constitution. the way i understand it. this guy's an attorney, and he knows a lot more about this stuff. >> mr. woodall, if i could address your broader issue, and that is, when the administration does something like this, does something that congress feels like they have legislated against, what do we do? i can tell you the history is, we get very, very investigative it. it is the constant separation a resolution.

it is not putting legislation on the floor to draw attention to it, again, is not something that happened when president bush was president. and this happened repeat dwli. >> and do you identify the error as bringing this piece of legislation today as opposed to the error being failure to bring this piece to the bush administration. >> i think that we all wished that we lived in a world that was less partisan. >> it's hard for the american public not to look at this and

say it isn't just a coincidence. so, yes, i think the error is that we don't do it in a consistently, nonpartisan fashion. but all this does is it compounds that error, in my view. >> i thought you made a very persuasive case about calling a lawbreaker. he had to choose between two competing laws, he chose to follow one and not the other. as i read the resolution, it says condemns and disapproved the failure of the obama administration to comply with the taliban. not calling him out as a lawbreaker. folks should have complied.

you all know so much more about this than i do. was this an article 2 issue that happened on the spur of the moment? it was an eight hour window to make this thing happen? and notice was it possible that you all had gone back and looked at this? was this a possibilitity for 30 days or more? and, as opposed to exigent circumstances, that opportunity was missed. >> the president's argument 1 that this was in the works for a long time, certainly. it was, over three years ago. but the point when it became a matter of immediacy is when they finally had a deal and their belief was -- they told us that we were told by the ataris that if this was released, it would nix the deal.

if people found out about this publicly, the deal would be off. and they were also -- they've also pointed out that, based on the video, the last proof of life video, his health was in question. they were concerned if this was delayed by weeks, perhaps months, his health could be in jeopardy. there was a sense of immediacy that we had to get this done, we had to get it done now. now, again, i would personally argue that what they were concerned about was this information being used. i just think that this goes to the basic issue that there needs to be more trust between the administration and congress. i think the president errored by not trusting congress with that information and trusting that it would not be leaked. the administration is going to error on a whole lot of things here and there. does it raise to the level of us putting a resolution of condemnation on the floor of the house. and, as i said, past precedent,

when presidents have done things like this that duly affects congress is that we don't do a resolution like this. so that's the argument for immediacy. >> and, if i may on that, i think, as adam stated, this was in the works for a long time. and they've finally admitted to us that they told 80 to 90 people. they never told us exactly who or how many. so the idea of a leak, you know, thinking that they could tell people in all of these other areas of government, but not a single member of congress, i mean, they didn't tell senator reid, they didn't tell senator finestein, they didn't tell the speaker. it just -- it just pretty well indicates they did it for a purpose. and they were able to keep it among those 80-90 people and not tell a member of congress because there was a reason. they knew that they would have

pushback. and that was because of a reason. so how long does it take to make a phone call? maybe they could have -- instead of gfollowing the lawexplicitly, they could have called senator reid, the speaker, senator finestein just to say, look, that would have shown good faith. and the idea that we leak, you know, they've told us a couple things that are pretty sensitive that have never come out. and, yet, we were told of an attack that we were -- that we were going to do our special forces. they told us about an operation. they carried out the operation. they came back to us later and

said for whatever reason, the operation was not a success. it was still classified. we've never talked about it. today, there's a front page story on the wall street george about that. where did that come from? i dwarn tee you it didn't come from a member of congress. it came from somebody at the administration. so, to say that they don't trust us but they trust somebody else shows a real lack of understanding of what's going obama. on. >> i will say, just -- i think that's valid. we don't know where this leak came from. it could have come from us, it could have come from the administration. members of congress are more likely to leave that the administration officials. however, i forget the senator, it's been a few weeks, but there was one senator when this issue was breaking who, when asked by a reporter, had you have known about this in advance, what would you have done? he told everybody. just stop it from happening.

so while i personally think the administration still should have done it, it's not like it was completely outside the real mg of possibility that people who oppose this deal wouldn't try to expose it. now, this senator later walked back and said i didn't mean that -- i don't know what he said by way of explanation. so it wasn't completely crazy of the obama administration to be worried act whether or not congress might leak this, you know, in an effort to kill the deal. >> i appreciate both of your service. i take no pleasure in being here on this i shall shoe here today, but i do worry as you cite presidents from administrations past, article i and article ii being in conflict. if someone doesn't stand up for article i, history tells us where power will be annotated. it frightens me. i yield back. >> thank you both for being here. although i do think it's kind of unfor chew gnat that this is the first piece of legislation that

we're dealing with when we come back from a recess. you know, i think it is overstated and unnecessarily done. perhaps it could have been drafted in a resolution that was less inflammatory -- >> we offered an alternative. >> ewe know, i mean, if you really wanted to send a message to the white house, it would have been in everybody's swres to try to do something in a bipartisan way. maybe it's because we're close to an election or whatever it is, this is what we're faced with. but since everybody's talking about the importance of preserving our constitutional responsibleties as a body, i just want to remind you all that last week we've already recessed, we all voted for a resolution that i offered basically saying that if there's going to be sustained combat operations in iraq, congress should authorize whether or not we should continue those authorizations. and what the parameters should be.

and i think there's no doubt that there have been sustained military come bat operations in iraq. and my guess is, if my view is correct, we're going to have more briefings this week that those operations will continue to grow and expand. and i think there is a role for members of congress. and this is, and if you think that we ought to -- my first members of congress say we aukt to go in to put ground troops in place in iraq. some have said we have to increase the bombings. some have talked about going into syria and beyond. i mean, whatever. people have opinions on this. but i think what would be really unfortunate is, if, as a body, we would just sit on our hands and let this all unfold and just sit on the sidelines and offer occasional commentary. and so, you know, i would hope that both the chairman and the ranking member would end the discussion with the

administration on how we deal with isis, you know, to remind them that there is a role for congress. and, by the way, i will say this about the administration. they have informed us of everything they have done. and they have set up notifications on a regular ba s basis. but with the phrase consistent to the war powers resolution. they have done their job. the question is whether we're going to do our job. and, you know, that's a question for the leadership. my party is not in charge. your party is. we have to bring these resolutions to the floor. i hope you will use your influence, mr. chairman, with the speaker, to say that this issue of our continued growing involvement in this terrible situation and released, that deserves debate. it deserves our attention. i just offer that because i've

been hearing a lot about we have this responsibility. that's one of our responsibleties and i think we ought to take it more seriously than we have in the past. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate ranking member smith and chairman keenan for being here. once again, probably the last time we'll have chairman mckeenan gracing our presence because he's retiring. >> he keeps saying that, but he keeps dragging us back. >> well, i like ya. i can never get enough of hearing both of you and your opinions. i do want to speak act what mr. mcgovern just said. i'm really interested in regards to what the strategy is has noot been real clear from the president.

and so i have a lot of hesitation about whatever we do. we have a lot of troops wac in back in iraq. i think we've talked about that before. i worry about mission creep and administrations can justify a whole lot of things. and, again, to mr. mcgovern, he point this is out all of the time, we don't pay for it. we put it on a credit card. i do think that's a problem for us in the future. as we move forward. but this issue that we're facing today and i get the past pres

dents and all of that. but at what point do you stand up and say come on. i just don't condone bad behavior. just because prior presidents have done it. that's just a terrible position to put us in. i think it diminishes our responsibleties. at what point do you say enough is enough? it certainly -- i think we should have -- i wasn't here under bush. i would hope and you heard the chairman say you would hope that we take a different view of it if you did the same thing. i would absolutely hope we would. we know that the five guys being

released weren't on the short list to ever get out. they were on the long list to stay there until they die. they never made the short list. they would get out. i'm sure the president and folks that knew about it, 80 or 90, said mr. president, you just do what you think is best and don't worry about it. it's always easier to ask for forgiveness afterwards than before doing it. and i think that's the decision they made. a but i do think it puts -- while the good intentions may be there, it does put future soldiers at risk. we know these five were the worst of the worst. they were the leaders. they weren't the trigger pullers. these guys had some leadership capability. and i think that's probably why they weren't on the list to get released.

but when do you say enough? i'm frustrated at a president that would just thumb his nose at congress? when is enough enough? at what point do you say wrap the administration on the puckles so they don't do that again. that's really what this 1. there's no forcible law. nothing is going to happen to him. nothing is going to happen to the administration. but, i mean, i think this is the right thing to do. at least set the tone for other presidents to know that this could happen to them if their administrations go way outside the law, which is clearly -- he just sign ed it a year before. i mean, clearly, it's not like something that was on a dusty shelf somewhere. this was in his -- he signed it. so when do you say enough is

enough? when do you say it's not good enough anymore? >> the issue -- unfortunately, the whole battle between article i and article ii, between the legislative and and he cantive branch, you're laying out sort of a false option. there's no point where you get to say enough is enough. there's no point where congress would rise up the problem would go away and we would stomp it. the battle is always going to be there no mat ere what you do. i don't know passing this resolution is going to change anything. i cannot imagine that in the future, if an executive, if a president want -- feels compelled that he has to do something that he's going to go oh, gosh, they might pass a resolution condemning me.

i don't think it's going to dramatically alter the debate. it's a president i'd like to see stopped, too, by both parties. i think that's arguably a more important one so that we actually are representing the legislative branch and not our party. those things are issues. in terms of concern that i think you and mr. mcgovern and others have expressed well, they're consolidating more and more power. i will tell you the best thing that congress can do to turn that around is to act just to give you a couple of options on the isis issue, the president has requested authority to do a training for people in syria. congress could make a statement on that. we could pass a piece of lerj slags putting parameters around that. we koild pass an authorization.

the way things are set up, it's always going to be difficult. there's one of him and 535 of us. if we started passing legislation, and i know that requires the house and the senate to get together and all of that, that i think is the best way to reassert legislative authority. we have effectively made arnie duncan the czar of education. he can drive policy all over the country as a policy of that. because we, in congress, haven't passed what we should have passed four or five years ago. so i just say the best thing we can do? act. do our job as legislators. pass laws.

passing out a condemnation resolution doesn't change anything. >> if i may, i think that was a fantastic answer to that. there's only one flaw that i saw. and that is that we did act. in opposition. so what's the point? if we can pass laws and he doesn't want to follow them wharks do we do then? >> i think -- even though, you know, mr. smith, i mean, you have said the president should have done it. it wasn't a law. it wasn't because hechs being benevolent. he should have done it because the law said so. there's been a lot of instances where not ploois, but others

have been notified. that is an obligation that we haion that we ha is it the chicken or the egg? i'm not sure what came first, but we certainly are living it and it's not a good position for us to be in. it's not a good position to legislate as we move forward.

i may, that's not what i'm saying at you will. i'm just saying, if you look at the numbers, as i said, the amount of oversighted that is conducted when it's a president of the opposite party, i don't think i can add it up, it ice just astrono, ma'amically high. you should question that it is much more aggressively questioned if the president happens to be of the opposite party and that raises doubt, as well, to the legitimacy of the process. >> once again, i appreciate serving with both of you in the armed services and the chairman yields back. >> mr. chairman, personally, i think both representatives they do a tremendous job. i would like to take into consideration the fact that all

into consideration the feelings of the family. fortunately, the legislation does that in some respect to the very last two sections of section five -- six, really. it says the congress expresses relief that the sergeant has returned safely to the united states. this resolution, i agreed with mr. smith,allows, among other things, that the president

should adhere to the statutory requirement. i'm also mindful that all sorts of negotiations with -- untold with characters in the world take place with regularity. and always have. it's nothing particularly new, in that regard. but i think the administration, at least the defense department, set it out in your june 11 hearing when secretary hegel said the following. we complied with the law and we did what we believed was in the best interest of our country, our military and the sergeant. the president has constitutional responsibleties and authorities to protect american citizens and members of our armed forces.

that's what he did. we don't leave american soldiers behind. i think everyone here is in agreement that the sergeant was returned safely. and, just for the record, i don't know all of the facts and a lot of people have said a lot of things and i don't even presume to know what's true. but common sense would tell me that, as an american, and knowing the views of the military and all of us being

concerned about the views abroad are glad that this took place. my personal feeling 1 that the sergeant was worth a hell of a lot more than five people. and i understand the dynamics regarding they may very well be dangerous persons, some of the readout on them were their old men and not likely to be active in war. one could argue both ways. but, that said, i think sergeant, had i been president, i would have notified congress probably about an hour on the 30th day to make sure that i was covering the statutory requirements and give you the 30

days. this is kind of sad that coming off of a long recess, the two measures that we are going to address do not have any potential to become law. and it would seem to me, that with the various conflicts around the world, and, more specifically, in iraq where all of us have a bind opined at dif times and voted that we would ask the very first committee that's taken up our right under the constitution to give authorization to iraq in iraq. while we were away, senator mccain gave a statement for us to be called back into congress. and on that same day, i wrote a

letter to the speak er and to te president indicating that i thought congress should be ca called back into session. i think it's much more grave than this measure that you bring here today if we do not have that dialogue as needed. i would like my friends to call for a strategy. and then put a vat jill on the floor yourself. and figure how complicated this measure is. the other thing is, if i were operating as a terrorist, i

would look at the news and gather everything i can because you tend to put everything in the streets all of the time. and i maintain that that's a mistake on our behalf. it is important for us to have knowledge. and, certainly, here in congress, it's important for us to not continue to allow presidents to gatt ere up under themselves powers that are relegated to those of us that are in congress as well as the separation is required. and i hear all of these people running around saying the president needs a strategy and i don't hear what their strategy is. if you're dealing with this complicated a matter, i've heard people repeatedly say that we need to arm the kurds, i guess they're talking about the murder. i'm not sure they're talking

about the pkk. i'm not sure that they're talking about the implications of turkey as a nato ally. but, gentlemen, we are in a very complicated world. it's not enough to come up with blind statements and accusations and blind statements about activities of the president of the united states. it is not just one matter that

we need to attend. it is several. and it is not just one country that we need to address. i've asked both speakers, i've asked pelossi and boehner. they have no idea about what islam is, what radical islam is, what a khalifad is and they throw out all of these names without knowing all the tribal circumstances that exist. it's ridiculous for us to sit here and allow for 435 of us to make policy when 35 of us couldn't give people today a paragraph distinguishing or comparing and contrast iing she

and sunnis. six years i said that there were christians who were refugees in iraq and it was ignored until recently. and i found that passing strange in this institution that we allow for those kinds of things to take place. this is a very complicated situation that we're dealing with. it has all sorts of ramifications. a long time ago, i argued along with john mertha, that we should pull back to the horizon in iraq. and then, with the help of iek skelton and i found out that we had bases there. and i felt strategically, dealing with iran down the line, that we should have kept two enduring bases there. and now we hear the status of forc

forces agreement argument and then to look at where we are without having done the things necessary after having lost all of those soldier's live that is we won't know about until way off into the future. this resolution isn't doing anything. i guess the best thing we can do is get the hell out of here and go on and have the election in november. >> the gentleman has no request from time. >> yes, mr. chairman, just a couple of clarifications, chairman, if you don't mind.

when this occurred, i've got to tell you, i was stopped by more constituents who were concerned. they didn't understand what was happening. they felt there was a lack of control. to the extent that you can tell us here, is someone watching these five individuals? what type of control do we have over them? >> the fife individuals are in guitar. they are there for a year. they are, as i understand it, under house arrest. after a year, they will be free

to go. it was just a prisoner exchange. the one thing i will say, they were -- some of them were military, some of them were on the taliban side. while they certainly are five dangerous people of the, i don't know, tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and pakistan who are part of the taliban, the five jobs that these guys have were filled by somebody else. and when these five come back, it's not like those jobs were sitting empty for 12 years wait r for them. how much do these five appreciably increase the capable ty and risk that come from the

taliban. these are five bad guys. no doubt about it. but when you go through what the president was trying to go through, a balance of risk to bring the sergeant back. the calculated risk was these five guys do not appreciably increase the risk of the taliban. we value life far greater than our enemies. when you want to get one of your

own back, you have to make a deal. and it's not easy. it reiss not like the taliban hasn't been doing anything for the years that they were gone. >> mr. chairman, do you agree? >> the main point, as i see it, these guys have been there a long time. they work with people who vet them. they are people who make decisions about should they be released or not. and these five went there all of that process and did not make the list to be released. it's kind of like mr. hasting was saying. none of us hereanx7@7 l know a

those five. there are some top leaders in this fight that we're stimengaged in that spent time in guantanamo. only time will tell what these five do. i think everybody is happy that the sergeant is home. that's not even part of the

debate. but if one of these five cause the death of someone in the future, how do we go and tell those parents. i guess this will go on for the next couple of years. i think what it boils down to, this congress, passed in the congress and the senate that said don't do anything without giving us 30 days notice. the president did and we're trying to take him to task for

it. hopefully, this would be the point. i can only hope that, we really don't know. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you one thing. i've always heard the statement that we don't negotiate with terrorists. is that still operational? when they came and testified to us, they said we didn't negotiate with terrorists. >> football season just started. i think probably every one of

them has an agent. the agent negotiates with the play r for the team management. the president doesn't get involved in that, he has a general manager. the general manager can say i didn't ne forbuate with that player. okay, you negotiated with his agent. i think everyone understands how that works. people can decide that on their own. i do think it put us in a position to where we have now negotiated with terrorists. >> are there potential risks to that change in strategy? >> precedent gets set and then you have to deal with it.

much like what mr. smith said, this has happened before. i think i learned at a very young age, two wrongs don't make a right. and while i won't be here, i would hope that whoever is the chair and ranking member of this committee, whatever party, if the president violates the law, you take action. >> as i said, you know, sort of arguing over two different pres dents. one is the argument of legislative branch power versus executive branch power and the on going battle between those two branchs on a wide range of issues. we will have to deal with that. in my opinion, if you asked the public which they're more

concerned about, congress being relentlessly partisan, that precedent is the one that's going to ramp up enormously over the course of the last 20 years. and that's precedent that thep. public is concerned about, too.v that if we could step back from that and assume that the president doesn't overstep his bounds in a nonpartisan way, i feel that is the precedent in the wrong going direction. >> by that, you're not inferring that the president is never partisan? >> i think that the partisan ship goes both ways. i'm not going to say that at all. i'm just saying, congress, clearly, may have done this.

the point was made that the congress did act and the president overrode it. >> i think it's based upon where you stand on the issues -- >> i completely and totally agree with you. and i have no doubt that there are people who disagree with the president here. and i would ask the chairman if that sometimes, principle is not the only issue. that sometimes it is a matter of partisan advantage and the rather clear recognition that the weaker the president is, the stronger the political opportunities are for the opposite party.

so regrettably, that, too, happens. and the chairman pointed out, the president does part san things and all of that. i'm saying it is a problem that we need to address. >> i appreciate both of you being here today. we did find it was a better meeting because of both of you and i know both of you work together really well. and the gentlewoman from new york appreciates it, too. so thank you very much. i now call uch the gentlewoman from texas. who has patiently been sitting here with the knowledge that we have started votes now.

>> thank you for your court sills, i will be enormously brief. i noticed that the polling numbers have accelerated by the american people who believe that isis and want the president to act on their behalf. i raise that in the next 48 d speaking to the american people, tomorrow, he will be engaging with the house leadership on the senate leadership and we are going to be debating if it is tompl, either tomorrow or wednesday, a condemnation of a

matter that could be resolved with conversation. i just want to cite these two points and then ask you to consider my amendmented.ç again, the invasion of iraq was based upon the idea of weapons of mass destruction and the bush administration immediately acknowledged that that was not true and then there was instances of sadham trying to

bayou rain yum in niger and that was found not to be true. they were, in essence section 10 pa. this language in this resolution specifically cite it is obama administration, which, in essence, is president obama. these are dastardly comments from provisions 1 through 5, which, in 5:00 chewty, really undermine the integrity of this institution. we are better than this. we're better than waving a document that wants to fuss with the president.

i would use a stronger world, but i want to respect the institution. it expresses relief. an alternative could be that we resolve that all presidents must adhere to the 30 day notice rule. many of you realize it was an operation to secure the sergeant. you could make that point that they thought they would be in danger. my amendment would be to strike all porlgszs except section 6. do we want the visuals of debating this on the floor of the house in the 24-48 hour

period what has now come to the american people. i just want to finish on this note. the president did engage on syria. there were any number of meetings, everyone face-to-face meetings with many members of congress and ultimately, congress' lack of interest to vote to be on the floor of the house to move for a greater military action. that did not occur. i think the president has made efforts. it's siems our strategy that cannot be a public statement. but i just hope that there would

be some thought of the timing on this resolution. i'm going to focus on the timing of the midst of the president with congress on this crisis and his message to the american people on wednesday. why do we have to have this legislation? my amendment, i think, is an adequate response to eliminate ing it had harshness of this resolution. does anyone on the democrat side have any requests coming up? any republican? thank you very much for being here. very clear. very thoughtful and we appreciate it. this now closing the hearing for hr rest 644 and will be in

motion? >> i move the committee grant hr 507 a if waters over protection act of 2014 a structured rule. and an opponent shall not be subject to demand. the rule provides one motion to recommit.

condemning and disapproving of the obama administration's fall h÷úqx>yma administration's fall the rule provides that the preamble recommended by the committee on armed services now printed shall be considered as adopted and the resolution shall be considered as read. >> we've now heard the motion. is there any debate?

seeing none, those in favor, aye? those opposed, no? the ayes have it. >> ms. fox, ms. fox, hi. mr. bishop. mr. cole? mr. cole. hi. mr. whital? hi. mr. nugent? hi. mr. webster? ms. ross lightening. mr. mcgovern? mr. hastings. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, aye. >> the motion is agreed to. and the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, will be handling this for republicans. judge hastings will be there for the democrats. earlier, i could not recognize

celeste west who came back. celeste was over here, former long term staff member ot rules committee. >> no, ma'am, i don't believe so. we are going to allow the leaders to get together and find out what transpires there. i want to thank everybody. we've now fibbished our work for the day. >> on the next "washington talksl," stephen bucci

about military options against isis. then, brad sherman on president obama's upcoming speech on u.s. strategy against isis and threats posed by the group. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. homeland security committee hearing on programs to equip state and local law enforcement with military gear. that is on c-span three. you can join that conversation on facebook and twitter. march the 20th anniversary of the violence against women act in a speech at the national archives. you can see that live today, at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> with congress back in

session, here is a message from congress from a c-span studentcam winner. up 75% of our body. take it away, humanity would perish within a week. it is the most vital substance to a human body, but because of us, nearly 50% of all streams, estuaries arend unsuitable for use due to pollution. we have learned to take water for granted. faucets, bottled water, and a flushed toilets reinforce the same idea. and the diminishing condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life, destroys the ecosystem and .o disrupt a fragile food chain

animals are not dealing ones that suffer negative effects. 2014, you must provide funding to wastewater treatment agencies across the country. the lifeblood of our nation is tainted with the negligence of generations and it must stop here. >> join us wednesday for the theme of the 2015 studentcam documentary competition. now, members of the congress on the ferguson, missouri shooting of michael brown. this one hour. like to start by yielding time to the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, who provides so much leadership and direction to the 43 members of the c.b.c. each and every day and this is an issue that we have been working on far before michael brown lost his life.

there are a pattern of issues and young people who have been profiled and we are committed to make sure that this does not continue. so i'd like to yield now to the gentlelady from ohio, the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, chairwoman marcia fudge. ms. fudge: thank you so much. i thank you for yielding. i want to thank my colleagues, congressmen jeffries and horsford, for leading today's conversation on a problem that america must acknowledge, come to terms with, and address. i want to thank them for their leadership. as a freshman member, mr. horsford has been outstanding. it is my pleasure to serve with you. mr. speaker new york communities across our nation, many believe that police officers sworn to protect and serve are instead disturbingly and violently attacking citizens without just cause. we have heard stories of

individuals being shot to death when there is clearly no threat to an officer's safety. we've seen peaceful protesters and journalists on the job arrested, having cans of tear gas shot at them, and guns suited for military combat pointed at unarmed citizens. over the past few month, cell phone videos and pictures have surfaced, showing a policeman kicking subdued civilians in the head, repeatedly punching a woman in the face on the side of a highway, and placing a man in an illegal choke hold when there appears to be no resistance to arrest. last year in cleveland, one of the cities i represent, 13 officers fired 137 shots into one car. killing two unarmed individuals. and both occupants of the car were shot more than 20 times. the startling images we saw of the police response to civil protests in ferguson, missouri,

were in stark contrast to the citizens exercising their constitutional right to be heard. police met peaceful protesters with a force intent on violencing their voices. this excessive use of force often provokes animosity instead of building the cooperation needed to combat violence. the trust between law enforcement and citizens required to keep our communities safe is being eroded by the uncertainty of motives and biases between -- behind the actions officials take. often, against those who are powerless yet pay for them to protect them. instead of keeping the peace, these actions incite tensions where there should be opportunities for understanding. this type of activity must stop. community policing can only be effective when citizens and leaders, community, law enforcement, and elected officials work together, not against one another to address violence and unrest.

transparency, accountability, and responsibility must be at the nexus of this relationship. because of ferguson, our nation and the world has seen what happens when these principles are ignored or disregarded. i applaud the department of justice for initiating full civil rights investigations into this case and others that have resulted in the deaths of civilians at the hands of law enforcement. i also applaud the citizens of ferguson for realizing that their community belongs to them and that it is up to them to decide with whom they will work to lead it. just because the cameras are no long erroling in ferguson, the recent tragedies we've witnessed there in staten island and in other american cities have shown that we no -- we cannot keep turning a blind eye to what is going on between law enforcement and the communities they serve. members of the congressional black caucus remain committed to working with our colleagues on the local, state, and federal level to improve the policies

and practices of law enforcement officials across this country so that safety, trust, and confidence can be restored where it has been broken. i want to especially congratulate my colleague, mr. clay, for all of the work that he did during the ferguson situation and will continue to do. i am as proud of him as i can be of anyone. and i certainly am going to be supportive of his efforts. mr. speaker, we cannot move forward together without figuring out what must be done so that what happened in ferguson never happens again. i yield back. mr. horsford: i thank the gentlelady for your ongoing commitment and leadership on these issues and the recognition that there's so much work that needs to be done. while there are local law enforcement agencies and police officers who do a good job every day and who put their life on the line, we know that there are individuals who are

not necessarily living up to those standards of public safety and trust. so we look forward to improving that. and i'd like to now yield to the gentleman who provided the leadership on the ground, on the scene, particularly following the days after michael brown's shooting. he represents the community of ferguson in st. louis, missouri, the gentleman from missouri, representative lacey clay. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague from nevada as well as my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who offered their support during this tragic time in ferguson. and in particular let me thank the congressional black caucus for standing with me in our efforts to deliver justice,

equal justice under the law, to all americans. mr. speaker, i rise today as a congressman from missouri's first congressional district which includes ferguson, missouri. a suburb with over 23,000 people in st. louis county. the pain that has enveloped that community since the tragic police shooting of michael brown on august 9 has stirred the conscience of our nation. and has forced us to confront some very difficult truths. the hard reality that i observe with my own eyes is a deep sense of outrage and anger. that is present not just in ferguson but in many communities across this country. and that pain is most deeply felt by millions of americans of color.

both young and old. who know from decades of sad experience that far too often local law enforcement agencies and the justice system do not view them or treat them as equal citizens. who deserve due process and equal protection under the law. and that is certainly true in ferguson, missouri, and according to the latest census data ferguson, missouri, is 67% african-american. it has a police force of 5 officers, only four of those -- 58 officers, only four of those officers are black. many of the officers do not live in ferguson. so in essence, the ferguson police department is an outside armed force which is not

representative of the community that they are sworn to protect. and does not live among the citizens who pay their salaries. and that is a prescription for tension. a complete lack of trust and in the case of michael brown, an 18-year-old unarmed black teenager, a tragic and completely unnecessary death. two days after he was killed i joined with c.b.c. chairwoman funnel and house judiciary -- fudge and house judiciary ranking member conyers to send an urgent letter to the attorney general seeking immediate assistance from the justice department. and i want to personally thank president obama and attorney general older -- holder for responding to our request with great speed and strength.

in addition to the local criminal investigation into the michael brown shooting, which i have little confidence in, there are now two parallel federal investigations that are being directed by the civil rights division of the justice department. the first investigation is examining all the circumstances , physical evidence and multiple eyewitness accounts of the fatal police shooting on august 9. the second, which was announced by the attorney general just last week, will examine the overall law enforcement practices of the ferguson, missouri, police department. including the already published extreme racial disparities in who is stopped, who is searched, who is arrested and what happens to them if they go to jail.

mr. speaker, i made a promise to michael brown's mother that we would focus every possible federal resource on this case in an effort to bring justice for her son's death. i have confidence in that process. but the sad truth is that there are too many communities just like ferguson across this country where decades of discrimination, abuse and a lack of respect by local law enforcement has resulted in a golf of suspicion and mistrust. and as we have seen that tinder box can lead to an explosion of anger and violence that is difficult to control. while i certainly condemn all law breaking and the destruction of property, i understand the anger that so

many of my constituents feel. because i feel it too. and i would urge all of you to read a compelling story published in "the washington ost" on september 3 entitled "how municipalities in st. louis county profit from poverty." this remarkable story, authored by radley boko, tells a tale of how people of color are often preyed upon as municipal a.t.m. machines by the police. and again, the title of the story, how municipalities in st. louis county profit from poverty, published september 3 in "the washington post." and by the very justice system that is supposed to protect happens every day -- same story happens every day in majority minority communities across this country. so, mr. speaker, there are many

hard lessons to be learned from ferguson. and i fear that there may be more to come. but this much cannot be disputed. across america today we have too many michael browns. we have too many unarmed young black men who enter -- interact with police and wind up dead. the resolution of that problem will only come through a painful, honest national discussion about race and our inability to address these tragic disparities. my hope is that we will not only achieve justice for michael brown, but that his tragic death will help us begin a long overdue national conversation that leads to truth, reconciliation and equal justice under the law for all.

and, mr. speaker, i want to thank you for your indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank my colleagues for their support. mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from missouri and i thank you for really putting your heart and soul into serving your constituents and the outpouring of compassion that was shown following this unfortunate death of michael brown. at the funeral, the one remark that really stayed with me was that michael brown wanted the world to know his name. and i think out of this unfortunate situation there is this opportunity now. as you indicate, representative clay, for us to have a discussion and action, to take action on a pattern of practices that are not limited to just ferguson, missouri, and as you just indicated this is

an issue that has happened in other places, whether it's john crawford in beaver creek, ohio, or azeel ford in los angeles, california, or eric gardner in statin island, new york. or dante parker in victorville, california, or constituents in my home state in las vegas, nevada. this is a pattern that must end and for michael brown, for him to have the world know his name, the best outcome would be to change and improve the community-police relationship so that all people are treated fairly and equally under the law. and that's our hope and aspiration here tonight as we bring attention to this very important issue during this special order hour. i'd like to now yield time to the gentlelady from florida, representative frederica wilson, for her to add comments

to this very important topic and to bring her perspective as ell. ms. wilson: thank you, representative horsford. and to all the members of the congressional black caucus who are here tonight to contribute to this conversation regarding an issue that is also prevalent in our communities and has been there for generations. i just want to say to the president of the united states that i am extremely grateful to his vision in creating an initiative called my brother's keeper. my brother's keeper hopefully will address some of the issues that our young boys of color face. there is to say that

o much friction between police and black boys. that friction has been there for generations, almost since slavery. and it's a conversation that black parents have to have with their young boys as soon as they probably get a driver's license. they have to talk to them about dealing with the police. and i want to say in my hometown of miami-dade county, i founded a program called the 5,000 role models of excellence, 22 years ago. realize that everyone doesn't just have a parent. they don't have a responsible parent that can have that conversation with them. so we recruit mentors across

this nation to deal with these young men and try to teach them how to deal with some of the issues that impact especially boys of color, but more specifically when it comes to the police, black boys. and the pamphlet starts out by saying that the police stops you, freeze. don't move. unless you're told to do so. never run from the police. always remain calm. think, cooperate, speak clearly , ask questions if you have to it's goes on and on and sad that we have to do this. we're not trying to break the spirits of young black boys, but we're trying to keep them alive. and this is how the pamphlet looks. and it was really orchestrated

by our state attorney, our and the chiefs of police association of miami-dade county. and they put it together and put it in all of the schools for all of the children and members of the school's police teach these children how to respond if the police ever stops them. i have >> i haveal real concern with michael brown's case and that concern is with the state attorney. and i really have a real concern that the grand jury may not get all of the evidence that they need. my father served on the grand jury for many years. and i do know that the state sway over so much the grand jury. even n my heart broke

worst than it did when he was illed, when we realized that the state attorney would be the one that would send the case to the grand jury that would oversee the case, and he had a history of -- a history that no one wants to have. his father was a police officer and he was killed by a black youth. and if that's not enough to recuse yourself from the grand jury, i cannot understand -- i mean from the case in general, to my colleagues, i cannot understand what else could be the case. you remember trayvon martin, who came from my district.

and he was killed and the first thing happened was the state attorney didn't want to recuse himself, but the governor removed him. so i'm really calling on governor nixon tonight to remove the state attorney, to remove e prosecutor from this case, because otherwise, michael brown ay not get a fair trial. and he deserves justice under the law. thank you so much for this opportunity. and i will continue to pray for his family, because this is not a good time in america for young black boys. they're watching. they're paying attention to this case.

people all across the world are watching what's going to happen in ferguson. and i'm afraid of war will happen if the verdict -- if the police wilson is not even indicted. thank you. mr. horsford: thank you for providing those -- the information about the resources that are available to young people, to know their rights, to understand how they need to approach the situation. i just had the privilege of participating at a town hall that was hosted in my congressional district by the national bar association, the las vegas chapter and we had hundreds -- approximately 1 hundred people, young people, who do need this information, regardless of about there is a parent in the house or not. every young person needs to

understand their rights and the best practices on how to interact with law enforcement when and if that does occur. so we want to encourage young people to know their rights. and working with the congressional black caucus, we will find opportunities to post that information and share it in our local communities to help connect young people and adults alike so we can improve on the relationship between police officers and our young community. i would like to turn to our next member for the congressional black caucus for this hour, the gentleman from texas. i was very delighted to join with him and other members at the funeral, to pay our respects to the family and the community. so i would like to now yield time to the gentleman from texas, representative al green. mr. green: thank you very much,

representative horsford. i'm honored to be with you tonight. you are represented by your presence in congress. acknowledging representative jeverries in hosting these special orders hours. i'm grateful to honorable barack obama for appointing eric holder as attorney general. i'm grateful because mr. holder is intelligent and he comprehends the breath of these issues. and i'm grateful that he is a person with courage. and i'm grateful because intellect without courage, can be intellect wasted. his intellect is not wasted.

he has had the courage to take on the challenges such as what we had with ferguson. the justice department is there. they're investigating. and there's good reason for the ustice department to be in ferguson. the justice department is in ferguson because ferguson is 67% black and only one african-american is on the city counsel of seven, if you count the mayor. 67% black. police department is 83% white. three blacks out of 53 officers. ferguson.n to be in school board, one member black of seven. of the officers that are on the police department are -- were on the police department, one of them is on city council.

good reason to be in ferguson. five officers or former officers, either they are on the department now or not, have been alleged to be involved with some sort of civil rights violations, cused, allege of choking and hog-tying a young person. another circumstance wherein a person was tazed and died afterwards. another circumstance where a person was beaten by a peace officer and then charged with destroying public property when he bled on the officer's clothing. good reason to be in ferguson. a prosecutor, who has decided that he will not recuse himself,

notwithstanding his father's tragic circumstance, father died at a person who happened to be an african-american, refuses to recuse himself. and and he refuses to have a hearing with this case. this case doesn't have to go to a grand jury. this case could be heard by way of a preliminary hearing after an arrest warrant has been issued. and i submit to you that there is sufficient probable cause to indict this officer or to arrest this officer, e appropriately, in any jurisdiction in the united states of america. there is probable cause to arrest. then you would go to a preliminary hearing and would you have the transparency. the world would hear what the witnesses have to say. there is good reason for the justice department to be in ferguson. so i'm honored to be here

tonight to stand with my colleagues, especially the honorable laci clay, who has been a real champion on behalf because amily. i understand that injustice nywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. it can lead to injustice in houston. i think that the president tft united states of america made a wise choice when he chose the honorable eric holder and i pray that the natural order of things will not continue to be circumvented. mothers and fathers should not, n-o-t bury their children. we must circumvent this kind of behavior. thank god for you, mr. president. i thank you for leading me the time.

mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from texas. i yield to the gentlelady from him wisconsin and to extend whatever time she may need. i appreciate again her leadership, compassion and dedication on so many issues, particularly on bringing the oice and perspective of people who aren't always heard in this institution. i have great respect and admiration for her. and i would like to yield time now to representative gwen moore. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. horsford. i would first like to join my and gues in grieving celebrating the life of michael brown. i would hope that his short life will not have been lived in the

vain. that his death will teach us something that will serve the nation so that others will not endure this. i'm particularly feeling empathy mother. as a mother of two young black male children, mr. horsford, it has been a constant terror in my life that i would experience what ms. mcfadden has experienced. you know, after ferguson, i atched an episode of ap comedy "girlfriend," and a young black son r was chastising her

for being arrested. and she mentioned that she didn't appreciate having to come down to the police station to pick him up. they had recently moved to a suburban she asked him, what were you doing? and he said i was just walking down the street. and she commented -- and there was laughter in the audience -- why were you walking down the street? you know we hadn't had our meet and greet with the police department yet. and so i'm saying that to say this. we need a truth and reconciliation in this country, similar to what they experienced in south africa, about the plight of young black males. hey are marginalized and every social institution fails them by the time they are 18 years old

like michael brown. the educational system has failed them. so often as a state legislator, we would build a prison bed based on the third grade reading tests of young black men. the economy has failed young black men by the time they are 18 years old. and so what we find in these communities is a hyper-vigilant police force that is dealing with a preponderance of social failure. and we lay all of society's failures at the feet of the police department. i do applaud you, mr. horsford, for the efforts you have made in this house. i'm a proud co-sponsor of your universal respect act which directs the president to do a review of law enforcement

policies in order to eliminate procedures that result in racial profiling. this is a threshold toward that end of a reconciliation. and i have long been a supporter , ending racial profiling which has been offered by one of the deans of this house, representative john conyers, that makes it clear that law enforcement agencies cannot gabling engage in racial profiling anywhere in the country. i do think there are baby steps we can take. certainly one giant step towards increasing accountability is to install these lapel cameras on all law enforcement agencies. as a matter of fact, i was very oud in 2009, to secure $100,000 for the police

department in milwaukee, to purchase cameras for their cars. i do think it's also important hat law enforcement agencies members, police officers, be stakeholders in their communities that they're saving. it did not escape my attention that the involved officer in the untimely death of michael brown, lifbled 25 miles away. and that is why i'm tremendously concerned about efforts in my own state where our governor, scott walker, acted to end the residence requirements for police officers over a year ago. that is currently in litigation, for that very reason. you don't want police officers to become a military, occupied force in a community. you force a kind of transparency and accountability when those

police officers go to your churches. they shop at your grocery stores, and they are part of your community. . i applaud the justice department's involvement in this issue. i do think that no one had ever , rd of ferguson, missouri before august 9. and certainly the name michael brown is a name shared probably by millions of people. this. ay that to say that this is not just about ferguson or just about michael brown. it's about the direction and the future of america. where we're going with this. as to paraphrase dr. martin

luther king. we will eith her live together as brothers or we will perish together as fools. i think young black men have tremendous talent, they have a lot to offer. the legacy of slavery has rought us to the point where seeing a 6'4" black man walking down the street in and of itself is a threat. and we need some truth and reconciliation around that issue. nd may michael brown rest in peace and may his life lift us to a greater understanding and reconciliation around this issue. and i yield back to you. thank you so much for this special order. mr. horsford: thank you. i thank the gentlelady from wisconsin and thank you for your very compassionate remarks and the perspectives of so many people who are expecting this

congress to act and we will take heed of your words and your recommendations. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. horsford: and may i inquire as to how much remaining time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 22 minutes remaining. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to also include for the record the fact that the u.n. committee on the elimination of racial discrimination recently issued a 14-page long scathing report on the united states' failure to fully comply with our obligations under the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and numerous areas affecting racial and ethnic minorities. while the report commended the

obama administration for steps combat racial discrimination, it highlighted the gaps, stated commitments and the glaring reality of laws and practices that continue to discriminate against and disproportionately impact people of color and indigenous communities. i think it's rather important for this body to know, particularly tonight, because i know there already some who will ask, why are they doing this special order on this topic? why are they bringing attention to the need for reform? well, whether it's in your local community, your state or federally, we have an obligation to make sure that people are treated fairly and equally under the law. and where our laws or our practices fail to meet that standard, we have an obligation to change it. and for the united nations to call into question the united

states' failure in these areas i think speaks to the fact that this is not just a local issue but it's also an international one. so i hope that my colleagues understand that that is in part why we are bringing attention to it. the 'd like to thank gentlelady from wisconsin for recognizing the fact that many members have proposed legislation well before the michael brown case. mr. conyers, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, called for the end of racial profiling act. representative hank johnson legislation, to call for greater accountability and a fundamental review of the militarization of our local law enforcement agencies. and i am honored to be one of the sponsors for the universal respect act, to have a review and meaningful change again of our local law enforcement so their practices meet the intent

of our laws. i'd like to now yield to my good friend and a fellow freshman member, he's actually a red shirt freshman because he came in a little earlier than the rest of us, but he has been a dynamic leader, come to this congress with the commitment to serve his constituents from the great state of new jersey, let me yield now time to my friend, representative donald payne. mr. payne: thank you, mr. speaker. and let me just say thank you to my colleague, the gentleman from nevada, and also the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, who have demonstrated true leadership in this shown class in having and demonstrated time and time again during these special

orders their commitment to this nation. mr. speaker, the people of ferguson, missouri, and the people across this nation have suffered a tremendous blow with the circumstances surrounding michael brown's death. not only did we lose a young man, we as a nation were once again reminded, although we have come so far, we still have long way to go. we are trying to achieve equality and fairness under the law, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. now is the time for all of us to reflect on what's happened and to find a way to come together going forward. we lost a young man, michael brown, in a heartbreaking and

tragic circumstance. he was only 18 years old. his family will never be able to hold or talk to him ever again. when something like this happens, local authorities, including the police, have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating the death and how they are protecting the people in our communities. the people of ferguson and the people of this nation deserve a transparent and thorough investigation. we deserve the truth and we deserve justice. i'm very pleased that the department of justice, civil rights division has stepped in and has launched a thorough investigation into the circumstances that led to michael brown's death. i want to commend president obama and also mr. holder for

their involvement and their commitment on seeing justice brought in this situation. and this issue around racial was ling, a young man that walking in the street with a to get on s told little alk and just a bit later lie dead in the , started out with him being told to get on the sidewalk. and he loses his life. it's unconscionable. it's not understandable. and it's injustice -- it's

injust. and this is a situation that young african-american men have ad to deal with for centuries. it is a situation that we all find ourselves in, whether we are young men in ferguson, newark, new jersey, or new york city, or las vegas, nevada. e all have one common thread and that is when you come across a police officer in certain circumstances, there is a manner in which you should conduct yourself to make sure you can get home alive that night. and i've been on that side of it.

on far too many occasions to count. but one of the occasions that i remember so well, i was about 19 or 20. working for a company, had to go downtown in my hometown of newark, new jersey, to pay a ill at a department store. i was pulled over by the police. i had made -- i had -- admit, i made a driving infraction. i was pulled over by the police. using my cousin's car, when the officer asked me for my identification, a little nervous, i kind of scrambled and i didn't know where the

registration of the vehicle was ight away. and this police officer decided tell me that if i did not find that license and , woe ation quick enough throw me so far under -- he would throw me so far under the jail they would never find me. now, you can imagine the fright and panic that that would put in a young person. but i got my license, still looking for the registration and i handed it to him, mr. speaker. but, mr. speaker, because my family was well known in that town and my father was a sitting council person in that municipality at the time, all of a sudden the police officer's demeanor changed.

because all of a sudden i was someone now. why did it take me to be related to a council member in that town to be someone? no more than two minutes prior to that, i would be thrown so far under the jail that they would never find me. now it was, well, don't you understand you need to be careful, you could get hurt or you could hurt someone. all of a sudden now there's some concern for me. what changed it? what changed it? but what concerns me is the countless thousands and hundred thousands of african-american men that can't pull that license out and become someone. those are the people that i'm concerned about.

that wrest well this issue every single day -- wrestle with this issue every single day. that's why i'm proud to say that my uncle, the former assemblyman william payne, is the author of the racial profiling bill in the state of new jersey that stands now. because this is shoon. has been an issue and obviously, based on what has happened in ferguson, missouri, still is an issue. so we will continue to speak out. as we have done. in our homes, in ferguson, and on this floor. because we need the united states of america to live up to its crede. and with that, sir, i will yield back. i just have one last thing to say. and it is something that just came to me.

in these communities that we talked about, when will these communities know their local police for protect and serve rather than stop and frisk? and with that i yield back. mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and thank you for sharing your own personal experience. i know each of us can probably recall an incident where we have felt that we were being profiled, targeted, singed out, not because -- singled out, not because it was warranted, necessarily, but because of some characteristic. and that is part of what we're here to bring attention to tonight. so thank you for your honesty and for your genuineness in expressing that personal story. i yield time to my fellow co-anchor. i have great respect for this gentleman. we have gotten to know each

other very well. and i know that this is an issue in particular that he has provided direct leadership on because of the communities in which he serves in new york and the comment by gentleman, the previous comment about stop and frisk is something that you have worked to challenge. and because of that, there is a change that is under way. and that is what we are hoping to bring tonight. i would like to yield time to my fellow co-anchor, the gentleman from from the empire state, from new york, representative jeffries at this time. mr. jeffries: i thank my colleague from the silver state for anchoring the c.b.c. special oord on this topic related to the ongoing problem, epidemic oblem of police violence

related to communities of color. the most recent occurred in ferguson occurring in missouri and we join our colleague laci ay as well as the c.b.c. representative fudge, which we believe is most likely to occur through a federal investigation that is now ongoing. but unfortunately, the problem brought to light for so many across america, particularly the neighborhoods that i represent in brooklyn, new york, by the killing of michael brown, is all too familiar for many communities across this great nation. , act, back in july of 196 president johnson appointed what me to be known as the an

11-member commission to stud the urban of civil unrest in america, that were taking place nce 1964 and into 1965 and throughout 1966, prompting lippedon johnson, one of our greatest presidents, though that is not often acknowledged, given the leadership he has emonstrated on issues -- the vice chair was john lindsay, a former member of this house. the commission concluded that some of the unrest that had taken place in detroit, michigan and philadelphia, pennsylvania, in los angeles and watts, some of the things that had taken

place resulting in unrest were caused by pre-existing conditions of aggressive police activity in african-american communities, followed by a triggering event, often a shooting of an unarmed african-american and then an overly aggressive police response. this is what the current commission found when it issued its report in the late 1960's. but that same analysis could apply more than 45 years later in terms of what this country ust witnessed in ferguson, missouri. a history clearly in that community of overly aggressive, excessive force, largely

directed at the african-american community. and then a triggering event, the killing of an unarmed african-american, michael brown, who was shot twice in the head and it appears a total of six times. and then an overly aggressive police response. in fact, a military response. the people at home in the district that i represent was shocked to see the images coming out of ferguson, missouri. it looked like fallujah, looked like a war zone in other parts f the world, not an american suburb. hat did we learn, if anything, from the current commission report? apparently, not much. and that's what we have got to confront in america.

there is a reality to police brutality. and its impact on unarmed african-american men, that as a civilized society, we should no longer tolerate. let me agree with my good iend's opinion, that the overwhelming police officers are good individuals, hard-working, committed to enforcing the law in an even-handed fashion. >> view the current commission port issued by the joonson

report. we have been unable to confront some of the realities brought to bear by that report, but perhaps the tragedy in ferguson, missouri, will wake us all up as a country. there was an observation that she was sick and tired of being sick and tired. at what point will we be tired of seeing an unarmed african-american man's life being taken away prematurely by an officer using excessive force. and that is why we are hopeful that we not just deal with the law enforcement problem, but that we confront so many of the socioeconomic conditions that

create a climate for some of these things to occur. and i look forward to that discussion as we move forward under the leadership of our chair and working with the distinguished the gentleman from las vegas and with that, i yield back. mr. horsford: i thank my co-anchor for this special order to and for your bringing this body a reminder of the report, which is very instructtive on what should be done as a model to move community policing approaches forward. and i think that is one of the absolute objectives that must come from any action that this body takes. and there is a role for congress to play. absolutely, there is a responsibility for the department of justice, who has a statutory objective, a responsibility, to ensure profiling does not occur in our

nation's law enforcement. in addition to the example of the kerner report, i would like to bring to the attention, the work of the u.s. department of justice, the office of community-oriented policing services, the cops office, which is working to develop an initiative known as the collaborative reform model. now they came to my home state of nevada in january of 2012, following growing community's concerns and scrutiny of its use of deadly force practices. and the las vegas metro police department, under the leadership of our sheriff, voluntarily agreed to have this review by the cops department in order to identify areas of improvement. and so i believe that this report and this program, along with the kerner report, are examples of what we can do to make sure that every local law

enforcement agency has high standards and it is not practicing profiling. at this time, mr. speaker, i know our time has expired. i would like to thank my colleagues for this special order hour, to the gentleman from new york for co-anchoring. i yield back the remaini

>> >> water. bodies. up 70 5% of our take waterway, and humanity will perish within one week. it is because of us human that nearly 50% of waters -- two areas are unsuitable for use due to pollution. we have learned to take water for granted. faucets, bottled water, and flush toilets reinforced the same idea. water is an unlimited resource. aat step outside and diminished condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life and disrupts an already fragile food chain. animals are not the only ones who sever the negative effects of pollution. in 20 14 you must

provide federal funding to wastewater treatment factories across the country. the negligence of generations must stop here. on wednesday during washington journal for the student cam documentary competition. >> washington journal is next. live with your phone calls. and the house returns for morning our speeches. noon,ative business is at with members taking up legislation to block epa. under the obama administration, they are notifying congress about the decision for army sergeant bowe bergdahl. >> coming up in 45 minutes, bucci.

♪ ♪ >> good morning. tuesday, september 9, 20 13. president obama makes the case for expanding military action against islamic state militants operating in iraq and syria. the president will address the nation tomorrow evening will stop on today's "washington journal," what those operations could include and how congress is responding. 56 days until the 20 14 midterm elections. today is the last primary election day of the cycle, the polls open in four