders literally getting away with murder, no incarceration. and that this was something that needed to be addressed. he's introduced or adopted a concept of reclusion, that could

mean some sort of confinement in general spaces and some is commented that the accord accommodate that. the other issue is transitional justice. in that case, he's said, you know, i think this, you know, commenting that we've demobilized tens of thousands of people. we've even held people accountable in the past decade, within the context of our judicial system, and we don't need to have this transitional ad hoc commission created with participation of foreigners. the president has also commented and went on at length with me about this a number of months ago, that we should be doing this in the context of our judicial system and not create this other entity. those are a couple of things that he's brought up, and with

political participation, can the commanders of the farc, who are guilty of -- or found guilty, responsible for serious human rights abuses, enter the political realm, pull back from opposition to -- you know, having representation in the congress, but setting some limits about who among the farc might be able to participate. how do you see this -- this conversation shaping up between the santos government and the negotiators and these opponents of the process who are reflecting the will of the majority of people that voted on it. >> well, first, the issues that are under discussion are very delicate, very complex, and very relevant. -- does not contribute in any way. i can tell you it almost -- i

can assure you. here i see a lot of colombian faces. and i can promise, every colombian today has a personal opinion or a group opinion or an institutional opinion or government opinion onto each of these elements. but the truth is that president sant santos, once the plebiscite happened, opened a round of discussions. you described those very well. set of meetings with different leaders. and by the way, somehow a negotiating table, looking for an agreement. under that framework, government has been taking every proposal, every idea, every recommendation, and is now up to this process to bring some kind of conclusions on what is most convenient and who is more feasible. i think those are the ways

things are being discussed right now. in that regard, i think president santos has expressed both his will on the opportunity, and at the same time, mentioned several times the word "realistic" and as fast as possible. those are a little bit of the messaging that has been coming out. from the opposition side, i would recognize, in general terms, everybody's will to contribute and to move into some kind of agreement. being very honest and very transparent, i believe that we are in a time in colombia in which the best contribution someone can do, and especially here from washington, is allow the discussion to move on, is allow the discussion to produce a result, rather than putting more personal opinions onto such a delicate set of issues. that would be my preference in current times.

that would be the best possible contribution from any colombian. allow this to be discussed in a way that there's some kind of compromise and agreement so that can be later on discussed with the farc and other groups and then move on to the next phase. >> well, if you're asking people to withhold their opinions, you're going to put a lot of people out of work here in washington. [ laughter ] but at least because they're here and they'll be hearing you in a couple of other places this week, they'll be better informed decisions and opinions. what's the farc's attitude about this opportunity? president santos spent a good deal of time saying that the guerrillas aren't going to negotiate their way into prison. that's just one issue. do you think they will be back at the table? i mean, what's your -- what's your sense of what they're saying and what -- if president

santos is aggregating some of these comments and ideas about how to move forward, it seems to suggest that he'll ask the farc to join them again at the negotiating table, to open some of these issues up. >> the only thing we can judge right now is what has been said publicly. and what has been said publicly is from their perspective, that they are willing to keep the ceasefire, that's one point. and second, that they are willing to open discussions, you know, for a new round, and to find additional steps. of course there are words out of tone that you know i would insist we should not even hear at this time and focus very much on how to keep moving on the current opportunity. >> well, i'm going to ask one more question and then i'm going to throw it open. and this is on the question of plan colombia and where we go

from here with past colombia. you know that i was one of the architects from a staff level of plan colombia and it was fortuitous because i moved from the house to the senate in the middle of that process. i was one of the people that a lot of people trusted, because as people don't necessarily understand in the house, the enemy is not the republican or the democrats, it's the senate who is the enemy. and so i got to see that come together in this bipartisan coalition and commitment. and it was a commitment to help an ally, south america's oldest democracy, defend its institutions and impose the rule of law. but in large measure, because of the drug fenom non and farc has been identified as the largest

cocaine trafficking organization in the world, was shoveling cocaine into the united states and affecting the health and well-being of the american people. so we made that commitment. $10 billion, in the last several years, we've seen coke cultivation increasing by at least 50%, and some pulling back in the context of these negotiations, from the offensives against the farc, pulling back on extradition, where for the first time in a decade or so, colombia has refused to extradite someone to the united states because he also happens to be a farc commander, and you've reversed yourself on aerial fumigation, which i guess is one of the reasons the coca cultivation has increased. if you're saying in congress, representing the american taxpayer, what case do you make

for an additional half a billion dollars in assistance and even longer term commitment to colombia going forward? >> well, thank you for that question. i believe that's a very important and very relevant for the time. first, i think what we have done with plan colombia, that worked effectively for several years, was, doing peace building. you know, and that's what we did for a lot of time. you can criticize some elements, you can have different opinions on parts of the agenda and the strategy. but as you said, those who crafted and those of us who have been working on this for a long time. we have find this as a tool to produce a result. and the result was the complete turnaround of colombia, from a failing nation to a democracy, active economy, in a country setting a democratic agenda to the future.

that's what happened to colombia. and you, but many others in washington, feel proud of it, from u.s. policy perspective, but somehow from colombian perspective, the reality is that we have reduce unemployment, we have increase investment, the economy has grown, and all this with a strong base of strengthening security indicators. we discussed from the end of last year, around this time when we arrived, the importance of understanding that we were going to enter into a new phase, that peace-building with the use of legitimate force was not now the only thing that we were going to do, but in the country, we were going to focus on a transition to peace on a real effective, active, peace-building effort. and that's how the agenda of peace colombia came in.

the state department, the national security council, department of defense, president obama himself in presence of president santos and now congress, have concluded that colombia needed a new package to make peace sustainable in the long-term. and to guarantee that these gains of transformation of colombia become permanent. those are important for colombia. but those are important for the united states. the fact that colombia can be a country that can promote democracy, freedom, markets, in the western hemisphere, is not only important for colombia, but somehow is important for our set of values. the possibility of colombia continuing to export, training, security, standards, to other countries in latin america, is not only important for colombia, it's strategically important for the united states as a whole. and i think that is what explains why actually in the

house we have an approval of $550 million, and the senate, $450 million. i wish we get the house. well, it's up to u.s. congress, it's up to political process and budget and we have to understand, even that this is an election year that has implications that i'm not the one to discuss. so, in that perspective, i believe it's very important in the months and the year to come, to get those resources, to get the resources precisely to make this peace sustainable, on issues like taking development to the margin areas of the country, on issues like offering programs related to the humanitarian efforts, on the mining, on taking care of victims, on moving on to all these processes that are related to stabilization and transition to peace. and of course there are other

elements that are important, like strengthening the justice system. justice is going to be extremely important in the years to come to precisely make that peace sustainable and credible. and keeping the capabilities to confront organized crime, drug trafficking, illegal mining, human trafficking, or other sources of crime and violence that are not going to disappear. are going to be there and are things that we will need to confront. this, as i said before, is not only important for colombia, as much as we contain crime in colombia is not only good for colombia, but it's good for central america, good for the caribbean, good for mexico, good for the united states. you know, it's a whole set of nations that benefit out of this. moving to drug trafficking and your question and concern, during my tenure as minister of defense, i had the fortune to see and to testify the wonderful

successes of our armed forces. and by the year 2012 and 2013, we got the lowest number of hectares of coca in the history of colombia. and in the history of of this relationship. so that was very good news. since then, we have seen ansin crease by different reason. what we have learned is that the threats are not static. they are dynamic. and they learn out of your tools. so they learn how to somehow take advantage or deny powerful capabilities and our efforts and suddenly they start to use communities and present them in front of some of the coca relegation. they start to create different pressures to limit that success.

as you describe last year, numbers are there, are public, those coca crops went up. what has been colombian reaction? first, we're not happy with it. we want to confront that. president santos himself has said, i want to produce results to this. i am committed to it. of course he's trying to find new tools. out of the peace agreement, he thought and his vision is that having farc out of drug-dealing and with the commitment, with the commitment of not being part of that business, that that will have long-term consequences to reduce that effect. second, and more aggressive effort on alternative development because we know it works. there are regions in colombia in which alternative development has worked very well. in the central part of the

country, where you have loads, where you have technical assistance, we have been able to reduce coca, even to zero. in the areas that are marginal, that are distant, in which state presence is not very effective or very stable, the truth is that their drug comes back, and you reduce it and suddenly it can grow again. it has the potential. so that's what we learn. and this is why under the ministry of post conflict, there has been -- we're in a process of developing and executing a integrated strategy towards that end. and on the hard side, there are very important efforts to do two things. one, for instance, there are new strategies that are, i would say, under trial. like manual fumigation or spraying. we don't know if that is going to be effective or not. but we are always evolving,

looking for new tools or new challenges or new ways to confront this. and finally, interdiction. colombia in the past two years, year 15 and actually year 16, is seizing more cocaine than ever. now, anyone can say, well, it's because there's more production. but at the same time, a lot of the cocaine that is being produced additionally is not getting into the market. and that's a way precisely to contain these efforts. under my watch and probably last may operation, we launch an active action against the criminal bands, especially the so-called -- they have like three or four names. these are a very large cartel and they have been very hitted the past year and a half, two years. so the consequence of that is that also, that is limiting the potential or constraining the

potential of that additional drug to really have a major impact into the market. which, again, does not satisfy anyone. in the sense that we need to see how we can produce more results and keep moving forward. but i will underline the will of colombian government to continue to confront this challenge. it's us and probably no more than us that know the consequences of not moving to this and not continue to be dynamic into these efforts. and finally, i would say that the worst mistake you can take after the experience we have had in colombia, is not to support the efforts to confront the challenges. of course, i think we are open to the dialogue of how to do it better, how to improve one technique or to have eye na new. i think that's powerful

discussion. but this is why you tell me, make a case to congress, you know, keep pushing for this, because we need to make peace sustainable. that's the most important objective. even if the transition takes longer, we need to make peace. and second, we need to keep the edge on confronting organized crime, whatever face it presents. >> excellent, excellent. so we're going to take some questions from the audience. raise your hand. the young ladies will bring you -- clear in the back there, two hands up -- the ladies will bring you microphones. please introduce yourself, your affiliation and ask a question. >> hi, good morning. alejandro from defense weekly. my question is, on saturday president santos promised in four years, they will have cleared 21 million meters from

mines, amnution that hasn't exploded yet. what do you think of this statement and what would be the role of the united nations, the united states, the halo trust? and finally, where do you think this 21 million square meters will be found? will it be in areas where the farc operates like in chokeo and yo kia, what's the next step for the clearing process of these mines, thank you. >> i'll start with the final part of your question. you have good questions and good answers at the same time. yes, in those areas, i believe, are the most important kaches and areas that contain those kind of devices. as you might know, there is a very important effort that has been led by secretary kerry, actually, and the minister of foreign affairs from norway. that effort was launch in --

well, formally, into a ministerial meeting in the past u.n. general assembly, with the presence of president santos. and there, different countries, something like 24 countries, presented commitments for more than $100 million, to contribute precisely to those efforts on the mining. the mining is an important issue. i keep saying sometimes in colombia, not necessarily mines as we know them, but explosive devices, improvised -- ieds is what we have there. and this require a lot of commitment. i think those, more than hundred million dollars, will be very important for the purpose of that objective. that of course has humanitarian consequences and are a very good step for a country that is really seeking for a stable peace. now, on the other hand, on the

peace colombia efforts, part of the money or mose of the money that the u.s. committed is into peace colombia package. so that's another important and concrete step. in addition to that, colombian government has decided to enlarge, first to brigade level unit dedicated to the mining. so in addition to the humanitarian, the mining, with the international standards with u.n., oes, and these private sector ngos that are working onto this, colombia has decide that part of its capability that was used for, let's say, military operation on the mining is going to be transformed into capabilities for humanitarianly mining, but using this expertise. so we move from a battalion level to a brigade level.

and actually the estimate is to move from original 500 to 1,000 men, to reach the level of up to 10,000 men dedicated to these purpose. so, of course life is about setting goals. and president santos is trying to set an ambitious goal for the country. he has this international support, international resources, and at the same time, a national will and a national capability being put all together towards that end. and if we don't make it, we should keep trying until we make it for the importance of the issue and the good of the colombian people and especially in the rural areas of the country. >> there was a gentleman there. mr. alonso with the a.p. >> hi, thank you. >> you always have good questions. i'm worried now. >> no, i'm luis alonso with the a.p. pch thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> i would like to ask you, without addressing specifically the funds that congress could be approving for colombia, if you could share with us a comment on the u.s. election. do you foresee a major change in strategy or emphasis if either candidate wins and what would be the impact for the relationship with colombia, and specifically the impact on the implementation of this process that you see with the election. thank you. >> well, you can imagine, we really do not intervening to a political debate. and especially right now. at the level out there, we really will not have any opinion. it's up to the american people. americans will make their choice and they will decide, and whatever they decide, we will work with and do our effort. the relationship between colombia and the united states

has an interesting element. bipartisanship. it was president clinton that started plan colombia with a republican majority in congress. that's why you were there, roger. later on, president bush came and at some point, there was a major majority of the democratic party in congress and there has been a good time as well of republican majority. in all cases, we have been able to grant u.s. support, and we have been able to work with administrations and u.s. congress. and that's, i think, the way we should continue to plan. i think we have a very special relationship and a strategic one, now really on facts and issues between colombia and the united states, just to put it in terms of political cycle. >> i would just say that certainly secretary clinton has

a significant history and background and awareness of these issues. but senator sessions, who is a principal adviser to the republican candidate, was one of the pillars of plan colombia. he even said at a hearing, i support president uribe's vision. win the war. three words, win the war. another question, up front here. >> thank you, ambassador, for your time and your great insight on the situation now. my question -- well, first of all, my name is manuel, and i'm with the international school. sorry about that. but my question is about the involvement of the u.n. and whoa does it look like moving forward. we know that -- monitoring mechanism will will still be in place and the u.n. has pledged they will continue their activities on the ground. would the colombian government consider it wise to seek to

expand their role and make sure the presence does not waiver? especially through these troubled times? thank you. >> that's a very important question. right now, there's very high -- for u.n. in colombia. but recently we have here different points of being in the country, expressing the importance of having u.n. playing a role in the country. as you know, the original timeline for the ceasefire was october 31st. during the weekend, or last week, president santos opened that space up to december 31st. not to forget that president santos, as the president of colombia, commander in chief of colombian armed forces, has the authority to move that time or schedule as he considers. frankly speaking.

second, i think that the u.n. mandate in colombia already is formal. it's not any more under analysis process, but it's already formal. there is a u.n. security council mandate in which the monitor and verification was stated and the way this process should happen. so this is on right now in colombia. and of course part of it is how much can you stand, you know, relating to the current political process in colombia. but i guess we have seen so much commitment from world leaders and from u.n. itself, that we should, you know, without adding expectations, have some comfort on the way this mandate can contribute to maintain the ceasefire and towards a future

process of the e.r. >> let's take one more question, the young lady up front. >> ambassador, my name is paula with the department of state. and you mentioned that the peace in colombia needs to be sustainable. and sustainability includes social inclusion. i've seen that the opposition is feeding off some concerns about gay rights. and i would like to know how you think the government and the opposition and the most conservative sectors of colombian society can reckon silliate to find joint agreement on these issues. >> well, i think social inclusion and minorities inclusion in colombia is very well developed in our

constitution. i'm not a constitution lawyer. certainly i'm not even a lawyer. but i can tell you that from different rulings, from our constitutional court, those are issues that are, frankly speaking, beyond the reach of the executive or even the political discussion. those are rights in colombia that in different levels at different situations have to be implemented and followed and considered. so i think on that regard colombia is somehow very well dense in its constitutional development towards rights and especially for different minorities in the country. >> so let me ask one last question and it's really not an easy one, but i wanted to bring it up, because it's important. a lot of people voted "no," deeply skeptical about the farc's intentions to honor the agreement. and for that matter, even use

the agreement to advance its continued insurrection, and that's the word they use in their privacy conversations with their supporters. and use the electoral process, gaining a foothold and the substantial resources they've accrued from involvement in drug trafficking. how many -- how much do you think they've got squirrelled away in their -- in their rainy day fund from this cocaine trafficking and other criminality? and how do we go about sort of ruining their plans by getting that money? freezing that money and putting it at the disposal of the colombian state? >> your question is very good. you know that. and we can -- they will give you their insights and their

perspective. but i think in such a delicate issue, we have to be careful not to speculate on the issue. there's no doubt that the colombian government will and has all this time, not only announce but effectively fight the drug trade. and as i said, for the year 2015, was record year in cocaine seizure. the year '16 is even looking better. and i can assure you that that cocaine is not being selected, who do you get from, or who you don't opinion th don't. that koing is coming out of the production system. and every time we seize that cocaine certainly we're harming criminal finances. so i think, you know, out of this increase, probably there were some expectations, calculations coming out of the criminal organizations,

including the purposes of the farc in that regard, but at the same time, colombian government willing decision to continue to go after. and i will also underline the importance of public statements coming out of the attorney general office, saying that his will, his determination, and his obligation, is to go after any kind of funds obtained through illegal criminal activities. and i think that's another important signal of the way colombia will continue to perceive and approach this effort beyond our commitment and our national will to peace, that we expect really to materialize in the -- sooner the better. >> good question, good answer. thank you very much. let me just say, in closing, that a few months ago, i saw a

video of a father who was saying, you know, the farc killed my son. and he said, but i'm going to support this agreement because i have two other sons that are still alive. and he doesn't just want an accord. he doesn't want politicians to work sort of -- split the difference or whatever. he wants peace, a definitive peace. and lasting and permanent one. and that's something i think, that should be in the interest of the american people too. because of the drugs, yes, but because i think you're right, as colombia is able to end this 52-year-old armed uprising by the folks and demobilize them as it has tens of thousands of others in its history, it will prove a lot. and i think colombia remains a very key partner for us and to

the extent we can make it more stable, more prosperous, more unified, more democratic, i think it serves all of our interests. and i, with that, secular prayer, i will thank everyone for coming. and thank you, ambassador. please join me -- [ inaudible ] [ applause ] >> thank you. [ background chatter ]

[ background chatter ].

the federalist society is hosting a discussion tuesday on political polarization and its effect on society. watch that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. and later in the day, george mason university takes a look at the 2016 presidential race and how voter anger is becoming a prominent factor in this election cycle. that's live at 4:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> every four years, the presidential candidates turn to politics to humor at the al smith memorial foundation dinner, to raise money for catholic charities. at new york's historic waldorf astoria hotel. >> i must say, i have traveled the banquet circuit for many years, i've never understood the logistics of dinners like this, and how the absence of one

individual could cause three of us to not have seats. >> mr. vice president, i'm glad to see you here tonight. you've said many, many times in this campaign that you want to give america back to the little guy. mr. vice president, i am that man. >> it's an honor to share with a descendant of the great al smith. al, your great grandfather was my favorite kind of governor, the kind who ran for president and lost. >> you are right, a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. blue jeans in the morning, perhaps, suit for a lunch fund-raiser, sport coat for dinner, but it's nice to finally relax and to wear what ann and i wear around the house. >> watch the al smith memorial foundation dinner with hillary clinton and donald trump

thursday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org, and listen at 9:00 p.m. eastern with the c-span radio app. now a look at policing tactics and what can be done to create better relations between law enforcement and local communities. this is from the cato institute. it's an hour. good afternoon everybody. i want to welcome the audience and our c-span viewers who are tuning in. i am peter russo, the director of congressional affairs at the cato institute. i want to thank you for coming today. this is a capitol hill briefing entitled "fall fables and fallacies, the truth about policing in america. before we begin, if you'd like to the join the conversation we'd love to hear from you. tweet us at #catoevents. today we are resuming a multi-part capitol hill briefing series examining a number of policy areas of particular interest to lawmakers as well as the electorate at large entitled "fall fables and fallacies." we'll try to set the record

straight on a number of issues and attempt to dispel the prevalent misunderstandings that are, in our view, adversely influencing public policy discussions. last month we looked at economic and income inequality. in the next several weeks, we'll address free trade, u.s. foreign policy, and more. today we'll explore the state of policing in america. the recent events in oklahoma and north carolina provide a reminder that these law enforcement issues that dominate headlines and broadcast leads need to be carefully and soberly examined and addressed. to do that i brought together the principal members of cato's project on criminal justice. this effort has become a leading voice in support of the bill of rights and civil liberties. it's led by the director tim lynch whose research interests 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. the 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, lee 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 peak 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. and this can happen in any number of ways. 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 asset fort fitture, you have to go to court and prove that that money or property is legitimate. 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.