we tended to move in the direction of almost passing press releases and trying to call it legislation. that works in the short run, but it causes more and more frustration and problems for people that are trying to implement the law or working on the law. quite how as the tone of the conference changed over the years? wax not a whole lot. bikes you described yourself as pragmatic and conservative. moderate voices seemed to be diminishing. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> i don't know. a lot of people in both parties

have this kind of thing. my democratic colleagues are because thereing whopeople in their district are democrats in name only. i don't know what it amounts to. >> i found this from the longtime challenger. quacks her mother was my eighth grade science teacher, and her a high school gym teacher and basketball coach, so i have known the family since i was a little kid. had something to say. he is one of those kinds of old-school republicans who has an appreciation for ever and meant and its institutions and recognizes that getting along with people with different views is a way in which you can make government that are.

is that old-school? wax i don't think that old-school. i think that trying to do your job. .eople say, i am so partisan well, tell that to some of the backe involved in congress in the 1830's to the 1860's. these people were struggling to try to work out compromises to keep the union of float and avoid splitting up on issues like abolition and slavery and tariffs and a and theof other issues, cap compromising and compromising and people got more and more angry that you cannot compromise on principles, and i think there was a representative --m the south who went over

a representative from one of the southern states and another member of congress, and they were each reelected in their and i thinktricts, the psychology is people don't want compromise anymore. they want a confrontation. what happened? more people were killed than ever before in american history. we did end up abolishing slavery. they abolished it in brazil without a civil war just a few years later. big international movement going back to london, and slavery was on its way out, but it became a symbol of the thing. obviously, it is a terrible near --ut we're nowhere we have been through much worse times in our country. only observation for what it

people try in the political process to put everything on an ideological perspective and put things that way, but i don't think things fit in that perspective. we have a lot of divisions in our country that are probably more dangerous than ideological divisions. when we fought the civil war, it wasn't over left versus right. it was over regional issues and different economic interests in different parts of the country. we still have a differences -- butdifferences like that, they tend to get papered over. for example, carbon taxes affect the midwest much more severely than the coast because electrical generation on the coast tends to not be cold

based. moreill tend to see attention because the economics and environmental issues in the midwest, whereas in other align withy tend to environmental issues. it is much easier than if you represent southern illinois for example. quacks i wanted to talk to you about a couple of major historical periods -- >>i wanted to talk to you about a couple of major historical periods one is -- periods. one is 9/11. -- >> i was here in this office. the chief of staff, we usually keep the door open, and she had her tv on, and suddenly it was, oh, my gosh.

there has been a terrible thing and everyone was saying, how could this have happened? something must've happened with the pilot who may be lost control, and a few minutes later, it has happened again with the second plane, and everyone said, oh. lex did you have to evacuate -- >> did you have to evacuate? >> i don't know if the pentagon was a little bit later. my reaction was a little different from a lot of people. there were some people here saying, we wanted to evacuate. my reaction was it is not like a war where they are going to be bombing every building. people running out to the street will create chaos. you can leave if you want, but

you are not going to get paid if you do. later they came and ordered us out of the building. there was chaos on the streets. the pentagon, no fire trucks could get over to dc to help evil. the help came from the virginia side. they closed the schools for some reason. my daughter was in school at the time. i managed to get my car out of the garage, but it took about three hours to get from here to the labor folding, which is six blocks away. it took five minutes to walk. i could have walked through the school quicker. she was one of the last kids to be picked up. we went to an outdoor restaurant and sat around watching people run around.

the international panic some people stir up which serves democratic and other interests, but it is not an appropriate response to crises of this sort, which are done by a few people to create exactly that sort of response. i think the british response during world war ii and the bombings and all the rest of it was to keep calm and carry on and work like the devil behind the scenes to get after these guys is a much more appropriate response than the one we had at 9/11. the one we had at 9/11 was very human. usually when they clear the building they wait until members are out of town, but they have these drills and make you go out on the street. they did this repeatedly after 9/11. if there was something that was happening and we are all on the street, if a sniper comes they could shoot people on the

streets. where do we go? there is a way of protecting the people in charge of security because they could say they did rather than something i thought was well thought through. quacks one of the major outcomes was the iraq war. -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, one of the major outcomes was the iraq war. >> i will say i was probably wrong. i was also probably wrong to have voted for the authorization. we all were told this business about weapons of mass distraction and the little tools going through the un and all the rest of it, and it turned out they never found much. from the baath party, which is a

quasi-communist movement, but thatwere assuming things is certainly not a religious fanatic type thing. >> what is the country stand now that we have gone through all this and afghanistan? and because you are about to have another debate about. -- how does this -- about --how does this look to you? wi-fi think we need to stop and think for a minute and ask ourselves -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, to stopthink we need and think for a minute and ask ourselves. terrorist movements have been around. how do they end? people study this, and the

up, they arey give integrated into the society, maybe they are isolated, but this is something that is not necessarily best dealt with with tanks and planes and armed forces. it partly has to be dealt with and political level possibly on an intelligence level and a little bit like dealing with organized crime. >> the other great crisis of recent years was the 2008, 2009 meltdown. i am wondering about the congressional response and how that looks to you with a bit of distance in time. how did we do as a country based on what came out of this congress? at the time some more asking

that we call in people from the reagan administration who have dealt with the savings and loan which involved closing a large number of banks. it is one of the underlying issues, because he wouldn't schedule bills. they couldn't closed on the savings and loan's that were theyvent, because if couldn't pay the depositors there would be panic, and it would spread throughout the system. they wouldn't provide more money so they could pay off the depositors. they have to keep these institutions open. finally that was dealt with, and a lot of institutions were closed, and they set up a take upidation trust to

the bad mortgages and work the system through. a lot of us felt that was a model that was appropriate for the housing side of this whole crisis, but it was not followed, more on thea lot part of individual home mortgage buyers and the way it was handled because they didn't look at what had been done just a few years before. let's go to macro. >> they were focusing on wall street's problems and the fact they were engaging in all of these insurance contracts. as apartly used aig conduit for sending money to save lives. it couldn't look good

politically to send money to deutsche bank or something, so and then it to aig deutsche bank. there is a middle -- major lawsuits going on by a great patriot, who is head of aig until shortly before all this governmentthe misappropriated $40 billion, and he has one against two other countries with similar actions, and i think he might have a chance here. let me juste -- >> go to the big issues. when you look back across your career, what are the pieces of legislation you are proud of having been involved in? >> there are a couple of them. one is a small one. i sighed to the education

committee. vacancy, and i was happy about that because education affects everyone and is important. we hadn a bill because just gone to the voluntary army and had trouble recruiting people, and i thought, wouldn't it be a good idea if we gave student loan forgiveness in exchange for people serving in the armed forces or the reserves ? someone, they could offer that as an inducement. voted against it, except me, and both political parties. they didn't say it was a bad idea, but they said, you are in the education committee, and this has to do with the armed services. why should we be helping you? are the national

congress. we should be working in national issues. if you think of one area that works in another, why not? to another committee, and they voted it down unanimously. in those days the committee chairmen were influential, and they could kind of the side how how to end ite wh . they believe their bills should come on an open rule. anyone can offer any amendment they want to. now it is much more controlled because of the change in the way things are done. i offered it on the floor. being adopted, 2-1. it became law.

i said, i am very persuasive. one guy walked in, but i didn't recognize he was watching on tv, and he thought this young man had a good idea. i later learned he was the chairman of the defense andopriation subcommittee, it turned into a fight between the appropriations committee and the education committee. the bill was adopted. that was an early introduction to the congress and all the different roles that go on in thing, but another thing i was very happy with was the moderate income tax credit. i think that is a better way to go then with -- than with minimum wage to help people who need help and are trying to support their family and are

working. with minimum wage we feel very good because we order some to pay more to their workers. they are often not able to pay .uch to themselves if we feel as a community someone is trying to support a family and not earning enough money, then we all chip in and help that out. toalso varies according family size. i thought it was better and argued for it. -- a number of others supported this, and we did credit. the earned tax the idea was we would move away from the minimum wage debate and use this as a better way of dealing with it. we could never talk about the fact it is not really minimum wage.

it is minimum wage plus what you are getting for tax credit. it is weird, but it seems to serve the interest. big corporations don't pay minimum wage directly. if we increase the minimum wage we will suddenly have deficits and have to spend the money in other areas. that was another one. the effort to create and get right to direct student loan program is something that has been taking years and has been working on the repayment part, but that i think has been a good and was something we had adopted in the house on a trial basis and during the clinton , andistration was expanded

the guarantee program has been kind of moved to the side. some people think the guarantee program is a private program and the direct row graham is the government program. the reality is the taxpayers are on the hook in both programs. is thedirect program government program. the reality is the taxpayers are on the hook in both programs. it is a private company. done by thee gets banks. if there is a loss they don't suffer the loss of the taxpayers. quacks our time has evaporated. our time has evaporated. are you planning to give your papers anywhere? senate.s in the state the wisconsin historical society has a program. i did give my papers to them.

we are working with the wisconsin historical society to do the same with congressional. which of this, stuff -- there are boxes of good, bad, and in different things -- what they would not. soldiershese little for being a guardian of the treasury and things like this. we have lots of stuff like that. thank you for reflecting on your time. we appreciate your time. the congressmen carolyn mccarthy is retiring. 20 years ago she was a nurse working in long island when her husband and five other people were killed by a gunman on a new york commuter train. talkat down with us to about her time in washington. >> representative caroline

mccarthy,- carolyn how are you processing this? quacks in a lot of ways i am lucky because i made up my mind in january. in my mind i am looking forward to retiring. i love my job. as you know, i had cancer last year, and it is in remission. terrible thing to say, but as a nurse we have weird senses of humor. if the cancer had it gotten me, my family would have killed me. i had no choice. i had to say yes. >> they want you back home. >> you have the weekend, but people don't understand you get off the plane, and you are doing district work. you still don't have time to spend time with your family. >> what will you miss most about

this place? i have friends on both sides of the aisle. i know people say we are dysfunctional, but many of us get along really well. when democrats were in charge and i was a chairwoman of the education committee, i worked with my republican colleagues. done. those when republicans took over they would come to me to sponsor bills on the democratic side erie at many of us do work -- they would come to me to sponsor bills on the democratic side. many of us work together. >> what are other impressions the public might have about congress fueled by the media that are misperceptions? >> i think it is damaging for when a member crosses

the line and does something wrong. everyone thinks we are corrupt. i would say 99.9% of members are good people. there is always going to be somebody who puts a bad name on us. i think that is really a shame. then we passed all these laws were now i have money in stock so every month we have to put in money. i don't a attention to that stuff. have insidethink we information. to that't pay attention stuff. i said, did anyone mention something where we could have ?nformation on the inside i don't remember anybody approaching me on that. way, before all this

scandal, if you did something wrong, you got caught. caught, you got punished. youhad to leave congress or were prosecuted and went to jail. quacks do you think the house do you think the house ethics committee has power? what i think they do a good job. i will have a dinner every six weeks or so. there were a time when there were three or four scandals going on. they would think, why did they think they could get away with it? think on no woman as far as i know has been brought up -- woman as far as i know has been brought up on

charges. >> in what way is this institution different than the one you walked into in 1997? was a difference. we can have debates and it was not personal. what i have seen, it really is getting personal attacking a member. you never saw that before. a shame.lly i feel bad about that because this is a great institution. we should be honored we are here. i certainly am honored i was able to serve. if you have not only the institution and certainly the people back home who you are representing, i don't know if they should stay. >> do you have a sense of what led to that? is it society as a whole? opinion is it is the gerrymandering that goes on. i don't believe a democratic

should have 97% of democrats in a district, nor do i believe republicans should have their whole area. i think you are a better member when you have a threat. i have always considered my state a swing state. no one ever holds it as long as about but i am very proud how many republicans and democrats can come up to me and say, you did a great job. you balance things. maybe that's who i am. i happen to think it makes me a better person. gerrymandering, if you looked at our district before the last my area was very compact and there was always a republican district. when i ran the first six terms it was a republican district. i started to get more democrats.

i lost 3%. i was fine with that. 3% winsing that got to usually by 97%. -- the colleague that got to 3% usually wins by 97%. >> what precipitated your party change? >> it was the gun issue. going back to when my husband was killed and my son was severely injured and four other people were killed, and what i saw my son go through and the other families, what they went through, i decided to get involved and try to make a difference. my congressman at the time told me he would vote to keep the assault weapons bill in place, and i was down here watching the debate, and he voted to repeal it, and i got mad at him, and i

decided to run. i am making it sound very easy. it was not. i don't know how many years it was. i never changed my registration. i was still registered as a republican. not that i woke up in the morning and i am a republican or a democrat. i never thought that way. people said i was probably a rockefeller republican, being conservative on fiscal issues and probably liberal on social issues. having that background, did it make it easier when you got here to work across the aisle? that.hink my nursing did when i speak in front of groups of nurses, i tell them everything we learned in nursing school and everything we learned working on the floor, or i worked in icu, you have to take care of a lot of cranky patients and rightfully so. they weren't feeling well.

you have to hold their hand and say it is going to be ok. a lot of times you have to push i know theyomething don't want to do. i think that was a perfect formula for coming down here, going member to member to try to get people to sign a bill, taking the time to explain what it is and what it would do and how we are helping people back nursing homes me a lot. >> it is hard to believe it has been 20 years. >> kevin is doing very well. hard.ks very he does physical therapy twice a week. he is just trying to keep what he has. as his mother, i keep pushing him. you need to go swimming. he came home four years ago. he said that my physical therapist said that i should

swim. he goes swimming every day now. managed to put together a normal life after what he went through? he possibly can. he went to work after 2.5 years. he did very well. with a brain injury, stress is probably the worst thing that a patient can go through. we saw that wearing away at him. part-time, that he is not in a stressful situation. in the beginning, they said that you need to get a job. you need to do something. what about the pain? it is not the money. it is going out and socializing. going out and talking to people. it has helped him quite a bit. >> you came to congress with gun control as a central issue.

what have you managed to accomplish in that area? >> i believe i have accomplished several things. educating people around the country. going out and speaking. trying to say that we are not trying to take away the right to own a gun. to look at trying to control background checks, the gun show can go andere people buy a gun without going through a background check. there was a shooting back in my district. a priest and an elderly woman were killed. the person that did the shooting at the church was our lady of peace. he had been educated gated -- adjudicated to be mentally ill. he should not have been able to buy a gun. we found out that out these

states did not take those adjudications and put them into the system. we had a bill. it did not pass. then virginia tech happened. that was a horror. weeks, weouple of were able to get the bill passed. president bush signed it. >> that is when you look back and say, this is what i managed to accomplish at this time on this issue? forgot, every day i have been here, there has been a lot. one wore a little bit of me away because i took it so emotionally, as all vick rims due.

it did not matter how many years went by. when there is killing, you go back to that moment when you find out about your husband. i was on tv. a lot of members would not do it. i went on tv all the time. people called me some nasty things. that i was taking advantage of the tragedy that was unfolding in front of our eyes. i was more than happy to say that hopefully other people will get on it. i was always being called. a,did you also become advocate is the wrong word, did other families who had gone through the same experience cqm personally? >> yes. >> is that something you are comfortable with? >> i was. they came down here to lobby.

each time there was a terrible tragedy, virginia tech is an example. they came down here to lobby for gun bills. i was the one that had to guide them through the highs and lows and explain to them why a bill would not come up on the floor. mainly because if republicans were in control, they would not even allow the bill to come to committee. it was hard because i knew they had to learn what i learned. >> about the legislative process? >> the legislative process is difficult. i think it is hard because they came to me thinking that i could cure all and i couldn't. a lot of people say, why don't you give up? go back to your nursing. i could not save every patient that i had.

it did not stop me from going back to work the next day. >> did you have any sense of appreciation or passion on the other side of the second amendment issue? >> i do. i tried to educate on why you should not be using certain terms. nra, thenion, the members, the rank and file, or getting very bad misinformation. we have done a much better job educating those members after newtown. we started having hearings here. we brought in nra members and hunters. they did not know that so many thousands and thousands of people do not go for a background check. gun owners are legitimate gun owners. they go hunting. questioned, ier

was watching the discovery channel. i was watching everything that had to do with hunting. you can appreciate that that is theirs or to. -- their sport. my husband and i were great skiers. we used to go all the time. we would gog, shooting. i just did not like it as a sport. i would not be able to kill an york, icoming from new did not think i would even want to taste a deer. that was just my taste. my colleagues are looking at the issue a little bit differently. the biggest difference from yes, all the different people that were trying to reduce gun violence in this country came together with one voice. and i think that is the most important thing.

i try to do that years ago. i could not get anybody together. toween this job and trying bring thousands of supporters together was extremely difficult. i will say that mayor bloomberg made a big difference. one of the things that we have been trying to change for gun safety laws, we never had any money. and you had mayor bloomberg coming in. he said that i will support you to come together. that is what we are seeing now. we still have a long way to go on a federal level. i have to believe that we should be working on a state level. we saw washington state and colorado passing laws. if we can make the members here very comfortable, because they petrified of the nra. when the nra says something,

they listen. we have to change that attitude. lobby that any other has as much influence on either side of the aisle as you see the nra having? >> not really. i worked with the nra to get a bill passed many years ago. get thed together to bill passed. every year, they do support to get funding for the courts to upgrade computer systems and stuff like that. then there were some other gun creeps out there going after the nra. they became very militant again with their message. they were scared. you have a lot of people that earn a lot of money at the top of the nra. they get their money from the gun manufacturers. i just do not understand why the gun manufacturers are not with us. safety should be one of their

priorities. signature issue for you, what your only issue in congress. was it difficult to write ough the-- break thr reputation of being an advocate for this to do other things that you wanted to do? >> usually not. i know i keep going back to my nursing. the republican chairman saw me as a nurse. they always respected a lot of the amendments that i was able to get through on different committees. they saw me as who i was. this was my issue. a lot of them probably would have liked to have voted with me on reducing gun violence. that is not what they came here for. reelection, my opponents

would say that she is only a one issue candidate. i was proud to say that i was absolutely right. at least i had an issue. i do not know any woman on earth that has only one issue. i chose to be on the education committee. i felt like i could work with young children in my district and across the country. if there was a way to get them to not go into gangs and rugs, most of these were underserved communities. i kept reminding my communities that they were not underserved communities. a lot of them were in the midwest where there were still minorities at all. my job was to save the children.

and gety they grow up the best opportunities in life so that they do not go into violence. >> among the pieces of legislation that you sponsored, of which are you the most proud? withtting the bill passed the president signing it. getting the bill passed for the first time in 14 years. withther bills had to deal nutrition. he could not get any traction for years. mrs. obama came and made that her main focus. with that being said, a number of my schools began programs when it was like what i was a child. the mothers and grandmothers worked in the kitchen and made food for the children it works out terrific. it took a year.

to have that bill signed working with senator kennedy, i was like, wow. you can accomplish a lot. i am sure the majority of my constituents have no idea how many ills i got past. faults, you dost something, you get it passed, and i moved on. did youay, what bills get past? i would have to think. i was already working on something. it is just the way i am. >> what is your message to incoming members of congress on getting pieces of legislation passed? the members on both side of the aisle whether

they are republican or democrat. whether somebody is completely against what you are trying to do with your key piece of legislation, try to find other ways. i can name a couple of my colleagues that nobody would think you could ever work with. not true. >> please, go ahead. >> virginia foxx. . she is to like heard the head of a community college. i had a great interest in community college because it had to do with education. we work together on legislation or amendments on national services. things that i believed in that would help flood insurance. crash,ly after the great as i call it, we voted for tarp. there were some pieces of that legislation that needed to be fixed. workedcans and myself

together to fix them. do not judge somebody because on the floor they are yelling and screaming. find out what their interest is an work with them. i think that would make us a group better congress. >> we are sitting here in what is going to be your past few days. where is your stuff going? >> one of the universities back home. they approached me when i announced my retirement. i had worked with a delphi university for many years. grants to increase their nursing program. they came down and they said they would like to do an experiment -- an exhibit next spring. i said why? they came in and they took just about everything. there are things that i want to keep, not for myself, but for my

grandchildren. they will look act and say, look at all the stuff i had. you can see all the holes i had covered. each one reminds you of the opportunities i had to travel overseas. i was part of nato parliamentarians. .t had a lot of history this is basically all over europe. back and educate my constituents on why we had to do something. the things down here that they took away was basically traveling. we had a lot of members that said that they were so proud that they did not have a passport. if you look at we do here on a daily basis whether it is foreign affairs, the budgets of money that we have, maybe they should get to know why they are voting for something. maybe we should know the moneys

that we spend, especially on third world countries, how that helps them to grow and to be lifted up and to be self-sustaining. we have seen that. the world bank or the international policy fund. $100 to a woman to be able to open up her on business to become self-sustaining. that is wonderful. so proud to see something that has grown over the years because we were a part of it. the united states of america was a part of it. my constituents, why are we giving all this money away? it is not like we were giving it away. we were trying to make those countries self-sustaining so we would not have to give them so much money in the future. >> there were a couple of actions for the new congress. in theasked i the press

briefing afterwards about the freshness of the leadership team -- whether or not they they're needed to be younger voices. i wonder what you are thinking about the institution you are leaving behind and the leadership team that is in majority again. are they equipped for it? >> i think they are equipped. we also have a lot of talented younger members. it is not just mrs. pelosi. she is a talented leader and really good at raising money. that is not one of my fortes. i was never good at that. training to start younger people and bringing younger people into the caucus to become hopefully the future leaders. one of the things that i believe with all of my heart and soul, you have to know when to leave.

nancy obviously does not feel this is the time to leave. many of us thought that she might stay for this coming year. and then turn the reins over to someone else. around, is there anybody really ready to replace her? it is a hard job and i give her a lot of credit for what she has been able to do. it is time that the leaders start looking at who is going to fill my spot? we are all replaceable. there might be some bumps in the road weary and i do believe that it is time for younger people to take our spots with fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. i see nothing wrong with that. that is a normal progression. >> your family wants to have you back home. involvedtend to stay in policy and do you intend to

stay involved in elective politics and helping your party in any way? >> i do not know if i will stay in the politics of it. what i'm making plans to do is to ghost -- to go to some of the colleges and educate. i can make great voices of those looking at the local science. what they read in books is not real. we get interns from the local universities. when they are here for three weeks, they say that this is nothing like what we are learning in school. we do not ask the young interns whether they are republican or, credit. i do not even asked my staff. they need to learn whether they are republican or democratic issues, what is best. giving them the knowledge that i , irned all of these years

probably dipped my hand a little bit into nursing and to teach nursing. i do not want to say teach nursing. with all of the technology that is out there, which is terrific for the patience, you still have to go back to holding that patient's hand. you have to educate the family that it is ok to touch the patient and work with them. that makes the patient heal so much faster. i know i keep coming back to it. that is what i do with my colleagues. they always say, if you want a friend, get a dog, when you worked on here. i did not find that at all. republicans and democrats would call me. they would send me cards and flowers. my place looked like a funeral

parlor. i am a gardener, so i loved it. you have to reach out if you want friendship down here. get tied up with going to the reception in the evening and going here. you have to do some of that stuff. friendse out to make with people here. they are good people. to go to receptions because of money and politics. i would like you to close with the current state of needing to raise money to capture the seats and what that does to the institution and those who serve here. >> that is one of the saddest things we are seeing. you go to one of our committee hearings. a lot of our members are not there. mainly, they are out fund-raising. i think that is a very, very sad

part. >> what would you do about it? >> i do not know what you can do about it. i was lucky. the first week i was down here, we were having a committee hearing on education. my chief of that we have to leave. we went into a room. go?id, where do we have to she said that you have to go make phone calls. this is my first hearing and you are asking me to leave? how am i going to learn anything yucca that is what committee hearings are supposed to be about. she never asked me to leave a committee hearing or take time out from seeing my constituents. i was way ahead of president obama and a lot of other members. lists and e-mailing people around the country would donate one dollar, five dollars. i think the average was $44.

that was 20 hours a week i did not have to do fund-raising calls. to be honest, i hardly ever did fund-raising calls. i do not know what you can do about that. there is too much money in the whole process. we as members should not be worried about raising money to be able to do a job. everybody thinks that lobbyists come in here. most of the lobbyists that came in here were nonprofits. just remember, you are here to talk to me about alzheimer's or cancer or any other disease. but you are lobbyists. to educate me on what you are trying to do. do. is what all lobbyists some of them are better than others. i have only had one lobbyist ever lie to me. that person was never allowed in this office again.

have an anticipation of what it will be like to walk out of here after all of these years on capitol hill and to say that this is my last day. it will bed because bittersweet. there was the last two weeks and then we went on the break. i plan on coming down everyone once in a while. it was a wonderful experience. those memories i will have for the rest of my life. it is time to move on. i am looking forward to that. us who getnumber of together every day when we are out voting. other members come back and they say, you guys are smiling too much. >> because you are leaving? >> i do not think anybody realizes the pressure you have when you have this job. i have more energy now.

i am sleeping really, really well. i am talking to my colleagues that are leaving. they feel the same way. i do not think you realize the pressure until the pressure is gone. i got involved in the elections back home. i did the district work, but there was no pressure. i did not have to worry about the speech. i did not have to worry about any of that. but i will miss it. i will miss it terribly. >> a soon to be former member of congress. inks for speaking with c-span. retiringl speak to members of congress all week. howard coble.d here is a preview of our conversation with senator harkin , who is leaving after 35 years in congress. , get rid of the

legislation as well as nominations. the republicans do have a legitimate argument in that they are not being allowed to offer amendments. they are not being allowed to offer amendments because they filibuster bills. rid of it isto get to get rid of the filibuster, but guaranteed to the minority in new roles in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill that is on the floor. germane amendments to that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. if you do that, then you can move legislation and the minority will have the right. i have often said that the minority does not have the right to prevail, which they are doing now you the minority can control

the filibuster. the minority prevails. it should be the right of the minority to amend or offer amendments and have full or vigorous debate and have votes on those amendments. i think the senate would begin to operate very well. >> you can see all of our interview with senator harkin and congressman howard coble on c-span. on the next "washington journal" we discussed monday's announcement on the resignation of chuck hagel. group share our strength will talk about hunger in america and efforts to end childhood hunger. we will also take your phone calls and look at your comments on facebook and twitter on the

death of michael brown. or'sington journal" everyday at 7:00 in eastern on c-span. late monday night, st. louis prosecutor bob mccullough announced a grand jury decision not to indict darren wilson in the shooting death of 18 year old michael brown. speaking from a courthouse in clayton, missouri, he talked about the evidence presented to jurors and took questions from reporters after a 25 minute news conference.

>> good evening. thank you for your patience. i will be happy to answer some questions. first and foremost, i would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of michael brown. i know that regardless of the circumstances here, they lost a loved one to violence. i know the pain that accompanies such a loss knows no bounds. on august 9, michael brown was shot and killed by police officer darren wilson. accounts began appearing on social media. accounts filled with speculation and very little accurate information. neighbors began gathering the cousin of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tension between the police department and a significant part of the neighborhood. st. louis county police conducted an extensive

investigation at the crime scene. this was interrupted at least once i random gunfire. continuing for the next three , along with the agents of the federal bureau of investigation at the direction gatheredolder, evidence and information. fully aware of the unfounded, but growing concern that the investigation and review of this be fulleath might not and fair, i decided immediately that all of the physical evidence gathered of all of the people claiming to have witnessed any part or all of the shooting, they would all be presented to the grand jury. members ofury is 12 this community selected by a judge in may of this year. long before this shooting occurred. i would like to expand on the unprecedented cooperation

between federal and local authorities. federalder pledge that investigators would be working with local authorities as closely as possible at every step of the way and would follow the facts wherever they may take us. our investigations follow that trail of facts with no preconceived notions on where that journey would take us. our only goal was that that investigation be thorough and complete to give the grand jury, the department of justice and to give the public all available evidence to make a decision. taken bynce authorities would have st. louis county investigators. this was immediately shared with federal investigators. the department of justice conducted its own examination of physical evidence and performed its own autopsy. another autopsy was performed at

the request of the brown family and this information was also shared. all testimony before the st. louis county grand jury was immediately provided to the department of justice. although the investigations are andrate, took the local federal government have all of the same information and evidence. our investigation and presentation of the evidence to st. louis county has been completed. the most significant challenge encountered has then the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite or anything to talk about. following closely behind were the nonstop rumors on social media. i recognize that the lack of details frustrate the public. those closely guarded details, especially about the physical aidence, give law enforcement

yardstick for measuring witnesses. eyewitness accounts must always be challenge and compared against the physical evidence. made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. some were completely refuted the physical evidence. before the results of the private autopsy were released, witnesses on social media, interviews with the media, and during questioning by law enforcement claim they saw officer wilson stand over michael route -- michael brown and shoot many rounds into his back. the officer that shot michael brown in the back as he ran away. the autopsy showed that michael brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body. no other witnesses made such a claim. several witnesses adjusted their stories in subsequent statements. some admitted that they did not

witness the event at all, that merely repeated what they had heard. integrityy, for the of our investigation, almost all of initial witness interviews including those of officer --son its is presented before the was released. several media outlets publish information on what they received. released information and what followed in the new cycle. the jurors were able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, including those witnesses whose testimony remain consistent through every interview and remain consistent with the physical evidence in this case.

they began presenting to the grand jury on august 20. the evidence was presented in an organized and orderly manner. all 12 jurors were present for every session. all 12 jurors heard every word of testimony and examined every item of evidence. andnning august 20 continuing until today, the grand jury work continually re-examine the testimony of the witnesses and all of the physical evidence. they were extremely engaged in the process, as questions of every witness, requesting requestingtnesses, specific information and asking for certain specific evidence. they met 25 days the last three months and her testimony from about 60 witnesses and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews of many witnesses who testified.

they heard from three medical examiners and experts on blood, .oxicology, and blood analysis they examined hundreds of photographs. they examined various pieces of physical evidence. they were instructed on the law and presented with five indictments from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter. were asked the probable cause exists that there was a that-- crime committed and darren wilson committed that crime. there was no question that darren wilson caused the death of michael brown by shooting him. the inquiry does not end there. a officer to use deadly force in certain situations. to use deadly force to defend themselves. the jury considered whether wilson was the initial aggressor

or whether there was probable cause to believe that darren wilson was authorized as a law enforcement officer to use deadly force in this situation or if he acted in self-defense. id tell this for two reasons. everyone will know that there was a full investigation and presentation of all evidence and appropriate instruction of the law to the grand jury. as a caution to those in and out of the media who will pounce on a single sentence or a single witness and decide what should have happened based on that tiny bit of information. jury is to the grand separate fact from fiction. after a full and impartial examination of all of the evidence in the law and decided whether or not that supported criminal charges against aaron wilson, they accepted this in aental responsibility

conscientious manner. it is important to note and to say again that they are the only people who have heard and examined every witness and every piece of evidence. debated theed and evidence amongst themselves before arriving at their collective decision. after their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury deliberated over two days before making their decision. they determined that no probable cause exists to file charges against officer wilson. the physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury combined with the witness statements supported and substantiated i that evidence held the -- told the accurate and tragedy -- tragic story of what happened. that as i had promised, the evidence presented to the grand jury, with some

exceptions, and the testimony of the witnesses to the grand jury will be released at the conclusion of this statement. a.m. inximately 11:45 august, darren wilson was dispatched to an apartment complex or an emergency involving a two month old infant having trouble breathing. at approximately 11:53, wilson heard a radio broadcast for a stealing and progress on west morrison. the broadcast included a brief description of the suspect. a black male in a white t-shirt that took a boxed up -- box of cigars. officer wilson stayed with the infant. officer wilson left north wins complex and his police vehicle, a chevy tahoe suv and drove west.

of thetional description stealing suspect was broadcast at that time. wearing a red hat, yellow socks, khaki shorts, and he was with another male. as officer wilson was attending to his emergency call, like all brown and a companion were in a local convenience store. activity was's recorded by the security cameras. the video, often played after its release, shows michael brown grabbing a handful of cigarillos and heading toward the exit without paying. as michael brown and his companion left the store, someone inside the store called police. the two walked east in the middle of the street, mr. brown directly behind his companion. as mr. wilson continued west, he encountered michael brown and his companion still walking in the middle of the street.

as he reached mr. brown, he told him to move to the sidewalk. words were exchanged and they continued walking down the middle of the street. wilson observed that michael brown had cigarillos and his hand and was wearing a red hat and yellow socks. at approximately 12:02 p.m., was in radio that he had to individuals and needed assistance. officer wilson backed his vehicle at an angle, blocking the flow of traffic in both directions. several cars moved from east and west, but were unable to pass. an altercation took place with officer wilson seated inside the vehicle and michael brown at the driver-side window. altercation, two shots were fired by officer wilson while still inside the vehicle. mr. brown rent east. on the corner of canfield and copper creek, mr. brown turned

officernd turn towards wilson. as michael brown moved towards officer wilson, several more shots were fired by the officer. michael brown was fatally wounded. within seconds of the final shot, the assist car arrived. passedan 90 seconds between officer wilson's first contact with his companion and the arrival of the assist card. many eyewitnesses were interviewed by media outlets. several others chose not to talk to the media, the contacted local law enforcement directly. others were interviewed by federal and local law enforcement. sometimes together, sometimes separately. all statements were provided to the other party. all previous statements were also presented to the grand jury, whether they were media

interviews or interviews by the fbi or the county police department. the statements of all witnesses, enforcement, and experts, were challenged by law enforcement and the grand jurors themselves during a common and highly effective method for challenging a statement is to compare to the previous statements of a witness for consistency and to compare it to the physical evidence. physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda. personal evidence does not look away as events unfold. remainsevidence constant and is a solid foundation on which the case is else. witnesses were confronted with the inconsistencies and conflicts between their statements and the physical evidence. some witnesses admitted that they did not actually see the shooting or only saw part of the shooting or were only repeating

what they heard on the street. some others adjusted parts of their statement to fit the facts. others stood by original statements, even though their statements were completely the evidence. some describe an altercation in the car between mr. brown and officer wilson. it was described as tough length, wrestling, tug-of-war, or just some movement. some described mr. brown punching officer wilson while he was in the vehicle. they heard a gunshot while mr. brown was still inside the vehicle. other witnesses say that no part of mr. brown was inside the vehicle. they say that the shot with fired through an open window. 'se vehicle and officer wilson clothes were examined by technicians and scientists. 's blood and dna were

found on the outside of the driver's door. his blood and dna were found on the left rear door of the passenger vehicle. mr. brown's dna was found on the inside of the drivers door and upper lefteft -- thigh of officer wilson's pat lake and on officer wilson's weapon. a bullet fired from officer wilson's weapon was located inside the drivers door. it struck the door at a downward angle at the armrest. the second bullet was not recovered. regarding the gunshot wound to mr. brown, it should be noted that three separate autopsies were done. one by the st. louis county medical examiner's office, one apologist, and one by an armed forces medical examiner. the result of all three

autopsies are considered -- consistent with one another. mr. brown had a gunshot graze wound to the right thumb. the path of that bullet is away from the tip of the hand, consistent with a close range gunshot, present inside that wound. officer wilson also had a medical examination which indicated some swelling and redness to his face. almost all witnesses stated that after they heard the shot fired while mr. brown was at the car, he hesitated and then rent east on canfield. officer wilsont got out of his vehicle and chased him. some witness stated that wilson fired at mr. brown. at least one of those witnesses said that one of those shots struck mr. brown. others say that he did not fire until mr. brown turned around and came towards officer wilson.

as officer wilson got out of his vehicle, he shot mr. brown multiple times as mr. brown stood next to the vehicle. another witness stated that officer wilson stuck his gun out the window and fired at mr. brown as he was running. one witness stated that there were two bullies be and four officers present, that only one officer fired a weapon. most agreed that mr. brown around,and turned facing officer wilson. some say that mr. brown did not move towards officer wilson at all, it was shot he stood near the corner with his hands raised . in subsequent interviews with law-enforcement, any of the same witnesses and knowledged that they did not actually see the were running for cover. some were relating what they heard from others or what they case.d happened in that

several other witnesses maintained their original statement that mr. brown had his hands in the air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot. others said that he was shot -- excuse me. several witnesses stated that mr. brown did not raise his hands at all or he raised them briefly and then turned toward officer wilson and fired several rounds. others stated that he stop for a period and then move towards them again. others describe it as a full charge. witnesses, mr.me wilson stop firing when mr. brown stopped moving towards him and resumed firing when he started moving toward him again. the description of how mr. brown's -- mr. brown raised his hands or the position of his

hands is not consistent among the witnesses. some described his hands as being off to the side. others said that his hands were raised near his head or bike you shoulders. others said they they were in front of his chest or down by his stomach. others described his hands as being in a running position or as fists. there were various witness statements regarding mr. brown's movements as he stopped enterobacter towards officer wilson. several said that he never moved towards officer wilson and was shot where he stood at the corner. most said that the shots were fired as he moved towards wilson. mr. brown's movements were described as walking, moving fast, stumbling, or a full charge. the very and descriptions were sometimes provided by the same witnesses in subsequent statements for testimony.

processed process was by the signals county crime scene. 12 shots were fired by officer wilson. 10 shots from the car. mr. brown sustained a graze wound to his thumb while standing next to the vehicle. he sustained six or seven more gunshot wounds depending on whether or not one of the shots was an entry or a reentry. mr. brown sustained another .raze wound to his right bicep he also sustained wounds to his right forearm, the upper front right arm, lateral front right chest, for head, and top of the head. head, for head, and perhaps the upper right chest were consistent with his body being and forward at the the waist. the medical examiners are unable to determine the order of the shots. is graze wound to the thumb

likely the first one. it was the only close range shot. the shot to the top of the head was most likely the last. it would have rendered him him immediately unconscious and incapacitated. located 150body was feet east of officer wilson's car. mr. brown's blood was located 25 feet further east. tenant inadvertently capture the final 10 shots on tape. there was a string of several pause,ollowed by a brief followed by another string of several shots. earlier, the evidence and the testimony will be released following this statement. i am ever mine for that this

decision will not be accepted by some and may cause disappointment for others. all decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the scientific evidence and the testimony corroborated i that evidence. not in response for public outcry or political expediency. matters as serious is charging an individual a crime cannot the decided without making a decision aced on all available evidence. anything less than that is not justice. my job and the job of any grand jury is to do that, not but for an indictment. the citizens of this community should be, and are very mindful of the fact that the whole world is watching how we respond and how we react. i would urge everyone, with the

loss that was severed by the brown family, no young man should ever died. this is a loss of a life and it is tragic regardless of the circumstances. it has opened up old wounds. it has given us an opportunity to address the wounds. how many years have we been talking about the issues that leave to -- lead to incidents like this? is engagedyone who in the conversation and is engaged in the demonstrations to keep that going and stay with that. do not let that go and to do it in a constructive way. a way that we can benefit from this by changing the structure, by changing some of the issue, by solving some of the issues that lead to these things. i join with michael brown's family and with the clergy and the nc -- naacp and the urban

governmentevery official and every private citizen that you heard in urging everyone to encourage the demonstrations to continue and to adjust the problems and do so in a constructive way and not a destructive way. i have time for a few questions now. i will start over here. gentleman in the black sweater. >> the grand jury made this decision unanimously. can you tell us whether you presented any charges are recommended any charges to be brought by this grand jury? >> the first question is the vote. the grand jury by statute, neither i nor anyone else is allowed to discuss the vote or the deliberations themselves. the grand jury is a very secret

process and it should be in order to protect that secrecy and the witnesses so that people can come out and speak freely. jury deliberations and a grand jury or a trial jury, they are not deliberated. in a trial, they are unanimous. i statute, nobody is allowed to ask what the vote was, nor are they allowed to ask what the discussion was, the opinions discussed by the other grand jurors. i did not present. ssistants did all of the presentations to the grand jurors. in this case, we presented five indictments to them. >> i heard you describe some very problematic witness statements. >> there are a number of

witnesses that truly believe what they said. the ones who were consistent throughout, even in the face of their testimony being in conflict with the physical evidence that was there. i think they truly believe that that is what they saw. but they did not. some of the others were making it up. they all pretty much acknowledged that they saw parts and made up other things. been many that have been critical of this process, calling it a secret trial. do you regret taking this to the grand jury? to you wish there was some other forum for presenting this evidence? >> not at all. i think this was a good decision to take this to the grand jury. we presented to the grand jury all of the evidence that there could possibly be, all of which

will be available and available as we finish this tonight. everyone will be able to examine that same evidence and come to their own conclusion. i know that people aren't going to go home and look at everything that was on there and make a decision based on that. these grand jurors poured their hearts and souls into this process. their term was scheduled to and in early september. they put their lives on hold. they put their families on hold. they put everything on hold so that they could come in and do their civic duty. it was a very emotional process for them. i met with them to tell them what the process was going to be . i met with them after their decision. emotionalll you how and rainy it was for each and every one of them. , itnyone is suggesting that

is not a full and fair process is just unfair to these people. they pour their hearts and souls into this. right next to you after that. >> can you tell us anything more about the grand jury. >> there was information that the judge allowed to be released on the demographics of the grand jury. when any judge picks a grand looking for a cross-section of st. louis county. i would say that almost any demographic category you could come up with will be represented on that grand jury. live,they live, how they still working, blue-collar,

professional, i must anyone you can think of is going to be on that grand jury. they tend to be that way across the spectrum. were there any african-american witnesses that testified that michael brown was coming toward the officer when brown was shot? >> yes. the ones that i mentioned specifically were all african-americans. the one that the one who indicated came at him and a full charge. officer wilson fired shots at him and esther brown stopped and officer wilson stopped -- started shooting. mr. wilson started shutting again. the others who had consistent stories not just with each other, not just this -- their

stories, they were consistent with the others. they are all african-american. could teller if you us about officer wilson's status. his testimony and these are questions that were asked by the grand jurors questioning him and and rather than get into the specifics he did testify that he was sitting in the car and was punched i mr. brown. we do not put a lot of stock, we

cannot rely solely on that testimony. in the blue shirt. >> you mentioned there is video 10 shots.al with that be released with the rest of the video? >> there was video. will that be released? >> there is not video. there was audio. in a packet.e if it is not, we will get the audio out. >> i want to ask you a question. the people who are protesting said this jury had nine whites on it and three blacks. they would say you have a reputation, right or wrong, of being pro-police. what do say to someone who might be out there? >> you can certainly take at a

witness here or there and come to a different conclusion. i think everyone has to look to month they have the ability to look at every bit of evidence and all the testimony and can do that. some i understand, some people made up their minds both ways and they're not going to change so there is not a lot a can do. what i would urge you to do is express those feelings in a constructive way and try to make some changes so that nothing like this ever happens again. that in's explained to work with the issues. can you explain what those fixes are or are any of them including whether or not police should shoot someone whose hands are at their stomach or in the air and their unarmed? to answer.fficult

it is impossible to answer questions like that because there are so many variables that play into every case. there is no real way to answer a question like that. and so you have to look at every bit of information and every case that comes in. the idea is to avoid ever being in that situation. someone -- you're someone who has had your record question. how do you feel making this, announcing this decision and what message do you think it sends to the trinity that says they have had numerous members , young blacknity males killed by police with impunity. what does this message say to them? >> a much better message then you are sending. they are not being killed with impunity. whether they are young black man or young white men.

we have young -- had young white men who have been killed with -- by police officers and we look at every one of them and hopefully learn from them and avoid being in that situation. whether it is a justified shooting. that is what has to go. other people need to make their voices heard and they need to address those issues. we are addressing those so we are in the situation again. >> there is no single law in the state of missouri that protects and values the life of this in man who unquestionably was shot and killed dead. what do you say to people who wonder, is there something wrong with the laws here that allows this to happen, that after this happens, says we just move on

and this is justice, is this really justice or is there something wrong with the laws in the state that would -- that is another question do not have an answer to that question. what is wrong with the law. there are no laws to protect us. every law out there is to protect the safety of every individual regardless of their age or race. and so if those laws are not working, then we need to work to change them. that is about all that -- that is what we should be doing. that is where this needs to go from here. >> you have been accused by some of passing the buck. standing back and giving the evidence to the jury. part of that system, there is not anyone in the system as far as the checks and balances we have, no one office, no one individual has an ultimate or

absolute authority. if charges were filed in this case as they are filed another cases, the case would still go to the pre-limitary hearing or the grand jury. the has to be a probable cause determination. no one can just file a charge and go directly to a jury trial. that just cannot happen. obligation to present the evidence. i do not know how anyone can say we're passing the buck ike gathering this information and meeting with the grand jury. it is something we do on a weekly basis. we do it week in and week out. we're not passing the buck. back in the corner there. break down and what is the possibility of federal charges, are those still a possibility and outstanding? >> i can give you that -- cannot give you a vote breakdown. i cannot ask nor can the grand jurors reveal that. the federal investigation is still ongoing. they have all the information

and evidence that we have, they had it as we got it. when we finished the day's worth of grand jury testimony within a day or two of that, that was in the hands of the department of justice. interviewdid an within hours, that was in the hands of the department of justice. they will conduct their interview, their investigation as we did. they are looking at different types of laws and different violations. will complete that, i have no insight into that. >> did any witnesses refuse to testify and if so, how is that handled? >> there were a few witnesses who were not brought in. there were witnesses who, one did not make a statement. a couple just disappeared.

we spent a lot of time searching for them and with the assistance of the fbi but we were unable to locate a couple of them. none of the information in one case, we had the statement from the witness, it was not presented to the grand jury. there were a couple of them. we of time for a couple more. said officer wilson's description of rounds movement toward him as a charge. was there any evidence that might have led the grand jury to conclude wilson had recent cause for the use of deadly force? >> you have to have -- i am not .rivy to the deliberations i cannot say what they saw as highly significant. they were told that here is what the law requires that you consider all the evidence and the information. it is not just as in most cases it is not just one bit of evidence that says that is it.

that is all we need to hear. it is anything that is presented which is why we want to make this as possible. justification are you using to release the grand jury evidence? there is some dispute as to whether a court order will be needed to present what it is you are able to present tonight. bore you with all the legal details and technicalities. essentially, it is now a closed investigation which makes it an open file. a lot more complicated and complex than that. essentially that is how the sunshine law operates. when it is a closed investigation, case, it is an open file. that is the basis of following the sunshine law. i assumed there would be a request that i thought it was important in the first place to release the information. yes, ma'am.

>> obviously many are not happy with this decision tonight, especially the family of michael brown. if they are watching, what would you want to say to them this evening? >> i set it at the outset. to them goes out regardless of the circumstances. lostlost a young man, they a young life. i said many times before that withain that goes along that loss is something that most people cannot understand. at the same time, everything was presented. everything was presented. everything was given to the grand jury. it was all put in front of them. and 12 people made a decision that based on all that evidence, as tragic as this is, it was not a crime, not one where charges should have been filed. this tragedy.ssen

the fact that it was a justifiable use of force for self-defense, there is still a loss of life here. and the family is going to have that lost forever. that will be with them for a long time. , no young mancer should ever be killed by a police officer. and no police officer should ever be put in that position. that is why i keep urging people to keep this talk going. so many times we have seen in the past where the discussion starts and then fades away and then we have the same issues and we're back here again. i do not want to be back here. we have to keep that discussion going and everybody has to stay engaged. this is a horrible tragedy and we do not want to see a repeat. thank you. >> president obama spoke with

reporters about the grand jury's decision not to indict ferguson police officer darren wilson. for the death of 18-year-old michael brown. shortly after the announcement was made. the jury issued its decision. it has not come back either way. it will be subject to intense disagreement not only in ferguson but across america. i want to say a few words suggesting how we might move forward. are aand foremost, we nation built on the rule of law. and so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make.

agreeare americans who with it and there are americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. it is an understandable reaction. but i join michael's parents and asking everyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. let me repeat michael's father's words. hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. no matter what the grand jury decides, i do not want my son's death to be in pain. i want it to lead to incredible change them a positive change, change that makes the st. louis region better for everyone. michael brown's parents have lost more than anyone. we should be honoring their wishes. i also appeal to the law

enforcement officials in ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protest that may occur. understand, our police officers put their lives in line for us every single day. do, tove a tough job to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. in the do their jobs coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community to distinguish the who may useeople the grand jury's decision as an excuse for violence. distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact. finally, we need to recognize the situation in ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation.

the fact is into many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. ame of this is the result of legacy of racial discrimination in this country. this is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates. the good news is we know there are things we can do to help. i have instructed attorney general holder to work with cities to build better relations between communities and law enforcement. that means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. we know that makes difference. it means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everyone. the communityting

actively on what should be everybody's goal. that is to prevent crime. there are good people on all sides of this debate as well as in both republican and democratic parties that are interested not only in lifting , because wetices know there are communities that have an able to deal with this in an effective way, but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform. the lessonsuld be we draw from these tragic events. we need to recognize that this is not just an issue for ferguson, this is an issue for america. made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. i have witnessed that in my own

to deny that progress i think is to deny america's capacity for change. but what is also true is that ande are still problems immunities of color are not just making these problems up. separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too is beingls as if it applied in a discriminatory fashion. i do not think that is the norm. i do not think that is true for the majority of communities. lawhe vast majority of enforcement officials, but these are real issues. we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tempt them down area what we need to do is understand them and regret how do we make more progress and that can be done. that will not be done by throwing bottles, that will not

be done by smashing car windows. usingill not be done by this as an excuse to vandalize and it certainly will not be done by hurting anybody. so to those in ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. michael brown's parents understand what it means to be constructive. peacefulmajority of protesters, they understand it as well. those of you who are watching tonight understand there is never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people of goodwill who are willing to work on these issues.

on the other hand, those who are on the interested in focusing on the violence and want the problem to go away needs to recognize that we do have work to do here, and we should not try to papered over. -- paper it over. whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time it builds up and america is not everything that it could be. and i am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively, then we can make progress not just in ferguson but a lot of other cities and committees around the country. ok? >> let's take a look and see how things are going. eric holder has been there, we have had a team from the justice department there. and i think that they have done some very good work. the vast majority of the

community has been working very hard to try to make sure that this becomes an opportunity for us to see at the moment and turn this into a positive situation. i think we have to make sure that we focus at least as much attention on all those positive activities that are taking place as we do on a handful of folks who and up using this as an excuse to misbehave or to break the law or to engage in violence. it is going to be very important and the media will have a responsibility as well to make sure -- that we focus on michael brown's parents and the clergy and the community leaders and the civil

rights leaders and the activists and law enforcement officials who happen working very hard to try to find better solutions, long-term solutions to this issue. there is inevitably going to be some negative reaction. and it will make for good tv. but what we want to do is make sure that we are also focusing on those who can offer the kind real progress that we know is possible. that the vast majority of people in ferguson, the st. louis region, missouri, and around the country are looking for and i want to be partners with those folks and we need to lift up that kind of constructive dialogue that has taken place. all right? attorney general eric holder released a statement on the

grand jury decision saying that the justice department's shootingtion into the ongoing. -- goes on toart say in part -- charles schumer will be at the national press club tuesday as democratic policy entity -- committee chair, he will talk about the midterm election results. we will have that live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span two, discussion on the future of negotiations in iran's

nuclear program. the talks will be extended for another seven months area that is hosted by the brookings institution. you can watch it live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. later in the day, president obama will speak about immigration policy at an event in chicago. it will be live at 530 on c-span. >> this thanks giving week, c-span is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch the interviews through thursday at eight p.m. eastern. >> i have often said the republicans do have a legitimate argument here, by the way and that they are not being allowed to offer amendments. they are not think allowed to offer a minutes because filibuster bills. is best way to get rid of it to get rid of the filibuster but at the same time guarantee to the minority and numerals in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane

amendments to any bill that is on the floor. germane amendments to that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. >> i want even qualify it by saying probably. the most eloquent order in the congress, henry told me one time, he said i'm am not wild about this in peach. he said how do you justify that and turn a blind eye to the president? he said i cannot do it. i will always your member henry saying that. >> on thursday, inc.'s giving day, we will take in american history tour of various native at 10 a.m.ibes eastern following "washington journal." and at 1:30 p.m., attend the groundbreaking ceremony.

and supreme court justices samuel alito and sonia sotomayor at 8:30 p.m. eastern. giving week thinks on c-span. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. explaining earlier attempts to treat poster medic stress disorder. she is joined by a former ap reporter who talks about her own experience of ptsd after a 2000 car bombing -- 2006 car bombing in iraq. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good evening. i am a student project manager at the clark forum for contemporary issues. on behalf of the forum i would like to welcome you to tonight's event.

, a panel discussion. in the past decade, post-traumatic stress disorder or ptsd, has come to the forefront of national discussion in part because of its prevalence in veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. , however, is not a new medical condition. it was observed and soldiers from the world wars where it was called shell shock at the time. ptsd does not only affect soldiers. anyone who is -- has endured a dramatic events can experience nightmares, anxiety, flashbacks, and difficulty sleeping that characterize this disorder. have experts in several fields who all have different perspectives on ptsd. has first-hand experience with ptsd. in 2006, while reporting for cbs

news in iraq or she was severely injured in a car bombing that killed members of her crew and their military escort. dozier wrote a book about the experience and her recovery process entitled, "breathing the fire, fighting to survive and get back in the fight." wendy moffatt is a professor of english at dickinson college. currently, she his researching and writing a biography on psychiatrist dr. thomas [inaudible] war correspondent elizabeth shepley sergeant, both of whom who were engaged in the events of the first world war. previously she served as director of psychological health for the army and chief of the behavioral health division as office of the army surgeon general. she is also a fellow of the american psychological association and a member of the order of military medical merit.

senior military correspondent for the huffington post. he has worked extensively with american military units, including a company that went into combat during the iraq and afghanistan wars. he one of pulitzer prize for the wounded veterans. tothis time, i would like ask that you silence cell phones and electronic devices. tonight's event will be live tweeted. a question and answer session will follow the panel discussion so please hold all questions until then. because tonight's event is televised and available for live streaming, it is imperative that you wait for the microphone before speaking. and now, please join me in welcoming our moderator and panel discussion, wendy moffat.

[applause] >> good evening, thank you for coming. on this veterans day. abouting to be talking dr.of two of my subjects, thomas to be a salmon who was the first psychiatrist in any american army and then early warover and treater of trauma, particularly mental illness amongst the allied american expeditionary forces in the first world war between 1914 in 1918. he was born in 1876 and died quite young in 1927. his work is very important and the history -- in the history of understanding this disorder. even though he was a prescient figure, ptsd would have