>> well, the solicitor general just said that if you look at that district, it has a very bizarre shape and the effect of the bizarre shape is to pull in predominantly african-american areas and exclude predominantly white areas. white areas. is he correct on that? >> actually, i respectfully disagree with him about that. i if you look at the comparison map, it's in the joint appendix on 197, you can see a comparison between the former district and the current district. and what you'll see is up at the right i'm sorry, the let me try and orient myself the left the left part of montgomery county, that's where the former district used to be. it was part of senate district 25 that came into the middle of that district, sort of a kind of came in the middle of it. and what the drafters did here is they drew the lines closer to the city of montgomery, and they preserved that part of senate district 25 that came in the middle of it. what they the only thing they did is they took some precincts and some parts of precincts, kind of along those lines, and they moved them from senate district 25 to senate district 26.

and i want to also just correct something that the my friend the solicitor general said. we didn't just move black voters into that district. we also moved hispanic voters into that district, we moved white voters into that district. we made changes to that -- >> mr. brasher, i mean, usually in these cases you're looking at these funny-shaped districts and you're trying to figure out from the shape and from other matters whether race has been used instead of traditional districting criteria. but this is a very sort you know, sort of sui generis shaw claim, because here the principal evidence in the case is not all the circumstantial stuff that we usually do. it's a policy statement from the state that says race nonretrogression is going to be our principal criterion except for reynolds, and then a clear testimony from the people who were applying that policy statement that they thought that that meant maintaining the black voting age population, something

which is a mistaken understanding of what retrogression entails. but, you know, you don't have to look at all the circumstantial evidence about the shape of districts when you have a policy statement from the state saying this is our number one criterion except for reynolds and this is how we understand it in such a way that it's going to ensure that a 68% district stays a 68% district and a 52% district stays a 52% district and so on. >> well, just two quick responses to that, justice kagan. and the first is that the state is always going to say that complying with federal law was a top priority because federal law is supreme. and so if simply -- >> but this is much more than that. this is very specific saying

where the the the two legislators principally in charge of this said this is what we understand the requirements are, that we're going to maintain the black voting age population in each district. >> well, that brings me to my second point, which is that imagine had we done the same thing that the plaintiffs are suggesting, and we had hired a political scientist to tell us that 55% should be the target. i don't think that we could say race predominated in that circumstance, just because we had a different target. and so i think they are bringing effectively a circumstantial case here. they have the fact that we said that this was our objective under section 5 -- >> well, justice kagan's question points up the fact that the defenders of this plan did not rely on the fact that it was a political gerrymander and, of course, they said it was the 2% call, but the basis was race in order to comply with section 5. >> and my point about that is certainly with respect to specific districts, they were based on partisanship, and so had they challenged specific districts, we would have responded in kind with respect to those specific districts. but they never challenged specific districts below. and i think to answer justice

alito's question, to my friends on the other side, i think you should look at document 194 which is the black caucus' posttrial brief. and although they certainly mention an occasional specific district, they didn't have any evidence. i guess this goes back to justice kagan's question. this is a circumstantial case because the only evidence 16 >> considerable evidence on the senate district 26. >> senate district 26 was challenged by the alabama democratic conference, which has now not brought a shaw claim with respect to district 26. and because they specifically challenged that district, you actually have, like i said, a credibility determination by the district court about the testimony with respect to that specific district. >> let me ask you about this section 5 mistake. isn't it so that both the

district court and alabama were laboring under the impression that retrogression meant you have to keep the same numbers? >> the district court made an express factfinding here that our goal was to prevent substantial reductions in black population in the preexisting majority black districts. >> and if that's a misunderstanding of what section 5 requires, then the whole thing is infected by that mistake. >> well, i disagree with you respectfully about it being a misunderstanding, because i think in 2006, congress told us that we could not diminish the ability to elect the black voters in a preexisting majority black district. my friend, professor pildes, testified against the inclusion

of that language in congress, and he told them that if they included that language, it would "lock into place" the majority black districts in the south. if you cannot diminish the ability to elect, that means if there's a safe majority black district where there's a 100% chance that black voters can elect their candidates of choice, you cannot drop that to where they simply have a 50% chance, or a 60% percent chance. and that was what we were setting out to do. and this court said that states get leeway in complying with section 5 and the equal protection clause and we do not have to hit things right on the dot. >> mr. rasher, i guess i don't understand your response to justice ginsburg. i mean, there are different interpretations of what those 2006 amendments mean, right? under one interpretation, it was basically a codification of justice souter's opinion, and so majority minority districts could be transformed into influence districts. on another stricter interpretation, perhaps, no majority minority districts had to stay majority minority districts. but in no interpretation does a 76% district have to stay a 76% district when circumstances change and when the ability to elect candidates of one's choice does not require it. >> well, this is what justice souter said in his dissent in georgia v. ashcroft. he said, "if racial elements consistently vote in separate blocks," which it's conceded they do in alabama, "decreasing the proportion of black voters would generally reduce the chance that the minority group's favored candidate would be elected." the majority opinion in georgia v. shcroft agreed with that as well.

and the district court in georgia v. ashcroft, which i think that congress was trying to go back to, said, "if existing opportunities of minority voters to exercise their franchise are robust, a proposed plan that leaves those voters with merely a reasonable or fair chance of electing a candidate of choice may constitute retrogression." and the testimony from the plaintiffs' own expert here was that majority black districts in alabama that are only 55% black would only give those voters a reasonable opportunity to elect. >> suppose we, i don't know, i want to know what you think about the practicalities of sending this back. assume in the back of my mind just relying on state policy is this. a state legislator gets up and says, in our state, there's a history of discrimination against black people. there are very few black representatives in this body. i would like to find a way of drawing district lines so that we have a few more. ok? that's the normal way this case comes up. this is an obverse and odd situation. all right.

i don't know that that statement should automatically disqualify his plan. maybe we should look a little further into it and see what they actually did. suppose i start there. and then i say, ok, you go proceed district by district. i suspect they will be able to prove that at least in some districts, at least in some, the statement of the legislator here did prevail and did make a difference. now, if that's so, they don't have section 5 to rely on as a defense. so i don't know what the defense is possibly going to be. and since we can't even think what the defense is, why don't they just redo this plan over in the legislature and save everybody a lot of time and trouble. what's your response to that? >> there are a couple of responses. the first is, i think -- >> i thought it was a lot of

trouble to redo a plan. is it not a lot of trouble? >> it is a lot of trouble. >> so my point of my question is you want to go to that lot of trouble before a lot of extra trouble in court proceedings, or do you want to go to that trouble right off the bat and get it over with? i expect you'd have an answer to that, and i'm not taking a point of view. i just want to know what your response is. >> well, to respond to that pointed question, this plan was passed after 21 hearings held throughout the state of alabama. it was passed after extensive legislative negotiations. it was passed in a special session of the alabama legislature that was called for purposes of enacting a redistricting plan. so we do not want to go back through that process 6 >> of course you don't, but my question is, is there going to be a defense left that could stop you from having to go back? >> yes. >> what? >> i think the united states agrees with me that the question here is whether there was a strong basis in evidence for us to believe at the time that we passed this plan that we had to comply with section 5, and i think we have that defense, even if we are litigating district by district.

but let me -- >> what does it mean to comply with section 5? and that's where you can say it strongly it complies everybody agrees that that counts, compliance with section 5, strong interest in doing that. but if you think section 5 means you got to preserve the same numbers and that's not what section 5 means, then the whole premise on which the district court based its decision was wrong. >> well, i don't think so, because i think the district court's decision was premised on the fact that race was not the predominant factor in this plan. but to go to that question about section 5, we adopted a very reasonable section 5 preclearance strategy here. it was the exact same thing that georgia did in 2005 and that congress said in the house report when it reauthorized section 5 in 2006 8 >> if that turns out to be wrong, i guess you're still not guilty of using race. you're still trying to comply with section 5 as opposed to being racist. right? >> that's exactly right. they did make intentional discrimination claims in the district court --

>> if the district court said that race was not the purpose, what in the district court's view was the purpose of the plan? >> well, i don't think there's a need for a district court to identify any one specific purpose. >> i'm asking in this case, what do you think? >> yes. >> was it the presumption that they wanted to assure preclearance under section 5 and for that reason used race? so when you say the district court said, well, race was not the purpose, it was close to the purpose because they were trying to use section 5 and use race for that reason. >> well, it was certainly -- >> that's a very fine distinction. >> it was certainly a purpose

that went into the majority black districts, but it was not the predominant motive in the way these laws were drafted. >> don't you have to use race to comply with section 5? >> that's right. >> is there any way to comply with section 5 without using race? >> there is not. >> but you don't have to use race in this way, mr. brasher. nobody would say that section 5 required you to maintain a 78% district and a 78% district was no longer needed with respect to a group's ability to elect a candidate of choice. >> well, i respectfully disagree with that. and once again, we followed the same preclearance strategy that georgia followed in 2005. and that congress remember, congress made a record in 2006 to try to reauthorize section 5 and part of that record was them saying that georgia's plan from 2005, which kept all of their majority black districts exactly the same was a good thing. we did the same thing in this redistricting cycle that other states did in this redistricting cycle. we actually did the same thing that the plaintiffs did when they were in charge of the legislature in 2001. there's been some inconsistency on that. the only difference is they tried to hit targets from the 1993 plan as they were in 1993, and we simply tried to keep the districts the same from 2010 to 2012. >> could i follow up on justice breyer's exploration of what would happen if this was done over? i assume that section 5 would

not be a consideration so long as a new coverage formula is not adopted by congress. is that correct? >> correct. if the legislature were to pass new plans, i do not think that they would have to comply. >> and the legislature could do whatever it wants if it's if it relies purely on partisanship rather than on race. >> that is correct. >> and to what degree would or could to what degree would the legislature be justified in doing and to what degree would it be required to take into account the degree, if any, to which section 2 imposes something like a retrogression requirement? >> well, i think -- >> and do we know what that might be? >> i really honestly do not know how section 2 would necessarily apply in this circumstance because by complying with section 5 here, we necessarily complied with section 2 because it's a lesser standard. but i do think that it's the fact that we could have done, if we if the plans are vacated, they are very likely to just be the same plans reauthorized 19 >> what would happen if you 20 if you're if on a doover, the objective was to produce maximum republican representation in both houses of the legislature. and the way in and in doing thdrastic reduction in the number of

african-american senators and representatives. would that be a violation of section 2? >> not necessarily. there would, obviously, be a lot more that would go into that analysis whether that violated section 2. you'd have to look at each individual district and see if they can make a section 2 claim. i mean, one of the issues in this case is that this plan actually gives proportional representation to black voters in alabama. there are about 25% black voting age population in alabama, and they have about 25 majority black districts in the house and about 20-- i'm sorry, about 25% majority black districts in the house and about 25 percent majority black districts in the senate. and so this is this plan meets section 2 in that regard in the sense that it gives proportional representation. but i do not know what would

happen, quite frankly, if this if the court were to vacate these plans and the legislature were to just do a doover. and i would to go back to the 2% deviation, these are very sophisticated parties on the other side of this case with very sophisticated counsel. the reason they've never proposed any way to do this following our own race-neutral redistricting criteria is because they know that the 2% deviation here prevents them from gerrymandering districts to help white democrats get elected because it would be very simple. the 2% deviation was adopted at the very beginning of this redistricting process, so the plaintiffs had a year, while they were on the committee, the reapportionment committee, to come up with their own 2% plan. and instead, they just proposed these percent deviation plans in the legislature. and then we had a year of litigation for them to come up with own 2% plan, and they -- they didn't do that. and that's what the district court was getting at when the district court said that you know, the district court said race did not predominate because we followed raceneutral redistricting criteria, and then the district court suggested, you know what, you know what this case is really about, it's about the 2% population deviation. because -- >> mr. brasher, you're suggesting that there's some necessity for a 2% plan, but

there is no necessity for a 2% plan. states have routinely gone up to 10% without getting into trouble under reynolds. so that can't insulate your plan from this kind of challenge, can it? >> well, i think it can, and for this reason, is because we're in charge of adopting our race-neutral redistricting criteria. and under easley, if the plaintiffs want to prove that race predominated in a plan, the first step of that, and certainly the easiest way to do it, is to propose some other way of meeting race-neutral redistricting criteria that provides greater racial balance. and they haven't proposed any way to do than, and the plans that they did propose, even though they are 10% plans, are very, very similar in many of these majority black districts. so not only have they not proposed a 2% plan that's our criteria, but they actually the plans they did propose are not that different. i think at the very least, the fact that the plaintiffs have never proposed any way to do this redistricting that actually meets the state's race-neutral redistricting criteria underscores that you cannot find that the district courts factfinding here was clearly erroneous, that race did not predominate, and i think the court should affirm on that basis. let me address the question of

remand for a second here. the united states has said that the court should remand this case. but the united states' position on that is internally inconsistent because the united states agrees that the population percentages alone in the districts are not sufficient for the plaintiffs to have met their burden of proof to show that race predominated. but that's the only evidence they introduced about these districts, and that's why the district court said, to the best that i can tell, these are statewide challenges because the only evidence in the record, whatever they may have said, the only evidence in the record about these districts was just population statistics. >> you'd look at the you'd look at the complaint, when i look at the complaint, i suspect i'll find something about districts. it's certainly true that, sort of taking the us point of view, the it's quite clear the to me anyway, that the court decided on the basis of a statewide plan. so if it's wrong about that, then they ought to have a chance

to go back and make their claim district by district and have a decision on that basis. >> well -- and once again, i don't think they may have brought claims with respect to each individual district. i don't think they do. i think if you look at the complaint, you won't find that. but even if they did, the only evidence that they introduced about any of these districts are the statistics alone, and the united states agrees with me that that's insufficient for them to have met their burden of proof. so i don't see how you could reverse the district's fact-finding as clearly erroneous that race didn't predominant, given that all they introduced was statistics. i think the court should affirm on the basis of the fact-finding and not reach questions about section 5. unless the court has any other questions, that ends my thank you. >> thank you, counsel. professor pildes, you have two minutes remaining. >> thank you very much, mr. chief justice. if i can, i'd like to address -- >> is he right on that last point? earlier, one of the two of you said that if you looked at the division of precincts, it was done on the basis of this policy in almost every district.

was that shown below? >> we introduced all of that precinct splitting information below and in our proposed findings of fact, document number 196, some of which is reproduced in one of the briefs. we made exactly this point, yes, your honor. >> what other besides the statistics, what other evidence did you present? >> your honor, we -- >> i can go back to the joint appendix, but i just want a summary of it from you. >> your honor, the key fact we presented, i think, that hasn't been discussed here is that the alabama constitution prohibits the splitting of counties. and they say they had a supremacy clause obligation to meet these racial targets, and that meant they could override the alabama's -- the alabama constitution's protection of county boundaries and all other state traditional districting principles. and the 2% rule works the same way. if that's actually a federal constitutional requirement, they can also override the key protections against partisan gerrymandering.

the very that few exist, the only hard constraints, the county boundaries are political subdivision boundaries, and it means they can manipulate the allimportant county delegations in the alabama legislature by breaking counties into multiple districts and then deciding who runs the county by putting their district in there. now, a second question we answer that i think has been very important in this discussion and, by the way, i don't want to lose track of the fact that on remand, the alabama legislature will have to comply with the whole county provisions, or at least they can't use this federal excuse to split them. the way most states do this is they either start with traditional districting principles in the core of existing districts and they look to see at the end have we maintained the same number of majorityminority districts, or if they start with a number at the beginning, which they're not required to, they ask what's necessary in current conditions

to preserve the ability to elect today. that's what alabama did in its 2001 submissions. it actually said that the number for the ability to elect was a 55% black voting age population. that's in its official submissions to the united states. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> 10 minutes from now, we will go live to st. louis. and francis will be at the press conference. it is scheduled to get underway at 6:30. the history of immigration policy after obama's recent executive order. kraut, he is alan

a history professor and a nonresident fellowis alan kraut. to give us some historical perspective on past president's actions on immigration. this has been talked about a great deal the last few days. let's step back. tot did the president used sum up his justifications for the executive actions he took last week? guest: a good deal of precedence from what president obama did, presidential actions on s go back to dwight eisenhower, if not further. there is an entry of individuals who are in trouble for one reason or another, it events in 1959, hungarians in 1956. during the ford administration,

the admission of 360,000 .ietnamese, 14,000 lebanese whenever there is a world crisis , presidents have the option of responding. in addition to that, after the 1986 immigration reform and wereol act, there adjustments made by the reagan administration in the bush administration to bring in parents, children of those who had been amnesty. it was in the interest of keeping families together. host: going further than that, how long has congress legislated on immigration? what is our history with legislation on immigration, in terms of setting limit and who and when they can come into this country? , we see1870's

congress legislating to exclude people considered to be , a clinicalmbeciles diagnosis in those days, prostitutes, and so on. in 1882, the chinese exclusion dramatic piece of legislation to exclude chinese workers from coming to the united states. beginning in, 1891, the federal government moves into a controlling position with respect to the with respect to the interrogation and of immigrants coming into the united states. it has been that way ever since. in 1924, there is dramatic restrictions passed by the , congress,ernment the johnson read immigration act, which imposed quotas on immigrants coming to the united

states. policy.estrictive that was not revised until 1955. we have not had, other than irca , a major overhaul of the immigration policy. ,ost: when you look at these have they always been the politicalth environment for both the president and members of congress? almost always. there is an old saying, america beckons, but americans repel. this saying means is the opportunities of american life, of achieving success in the united states are dangled before

immigrants. after they get here, they find the welcome mat is not always out. throughout american history, the debate about who should come, how many should thousands -- 180,000 could gain protection by opening the age cutoff. have it through 2010. are are saying that 1.2 protected under the deferral program.

that was an order the president had reduce the issued. -- previously issued. how does this compare to previous actions? >> the amnesty was 1.5 million people. had deportations deferred. in the case of ron reagan, theirs nicaraguans had rescinded. this is proportionate to what happened in 1986. hundreds of time, thousands of immigrants have had deportations deferred. >> we are opening up the phone lines.

on the migration. what does your institute do? that analyzestank immigration policy. i believe, on your show last week, you had doris, one of the executives of the policy institute. institute forier the study of contemporary migration to the united states. or beenyou had the time able to analyze the impact of the order? was that your role? >> that is not my role. my role is to provide historical background. >> more broadly? >> more broadly. >> the institute, will it provide analysis of the planned

actions? projections, in terms of what the impact will likely be. calls.s go to the good morning. >> don't cut me off. this is important. there is a thing in the newspaper. i am an immigrant and i have been here 55 years and i came with a green card and all of that stuff. i had a sponsor bring me. we had bills like that. not a compromise. compromise is a flush of the toilet. common sense is the name of the game. aliens, hires illegal 50 years in prison and a $1 million fine. you send them all back and replace them with the welfare

department that is ripping up our country. if get the national guard, the drug dealers come in, you shoot them. >> how long have you been in the country? i amcame here 1952 and 70 years old. >> guest: it was a cold war issue. it was a time when the united states wanted to admit migrants from communist countries, signs that they preferred democracy rather than the repressions of the soviet regime and so on. it was also a time when there was a great deal of concern about admitting immigrants who might bring with them alien ideologies to the united states.

this was a period of low immigration before it picks up again in the 1970's. we begin to see another spike. host: what is the cause of that spike? guest: the end of the war in vietnam, but also unrest and economic unrest and difficulties in mexico. you have large numbers of latin americans and mexicans and southeast asians coming to the united states. host: fort worth, texas, go ahead. caller: i want to comment on the statement a lady made earlier. president obama -- since he has

been in office has fought -- he has worked harder than any other president to make things right. can they let the president be the president and not obama, but president obama? host: let me follow up on her comments. farmworkers urged to legalize agriculture workers. under the plan, an estimated 250,000 farmworkers would be eligible for relief from deportation. the united farm workers said this is a fraction of the total number of undocumented workers in the united states. they hope obama's decision to take action will propel congress to achieve a legislative solution that addresses agricultural needs. estimate theroups

.hare may be higher than 70% historically, how much have we relied on undocumented workers to do our farming and agricultural work in this country? guest: we have been very dependent on migrant workers coming from mexico. at one point during the mid-20th century, we had a special program to bring mexican workers into the united states. this was valuable during wartime, during the second world war when so many american-born workers were away at war. so we have always been dependent upon this migrant labor force coming up to plant and harvest and so on. we have not treated them well, to be sure. i think this new plan, this possibility of legalizing some of these migrant workers would be of enormous benefit to

american agriculture. host: when you hear people say that they are taking jobs away from american citizens -- how valid is that? guest: in the agriculture sector, it's not. americans are not flocking to get the back baking -- backbreaking jobs in harvesting. in other sectors, it is an issue of having a high school diploma or not having a high school diploma, there may be competition for jobs. >> good evening. joined this to be evening by the st. louis mayor, the st. louis county executive, the missouri executive for

public safety. later this evening the grand jury decision will be announced. our share of the decision people on all sides show tolerance, mutual respect, and restraint. i visited with folks in ferguson, and it is understandable that, like the rest of us, they are on edge waiting for a decision. they are doing their best to go about their daily lives, conduct their business, and support one another and their community. i spoke to a number of state theaters this afternoon who offered their prayers for peace and safety. together we are all focused on making sure the necessary resources are at hand to protect lives, protect property, and protect free speech.

several churches will be food,ing haven to provide shelter, and medical care. dental health provider -- mental health providers have teamed up, working right now to provide counseling and other services to the people that need them. law enforcement officials continued to maintain open lines st communication with prote leaders to improve interactions between police, demonstrators, and prevent violence. want to thank my director of ofoc safety for taking -- public safety for taking part in these ongoing discussions. state and local law enforcement agencies are continuing to work to make sure the best, most experienced officers are on the street. women of the national guard will also be in the area to provide security at critical facilities like

andhouses, police stations, utility substations and offer logistical and transportation support as needed. this will help free up a law enforcement officers to do their job effectively. in closing, i would like to reiterate my call for peace, respect, and restraint, and thank everyone out there who is working hard to make sure that communities throughout the region are safe and secure. now i would like to ask the county executive to make a couple of comments, and i will be glad to take a few questions. charlie dooley. that me say good evening to all of you. i do not know what the prosecuting attorney will have to say this evening, but i know this -- itmatter what is announced, will be emotional. i want people to think with their heads and not with emotion.

we have tohat, remain focused on our long-term systemic changes that have to take place in our community. are immediate priority is to ensure that people are safe and able to voice their concern in an orderly fashion. groups haveommunity been working for weeks to ensure their rights are protected. we are committed to the escalating negative situations in a responsible manner. i do not want people in this community to think they have to barricade their doors and take up arms. we not that kind of a community. i do not want people to accidentally shoot or harm someone out of fear. this is not the time to turn on each other. is the time to turn to each other. we are one community. again, our main priority at this

time is to ensure that we keep people safe and protect property. we intend to do that. to be fair and clear that in achieving these objectives we are recognizing the right of people to peacefully assemble and exert their free speech rights. as long as safety and security are not jeopardized. i personally believe people in this community will do what is right. in october, there were thousands of people here protesting and expressing their views. no one was hurt. have spent countless hours working in ways to manage the situation once the grand jury decision is announced. and now is the time to show the world that we can -- i'm

confident this will be a fact. thank you. >> thank you. now the great leader from the mayor. saint louis, the >> good evening. st. louis is a region that endures during challenging times. we have seen it time again, seen it in the face of personal tragedy can and seen it in the aftermath of natural disaster. times --ne of those what happened to michael brown has deeply divided us. whatever is announced this evening some people are going to be angry and frustrated, and some people are going to be angry and frustrated about that climaxes to the protesters, we will protect your rights to

speak your mind. --will give you the way leeway way and we will listen to your grievances. damagingng violent and property will not be tolerated. to the people who disagree with the protesters, the actions we are taking are designed to protect you, to protect your family, homes, businesses, and neighborhood. that is our paramount consume. over the next few days we expect ans loudly andis voice theiry views. after that, it will be time to heal. to close the racial divide and make st. louis a better place for everyone regardless of race or color. we all may experience some

inconvenience during the coming days. circumstances,e we may allow demonstrators to slow down traffic, or will not allow them to hurt anyone or damage anyone's property. that is how it went last night in the shot neighborhood. it was not perfect. there were two acts of vandalism, at their was no other property damage, and no one was seriously injured. when president abraham lincoln first proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving in 1863, it is worth recalling that he sought to help a nation heal and to work together toward the promise of what he called a large increase in freedom. the world will be watching us. they are going to watch how we handle our disagreements in the coming days and how we make needed change in the coming months and years. st. louis finds itself with an opportunity to show the nation the ways in which a community

can be more fair and more just for everyone. we must seize this opportunity together. one more speaker, and we will be glad to the questions here. the director of public safety of the state of missouri. thank you, governor. i have spent my entire life as a president of the city of st. louis -- as a president of the city of st. louis and served four years as a member of the metropolitan police department, retiring as chief of police. the st. louis county police, the st. louis city police come and the missouri highway patrol has spent the last two months planning and training for the anticipated reaction to the announcement that will be made in the next few hours. the plan is designed for all

contingencies, but we hope that officers will only observe peaceful protests. i have great confidence in the design of this plan. it has prioritized keeping all people safe, residents and protesters, protection of property, and ensuring that people can exercise their constitutional rights. i also have tremendous confidence in the men and women in st. louis law enforcement. they understand the importance of protecting everyone, and i know they intend to do so. confidence ineat the people of my community. a tremendous dialogue has begun to take place here about more than just policing. this community understands through peaceful protests and dialogue we will continue to grow and that violence will set

this progress back. we must continue to move this community forward, and i have confidence that that is exactly what we will do tonight and in the days ahead of us. with that, i will be glad to take questions. >> was there any thought of delaying this until tomorrow morning? it seems like the element of darkness and light makes -- darkness at night makes it possibly more dangerous? made by were decisions the st. louis county prosecutor's office, and that is who made that call. say to theld you thousands of people, millions of people around america, that government has failed them over the last few months -- >> our focus is not about what

happened over the last 3 1/2 months. we have provided additional training, sensitivity, and knowledge. our focus today in the short one here is to protect lives, property, and speech, and in the longer run, to find pad this for progress. -- to find paths for progress. my focus is on those clear principles as we move forward. yes, ma'am. >> how are you going to move forward -- [indiscernible] >> tonight is about the pieces that are in place to do what we got to do. clearly, all the folks behind me as well as significant leaders in the community have begun that process. i had a chance before i came in here with a conference call with a number of faith leaders who are working with long hours to do that. ofhave the office

community engagement here, and all these folks behind me had been in the community listening and working and also the commission i have appointed. i fully expect with their independent voice and their clear ability to chart the long-term path forward that we will all have suggestions which can lead us in a positive path forward. yes, sir. >> have you ruled out the use of armored vehicles entered? -- and tear gas? >> i am not going to get into operational details. the police have been trained to make sure we are respecting peoples rights to communicate and that allowing them to do that. on the other side, if people are violent, then resources will be used to manage the issues. >> [indiscernible]

i have been here seven of the last eight days, and will be ite tonight, as long as takes to make sure that we move through this particular phase, whatever it may be. >> time for one more. >> what is the lack of an entitlement, the justification of police violence -- >> i have called on this man first -- >> i ask you, will you please leave the alternative press speaker. what a lack of indictment mean fear for black people all over ais country and objectively green light for further police violence? sencond, i would like to pose to you how you would respond

to the call that the country be alt througha h energetic, civil this obedience by millions of people? >> i do not know what the prosecutor is going to announce at 8:00 tonight. >> can you saying now roughly how many national guard are going to be on standby? the mayor has said before [indiscernible] how long do you think they may be needed? >> we will have guard resources here that will play a support role. for example, providing utility substation security. halloween, the power went out here in ferguson. most of the proof would indicate that was not accidental, nor was it a squirrel running down a wire on whatever happens sometimes. also, police substations and stations, the guard can provide

police officers can get out into the community, and firehouses, where if called upon, resources need to get there in time and support roles like that, the guard will be out there. are hope is it is for a short period of time as his misses her thathat backup role is all will be necessary. thank you all very, very much. >> thank you, everybody. appreciate it. later on tonight, we will have the grand jury announcement live on c-span on whether the indictury has decided to the officer accused of shooting michael branford in your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. we expect that at about 9:00

p.m. eastern on c-span. chuck hagelama and today announced that mr. hagel is resigning. they made the announcement this morning in the east room of the white house. this is 15 minutes. >> about a year ago chuck hagel was visiting our troops in korea thanking them for their service and answering their questions, and he asked about the usual topics, national security, future of our military and then one soldier from ohio asked him what was the most pertinent question of the day, which was what you're -- what was your favorite college football team, to which chuck replied, i am a

.trong cornhuskers fan there was a time that an enlisted soldier might have been reluctant to ask that question of the secretary of defense. but chuck hagel has been no ordinary secretary of defense. he was the first enlisted combat thatan who served in position. he understands our men and women like few others. he has stood where they have stood. he has been in the dirt and he has been in the mud. that has established a special bond. he sees himself in them, and they see themselves in him. their safety, their lives have always been at the center of chuck's service. when i asked chuck to serve as secretary we were entering a significant time of transition. the drawdown in afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for

future missions, tough fiscal choices to keep her military strong and ready. over nearly two years chuck has been an exemplary defense secretary, providing a steady hand as we modernize our strategy and budget to meet whileerm threats responding to a movie it challenges like ebola. thanks to chuck on our militaries on a firmer footing, engaged in these missions and looking ahead to the future. discussed theck final quarter of my presidency, and determine that having guided the department through this transition it was an appropriate time for him to complete his service. that me say that chuck is and has been a great friend of mine. i have known him, admired him, and chuck -- and trusted him for i was a decade since

freshman senator, and i was both on the senate foreign relations committee. there is one thing i know about him, he does not make any decision like this lightly. this decision does not come easily to him, that i consider him -- i consider myself lucky to have had him and i am grateful that he has decided to stay on until that successor is confirmed by the senate. toill have more opportunity pay tribute to chuck's life of service in the days ahead. chuck hagel has devoted himself to our national security and our men and women in uniform across more than decades. he volunteered for vietnam and so carries the scars and shrapnel from the battles that he flopped. v.a. he fought to get our veterans the benefits they had earned.

as head of the uso, he made sure america always honors our troops. as a senator, he helped lead the fight for the post 9/11 g.i. bill. helpedetary, chuck has transition our military and bolstered america's leadership around the world. during his tenure, afghan forces took the lead for security in afghanistan, our forces have missionwn, our combat ends next month, and we will partner with afghans to preserve the gains we have made. the nato alliance is as strong as it has ever been, and we have reassured our allies with our increased presence in central and eastern europe. we have modernized our alliances in the asia-pacific, updated our defense posture, and agreed to improve the medications between the u.s. and chinese militaries. to allas been critical

these accomplishments. has ensuredhuck that our military is ready for new missions. today our men and women in uniform are taking the fight iraq in syria, and chuck helped build the international coalition to ensure that the world is meeting the threat together. today our forces are helping support the civilian effort against ebola in west africa, a reminder that america's military is the greatest force for good in the world. finally, in a very difficult budgetary environment that has never lost sight of key priorities. the readiness of our force and the quality of our life of our true's and our families. he has launched reforms to ensure that even as our military is leaner, it remains the strongest in the workhorse of the chips can continue get the pay, housing, health care, child care that they and their families need, performs that we

need congress to now support. at the same time, after the tragedies that we have seen, chuck has helped lead the effort ourmprove security at military installations and to stamp out the scourge of sexual assault from the ranks. chuck, i want to thank you on a personal level. we come from different parties, but in accepting this position, you send a powerful message to the folks in the city that when it comes to our national security and caring for our troops and their families, we are all on americans first. i nominated you for this position, he said you would always give me your honest advice and informed counsel. you have. when it has mattered most, buying closed-door some in the oval office, you're always given it to me straight, and for that i will always be grateful. i recall when i was a nominee in 2008 and i traveled to

afghanistan and iraq, chuck hagel accompanied me on that trip, along with jack reed. it's pretty rare at a time when -- sometimes this town is so politicized to have a friend who was willing to accompany a nominee from another party because he understood that whoever ended up being president, what was most important was that we were unified were me confronted the challenges we see overseas. and that is the kind of class and integrity that chuck hagel has always represented. chuck, you have said that a life is only as good as the family and friends you surround yourself with, and with that, you are blessed. i want to thank your wife and children for the sacrifices they have made as well. as reluctant as we are to see you go, they are equally excited to get their husband and father back.

and i'm sure as a cornhusker, your state is glad to see that you will be there to cheer them on more often. today the united states can claim the united states military as the strongest the world has ever known. the blood and treasure and sacrifices of generations is the result of the character and wisdom of those who lead the them as well, including a young army sergeant in been on who rose to serve as our nation's 34th secretary of defense. on behalf of a grateful nation, thank you, chuck. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you.

thank you very much. mr. president, thank you. thank you for your generous words, for your friendship, for your support, which i have always valued and will continue to value until i am not old, but my longtime dear friend vice president biden, who i have and wealthy president and i have -- both the president and i have learned a lot from him over the last years. so thank you. i want to thank the deputy secretary of defence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey who is also her. i want to thank them for being here this morning. i also want to thank you both for your tremendous leadership of the defence department.

and what you mean to our men and women and their families all over the world. for the honour i have had to serve with each of you and the privilege it has been in every way. and i want to thank the entire leadership team at the pentagon, without their support and wise manyel over the years, our accomplishments, and the president noted some. i have been part of that but it is a team. it is all these tremendous men and women, as you know, mr. president, that make this happen, i can be proud of them and what we have accomplished over the last two years. and as the president noted, i have today submitted my resignation as secretary of defence. it has been the greatest privilege of my life, the greatest privilege of my life to lead and most importantly to serve, the men and women of the

defence department and support the families. i am immensely proud of what we have accomplished during this time. we have prepared ourselves. as the president noted our allies have had a successful transition in afghanistan. we bolstered and during -- endurtiing alliances and strengthened emerging partnerships, was successfully responding to crisis around the world. we watched reforms that will prepare this institution for the challenges facing us in decades to come. i believe we have set up not only this department, the department of defense, but the nation on a stronger course to security, stability, and prosperity. if i did not believe that i would not have done this job. as the country prepares to i wantte thanksgiving,

you, mr. president, and you, mr. vice president, acknowledged what you have done and how grateful i am to both of you for your leadership and friendship and forgiving -- four giving me this opportunity to serve our country once again. i will continue despite you mr president, and the men and women who defend this country every day. and for the families, what they do for our country, so unselfishly. as the president noted, i will stay on this job and worked just as hard as i have done everyday every moment until my successor is confirmed by the congress. i would also like to extend my gratitude to our colleagues in capitol hill. my gratitude to them for the ir support of me and my

-- and more importantly our troops, and their families. i want to thank my international counterparts for their friendship and partnership and advice during my time as secretary of defence. their involvement with me and their partnership in some of these important areas as we build these coalitions of common interest, as you have noted, mr. president, are so critically important. i will be for ever gratefulto them. and finally i would like to thank my family. my wife, who you have mentioned, who was with me this morning as she has been with me throughout so many years and during so many tremendous experiences. and this experience an opportunity and privilege to serve as secretary of defence has been one of those. and to my daughter and son. mr president, thank you again

and to you and to the whole team, because it is a team effort. and that is part of the fun of it, to help build teams and work together to make things happen for the good of the country and make a better world. to all i am immensely grateful and to all of you, your families, have a happy thanksgiving. thank you very much. [applause]

>> some reaction to secretary of hegel's resignation, john boehner released a statement saying that this must be a part of a larger rethinking of our strategy to confront the threats we face abroad, especially the threat posed by the rise of isil. so for the administration has fallen short. and from henry reed, it is my hope that senate republicans will work with democrats to give swift and fair consideration to the next nominee to this critical post. we will discuss to designation on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." our guest is andrew tillman. we will also discuss a report saying that one in five american children live in a family that struggles to put food on the table. we will speak with billy sure. -- shore.

more from washington journal now with issues affecting tribal nations. seattle, washington -- joining us from seattle, washington, is brian cladoosby, the president of the national congress for american indians. thank you for joining us. you are here to talk about the state of native americans in the u.s. tell us about your organization, the national congress. how many tribes do you represent, and what is your focus? guest: thank you very much for giving us the time here. from 50 80 delegates tribes in 27 states came together to create the national .ongress of american indians its purpose was to advocate for and speak for all the tribes in the united states and to look at protecting treaty rights, to look at protecting our sovereignty.

we celebrated our 70th year this year, and we just had our last conference in atlanta, georgia. nation, fromss the new york, florida, represented there. we advocate for all nations in the united states -- from all indian nations in the united states. in september you were here in the smithsonian talking about the treaties in the united states, our programming on american history tv, which are viewers can find on our website. in terms of policy issues, what are some of the focuses of the national congress? guest: the national congress are d.c., andashington, we have continual interactions with politicians in washington dc -- in washington, d.c. we are basically looking to continue to advocate for treaty

rights. but also of great importance, those treaties had a couple of strong provisions in there dealing with health care and is ation, and we feel that treaty right, not a line item. we continue to advocate for strong health care rights and education rights for our people across the nation. a couple of issues -- we recently, on taxation, got the general welfare exclusion bill passed through both houses unanimously. in an atmosphere of polarized politics, we had unanimous support for the general welfare .ct in september being in washington, d.c., to interact with the politicians is verycate for tribes important for the national congress of american indians. focus on health

care. did the affordable care act change the way health care is delivered to reservations or native americans more broadly? secondly, if there are elements that you would change in the law in terms of how it relates to native americans, what would they be? guest: it is interesting that we are doing this interview today because it is the national day of action across the united states for tribes and the affordable care act to get tribes geared up to get signed up. we truly feel that health care is a treaty right, not a line item. healthu look at the disparities of native americans, we did a report 10 years ago called "the quiet crisis," showing the health disparities. it is very sad, the health disparities occurring in indian country, even 10 years after the report was published.

if you look at the statistics on the amount of federal dollars that are spent on health care, the amount of dollars spent on a native american is 50% less than a dollar spent on a federal prisoner, which is very sad. -- we had a bill called the indian health care and we hadtion act, to be passed every year before the affordable care act was passed. it had been passed for 15 years. it was languishing in congress for that long. one of the provisions of the fort of care act was that the improvement act was reauthorized forever. that was a very important part of the affordable care act. host: our viewers and listeners

can join us. we have sent -- we have set for nativecial line americans. 202-585-3 880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. americans, two 02-585-3883. a new report says a panel of native american indian experts -- native american children on tribal lands -- saying juveniles on reservations are living with dire levels of violence and poverty. the recommendation addresses a loophole in the law passed by congress last year. why has this become an issue? we term theagain,

health care issue a quiet crisis. this is also a quiet crisis. our kids are disproportionately in greater numbers seeing -- it is really sad. they are experiencing this type occurring on an unprecedented number. we are thankful that this report presidenthed, and the coming out with "my brother's keeper," and the first kids theseprogram to work with intertribal organizations to take a look at this closely and to make sure that it is addressed properly. it is nice that they came out with his reports, -- with these reports, but the implementation and follow-up is something we will watch closely and keep the foot on the pedal to make sure that it is important that this

does cannot come out on a shelf and collect dust. we want to make sure it is implemented, and we want to make sure that people are aware that this is a national tragedy in indian country. host: i wanted to bring up another issue in the news lately, and that is the keystone xl pipeline, with the house moving forward with its approval , calling for the immediate approval, and the senate failing to move forward in a slim vote last week. the headline at rollcall says native americans protest .eystone vote "it took an odd turn after senator warren of massachusetts read the final vote tally as protesters of the pipeline in the senate gallery burst into song. capitol police officers dragged out by protesters, including cloud from the sioux tribe.

the is your view on pipeline, your organization? guest: we have had concern from drafte when the environmental impact statement was released. as you know, in the last 100 years, our economy has been a pollution-based economy. it does not take a rocket scientist to see the damage that has occurred to the environment across the united states because of this pollution-based economy. when you have parts of montana, nebraska, north dakota, and south dakota eventually impacted by the pipeline, it is of great concern. once again, we have treaty rights. the federal government is our trustee, and they have to make sure they look out for the best interests of the tribes, and that has not necessarily been the case in the last hundred years because of the pollution-based economy that we have lived under that has such a there are a lot

of places across the country that have almost irreversible harm done to the environment because of the pollution-based economy. host: brian cladoosby is the president of the national congress of native americans. this is paul on our democrats line. welcome. caller: hello. i am 78 years old and i have given to the american council of indians for years. not much, i am not a rich man, but i have always -- the best friend i ever had was in the navy, off the reservation. i got called last week for donations about a year or so ago, and they had a funny accent, and i asked the lady, where are you calling me from?

it was the philippines. that there istand unemployment on the reservations and it is bad. you would have some of your own people soliciting, whatever. host: to be clear, this was a solicitation from the national congress of american indians? caller: right. guest: i will have to look into that. i am not too sure why someone from the philippines would be for money for the national congress of american indians, but i will definitely look into that and find out what is going on there. host: new hampshire is next up. ted in raymond, new hampshire. caller: how are you doing? i am calling in to support what this gentleman represents because in the past they have

been lied to and deceived. mount rushmore to them is a black eye. we put our great heroes on there , and they counter that with the crazy horse monument, which i can understand, their spirit and their trust. we need to do all we can for the families and the native americans and keep the promises made. that is my comment. host: let me follow on his comments. i saw your appearance in washington that we covered. patriotism ofthe native american tribes, and your tribe in particular, and also the military service. i wonder if you would expound on that a little bit. guest: my grandfather was world war i. two great uncles were world war ii. wered and my great uncle korea. , father-in-law, world

war ii, the navy. we are very proud because basically we are the first inhabitants, and we recognize that this is our homeland, and native americans still today pere at the highest rate capita. we are very proud of our veterans. we are proud of serving the greatest country in the world, and we will continue to serve as long as the military needs us. host: and the tribe you are from in the northwest is the swindon mesh -- we are located 60 miles north of seattle. we live on an island and we have all of the beautiful national resources -- natural resources that god has provided us with. on the line from

kent, washington. what he isppreciate doing here, coming from the state of washington. my question is in regards to what condition of some of our the nation that chris stevens was from -- we have been working for this for years. was notigned but it passed. what assistance are we getting from the organization for recognition of some of our tribes through the united states? advocate for all 566 nations. the bureau of indian affairs right now just extended their commentary on the federal recognition of new tribes, and i am very familiar with the tribe they got their recognition, i believe, in 1999 or 2000. i believe the next administration came in and they

would take it away from the duwamish. i am glad the bureau of indian affairs is looking into that newly recognized tribe issue. once again, they had a draft upn out, and that plan is right now. line asideve set a for native americans. 202-585-2880 for democrats. -- republicans, 202-585-288 3881. reservations have independent control of eminent domain laws within their borders? know, since the ,reation of tribes

reservations, since we signed our treaties and were moved on to reservations, it has been a struggle for tribes to maintain control of their borders. still today, there are still issues of conflict between who really has jurisdiction within the exterior boundaries of a .ribe reservation we continue to push the fact that tribes should have sole responsibility for control of their reservations. when you have the states and the counties who feel that they should have control of the reservations, it is an issue that we continue to struggle with. host: i want to get your input on an issue that is more broad than just washington, the nfl, and that is the name of the football team the washington redskins. many people are calling on the owner to change the name of the football team, and many loyal fans are resisting that. dance night or is resisting --

dan snyder is resisting that as well. i want to play a couple of ads that he ran in favor of keeping the name this past fall. here is a look. squanto, red cloud, tecumseh, and crazy horse. dr., -- teacher, doctor, soldier. will rogers,awk, strong., unyielding, .n damnable -- indomitable native americans call themselves many things. -- one thing they do not

>> the washington redskins extend for strength, courage, and respect. by the chairman of the blackfeet nation, the redskins logo was approved by native american leadership. found that 90% of native americans do not find the name offensive, and a 2014 ap poll found that 80% of the general population supports the use of the name. go to redskinsfacts.com. view of thes the national congress of american indians on the redskins name? guest: that is a good question. some of your viewers may or may not know is that the definition of that term -- it is a slur, a racist term. it is hateful, used to

disparage. we just lost a great leader in the northwest, billy frank jr.. he said educate, educate, tell your story. hear the story of that term, hopefully they will have a different mindset. know if your viewers can see this. i doubt if they can. "theere on my phone, from daily republican," thursday evening, september 20 4, 1863, it said the state reward for dead indians has been increased to $200 for every redskins sent to purgatory. this is all they are worth." the national congress on whatity to educate that term means -- mr. snyder

says he is honoring me by that term. the only one he is honoring our those white men who murdered and killed men, women, and children in the 1700s and the 1800s so they could take those redskins and turned them in with their beaver skins and all the other thing is they got money for. thinkreally sad that they that term is very innocent, but there is a lot of historic trauma that is associated with that name. created theg george first proclamation to allow for the pilgrims to murder men, women, and children, and they were paid a bounty. it was a proclamation in 1755 before the country was created. i just read to you in 1863, you were paid $200 for every redskins that you turned in. today in school if a child

called a native american a redskin, he could be charged for bullying. a person in the workplace could be charged with harassment. that term onts someone's house, they could be charged with a hate crime. mr. snyder hopefully will slowly understand that this is a very hurtful term. the 21st century has no place for that term right now. if we are to create a team and if the native americans were to create a team and they wanted to honor the german people and we wanted to put a symbol and we used the swastika -- who would that symbol be honoring? would it be honoring the german people or would it be honoring jewishple who murdered people? if that symbol was in the nfl, i would be standing shoulder to shoulder with mr. snyder objecting to the nfl using the swastika on the side of the helmet.

it is through that name honors. it does not honor me, it honors those who murdered, raped, and killed men, women, and children for money. host: we go back to calls. lorenzo, from louisiana, good morning. caller: i was wondering about how does he feel about this immigration hoopla with the republicans and democrats? what are his feelings on that? host: lorenzo, -- guest: lorenzo, that is a great question. immigration is a very tough whenct for americans, and something is broken, it needs to be fixed. two years ago, there was a very strong bipartisan bill to deal with immigration that came out of the senate.

i believe 68 senators passed that immigration bill and it was sent to the house. unfortunately, the house did not take action on that bill, so the president felt he had to do what he had to do. but it is a national issue that needs to be dealt with in the right way, and the president felt that he had to do what he needed to do to deal with this issue right now. host: is there anything in the -- in the president's proposed policies that he needs to do with -- to deal with differently? guest: no. host: from the independent line, welcome. about the call is things that native americans would have to go through to get their rights or to get grants. do you find that there is a lot

of congress people who are willing to work with them, or do they just pile on more red tape and look for more hoops for them to jump through? guest: that is a great question, lola. one of the things that we have been pushing for is the 21st century tribes treating tribes as nations. if you look at the history of the united states, going back a couple hundred years and their policies toward native americans -- for example, one of the policies in the late 1800s was kill the indian, save the man. they had a paternalistic attitude toward tribes in the last 200 years. there are a lot of rules and regulations that have been ,ritten into law by congress and we are working really hard not only with congress meant and senators but the administration and agencies, too. look at them from the last 200

years and make them reflect tribes of the 21st century. the infrastructure that tribes have in place right now is almost second to none as far as being able to provide central government services for their people. we are working close with both sides of the aisle to make sure that we look closely at the rules and regulations that have been put into place the last 200 years. our native american line, myrtle beach, south carolina. this is marie. go ahead. clado: good morning, mr. osby. a tribe ofer of north carolina, a state recognized tribe. there are many state recognized tribes, and i was wondering, does your congress do anything to help the state tribes? usually we are just sort of left out and overlooked.

you mentioned there were 500 and some odd tribes, but there really are probably well over 1000 tribes in the u.s. could you speak on that, please? much, thank you very marie, for that question. i will have to look up that tribe. state-recognized tribes, and we do allow the state-recognized tribes to be part of our organization, and we have a number of state recognized tribes that continually for years have come to ournational congress, meetings, and participated with us. we have had state recognized tribal members on our executive board on the national congress of american indians. we do recognize state recognized tribes, and they are part of our organization. augusta, michigan. bob is on our native american

line as well. go ahead, bob. brian ai wanted to ask question. i am a tribal member in michigan . i was wondering about the health care reform act and how that impacts me as a tribal member. , and iill out a form would like to let every native american know that there is a form available to be exempt from obamacare. i would like to be able to send the government a bill for the cost it costs me to provide health care for myself and for my family. i am located far away from the getrvation, where we can minimal health care. but i would like to be able to build the government. if it is anything like the v.a. system, they do not recognize you until they are made aware. maybe this is how i will make the government aware that i am asneed of my tribal rights

health care goes. thank you for that question, bob. once again, the affordable care act had a provision that reauthorize the indian health care act so that we never have to deal with it again going back to congress for the reauthorization. it is unfortunate that tribal members who do not live on the -- who do notot the on the reservation, type of care that they get access for -- if you look at the needs of indian health care, the the need ist 20 -- about $29 billion. i truly believe this is a treaty item, not a line item, and every tribal member should have quality health care access, no matter where they reside. paul wasresentative

quoted as saying, "november is native american heritage month." focusing on a policy issue, vice president biden said i met with state and local tribal leaders to discuss the impact of climate change. among your members in the national congress, what are some of the primary concerns on the issue of climate change? guest: that is a great question. climate change is a great question. my tribe has been in the forefront of climate change. to havehe first tribe our climate change plan approved by the federal government when only 32 of the 50 states. a are seeing more tribes put lot of resources into climate change. if you ever had the opportunity to look at the alaskan tribes in the impact that is having, for the first time since time

immemorial, some of their villages are washing into the arctic ocean. they are having to put up millions and millions of dollars of retaining walls to keep the ocean out of their villages. we hope we call place-based societies. our communities have been in one place and's time immemorial, so is having ait serious impact on communities across the nation. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio. shan, democrats line. caller: i just want to make the personally, as an african-american, i feel that the native american people should be running this country

entirely. we should have a head of state that is native american. the congress should be more native american, and congress, if not all -- and the supreme court. they should all be run by the native american people because they are the original people, the people who bought up this nation. they know what that is for. host: how many members of congress are native american? guest: that is a good question. i know that we have , and i wentve cole blank there on the other oklahoma representative. mullin.rkwayne guest: yes, and there are probably others who have native american in their lineage. but i know of those two. host: englewood, new jersey.

ivan, hello there. caller: i wanted to ask if the congress, if they have dialogue or if they work together with the native americans from south america, specifically in ecuador ? in brazil there? really at the forefront to environment, their issues are obviously similar to ours here. thet: yes, we just had conference in the united nations where the indigenous peoples from around the world came to new york for the conference in september. we are starting to see this happening around the world, where governments are starting to recognize and work with the indigenous peoples in their areas. it has been a long time coming. we are starting to see the tide turning when it comes to these governments around the world

recognizing the contributions they have made to each one of these countries. we are starting to see more of that. host: a tweet from jody asked about treaties in particular. native americans have had every treaty violated, signed by a white man? what is the agency that handles the recourse for that? guest: unfortunately, yes, pretty much every single treaty has been violated and stay one. to look forontinue ways to ensure that these are addressed correctly. we are 21st century tribes, and we finally have the infrastructure in place in our communities that allow us to have a stronger voice with not only local county, state, and federal politicians at all

levels, but they are hearing us now and it is great. we are slowly starting to hear these issues being addressed. host: next up, our line for native americans, rapid city, south dakota. go ahead. caller: i am always wondering -- this gentleman here is on tv. he is a bureaucrat. hold on now. let me speak here. i live on pine ridge. in the government, the managers of the ethnic cleansing that is going on in this nation, he is one of the bureaucrats that manages us. i am just wondering, what are , in bringingdo forth a traditional leadership. our government is not --

host: hang on the line and listen on the television. we will hear from brian cladoosby. guest: thank you. pine ridge is unfortunately probably the poorest of the poor in the nation. it is third world conditions, and it is really sad there in i know thea, and statistics, the poverty, the unemployment rate. unfortunately the government never really had a marshall plan for a lot of these tribes. --have 238 tribes that are that we are gaining now, but we still have others that are not. it is unfortunate that we have third world conditions out there in the united states. the majority of that is happening on reservations like pine ridge, and it is really sad. has the gaming industry

brought improvement to life on reservations? guest: once again, there was never a marshall plan for indian country. indiandrive across country, you do not see the infrastructure in place like you would see in some of your local cities. you do not see walmart. you cannot not see the banks, the fast food, the big grocery chains. it is very sad. unfortunately, there was never any economic driver. some of the tribes have done great work across the nation with economic development, and gaming has been the tool over the last 20 years. a $28t from zero to about billion industry across the nation. it will take a couple of generations to turn around the historic drama that has occurred in indian country, and that can

betray's back to the government's policy of kill the indians, save the man, when they policies in the late 1800s. the historical trauma that has occurred there, the education system -- my grandfather had to go to a boarding school. the trauma that he experienced there was really sad. the physical abuse, the mental abuse, the sexual abuse. kids being actually dying -- kids actually dying in the boarding schools, buried at their boarding schools. the trauma has affected us for a couple of generations and created a society where we have the highest up a whole are great, the highest dropout rate. so gaming has been -- the , thest alcoholic rate highest dropout rate.

so gaming has put a lot of resources into health care, health deals, and that historic trauma. brian cladoosby is the president of the national congress >> tomorrow morning, we will discuss the announcement regarding the resignation of defense secretary chuck hagel. andrew tillman joins us. then we talk about hunger in america and the effort to end it . will also take phone calls and comments from facebook and twitter about a grand jury decision in the death of michael brown. errors everyrnal airs everyday at 8:00 eastern. onll have the decision later

whether the grand jury has decided to indict officer wilson. we will take your facebook and twitter's. earlier this evening, missouri governor jay nixon and others held a press conference to talk about what they are doing ahead of the announcement. >> good evening. i am pleased to rejoin this evening by the st. louis mayor, the st. louis county executive, and the missouri director of public safety. evening, the st. louis county prosecutor will announce the grand jury decision. while we do not know what that will be, our shared hope and expectation is that regardless of the decision, people on all

, mutualow tolerance respect, and restraint. , i visited with some folks in ferguson, and it is understandable that, like the rest of us, they are on edge waiting for a decision. best to are doing their go about their daily lives, conduct their business, and support one another and their community. i also spoke with a number of faith leaders this afternoon who offered prayers for peace and safety. onether, we are all focused making sure the necessary resources are and to protect lives, protect property, and protect free speech. several churches will be providing safe haven throw the area to provide food, shelter, and medical care. mental health providers have teamed up to help ease the emotional strain that the events have caused.

these professionals are working right now to provide counseling and other services to the people who need them. law enforcement officials continue to maintain open lines of communication with protest leaders to improve the interactions between police and demonstrators and prevent violence. i want to thank my director of public safety for taking part in .hese ongoing discussions state and local law enforcement agencies are continuing to work hand-in-hand to make sure that the best, most experienced .fficers are on the streets the men and women of the national guard will also be in the area to provide security at critical facilities like firehouses, police stations, and utilities substations, and offer logistical and transportation support as needed. this will help free up law enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively.

toclosing, i would like reiterate my call for peace, respect, and restraint, and thank everyone out there and was work hard to make sure that communities throughout the everyone out there who is working hard to make sure that communities throughout the region are safe. the county executive of st. louis county, charlie. >> let me say good evening to all of you. know what the prosecuting attorney will have to say this evening but i do know this. no matter what is announced, people will be emotional. i want people to think with their heads and not with emotion. no matter what, we have to remain focused on a long-term, systemic change that has to take place in our community. our immediate priority is to

ensure that people are safe and able to voice their concerns in an orderly fashion. police and community groups have been working for weeks to ensure the rights are protected. we are committed to de-escalating negative situations in a responsible manner. i do not want people in this community to think that they have to barricade their doors and take up arms. we are not that kind of a community. i do not want people to accidentally shoot or harm .omebody out of fear this is not the time to turn on each other. it is a time to turn to each other. we are one community. again, our main priority at this time is to ensure that we keep people safe and protect property. we continue to do that. but it is, to be clear, in

achieving these objectives, we recognize the right of people to peacefully assemble and spread free speech rights. securitys safety and are not jeopardized. i personally believe that people in this community will do what is right. in october, there were thousands of people here. peacefully protesting and expressing their views. no one was hurt. many, many people have spent countless hours working on ways to manage the situation wants the grand jury decision is nce the grando jury decision is announced and now is the time to show the world that we can act without destruction. i am confident that this will be a fact. thank you. >> and now, the great beer of the city of st. louis, mayor

francis. >> thank you, governor, and good evening. st. louis is an evening that endures during challenging times. eight region that endures during challenging times. we have seen it time and time in the aftermath of natural disasters. we face one of those times today. what happened to michael brown has deeply divided us. whatever is announced this evening, some people are going to be angry and frustrated. and some people are going to be angry and frustrated about that. protesters, wehe will protect your right to peacefully assemble and speak your mind. like last night, we will give ay to occupy public safety and we will listen to your grievances.

but turning violent or damaging property will not be tolerated. to the people who disagree with the protesters, the actions we are taking are designed to protect you, to protect your family, your homes, your businesses, and your neighborhoods. that is our paramount concern. over the next few days, we expect to see st. louisians loudly and passionately expressing their views. we expect to see police officers protecting their rights and keeping everybody safe. but after that, it will be time to heal. .o close the racial divide and to make st. louis a better place for everyone regardless of race or color. we all may experience some inconvenience during the coming days. depending on the circumstances, we may allow demonstrators to slow down traffic, we will not allow them to her anyone or damage anyone's property.

that is how it went last night in the shaw neighborhood. it was not perfect. there were two acts of vandalism but there was no other property damage and most importantly no one was seriously injured. when president abraham lincoln first proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving in 1863, it is worth recalling that he saw to soughte nation heal -- to help the nation heal and work towards what he called a large increase in healing. us,world will be watching how we handle our disagreements in the coming days and how we make change in the months and years. st. louis finds itself with an opportunity to show the nation the ways in which a community can be more fair and more just for everyone. we must seize this opportunity to gather. -- together.

>> one more speaker and i will be glad to take questions here. the director of public safety in the state of missouri. >> thank you, governor. i spent my entire life as a resident of the city of st. louis and served twice for years as a member of the st. louis metropolitan police department, retiring as chief of police. the st. louis county police, the st. louis city police, the missouri highway patrol, has been the last two months planning and training for the reaction to the announcement that will be made in the next few hours. the plan is designed for all contingencies but we hope that officers will only observe peaceful protests. i have great confidence in the design of this plan. it has prioritized keeping all

people safe, residents and , the protection of property, and ensuring that people can exercise their constitutional rights. i also have tremendous confidence in the men and women in st. louis law enforcement. they understand the importance of protecting everybody and i know they intend to do so. inlso have great confidence the people of my community. a tremendous dialogue has begun to get lace here -- begun to take place here about more than just policing. understand that through peaceful protest in dialogue we will continue to grow and that violence will set this progress back. we must continue to move this community forward and i have confidence that that is exactly what we will do tonight and in

the days ahead of us. >> i will be glad to take questions. >> governor, was there any thought of delaying this until tomorrow morning? doing this at night makes it possibly more dangerous to the protesters enter the police officers. >> those were decisions made by the county prosecutor's office. edison made that call. -- that is who made that call. >> governor, what would you say to the thousands of people around america who think that the government has failed them and the judicial system has failed them? >> well, our focus is now on what happened over the last three and a half months. the last three and a half months has provided additional training and sensitivity and additional knowledge. our focus today in the short run

is to protect lives, protect property, and protect speech. in the longer run, as the mayor said, to find paths for progress. those clear is on principles as we move forward. how are you going to move forward? what steps will you take? >> tonight is about the pieces that are in place to do what we have to do. of the folks behind me as well as significant leaders in the community have begun that process. chance, read before i came in here, to go on a conference call with a number of faith leaders who were working deeply and with long hours to do just that. we also have community engagement here with some their coleman doing that on a daily basis. all of the -- senator coleman doing that on a daily basis. all the folks behind me have

done that and the commission thatwe reported, we expect with their independent voice and their clear ability to chart a long-term path forward, that we will all have suggestions which can lead us in a positive step forward. yes, sir. >> have you ruled out vehicles and tear gas? gas?lled out vehicles into detailsl not get into are it we have been trained to make sure we are respecting peoples rights to communicate and allowing them to do that. if people are violent and threaten property, then resources will be used to manage the issues. yes, sir. >> will you be here? >> i have been here for the last seven decades and we will be

here tonight, as long as it takes to make sure that we move through this particular phase, whatever it may be. >> we have time for one more question. would the lack of an indictment be a justification of police violence and lead to -- >> hold on, this man is first. let -- you need to let the alternative press speak year. one day lack of indictment need to fear from black people -- lead to fear from black people? [indiscernible]

>> will be national guard at least be on standby? how long do you think they will be needed? have[indiscernible]l