those body cameras inside your house, when you are at your worst, will become viral. i see a lot of heads shaking. a lot of people haven't thought about it that way. all of that stuff that goes on is now going to be on youtube and on the news, you will have an opportunity to see those things. people at their worst. if you have a good government job, you may want to look at that. [laughter] training for officers, as the good doctor mentioned, is important. we have to look at training. we have to look at how we train our officers. if we train them to be combative, guess what, you get combativeness. if you train them to be solution oriented, you get solution oriented processes. we have to stay focused on that. i would like to end this with something -- where do you want a star of -- solve this problem? do you want to solve it with

young black men in their backyard, or do you want to wait until the go to the graveyard? -- until they go to the graveyard? [applause] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> hello? all right, talk louder. thank you. i would like to thank nbcsl for the opportunity to be here today and be on this panel that is an issue dear to me. i get too emotional we talk about criminal justice, and the disproportionate impact on immunities of color. or just any kind of injustice, a kind of gets me stirred up. i'm going to try to be a lady appear, and really get to the point of some things. as representative cobb-hunter talked about, and me being involved in aid to mr. violence bill -- a domestic violence bill that had to do with protective orders -- if anyone had a temporary protective order or a permanent protective order, the judge, the courts could say that

you -- there was a big issue. representative miller, when i dollars my cali down there too. that -- i want to ignore knowledge my colleague down there too. that bill would say any kind of weapon could be rude -- removed from the home. it was a may, and you know how those maze work. -- may's work. that bill came out of a woman in one of the rural areas that was really threatened and killed by her husband, or whoever that was who terrorized her throughout their marriage. that bill kind of came to fruition. another thing though, if i can go back and quickly make another point on some of the committees that i have served on. this is very important. going into my seventh term, i

have served on public safety. public safety is the committee where we get a lot of issues related to policing, things like that. those kind of bills. i was fortunate enough to really have first-hand looks at a lot of the bills that came through their, that affected communities of color. and judiciary committees also is another area where some of those prosecutor -- prosecute in attorney bills come through. another bill that was very important that i was able to get involved in was the internet predator bill. i'm also a person who, of all my types of bills i introduce, i always represent -- as we heard from her presented of thompson, and probably all of you.

-- representative thompson. we all have the same kind of heart here. what i found was with the influx of internet, there has been a lot of online predators out there kind of praying on our children. -- preying on our children. people posing as kids. that bill went into effect in iowa that would keep kids safe from online predators. another important bill that is quite appropriate for today was the afterschool programming bill. i know back when introducing legislation, and that bill, after euros of -- years of working hard, republicans were

in the majority, it took many years to get that legislation. get something in the iowa code that would say -- that would allow churches or any kind of organization that schools even who had an interest in providing afterschool programs for children -- there would be funding for the state available. the reason that is important is because doing -- during the times of 3:00 to 6:00 every day, kids are usually left at home by themselves or in. that is when children are involved in at risk behaviors, finding themselves involved in sexual activities, and he of at risk behavior. -- any kind of at risk behavior. i will being a low risk state, both parents have to work to make ends meet, we found that was the first step in helping young people not get into the juvenile justice system. in iowa, i think our black youth represent maybe 45% of those in the juvenile justice system. and we know if you start out as a kid, and then it goes back to school, then it goes back to what is happening in the home. we hear those kinds of conversations too.

i look forward to hearing what representative welch has to say regards the education system. if we do not say something to really help families in crises, in terms of children not having a safe place to be, then that is what we find. they start young getting into the system. i think i heard either representative cobb-hunter or representative thompson talk about the fact that starts in school. just how kids are looked at. i don't know if you have even walked into -- if you have children or grandchildren elementary schools, watch how they are being treated. i observed it in my granddaughters classroom. there is a little black -- a little black boy. the teacher was giving him more attention, and the boy was not doing anything for than anybody else. it goes back to a lot of factors as to what is going on.

it's definitely systemic, it's a systemwide problem. it starts on every level, and we definitely need to do something to address this issue on all levels. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. i am both honored and humbled to be here this morning. i'm honored because i am the freshman appeared. and i'm definitely humbled, being the chicago and -- chicagoan in dallas, we kept her -- a week after dallas kicked our butts in football. you guys have read a lot of headlines in the news that we see, it seems like weekly. talking about the violence within our community. i wanted to give you three

nuggets that i think we should all take back to our respective chambers in our states, but i think can really help us from a policy perspective, address violence within our community. i think the first thing we all the to do, and we all need to demand as the caucuses in our respective states -- we need to demand that each one of our state provide an education to our kids. [applause] we need to stop expelling our

kids on the street. when we expel our kids on the street, we are sending them from the schools straight to prison. these zero-tolerance policies are not working. and as the gentleman from the white house dated this morning -- stated this morning, we really need to, from a legislative standpoint, start making the schools address student discipline in other ways. for the educators in the room, i'm not saying keep these bad kids in your classroom. there are some kid you have to remove them from the classroom setting because other kids within it want to learn, should be able to learn. but we should not have the first resort be to put kids on the street. in illinois, we are addressing that issue in senate bill 3004. my senator is leading that fight in the other chamber. we are going to get it right come january. we are going to pass a bill that addresses when a school can and can't expel a kid onto the street. they need to first offer alternatives, because we want to keep those kids in the school system, and not put them in our criminal system. the second thing we need to do is we need to give people who have made a mistake a second chance. people deserve a job. they need to be able to take care of their families. i'm proud of the illinois legislative black caucus just led the fight to pass a bill in illinois, house bill 5701, which bans the box.

you cannot put on implement applications the question whether you have been convicted of a criminal offense. you can't even inquire about a criminal offense until a person has interviewed and been offered a job. people shouldn't be excluded from the opportunity to get gainful employment just because they made a mistake in the past. this new law goes into effect january 1, and i guarantee you black and brown people are going to benefit directly from banning the box. the third thing we need to do, and it's a bill i went to fight on last year, is we need to end the code of silence. in chicago, these gang bangers truly believe that snitches get stitches. we need to teach them it is cool to snitch. we need to teach them that it is cool to snitch.

[applause] but we also need to provide them the necessary protections that go with that. in house bill 1139, i created "in witness protection program. -- the gang crime in witness protection program. these folks know who committed the crime, the need to make sure they know who was going to do the time. prosecutors can offer these folks who know what happened an opportunity to be put on a witness protection program just like on the federal level. this isn't rocket science, we know what is out there. a lot of states do not have witness protection programs. we are going to have to deal with that from religious leader perspective. we have to make sure it is budget for. -- from a legislative perspective. we have to make sure it is budgeted for. we need to have the protections for them. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. let's give all our panelists hand. [applause] let's direct a couple of questions to the panel. we have some that come from the audience. if you have a question, you have

index cards, please feel free to write your question and submit it to us. i want to start, dr. klinger, if i can come with you. again, we know that emotion doesn't convince anybody. we are very much in today. what we are interested in hearing from you is -- is there any evidence of a link between community violence and police shootings? is there data that just that? >> as indicated, we don't have a good idea of what is going across the country in terms of use of deadly force by the police, because we don't have the data set. a few years ago, the city of st. louis gave me the opportunity to look in all of their officer involved shooting case files. suspects were killed by police gunfire, suspect the were wounded, and situations were officer shot but nobody was struck by gunfire. what i my colleagues did was we were able to map the locations where the shootings occurred.

what we found is there is a powerful relationship tween levels of violence and neighborhoods and the numbers of police shootings. as violence increases in the city of st. louis the least, that is a thing that is driving the use of deadly force by the police. that is something we always have to keep in mind when we are looking at this important question of the use of force by police. it is largely, at least in st. louis, a reaction or response to violence in the community. >> chief, do you want to respond to that question? >> i think again, there is no cookie-cutter answer to any of this. what we have to do is focus on case-by-case, we have to use evidence-based data in order to approach this problem. we have got to know what is really happening, so we can improve it. with that, we have to keep that

feeling part in there. we deal with communities and feelings. these folks aren't sitting there with all the scientific evidence, they are sitting there reacting to how they feel about whatever took place. we have to keep that in mind as we approach these issues. >> tank you, chief. -- thank you, chief. representative welts, -- welch, we are really interested in what you are doing in chicago. because of your work, we want to know if you think there is a real solution to curbing violence in our communities, based on what you have been doing? >> i do think there is a real solution to curbing violence. the real solution starts early on. it starts with education. that's why i spent 12 years on the school board. in most of our states, we are not adequate funding education. illinois, ranked 49th out of 50 of how to fund our schools. we could do better, we should do better, we have a demand that we do better. a demand that we properly fund our schools. schools can't keep the kids in school, the ones they are expelling, they'd a lot of keep them because they need smaller class sizes.

there is a whole lot of reasons why schools are trying to find ways to get rid of kids. because they can't afford to educate them. as a body, we need to demand we adequately fund our schools. we need to encourage parents to get into the schools. parents are not the enemy, they are the friends. my first bill as a legislator last year was a bill called bring your parents to school day. house bill 129. it's exactly what it sounds. illinois schools are now required to offer once a year, an opportunity for parents to go to school with their kids, attend class, go to gym, eat the lunch. get the parent into the school, and let them see what is happening. once we start focusing on education and demanding that it is funded adequately, we are really going to address the issue of the violence in our community.

>> yes ma'am. >> we also have to provide good jobs for those parents to be able to afford to go to those schools, to see about their children. you can take a lot of pressure out of a family if they are able to adequately support themselves. then they have an opportunity to be able to look at those other things that they can address, like what their kids are doing in school. if you are able to pay your bills and have a few pennies left over, you can do a whole lot of things. we have a responsibility making sure the good jobs are provided. we call this a great nation to everyone else around the globe. >> this is a good opportunity to talk about a bill i tried to introduce, as representative cobb-hunter knows, that would allow parents were working time off work. again, with i would being a low-wage state, parents can't afford to not work.

it's not that they don't care or love their children, but when you are at work, and then it strict and you can't get away, that is a problem. and that is why the bill i introduced -- if i can say, representative welch, you must be in a democratic led legislature to get all these things done. >> thank you for clarifying. i agree with the discussion as it relates to parents needing to be there. but again, in our state and others, we can't afford to leave. there is nothing to protect them from losing their jobs. without getting some sort of repercussion for doing so. >> i truly think the great supplemental bill to the bring your peers to school day is a bill that allows parental leave. we already allow if the malay --

fmla types of leave. whether it's four hours a year that they can leave work without penalty to go visit their kids in school. a lot of states already have those on the books. the ones that don't, we really should consider rental leave act. -- parental leave act. >> the point you made about the new magic bullet, silver bullet to address this issue. in most of states, we've seen legislation dealing with body cameras being offered. how do you respond to those colleagues who take your point about the violation of the privacy issue, but respectfully suggest to you that -- yeah, that is true, but we have to

make sure we have an accurate record of what is actually transpired? do you think that the notion of privacy overrides the concern of the public's part about wanting to know exactly what happened in

that interaction with the officer? >> i think one is clearly we want more transparency within our police organizations. i don't think that's a doubt in anybody's mind. i just say "what you ask for. we need to under's -- be careful what you ask for. we need to understand having that transparency opens up that door where privacy, you have to consider if your privacy is more important than knowing what is happening there. i have been in many calls that you walk in the door and people are usually at their worst when the police are in their dealing with whatever those issues are. those are things that i know think the general public wants to go public. there has to be a part of it. we are dealing with situations where people are arguing, fighting, whatever is going on

in the privacy of their home. police officers are coming in to interact and deal with those issues. now, that's where it stops. once these cameras going to play, that's not where it stops. >> let me let you follow-up. and let me ask you about your area of expertise in training. one of the concerns that those of us who represent communities of color here a lot is the lack of cultural competency on the part of law enforcement officers. as you respond to the chief, would you also address the competency issue, and any other issue involving law enforcement training that we ought to be aware of? >> absolutely. i want a second the remarks that the chief just made. when i was a young police officer, i was intervening into ribs and process. the women were in the process of being raped. if we were to have body cameras, there is a law that says that people cannot get access to this, these us scenes of these

two women literally -- we are rescuing them from the hands of rapists, that would be on the internet. that is wrong, wrong, wrong. as state legislators, you have the opportunity to pass laws, not just make a policy statement, but pass a law that says this type of information will not be subject to requests, no matter what the case might be. i don't know the details, that that is something that needs to be done. victims of violent crimes should not have to be subject to derision that will come by having their information pop up on youtube. i am with the chief 100% on that. not just about you on your worst day, but crime victims. in terms of cultural competency, i think that one of the critical issues that people need to understand -- the chief and i have talked about this. often times, and czar framed as black and white about policing. -- things are framed as black and white about policing. it's blue, the blue uniform versus citizen sometimes. when you do figure out how to train officers understand two things. they need to identify with the citizens, no matter what that this is particular background might be. and understand the citizen has an expectation on the lines of what mr. austin was talking about, that all people be treated equally and fairly. the second point about that is obviously, there will be cultural differences. black, white, asian, hispanic, whatever the case might be. within the black committed, there is different subcultures. it is really vital that police officers understand who it is they are interacting with. they get training in the academy, and they get training in service so they understand the community they are policing. that is really vital. that isn't something that stops at the academy, it has to be ongoing in terms of in-service training and having people from different backgrounds. perhaps even coming to roll calls and making presentation. there is a lot of room for that.

>> the takeaway from the whole conversation about body cameras, for those of us out there looking to introduce legislation, is -- let's look at it from various angles. you aren't necessarily saying don't do it, you understand it's not a silver bullet that we think it is. and we need to engage others in law enforcement, the privacy community, all of those to make sure that in our effort to help, we aren't inadvertently creating something. i want to go to the chief, because you asked a question. you raised is something that leads to one of the questions that came from our audience. and that is your point about the thin blue line. chief, what has come out in all of this conversation has been some friction in the eyes of some, with police unions and

communities of color. could you just give the members of our audience some idea of how we engage police unions, as a part of helping us come up with something that will work? >> the first step in that, everybody has to understand everybody else's side. my experiences lead me to believe certain things and react in certain ways. i tell people often, when i am dealing with these issues i deal with them with a couple of different hats on. one, from a police chief's perspective, obviously. two, from a black man. three, from a black man who has a black son. all of those issues are important to me. and so i have, i guess, the pleasure of understanding each piece of what goes on. police unions understand they are put in place to look at it from a police perspective. they approach it from that perspective. not a wrong perspective, just their viewpoint. what we all have to do is sit

down at that table -- we should have 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds to discuss these. because that is who it affects. and their perspective is going to be different from ours. so we have to engage in a roundtable with everybody involved to focus on solutions. >> thank you, chief. did you have something you wanted to say? >> you know, when i think about what happened in ferguson and in new york, i think about the police side of things. there definitely needs to be more training. you know, i look at both of those incidents and say, are those officers trained on when you use certain levels of force? clearly excessive force was used in both of those instances. they have to be trained early on, on when you escalate force. i am speaking because in my role as a lawyer from municipalities i represented many police

officers. many had gotten it wrong and many had gotten it right. those had had gotten it right had been trained from the outset. as a legislator, we need to address this issue. in a lot of states, police departments are required to report data on what race you are when you are stopped. we need to make sure every time force is used, police officers are required to report it. whatever force they have, i guarantee you, if they know they are going to report it, they are going to think twice about the force they will use. >> representative, let me ask you this. you mentioned a piece of legislation you have done in illinois, dealing with protection for gang members. would you talk to us about what you see as a solution in addressing the code of silence that is in law enforcement? i don't want to put our to law

enforcement experts on the hot seat by having them address it. but if you, because of your legislation, have something specific you want to share about how you see us addressing this notion within law enforcement -- not the snitch piece, but within law enforcement, about abuses that don't go reported within their ranks. and then we will let our law enforcement experts respond. is my question clear? >> understood clearly. as someone who represents police officers, i understand it. it's just nature we want to protect our brothers and sisters. and we have to train law enforcement just like we are going to train the kids. if you know of someone doing something illegal, it is not cool to try to protect them. they have to snitch on their brothers and sisters too, if they are doing something wrong.

the only way you are going to root out the bad apples is to tell it. you teach that early. teach it in the academy. they are teaching that brotherhood. teach them if somebody is doing something illegal, it is wrong and i'm going to let someone know you are doing something wrong. >> i know we have two lawyers on the panel. but i am going to throw this one out, and anybody who wants to respond can feel free to respond to it. that is this notion of grand juries, and how all of that works. given the lack of indictment, in cases which to a lot of us appear very clear-cut, what do you say to anybody about these lapses we are seeing from prosecutors and solicitors when it comes to presenting information to grand juries for indictment? we have two lawyers appear. the first one is going to say something.

>> i have a short answer. several years, i carried a bill to have the attorney inside of the room in the grand jury, and not just the prosecutor by themselves. and i really believe that is one of the solutions to the problem. >> repeat that again. >> i believe we have the other attorney there with the prosecutor. i'm not saying the prosecutor is not being diligent and not living up to his code of conduct. i just think this is a good safety measure. i have tried to pass that bill for 10 years in texas. i know you all the look at me crazy. i did past one and allen. it took me 20 years, but i got it done. i believe this is a safety net, that that would be a good thing in there. i don't believe that lawyer would be disrupted. because the role of that person in the grand jury would be restricted, but they would have an opportunity to see actually what is happening and how the dialogue or the questioning is going on.

>> thank you so much. as representative welch gets ready to respond, in addition to what she said there are some who are now calling for a special prosecutor to be called automatically when a case happens, so you don't get into this issue of conflict of interest, and all of that. do you support that? what do you think that would do? >> i wholeheartedly support that. i think that is the solution. you cannot have folks who work closely together every day, who have developed a special bond of working together, investigating one another. the perfect example was the prosecutor in ferguson. in that incident, there should have been an outsider appointed as a special prosecutor to look into that situation. every lawyer who has gone

through law school knows you can indict a ham sandwich. and somehow this ham sandwich didn't get indicted in ferguson, and that is because of the bias of the prosecutor. and i think if you appoint a special prosecutor from the outset, you would have avoided the whole incident. >> one thing we want to remind a room full of elected officials is a possible solution as well is, change the person who's in the role of prosecutor. you know, let's not forget we are elected officials and elections matter. and who wins matters. so we want to make sure we come up with all of the solutions and we don't overlook the process that has brought all of us to this room. david, you want to say something? >> i do not know the details of what is going on in wisconsin in the last couple of years. there is basically a three-pronged bill, but one has already been passed. the michael bell act. to make a very long story short, that is one place to look, in terms of another way to think

about how it is states can structure these very critical reviews of officer involved shooting. that is one place you guys could take a look. >> i'm going to start with my sister from iowa. any of you can feel free, and i know i keep harping on this. you raised a point to our democratic colleague and democratic-controlled state about getting stuff done. and so, can you kind of talk to us about your suggestions, for those of us who live and work in totally red states, where your ability to decide the outcome of a legislative issue is going to be -- how do we talk to our colleagues who are frankly just dismissive in addressing this whole business of police violence? and what do they tend to do is

revert to the rudy giuliani school of thought and say, it is black on black crime. if you people would stop killing each other, we would all be ok. how do you talk to colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe that view? >> first of all, i totally dismiss that black on black crime crap. and that is because -- i always say to people, crime happens where you live. white on white crime happens where you live. asian people kill asian people or commit crimes against them. the whole black on black crime thing, let's just not say that anymore. because i think that is a way to continue to keep the issue separate from the real issue of the fact that there is some serious issues going on with some police officers across this entire country.

so dismiss that. it is interesting you ask me that question, because i remember when i was my first term, introducing my first bill on racial profiling, and the chairman of that committee was a republican representative. i walked up to him in my little, young, naive way -- he actually walked up to me and said, i'm not going to run your bill. i said to him, why not? he said, "because i don't believe racial profiling exists." and so i sat him down and said to him, here are the reasons why it exists. and i think for the first time in his life somebody explained to him that racial profiling exists. of course, the bill did not go anywhere because him being a former trooper, he honestly didn't think he could get his colleagues to support it.

and so it took me years and years to really work on that person. but to answer your question, how to really work across the aisles and get the other side to at least listen, it is very important. and this is really something for freshmen legislators. just being able to understand a couple of things -- first of all, in this business, no permanent friends, only permanent interests. you have to be patient, you have to understand that. as you said, representative thompson -- it took 20 years, you say? it took five years for that afterschool legislation to codify. things take time. you have to really be able to communicate with people, be open and honest about things.

once you get to know people -- you all know this, those of you who have been around a long time. once they really understand who you are, why you believe in these things, once you have educated them on these issues, it is much easier for people to see the other side. >> i used to work in central los angeles so i'm used to being the only white boy. >> as our designated one -- >> designated white boy? >> just for this question, dave. how can tactical training overcome deeply held fear why police officers who are in some of these shootings have a black

man -- in other words, what can we do about the white police officer to get them to not be afraid of the brothers? >> i think the biggest thing is that most wide police officers, at least the ones i work with, the gentlemen and ladies i know, aren't afraid of black people and don't look at them and say holy mackeral, here comes bad, bad stuff. but there are some officers. it's two-prong, >> you on the force if you're afraid of people you'll be policing just by virtue of their skin color? that's a problem. the next question is how do you overcome it for some who might not be aware of it. i think what it boils down to is you have to have senior officers who get it, white, black, hispanic, whatever, work with these young officers to help them understand that everybody's the same. it's just the skin color is different. consequently i think that's what it boils down to. it goes back to the previous question in terms of cultural sensitivity.

to understand it, there are some differences across cultures, big deal? i must respectfully disagree with representative barry's comment about black on black crime, however. it is very true crime is an intraracial phenomenon. no doubt about that. the problem, however is that black on black crime is remarkably higher than levels of white on white crime, hispanic on hispanic crime. for example, in st. louis, missouri, where i come from, 90% of all the murder victims are black and about 90%-plus of them are killed by other blacks. so we cannot not look at that disproportionate intraracial violence among black communities. so what's going on in st. louis is not that remarkably different from other places. so i think we agree with a lot but respectfully disagree about that point. >> thank you, chief. [applause] >> go ahead, baby. >> and i do need to -- i rather respectfully disagree because

in terms of the disproportionality of it, i disagree with that. but i think again when you label -- how many of you have walked up to you and how many black people kill black people? percentagewise we do kill but the notion that we're the only ones killing, i think that's just not a good assessment of the swailings. so therefore -- [inaudible] >> that's my point when i say hat. >> all i wanted to say is i'm not arguing that white people don't kill white people, that's not true. what i'm saying is disproportionate involvement on black on black crime. let me tell you from a human perspective. when i was a young policeman 30 years ago in south central los angeles, i used to ride in the back of ambulances by young black kids who got shot by other young black kids.

why was i riding in the back of the ambulance? waiting for a dying declaration so i could go into court if this person died and say this person just before they passed told me it was billy bob or whoever it was that shot him. that is no fun. and as a white man, as a designated white boy, as she said, i want to let you know just for that question, i do want to let you know that police officers, when we are trying to save lives with, and we are trying to product people, i'm sure there are racists out there, there are some knuckleheads. but the vast majority of men and women i used to work with and patroling your streets are interested in trying to protect people and we hate having to take that ambulance ride. it really rends our souls. >> at -- chief, you want to say something? >> i want to clear up a couple things.

we have to look at what's going on. we talked about the fear that exists and i have to say, i think it's not as much fear as it is a lack of understanding, you know. we have to push out -- i'm a big believer in the police department should look like your community. it should match your community. what that does is bring in understanding, you know. if i grew up there, i've been there and had people say why folks hang outside the project? because it's hot inside, i grew up in it. because it's hot. that's really the bottom line. ain't no air conditioning in there and cinderblock walls and in the middle of the day it's burning up so you hang outside. it's not a negative, it's a condition. if you've never been there, you don't understand the condition. >> chief, thank you so much. and we're kind of getting -- i can tell we have met our goal of making this conversational

because y'all are being conversational out there now. so we are going to just the question is a comment so i don't want y'all to think i'm picking on the two of you but all of them are like the four of us so they're not real interested in the four of us, or these three. no offense to you all. >> no problem. >> all of them think they have important legislation that is the bomb. this is the question for either of you who want to answer about training in our criminal justice academies and our police academies. can you speak to us as legislators about what we need to be looking for in our academies that are responsible for training our police officers. what are your suggestions about things that we ought to be looking for and how we engage our criminal justice and police training academies. >> without question, sensitivity training. we have to understand what is

going on out there. the number one thing that's hitting the news everywhere is how officers are responding. i'm not going to get into the details on what i believe or what anybody else believes but here's the issue. it's happening. we need to figure out how to stop it. one way to stop it is train our officers in a different way. the doctor mentioned earlier how we respond. definitely. when you pull up two feet in front of somebody who is supposed to be armed, something is wrong tactically with that. good, bad or indifferent. that's probably not the way i would tell any of my officers to respond. the same thing in understanding cultures. we have to understand, i shared earlier where it was a church van pulled over by police and the church van was full of holiness people. so when they started reacting and playing and doing things, the officer was uncomfortable with their response. and he called in more units because he didn't understand folks laying hands on each other.

so these are -- you know, we need to understand, you know, he come from a background where that is unusual. so we have to train our officers where, you notice, if i walk on the scene i may tell a group of young men, y'all got to go home and they respond accordingly, well, you've got to get -- you know, whereas somebody else may come, get off the corner. you create an environment that's going to be some kind of negative reaction and that's where a the lo of our training needs to be surrounded around that sensitivity on how to deal with different communities. >> thank you, chief. dr. clinger, we have questions for you. one thing, i'm sorry, i didn't see you. go ahead, baby. >> i'm just listening. and i want to just again stress the importance of cultural understanding. but i just still don't think that is a reason to want to kill people.

just because you don't understand -- i think a lot of it is also just stereotypes and things ingrained in the fabric f our psyche of this country and there's no excuse. so we just have to deal with that part of it. you know, how darren wilson described he saw a big black -- what did he say? oh, i'm sorry, go ahead. >> there's two points i want to make. number one, i don't know a single police officer who wants to kill anybody. 've done it. i've done it and it's no fun. let me tell you that from personal experience. i've interviewed 300 police officers across the country, black, white, hispanic, male, female. they're not looking to shoot people. i promise you that. now, are there knuckleheads out there and bad cops? i'm not going to argue that

point. let me tell you the vast, vast majority of police officers do not want to pull the trigger. they don't. and part of the evidence for that is how infrequent it happens. i just want to point it out. the second thing is it you spend time talking to police officers who have done the work, i've not talked to the chief about this particular issue, i've been involved in multiple situations where without a doubt, i could have legally pulled the trigger but opted not to at risk to myself and my partners because we value human life. that's the story of most police officers. most police officers are quite restrained. and i bet you the chief can tell you stories of his officers that could have legally shot but held their fire. i think part of this conversation has to include the understanding that the employs are not looking to gun people own. >> thank you so much. we've hit upon something that evokes passion in all of us but i really want to remind the audience that a part of what we

want to do here is give you data so you don't have to do like you just did and that is react emotionally. because when you become emotional in a lot of cases about some of these things, you use your ability to persuade or even allow the person you are talking to to understand the point that you're making. we have time for one more question, and i want to say for the record that representative welch, there was a question about snitching and how, with your legislation -- and i don't want you to answer it, i'm just telling the audience because you know a group of politicians, i don't want you all when we finish up here, you didn't ask my question. i'm just saying what's left on the table, so somebody is going to come up to you and ask you about your snitching legislation and how somebody who does that ought to feel when they see a police officers. there also was a question i didn't get to, any of y'all can

feel like answering which is about psychological testing. and what role that plays and whether we ought to make it a public policy issue as far as psychological testing. but because we want you to have the ability at the end to address your questions to our panelists, we will now move to our closing conversation and representative welch, we're starting with you. this is your chance to make sure that you leave with our audience one point you wanted to make. >> thank you, representative. i want to thank everyone for coming out and hearing us and think it's very important that we remember as the leaders in our respective states that we have to demand that we adequately educate each and every one of our children. we have to demand that every person who has made a mistake in their life is given a second

chance and we have to demand that people who know who have committed crimes, whether it's gang bangers or police officers, that they tell. we have to demand that. and if we demand it, it will all happen and we will decrease violence within our respected communities. >> i guess i would leave everyone just with this, you know, i support police, as i said, i served on public safety for probably 10 years at my political career. but i do believe that if you are -- if you are not protecting and serving, you just don't need to be on the force. we are all here just trying to do what we can to raise our children, make sure they are safe, but be in fear for the

safety of your children every day of their lives, particularly male children. i refuse to live that way. in fact, i'm even afraid for my granddaughter. so i just think we have to make sure we continue to educate, we need to as legislators, you know, have the discussion in our communities policies, critical and all this, make sure the policy is addressing the issue. and you're right, representative hunter, we get emotional and we get emotional about this stuff and we react just like the folks on social media. so i just think it's important to really stay above it as much as we can and make sure we set the example to really, really make our state a better state but don't ignore the fact these things are happening and they need to be addressed.

. thank you. >> you know, i saw that emotional response to that. and i tell you, and i'm staying back so we can have some further conversation about it because i think it's so important, especially you guys, at least have your responses, what we call evidence-based, understand what really exists. because part of why we have thanks that affect us, ancillary laws that affect us is because we don't take the time to look at what happens here and now that affects later on and we have to make sure we focus on that. we have to make sure there is an understanding. and i will tell you and agree with doc here, the vast majority of police officers are not here to hurt people. i've been in this business 30 some years and yes, have i fired off? yes. will he continue? yes.

no police officer wants a bad police officer around him. the issue becomes that guy has information on me and my family that i don't want the bad guys to get ahold of. there are some pieces in there that's part of it because a drug dealer would love to get the information he has on me to have some kind of negative response. that's the vast majority. do we have bad apples? yes. should we get rid of them? yes. should they go to prison when they commit a crime? yes. but we need to have our focus where that is and not do a blanket emotional response on addressing these issues because then what is going to be the long-term alternative and what's going to happen next? who will you get especially people of color to be police officers then. >> i echo what the chief said and want to add the importance of the two things i talked about initially. we need to get officers trained

up because an awful lot of bad incidents where force is used comes not because the officer tends to do something bad but because he or she made a tactical blunder. the other thing you need to know, most of the time, an honest review of what a police officer does when he uses deadly force will show what the officer did is correct. we're talking at one tale of the distribution. we need to not let bad cops do bad things get away with it, without a doubt. the second thing i encourage you to get behind the effort to develop a national database on the use of deadly force by police officers. as the chief has mentioned multiple times, we need evidence based policies and evidence based training and the only way we can get the evidence based policies and training programs up and running is when we have the evidence. we desperately need that and there are many members of law enforcement that want that evidence and we want to move forward and hopefully can count on y'all to be a part of the

support system that will buttress this. i spent eight years in texas nd why i said "y'all." >> i hope that as an organization, that we would continue to stay together on this issue and not let it fall within a few to carry the burden. that we would work towards policies together as a unit so that all americans, including african-americans, would be able to benefit from the full respect and force and protection of the laws of this ountry regardless of race, sexual orientation, ethnicity. >> well, we want to just really on behalf of nbcsl and i'm not the typical politician using that "we" meaning but talking more than me.

i really want to thank you all for being here and i am very much interested in having y'all stay around because there are questions people have, the takeaway we'd like to leave you th from this from the nbcsl, perspective and as dr. clinger and representative thompson said, we are in the south so those of you who are from the west and northeast, you'll have to bear along with us as i put to you in southern speak what we want you to take away from this and quite frankly the bottom line is we'd rather see a sermon than hear one, meaning walk the walk, not just talk. bottom line is this is a very difficult problem. we recognize that and hope you remember, we said we're not trying to provide solutions here today, we're simply trying to get you think about what you

need to do. evidence based, evidence based, evidence based. go back to your states and talk to your police training academies, talk to your social service agencies, talk to your educators in the community. talk to everybody because we want you to connect the dots. final comment from nbcsl, get off your butts and do something when you go back home. thanks very much for being here. [applause] >> thanks, guys. another round, y'all. give the panel another round. >> c-span's q&a is 10 years old. featuring one interview from each year of the series. a conversation with lonnie bunc

h, the director of the smithsonian's museum of african american history and culture. the museum is currently being built on the mall in washington. watch that at south dakota p.m. eastern. here's a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day. atiday festivities start 10:00 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the national christmas tree. followed by the white house christmas decorations with michelle obama. and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. celebrity activists talk about causes. and jeb samuel alito bush on the bill and founding fathers. on c-span2, steven pinker. the feminist side of a superhero, jill lepore and the history of wonder woman.

at 7:00 p.m., others talk about reading habits. the fall of the berlin wall was footage of george bush and bob dole. with speeches from john kennedy and ronald reagan. first ladies' fashion choices. 0:00, tom brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. christmas day on c-span. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. a look at me death penalty in the u.s. criminal justice system. we hear from sister helen prejean and bryan stevenson. here's a preview. shot.emember being

i learned a lot through dead man wlaalking. how the criminal justice system worked. it shocked me profoundly. don you write a book, you research. i learned about police brutality. whe slavery was abolished in the 13th amendment, it was except for those in prison or indentured servants. een abolished completely in this country. racism inmazed at the the supreme court. an extensive study in georgia about how wendy death sentence was given, overwhelmingly it

corresponds. when the victim is white, the death penalty is sought. it ishe victim as black, barely a blip on the radar screen. you are lucky if you could find five lines on page 30. almost always it was formulaic drug deal gone bad. when a white person was killed it was always on the front page. the midwest we started representing children prosecuted as adults. when i talk about the presumption of guilt poor people and people of color are born with, that is a challenge. people born with a presumption of guilt and dangerousness. theyllows them wherever go. we are suffering in new york when we have stop and frisk. we are suffering in ferguson.

we are suffering in states with stand your ground loss. it becomes an opportunity to victimize these people. i was sitting in court for a hearing. i had my suit on. i think it was the suit. i was waiting for the hearing to start. the judge walked out and the prosecutor walked out behind the judge. when the judge saw me sitting at the defense table he said hey, get out, i do not want any without theirhere lawyers. go out and wait in the hall. isaid i am sorry, my name bryan stevenson, i'm actually the lawyer. the judge said, you are the lawyer? he started laughing and the prosecutor started laughing. i made myself start laughing, too. i did not want to disadvantage my client. my client came in, it was a young white kid. [laughter]

we did the hearing but afterwards i was thinking how exhausting it is. these are judges, people who are supposed to be fair and not act on presumptions and biases. it is exhausting to deal with that. for a lot of defense attorneys, courtrooms are not friendly places and they are not comfortable places. all of the rage gets directed at you. for our clients it is even more hostile. we have a criminal justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent. if you stand with poor people you feel the inequality. >> big time. >> our conversation on the death penalty and the u.s. criminal justice system errors at 8:00 eastern on c-span. president obama announced last week a shift in u.s.-cuba relations moving towards normalization. the inter-american

dialogue and the brookings institution hosts a conversation on what led to this and the possible impact. we hear from the chair of the cuba study group, who joins the conversation via videoconference from miami. >> good morning. thank you for joining us this christmas monday. i am michael shifter of the inter-american dialogue. delighted tois collaborate with the brookings institution and its latin american initiative. a're thrilled to have ted, senior fellow for foreign policy at brookings. theother two speakers, chair of the cuba study group and a dialogue member who is

joining us via skype from miami. the dialogue's president emeritus. thanks to all. i went to recognize the dialogue's cochair is with us. valdez ofassador chile. news that was both more surprising and significant for u.s.-latin american relations than last week's announcement by president twoa and castro that the countries have agreed to move towards normalizing relations. i'd like to say i saw this coming but i doubt anyone would believe that. this decision went way beyond anything that had been rumored, which was the release of alan gross in exchange for the three jailed cubans.

the agreement constitutes a fundamental shift in policy approach and mindset for the more than five decades-old embargo. we can expect more communication, march rate, more cooperation on many levels between the two countries. from the dialogue's founding 32 years ago, u.s.-cuba policy has been a core central concern. widely considered a major irritant in u.s.-latin american relationships. we have long called for engagement pathways had tasks force, congressional dinners. in our last policy report in 2012 that coincided with the last summit of the americas in it argued that the cuba issues stood in the way of more productive relations. has this move, the u.s. enhanced credibility, which opens up opportunities on a huge

range of issues. president obama has secured his legacy in mind america. he seems to have legacy are his mind these days. unlike my other colleagues who will be speaking shortly, i'm not a cuba expert. i made my first trip to cuba last week, pretty good timing. i was thrilled to be. there at such a historic moment i was there with ted and other colleagues for a conference on relations. the announcement was received very positively by the cubans i spoke to. some celebrated in the streets. others were more subdued. they said this is a great day but we will wait and see what happens now. there's a sense that the average cuban will be better off moving forward but there is some uncertainty about how long it will take and how things will unfold. my sense is that president castro moved in this direction for mainly pragmatic reasons.

he's been updating the cuban economy, undertaking reform but it has not been going to well. the government has not met its targets for growth and investment. there have been some private businesses but it seems to be still a rather small part of the economy. the situation in venezuela has also been a factor. the country is in a downward spiral. that cuba hasis relied heavily on venezuela's oil subsidy for many years. get figures on seems to be effect profound and of great concern to the cubans. the consequent is for cuba are uncertain but likely positive. we have to look at telecommunications and investments in private businesses in cuba moving forward. in the u.s., taking cuba off the list of states that sponsor

terrorism, likely to happen over the coming months, could be important and have huge applications. the embargo still remains and will likely not change given the politics in washington, d.c. there is still significant opposition, as we heard from the reactions, particularly with republican leaders in the house and senate. the changes in the mood and the environment in u.s.-latin american relations are already being felt. the move has been applauded throughout the region. a -- there's a sense that the next summit in panama in april 2015, we can expect some warm feelings. this is a stunning breakthrough, long-awaited. are all still trying to absorb it and figure out what it means. there are always challenges. if there were not challenges, we would not have any work to do.

there are challenges in washington both legally and politically. given. the divisions and doubts that exist there are challenges in the region of help to take advantage -- of how to take advantage on a range of critical issues. there are challenges in cuba. how to balance the desire to move ahead and open up a society with a system that is in place and has been in place for over half a century, entrenched interests, resistance to change and mistrust. as president obama said in his speech last wednesday, "no es fa cil." let me turn now to the real experts. happened,s why this what it means, what consequences we should expect, and the perception of what the reactions have been here in washington, in miami, and in cuba. give the floor to

ted, who has been directing a wonderful program on cuba. we are delighted to be collaborating with ted and brookings in this event. >> thank you. to be hit.nor for me i am thankful especially to michael and the inter-american dialogue for pulling this together so quickly. brookings-latin america has been working on cuba for the last 5-7 years intensively. i want to make note of vicki, former head of the u.s. interest brookings she came to and along with carlos formed a working group on the cuba issue. she put forward a roadmap for what the new president in 2008 move009 could do to towards a new policy of critical but constructive engagement with cuba.

we have taken up the mantle, myself and other colleagues, to look moreerg, deeply at what was happening on the island. in particular on the economy. richard new farmer and others formed a working group with cuba n economists who took 1.5 years to meear -- 2 years regularly. we can get into economic changes. we thought it was important of getting some ground truths of what was happening on the island. i want to take a moment to appreciate what just happened. it was stunning. as michael said. even among the optimists, it was more than we had hoped for. it shows something about presidential leadership on both sides. particularly president obama. for taking the steps he took in a bold way. this conference

together at the ministry of foreign relations' diplomatic academy. you had a group of 100 people, maybe 20 americans, the rest were cuban specialists, focusing on the prospect for u.s.-cuba relations. there were pessimists and optimists but none of us quite got it right. it was head snapping what happened on december 17. it had a drama to it that was important. . simultaneous presidential announcements. in cuba we sat together watching raul castro's statement. they were able to take president obama -- they were able to tape president obama following that. that was a symbolic -- that was a symbolic recognition of something that is important to the cuban mindset, respect. they are not jus an island that

is sovereign to us. recognition.r own at the same time, planes in the spies, but here is for some, that was particularly important. as we have heard, the spice what was part ofpy swap the unlocking of the riddle. we received an intelligence agent back in return for three have beenan 5 who here for 16 years in prison. and then as a humanitarian gesture the return of alan gross on the beginning of hanukkah. which is symbolically very important to the jewish community. not only to the jewish community. december 17 is the saint lazarus

catholic,mportant in saint lazaro is the saint of the hopeless, the poor, lepers. many in the audience immediately exclaimed it is the miracle of saint lazaro. afro-cuban tradition. president obama admitted failure. it is hard for a president to admit failure. the embargo has failed to achieve the aims we set out. those names changed over time. the original set of rules i mposed in 191 were a different

historical context. the cold war, the soviet union, fomenting of armed forces. over time, the rationale kept getting withered away until you got to regime change. tobecame difficult for us promote what is a commonly held bipartisan goal for the future of cuba. we want to see a prosperous, democratic cuba. how do we support the cuban people getting their? do has failed and we should try to do something else. i think it marks the beginning of the end of 5 decades of hostility between these two neighbors. yes, we had distinct systems of governance. it is going to take some time

for changes to happen in cuba . i think it is the end of the cold war as we understand it. coldully the talk of a new war between washington and moscow will receive a-- will recede a bit. u.s.-latint of american relations. we've seen latin american to bes wanting cuba integrated into the inter-american family. thatd mean a decision cuba would be coming to the summit not as a democracy, which is a standing rule. something that we ought to acknowledge and that needs to be addressed over time. it recognize is something else about u.s. policy, a conference

of punitive set sanctions that affects a whole population is not the way to go. turn its leaders to into a david versus goliath scenario, which has not worked. target a series of inctions, as we saw venezuela. that is interesting timing. whether this was a bound to throw to hard-liners. there is real concern in cuba and has been for the last several years, writing on the wall, we can't keep dependent on venezuela. diversifying relations to include the u.s. is critical for their economic future. they have come to realize that. it also underscores that democratic change cannot be imposed by external coercion.

it requires indigenous citizen movements who are willing to take the difficult steps to demand it themselves. in terms of our own politics, i think it is the end of the stranglehold of the minority faction of cuban american hard-liners on an issue that affects all americans, not just the cuban american community. flake from arizona and others have made a point, americans should not be restricted to travel. we are allowed to go to other difficult countries, including north korea. we should be allowed to visit cuba. it restores a sense of hope in the u.s. and cuba that change will continue as it must. cuba is a place that is in great

need of change. i think this is the beginning of the end for them. the beginning of the end of a long nightmare. this is sensed in the streets, there's a sense of hope that their lives will get better. i can keep going for a long time. i can pause there. we can get into the different factors that led to this. i'll pass it down. >> thank you very much. [applause] turn to carlos. is one of the most informed and influential cuban americans. he joins us from miami. >> good morning, can you hear me? >> yes. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for inviting me. the wallwas a fly on

when you were in cuba. what't wait to hear transpired. i'd like to mention that i'm so pleased to have collaborated with the inter-american dialogue, brookings, the andulate of the americas other organizations. this reflects a lot of the hard .ork that has gone into it it has been a lot of effort. sees really rewarding to that work begin to pay off in a wonderful way for the cuban people. for us in the cuban study group, that it wasdecided not strategically relevant to be obsessed with the regime. that we needed to focus on the cuban people and their welfare. this goes a long way to helping the cuban people.

michael, you asked me to talk about three things. first, what accounts for the change. on the cuban side, i think it accounts, like you and ted have said, it accounts an increasing awareness that their pace of economic change is not producing results. and that more and more substantive reforms are going to be needed to really turn things around. it also accounts, i agree that what happened to oil prices and to some degree the acts of saudi arabia have had a significant impact in putting the last nail in the coffin on expectations of venezuela. in continuing to bailout the cuban economy. that should not be understated. it's a significant factor in

terms of accounting for this. the next factor is the diminishing value, the diminishing return of keeping alan gross in cuban jail. the worst-case scenario for cuba would have been to have alan gross die in cuban jail. it has been several years and not some point they realized if there was going to be any value to this, this is as good a time to use that card now as opposed to later. last but not least is the willingness of the u.s., the president, to offer cuba an elegant solution. those of us who are cuban understand how cubans think and how important it is for elegance in order to accept change. structured, was thanks in great part to the office, this was structured in an incredibly elegant way and

became acceptable to the cuban leadership. on the u.s. side, this is clearly an opportunity for president obama to leave a legacy. it is a very historic, unprecedented thing that happened on the 17. there was also brought support, building strongly from the cuban american community of -- over the years for this to happen. being bold on cuba and doing the right thing on cuba was no longer the third rail of american politics. by the that was born out reaction in miami after the reaction. he same day of the announcement there was hardly a street.of people on 8th

several organizations called for demonstration. 250 people. this shows that things are changing. i think the facts right now have borne out that miami has changed. many info and shall cuban americans have been coming out of the closet -- many influential cuban americans have been coming out of the closet on the cuba issue. they've been telling the white house that they welcome the opportunity to change the dynamic and to break down this frozen state of the relationship where it was easy and comfortable to do nothing on both sides of the equation. a brilliantas also

strategic move on behalf of the president. for 3 fundamental reasons. number one, being able to turn single-handedly what was a completely unilateral approach to cuba. the u.s. was alone. even this past year at the u.n., oflost the important ally palau. anhas turned that into putting the things that matter on the table. on ancuss with cuba ongoing basis, suspiciously -- specifically human rights democracy in the things that we value. it was smart in terms of the impact it has on resetting the

narrative in terms of latin american relations. there was an awful lot of pressure from latin america and europe to make this happen. i think the president has turned that around. now we have joined the latin american fold in developing a more common ground on cuba. it is going to make it easier to dialogue about the things that matter in that relationship. last but not least i think it was brilliant because he has venezuela.unded they have lost their fave bogeyman and have to face realities in their own country and change things that need to be changed. has beenion of cubans

positive. domestically, i putting aside the few republicans. even within the republican party there has been a lot of support. others marco rubio and have really hurt themselves more than they have helped themselves on this issue. to the point where marco rubio is getting close to looking very unpresidential on this issue. think that reaction -- and in the cuban-american community i think the reaction has been very positive. certainly in the business community has been overwhelmingly positive and well-received. thehe community as a whole, community is split between the older and younger generation. but clearly the future belongs to the younger people. there the president has overwhelming support for the

steps he has taken. the reaction in cuba, as you probably saw, was elation. hope has been flowing back to cuba. hope has been restored. hope is the driver of change. when people are hopeless it is hard to make change. it is hard to move. people look for immigration as the only way out. hearing from younger people who might have been thinking of emigrating to the u.s. or other countries, they are thinking maybe i have got to rethink this. maybe this is not the time to do that. there is a renewed sense of hope. how important here has been the civil society community has been aligning with this. or miss aligning with this. reaction ofuge the the human people and you see who some of the dissidents were more into the with miami,

you see a disconnect. are asking the u.s. government to do something hugely unpopular. telling.ery i think it will have major consequent is for civil society. i think theuences, embargo has been mortally wounded. it is still there but it has mortally wounded. is worst mistake we can make how the changes but leave the embargo and place. we are still leaving behind the bogeyman of aggression from the ths. without a lot of tee attached to it. that would be a huge mistake. one of the things i think is going to happen, although the embargo has not been lifted,

this is going to provide a lift to foreign investors all over the world. look at cuba and see what is happening in cuba. it is going to trigger interest and hope that in the future cuba s so, it's going to mean american business people -- the this a more serious way. last but not least i think the fundamental consequence here is the more normal we treat cuba the more difficult it is for cuba to behave exceptionally. i think this puts the highlight and throws the limelight on cuba's continuing exceptional behavior.

it's going to put a lot of pressure on cuba to behave like a normal country. that i think has been an important achievement of these. then there's an opportunity for dialogue. i think this is the best opportunity that has ever come along for cuba civil society. we no longer have the crutch of using the u.s. as a proxy to solve our problems, yet we know we have a government that continues to have a very exclusive policy. a government on exclusion of major segments of society. this government knows and the world knows that they need to move towards more inclusion. and this puts pressure on cuban americans and cuban civil society to reinvent themselves, to reposition themselves. it's a fantastic new marketing opportunity to post a new dialogue, to reset the narrative and to really press the

government to do what he has done with the united states, to do it with something, to dialogue different people to look for unifying solutions for the future. t the way the change puts it on dialogue and continues engagement among cubans themselves. so some see it at the end of the world. i think those that will be smart enough it will be the most wonderful opportunity to reimagine themselves in a new way, a new light, that would be a boost to cuba civil society in a very significant way. that's the conclusion of my remarks and i think it's been a wonderful session, thank you. >> thank you very much carlos, that was terrific. i'm sure there will be lots of questions for you, please stay with us, but that was wonderful. why don't we turn to peter to

make some final comments before we open it up. >> thank you, thank you very much michael. a lot has been said already and i know there's a lot of questions out there. let me just cover a couple of very specific things. one, michael raised the point that the dialogue has been engaged in work on cuba for quite a while now. and i just wanted to recall one particular activity that we under took was back in 1995 when we brought a delegation of americans and latin americans to cuba together. this was a group that was cheered by elliott richardson, the former attorney general of the united states, very prominent statesman as well, and by someone else who has finished his term of president of costa

nobel had won the prize. i remember talking to a group of staff in the smaller conference room that we had then and telling people what a great success this trip had been, the press conferences that we had in washington and miami. the number of people we talked to in cuba, we met will almost everybody in cuba except for the come dant, i can't tell youly we didn't meet with him. then we had dinners in congress with 25 congressmen and senators. and i was explaining well this staff. hen a new staff member was sitting next to me and she pulled my suit and she said but peter i thought the interim

american dialogue its purpose was to change policy. and i don't see any policy changes on the horizon. and i went through a long explanation of why this was going to be the case and i've been explaining it now for 20 years, and finally we do have a policy change, and i like to think that we had at least a small contribution to it along with brookings and others that have been working on it. but my basic response was that in a chess game you don't kill the king, or you don't try to kill the king on every move. you sort of have to work toward that end. in any event, let me just say the most important thing that has not gotten enough attention in the first round was that i think that we really now have a situation where it's up to the cubans, and particularly the cuban leadership, that the

united states have gone pretty far as you've heard everyone speak now, and the changes, if they take place with an increased sort of opening from the united states even, and certainly policy changes in cuba are going to depend on decisions made in havana and nowhere else. those changes have to be made and we can watch the slow pace of economic reform in cuba and the slow pace of political reform up to now in cuba. and frankly i was a bit disheartened after hearing obama's speech with it's call r change and its admission over failure and its readiness to move forward and the speech of ruhl cass ro that gave a very

different impression. what was not going to be changed, what was a great success. that has been repeated in other places by ruhl castro. i think others have to be cautious because unless there's change at that level there's not going to be much of the onsequences i think, carlos. i'm very hopeful, i think the fact that cuban government agreed to what they agreed to is certainly good news and may be a first step, and with journey of thousand miles starts with a and ut the journey of -- like i say, i think the u.s. policy in this area is now going to depend very, very much on what happens in cuba, the extent to which the cubans open up and

make it a lot easier for the u.s. government to move forward. if the cubans regress, if there's any retro gregs it's going to be very, very hard. the opponents of an opening will then i think emerge, and that should be a source of concern. let me just say one other thing then i'll turn it over for questions. one is i think as carlos particularly emphasized, and michael and ted to some degree that u.s. credibility in latin america has risen substantially. and that i do think with what i just said before about the important changes coming from havana and the leadership that for the first time we may, as carlos suggested, have some allies on cuba. i think that the u.s. policy

toward cuba may have partially failed because it was the wrong policy. but it also failed because we were working without partners or allies. in latin america or elsewhere in the world. nobody really wanted to be associated with the u.s. policy. and any kind of international pressure was sort of undercut by this trying to do it but ourselves. and the fact is we now can, perhaps not immediately, but overtime begin to gain allies in this, i think it's important. and just one more point, what i find interesting in this as bell is that this was an initiative by the president without congressional support. he's also taken action on the two other issues that the dialogues last reports said were major irritants in the u.s. latin america relationship and

created more and more distance between the u.s. and latin america on drug policy, and on immigration policy. these also have been initiatives done only by the president. there's been no congressional action on either of these and i think it's just an interesting case where president who before the cuba initiative this was not really recognized that he was operating on his own. now it becomes clearer that that must admit and i i'm watching all the pundits change their view on president obama. suddenly he's one of the most creative individuals in international affairs because of the cuba and i think a lot of us that work on latin america suddenly see him in a new light as well. in any event, i'm going to turn it over to all of you and to

michael to. >> thank you, thanks peter. before starting i want to recognize colleagues from the cuban interest section who has joined us here, perhaps soon to be the cuban embassy. and havana, they're looking for a flag pole so they can raise the american flag, which i think would be the next step maybe in this process. i only ask you to please just identify yourself and be brief. you can make a comment or a question, we want to get as much from all of you as we can. why don't we start with steve and we'll collect a few. >> morning, and thank you very much. i guess my questions is for carlos, but others too, how can be that the rubio and other folks got so far out ahead of their own, both in the cuban america community and in the business community.

is there a way for them to walk that back, are they going to be isolated and will it take an election to put them back in check? >> thank you. lorenzo, carlos, we'll go back to you but take a few more questions. >> [inaudible] those stion is now for

that work in latin america and support dialogue, we have this opportunity with the political opening and i'm very happy that president obama took this position. in we do have responsibility cuba for promotional human rights and political freedom. the question we have in the united states tried to do that with the society. with the clear understanding that president castro's regime are not really interested in those changes. >> thank you. why don't we go in the back there. >> [inaudible] you said the cuban government

was not interested in going as far as restoring diplomatic relationships. what evidence do you have of that? it seems to me there is another way to see it. the federation of the situation n venezuela -- [inaudible] promoting negotiations and constructed solution there, pushing only cuba to the next decision. >> thank you. let me go to carlos and maybe you can respond and then we'll have lots of time for other questions, but there seems to be a few questions directed to you. >> thank you michael. one of the behavior, we have to

understand three things, number one they have built their careers on this issue. i am not belittling their emotional, how emotional they are about it, they're invested in this position. quite frankly one part of the deal which was the release of the three remaining five, that carries some additional emotional baggage and pain in the community that needs to be respected and understood. however i have said many times in this community while there is a lot of pain that we cannot allow ourselves to have a mare tockry si of pain and clearly that's a very important issue here. we need to move forward. i was really surprised by the extreme of marko rubio's reaction. to say that it's even 99% of the

population here wants a different policy, last time i heard somebody say that was fidel castro in the early stages of a revolution. so that just doesn't make any sense of me. part of it is the fact they were not informed ahead of time. feelings are hurt, their pride gets hurt, and you know, i think you need to understand that reaction. i think cooler heads will begin to prevail, or at least i hope that they do. weondly, concerning what can do, clearly this is an opportunity for society. 80% putting aside a change of prisoners and putting aside the diplomatic relations, the rest of the entire basket of obama's measures are measures that are intended and geared to helping civil society.

you signed what later became the letter 44, that included a significant number of those recommendations. they were all intended to help civil society take a larger role in cuba's life. not because we believe civil society is going to bring down a regime, but because we believe cuba needs to have a thriving civil society. and that overtime a thriving civil society is democracy's best life insurance policy. and last to respond to the question relative to my, i said it very clearly i had not heard this from any source, but clearly i have reason to believe that that is exactly what happened, that there was esistance on the cuban part.

>> i want to take this question about the economic changes and civil society together, and look at it in the following way. first, cuba has been going through some process of change, it's certainly modest, not as dramatic as we would like but it does create some interesting openings, particularly in the microeconomy. you see the opening of new private businesses, people can use their homes to rent out rooms, that's now beginning to take off. you have restaurants, et cetera. this is one category of economic activity that could overtime create a class of people who are invested in more change and more opening, and less roll in the state of economy and give people some from the state. and this is something we should be encouraging, not blocking. i think it's important for the president to outline a series of steps that the administration can take to get us out of the

way, get our narrative of embargo out of the way and get it about empowering cuban people. one way to empower them is through the economic changes. on the macro side, there's a much bigger problem that cuba faces and its the currency reform. there's a dual current si system that completely distorts. they know they need to address it, it's going to be a very difficult step for them and create winners and losers. the losers are in particular the poorest in this society. some of them do get by through this other smaller economic activity, but many of them do not. the government is very concerned about how to protect those people who are, in many senses the goals of the revolution that everyone be equal and benefit from health and free education, et cetera. those major goals of the revolution are being threatened right now.

you're already seeing a deterioration in the quality of health care and education. they need to send more and more teachers abroad to earn currency. this is fraying the system they have there. so they need some way of unifying those currencies and it's going to show all the inefficiencies of all the different major enterprises. the community that has been looking to the united states to save them, the dissidents were very upset with this decision, they're going to need to refashion themselves and they're going to need to adjust. there is in cuba a much broader sense of civil society and there is great debate within that community, including within the government, including within the party. you're going to see greater freg men tation and greater debate

happening even within the confines of the party. that's a good thing, that's the seeds of change, and that's what i'm hopeful for. >> it's going to sound strange but maybe the u.s. should give an opportunity for other countries, and the cubans themselves to move forward. to move too quickly, to begin to provide large amounts of support to cuba is going to sort of create, the cuban leadership has shown totally over and over again they want to maintain control. control is the central part and central problem of reform process. i think they want reform but they don't want to let the reforms over and i think to the extent that other latin american countries, whether mexico, brazil, who have lots of people who have no cuba well, who travel regularly to cuba, have a much more normal relationship to take more of the leadership

might be more effective than trying to sort of think what are the next steps for the u.s.? what is u.s. do. what does the u.s. state department do? what does lot din america do? what does spain and the rest of europe do? we have to step back a little and let that evolve and progress. > thank you. >> political officer at the u.s. intersection of havana 197, 19 0, 35 years ago. i'm getting older and so is fidel and ruhl so i want to take your ideas of this wonderful panel about models for transition, who does this, how fast do you go? it's the cuban's reresponsibility. it's the international

community's responsibility. i watched leaders down there when i've been down there the st 10 or 15 years acting nastier and tougher than old ruhl. are they showing off for their bosses or are there a new jen -- new generation of leaders that will move this process along. this hope that was mentioned by carlos. > thank you. >> mine is really an economic question. if the embargo is not lifted for let's say a year, what is the line, what can the u.s. do in the way of economic help that will help the smaller enterprises. in other words, someone at the state department said it is not open season for american business down there. where's the line, what's going to be permitted other than being able to send more money but in the way of investment and encouraging these entrepreneural businesses? > thank you.

>> carlos, you mentioned that there was a role that europe played in bringing pressure on this and i'm curious how much, especially as europe's role has changed for the last year they're starting to rethey their policy against cuba. how much pressure did that bring? and we talked about moving an irritant from latin america and u.s. policy, what will it do for u.s. and europe? >> great, why don't we go in the back and get ken frankle, a canadian and ven swale yan perspective, ken and then sonia. >> one of the issues is the resolution of the u.s. outstanding property claims in cuba. what steps have been taken, et cetera, et cetera, to think about how that's going to happen in order to move along this

change? >> is venezuela going to be the new cuba in the u.s. foreign policy? >> ok, why don't we go, we'll do the same order again, start with carlos and go to ted and peter responding. carlos? yes, i think we need to understand, i think the cuban leadership understands and knows this. development ow it, is like lecktressity, just because you have electricity at the outlet, unless you have the right connection you're not doing to get any benefit from it. the fact that the world opensup to cuba economically, i mean the rest of the world has been open to cuba economically except the u.s. so the fact that it does open to

cuba means absolutely nothing unless cuba implements the right kind of reform they need in rder to meet that challenge. so at some point the cuban government has to stop fooling around the edges here and come back and make significant reforms. i have also said and i said it during my last trip to cuba that it is ok for the cuban government to decide there are sectors of the economy that they want to keep in a state control. what they need to do rather than reform every sector of the economy a little bit is to take those sectors of the economy that they want to completely turn over to the private sector and open them up. that's the only thing that will

work. reforms at the margin of every economic sector are simply not going to work. i don't know what more evidence they're going to need to come to this conclusion but it is to me incredibly obvious. the embargo however, this is where i come back to my point on the embargo, the embargo remains because in a cuba, assuming ruhl castro and the government want to implement the reform, the embargo continues to be the biggest obstacle to economic reforms. in my opinion cuba cannot make the necessary reforms without access to the sbens national financial institutions. until that changes, it's going to be very hard for the cuban government, no matter how much they may want to do this, to implement these necessary reforms. this is why it is important to

deal with this issue, we cannot just leave the embargo na place, although i agree with peter that the key to future changes is the government. they've made some significant economic reform within the scope of things they can do, particularly a very open, friendly and welcoming foreign investment. this will put enormous pressure on the u.s. to get rid of what remains of what i call the egg shell of the embargo and finally get rid of the whole thing and open the door to more economic ctivity. the cuban people need to see a vision from their government as to what is the pass for change. people are always willing to make great sacrifice, even if it takes another five years of sacrifice but nigh need to see the end game. they need to understand where this is going and how we're going to get there.

this is a challenge both for the cuban government and their position. if the government fails to present this vision, then the challenge is on the opposition to do so. but this and the road map are clear to know where we're going and how to get there. and last but not least on europe's role, i think once the european union decided to change their policy and to begin a policy of engagement, then what happened in latin america as it relates to the summit where there was consistent pressure to say we're going to have the summit with cuba, i think all of this combined to place enormous pressure on the united states, and clearly to understand that we cannot continue to be alone on the front of international religses. >> so to take margaret's question, i think if you look at the president's statement and the fact sheet that company it,

you'll see that the president did everything he possibly could under executive authority to directly support the self employment sector and its in forms of trade and commerce, but specifically for that community. and for small farmers. the big they have got to address that. they are importing 60 to 70% of its two demands, and it cannot continue that. that huge opportunity to develop that in their own country. because of the distortions in the economy, they are unable to do that. it is important to watchwhat next few months.