enough to support the district court's finding. there is no clear error here. the two global applies. -- court rule applies. justice roberts: >> unusual in this court, and you have been listening rather than talking. we are happy to give you an extra five and it. hopefully we will have a chance to hear what you have to say. >> i appreciate that. i will told you about the 1st source, the material safety data sheet. nothing in the reply brief. a study about rats. we read that study. no mention of the ceiling effect. no responsible reply brief. that is the evidence they put before the district court on what they said clearly demonstrates that there is a ceiling effect. after the fact, at the court of appeals their experts submitted , an additional declaration.

they cited two more sources. they took five dogs, give them big and clamps their talesils. they said that the effect of the drug slows that a certain time and concluded there may be a ceiling effect because they slowed. but the study concluded if you take the results and extrapolate out once you get to 30 grams per kilogram you have achieved full surgical anesthesia. there are other experts, the the article for the proposition said that there is a ceiling effect. then it goes on to say this drug has been used for general anesthesia the sole drug. it has been discontinued because bro for whole can along it was the better choice. -- propofol came along it was

the better choice. when they stand up and say they clearly demonstrated that there was in fact a ceiling effect they are just wrong. he claims that the study showed that .3 milligrams per kilogram were in effect. we read the study. .3 milligrams per kilogram were never given to the patients. about what happens if you have .1 milligram per kilogram of varying doses were given. we pointed that out. nothing in the reply. their evidence is indefensible. you go and read the sources and they just don't say what he said they say. paradoxical effects have fallen out of the case. we have pointed out it is only relevant if someone is not unconscious. they just can't avoid the fact the district court made this

factual finding and said it is a virtual certainty. they cannot establish a substantial probability. thank you. >> ms. conrad, why don't you take eight minutes? >> justice kagan, i want to address your hypothetical, in this case, if the risk from using the land if petitioners of -- the drug, if petitioners are correct. it will manifest itself in unconstitutional pain and suffering. my friend admitted that. if, in fact, a person is burned alive and did not have appropriate anesthesia it would be unconstitutional. >> my question was if the person was burned alive and we did not know if they had appropriate anesthesia, would that be unconstitutional? >> it would be.

the district court below found that there is a greater risk of using the drug but found it was unquantifiable. if that risk manifests itself there will be a constitutionally intolerable execution. the drug formula issue was using sodium benzo. >> if they rendered version and completely unconscious and then burned alive, would that be cruel and unusual? >> i think the problem is not rendering someone unconscious. the problem is is it necessary to ensure the person maintains a defense question -- the anesthesia level. >> it is not whether or not they

feel no pain at all -- >> being burned alive from the inside. >> that is exactly what it is, justice kagan. >> you think there are certain phases in which burning someone at the stake would be consistent with the 8th amendment? you are not certain about that? >> the founder say burning at the stake is unconstitutional. adrian in a amendment violation. in your hypothetical if there was a way to ensure that was dive in a humane way, i do not think that any state would go to try to do that because we -- >> you think there are circumstances that burning alive or not be a violation of the eighth amendment? >> potassium chloride is burning somebody alive. it is just turning it through the use of a drug.

>> which is what we have here. and what we found here is that there is a risk. everest that they cannot quantify. that risk violates the eighth amendment. with this court needs to understand is that the barbiturate punctuations differently -- functions differently. in bays and lambert again there was the use of a barbiturate known to produce a deep coma -like unconsciousness. the reason that is important, it does not matter that they don't have analgesic properties because we know that science and medicine and tells us that they will reliably induce a deep c oma-like unconsciousness. the cited study in exhibit two shows the emacs curve explained

his testimony. the state expert has no explanation for support for the testimony that he presented when he testified. he did not have data to cite. he was incorrect. he made a mathematical error . what this court needs to understand is that giving the drug, even if it could cause a toxic effect, it will not protect against the unconstitutional pain and suffering from the second and third drug. >> thank you council. >> president obama signing a number of trade bills today including fast-track trade authority as well as the assistance for workers who lose their jobs because of trade agreements with other countries. the trade promotion authority measure paves the way for the president to complete and 11 countries deal with civic incomes and a president will

sign the bill giving him fast-track power to negotiate that. the transpacific partnership as well as a bill for a two workers or markets who lose their jobs due to foreign competition. the house and senate both passing measures last week. the trade package was a big win for president obama as well as congressional republicans. we will sit and watch as the event gets underway here at the white house. while we are waiting for the president to come and speak and sign the trade agreement bills we will take a look at a conversation we had on washington journal this morning very the supreme court ruling to uphold subsidies for those who

buy insurance on the federal health care exchange. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [laughter]

[applause] president obama: thank you. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. everyone, please have a seat. thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much. hey! thank you. thank you guys, good work. thank you very much. please, have a seat. thank you. welcome to the white house. i thought we would start off the week with something we should do more often, a truly bipartisan bill signing. [applause] president obama: 46 and a half years we have worked to rescue the economy from the worst financial crisis since the great depression. get it going again, to rebuild

it on a new foundation for prosperity. today our businesses have created more than 12 million new jobs in the past five years. that is the longest streak of rob jovan record -- job growth on record. the housing market is stronger and more than 60 million americans have gained the financial security of health insurance rate. [applause] president obama: when a constantly changing economy demands are constant effort to protect hard-working americans and protect their success. one of the things we have to be doing is rewriting the rules of global trade to make sure that they benefit american workers and american businesses and that they reflect american values, especially now while our economy is a position of global strength. the two bills i will sign today will help americans do just

that. the first will help us pass new 21st century trade agreements with higher standards and tougher protections than those we have signed before. the transpacific partnership for example includes strong protections for workers and the environment, and unlike previous agreements those provisions largely be enforceable and that is good for american businesses and american workers because we already meet high standards -- higher standards than most of the rest of the world. we must make most everyone catches up. the second bill offers even more support for american workers and it renews and expands the trade adjustment assistance program which provides job training and other assistance to tens of thousands of american workers every year. this is new to install the american steel workers and others in critical industries fight against unfair practices by other countries. andit also reauthorizes

the african growth and opportunity act. that has strong bipartisan support for many years, and that helps open up markets in africa to american businesses while making it easier for african businesses to sell their products in america. we are extending a similar program to haiti and renewing support for other development -- developing economies through the generalized system of preferences. i think is fair to say, getting these bills through congress has not been easy. [laughter] president obama: they have been declared dead more than once, they have inspired long and passionate debate, and that is entirely appropriate before our democracy. that is how this country is supposed to work. we are supposed to make sure that we air our differences, and then ultimately congress works its will, especially on issues that inspire strongly held feelings on all sides.

but i would not be doing this and i would not be signing these bills if i was not absolutely convinced that these pieces of legislation are ultimately good for american workers. i would be signing them if i was not convinced they will be good for american business. noel be signing them if i did not know that they will give us a competitive edge in this new economy. and that new economy cannot be reversed. we have to be embracing it. this legislation will help turn global trade which can often be a race to the bottom into the race to the top. it will reinforce america's leadership role in asia, europe, and beyond. if i do not believe it, i would not have fought so hard to get these things done. this is a good day. i want to thank everybody who has helped us get to the statement with small business owners here, environmental and global groups.

applicants who are part of this campaign. we both numbers numbers of congress both republican and democrat who came together to make this happen. i would you name just a few. congress is in recess, but it is important to acknowledge speaker john boehner, leader mitch mcconnell, congressman paul ryan and pat tiberi, and thanks to all of the senators and representatives to the tough votes and incurs the colleagues to do the same. this is a true bipartisan effort. it is a reminder of what we can get done on the toughest issues when we work in a spirit of compromise. i hope we were cannot same spirit on future challenges like starting to rebuild some of our's roads and bridges infrastructure around the country. [applause] president obama: the american people deserve nothing less from us.

let me just make one more comment. the trade authorization that is provided here is not the actual trade agreement. we still have some tough negotiation that is going to be taking place. there has always been concerne that people want transparency in those agreements. under this authorization of those agreements will be posted on the website for a long span of time for people to scrutinize and take a look at. the debate on a particular provision of trade will not end with this bill signing. but i'm very confident that we will be able to say at the end of the day that the trade agreements that come under this authorization are going to improve the system of trade that we have right now. and that is a good thing. it is also important to note that trade is just one part of a broader agenda of middle class economics. we still have more work to do on infrastructure which allow more work to do on job training, we

still have more work to do on research and development. we still have more work to do to make sure that folks are getting good wages for hard work. we have too many communities that are left behind around the country. without more work to do to support our small businesses that are extraordinary job creators. this is not the end of the road. this is just one step at a long path to making of the next generation enjoys extraordinaire prosperity that their parents and grandparents passed on to us. although there will be extremist between the parties on particular elements, i think what we can agree on is that in this country if you work hard, you should be able to get ahead no matter where you come from, or what you look like. or who you love. [laughter] with that, let me sign a piece of legislation. [applause]

president obama: this may take a while. [laughter] president obama: there we go.

that is one. [applause] president obama: i feel like somebody else should do this. [laughter] >> no thank you. [laughter] i do like signing bills, though. [laughter] [applause]

president obama: all right those of you who work for me get back to work. [laughter] thank you very much everybody. [applause] ♪

♪

>> today a lotis the last day of the supreme court term. justices say the epa failed to take cost into account. the court upheld the use of the controversial drug in executions. they think it is highly likely of the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. the decision came 5-4. also upholding the use of independent commission instead of legislature in drawing state lines.

give your the oral arguments in the case that were decided today. we will have those at 6:25 p.m. eastern time. the challenge to the use of lethal injection and the question of state redistricting all c-span. tomorrow, chris christie expected to get into the presidential race making his announcement from livingston in northern new jersey 11:00 a.m. eastern. we will take you there live on c-span. >> the summer teaching will cover books from around the country. in the middle of july we are live at the harlem book fair combinations like ship african-american literary event with author reviews and d panel discussions. as a few of the discussions on book tv.

>> next a discussion about the pros and cons of police wearing body timers. -- cameras. it is about one hour 25 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome. i am the director and counsel of the office and i am so pleased to see you all your afternoon for what i'm sure will be a robust, and a very important discussion on candid camera's. the impact of adding cameras on privacy, law enforcement and

community policing. we are at an extremely important moment at this time in our country. the intersection of law enforcement, race, politics, constitutional rights, and we know it is an export moment for those of us in the antecedent community to be thought leaders on these issues. we are delighted to using this conversation today. this was the brainchild of my colleague who was one of the panelists. she is part of our liberty and national security program here at the center. if you're not familiar with what we do, we are a national legal advocacy think tank organization. i know that is a mouthful. we like to do what we call fix the broken parts of our system of democracy and justice. we work on issues as far ranging as the liberty issues and involving policing of privacy,

civil liberties and civil rights as well as voting rights, money and politics and issues of justice with respect to our criminal justice system. we use those tools of advocacy to try to fix this broken systems and democracy and justice. as part of the work we host conversations like this where we try to engage new interested individuals and stakeholders who can be a part of our efforts to make reform and to basically problem solve. thank you for being with us this afternoon. i am going to introduce our moderator for today's discussion and then she will take it away and begin the conversation with our panelist. we will be joined today, and we are happy to be join today by 10 zeno vega -- tanzina vega. prior to beginning her work at

cnn she was a staff reporter for the new york times where she covered advertising for the business section, race and ethnicity for the national section and the new york city court for the metro section. she was also a web producer for the times and joined as a news clerk and a stringer. she began her career on a trade publisher where she was a research editor and helped pioneer their first podcast. one thing that i particularly impressed with his they included her in their journalists of color to watch in 2014. they also included in their 20 top latinos in america. >> thank you to everyone for being here.

before we introduce the panel, i just got back from camden new jersey, which used to be one of the most dangerous cities in america. an addition to the cameras and license plate readers and , crime rates have been drastically reduce the a combination of technology and old-school policing. but camden is not alone. we live in a world of video everywhere. from youtube to cell phones, and the power to create media is now in hand of citizens. if you have the names of the victims of police brutality that may have otherwise gone unnoticed had not been for someone recording or snapping a photo on their cell phone. many police department's around the country are realizing that they too want to record video to increase strength and nancy respond to calls for

accountability and to protect themselves. the solutions are not that simple and today's panel will help us to impact some of the complexities involved in implementing this emerging technology. i would like to introduce our panel. j stanley is a senior analyst at aclu. we have the president of the police foundation. we also andrea, from the council of streetwise and safe. and with the senior counsel at the brennan center for justice. thank you for all being here today. to start off i think it helps to talk a little bit about the scope of body cameras and the penetration of body cameras. does anyone have a sense for how many body cameras are out there? the percentage? this is something we hear a call for consistently, but it is hard to give a scope to some of our listeners and readers today. where are we with that?

>> well, the last survey that i saw which may be about a year or so old suggested that 25% of the 17,000 or so police departments in the united states, about 25% of them were looking at or have somebody cameras, and then 80% were considering adopting that but we know that the uptake of this technology has been happening very quickly, and i would not be surprised in 10 or 15 or 20 years it becomes a standard piece of equipment on every uniformed police officer. post: so we are definitely heading in that direction, it seems. what are some of the examples where this is working? there are some cities and states who have implemented body cameras that seem to have more success than others.

i will throw couple of examples. seattle is held as one of the most forward thinking, perhaps. los angeles. texas. there are different areas that have had mixed reactions. where would you all say there are some areas of some positive examples, some good examples of where it would be a little bit less? >> it is about where we stand on these issues so i am from southern california, and that is where my policing career is, and in my community, the rialto community is listed as a place who did those trials, which has their own remarkable attributes that i think the police department on its own would try to do a rigorous trial of these banks, and in that department, they have found dramatic

decreases in officer use of force and compliance, so those are the metrics that we want to use. it is highly suggestive that it is working and i think there are other studies that may not have had the same kind of numbers but certainly had decreases in officer use of force and complaints, so as we think about that on some 5000 -- that sounds like a great thing and i would submit that it is. what we do not know conclusively is why that is happening, why did those numbers go down. is it because the cameras -- there is nothing magical about these little boxes that they wear. they could have done this a long time ago, so is there a civilizing fact when officers where those -- wear those, because when they say they are wearing a body camera, it is not the same thing as when our parents were watching or what we were in the classroom and new

that someone was looking at us we would behave. or is there something more complex going on question mark i do not think we know. and certainly the places you cited, seattle, i think is finishing a summit on roddy cameras, and they certainly have pushed the envelope on things like transparency, so if that is -- and privacy issues -- if that is how you measure success for them, i would hold them up because they are pushing up the image is not in real time but any close to it on their youtube channel. as a way of kind of a massive reduction in protecting people's privacy, so i think people should pay a lot of attention to what they are up to right now because when you begin to, as you said earlier, unpack the issue, there are so many issues involved with body cameras with the privacy and the storage and the practical nature of it rising expectations.

tanzina: this kind of goes to what jim was saying, a study that just came out from mesa arizona, and with the randomized study, there were police of a service who volunteered to where police cameras and those who were told to wear them and then a set up police officer's who were not wearing them at all, so a comparison as to what their data looked like what did their interactions look like, so they also found that the citations given, the number of citations given went up, which, again, could be a good thing or a bad thing. i think then you have to figure out if you want more citations. sort of the theory of that is that officers were worried that if there were circumstances where they would exercise discretion, now there might be somebody looking over their shoulder. it might be a supervisor looking over their shoulder.

they could have given out a citation for whatever it was and they did not, so those went up. also, to some extent, there is a piece that will be interesting to see how it plays out as to what it means generally for the relationship between the officer and the department and the community as a whole. does it help the relationship in some ways, in many ways? is the use of force going down, and also how does it affect the relationship to have the camera mediating those interactions in a variety of ways, and that, i think, is probably something we do not know the answer to yet but we are getting some anecdotes from certain communities about what that looks like. tanzina: before we started, i asked the public if they had questions, and one of the questions came from a twitter user which said, how do the cops

them selves feel? my relative quit the force, and this was a big factor in doing so. maybe, jim you might be able to weigh in on that. our officers themselves concerned about this? are they giving out more citations because they feel pressure to implement this? do they feel perhaps more secure or more nervous? jim: so this is a very complicated issue that i wish i had a simple answer to, but the answer is is it depends. one thing we do not spend a lot of time researching is the policing culture. it is the culture. more specifically, the individual department culture that drives a lot of how officers feel about their work, how they are perceived and more portly for them, does the administration police chief and their supervisors support them and how things are messaged, so one of the questions is what is

the organizational culture like? we talk a lot in policing. i personally think the most important issue is legitimacy and procedural justice, so when we talk about that, for instance and we talked to police officers and say we want you to do that, one of the first places they're going to go is, ok chief, you want us to do all of these things externally, when are you going to do it internally? and if the leadership is good, they may say that that i need this is nothing more than to prove that i did the right thing. it is not messaged correctly, then cops will say, so this is

just another way for you to monday morning quarterback that very tough decision i had to make in a split second, and i am going to get hammered, and you start getting into this notion of de-policing,, with a are say you know, i've just going to do,, because in the process of doing my job, you could take away my livelihood and my ability to take care of my family. we had audio recording devices for my whole career and they understood the value of those, because they almost always exonerated officers. there were instances where they actually support the complaint position on that, he did not have problems around the discipline related to that, and i think that some officers is terrible i am getting out of

business because of it, and i think a lot of the thing is just the way it is now, but as he said a moment ago, and five years from now, this will be standard. he is the is asked me from the 30th of and is part of their job. tanzina: on things we hear is about a change in behavior. is it changing community behavior? are they aware that this is happening question were we are constantly surveilled. in camden, there are 120 surveillance cameras alone feeding video into a centralized database, so does it change behavior on either side of the camera, for the police officer are and the police, if you will, or the communities that they are trying to protect?

jay: there is a civilizing effect, and kind of a spooky term, but the deeper question is what does that look like, and what is the shape of that? it is too early know the sociological contexts, but there are more and more cameras. there are government run surveillance cameras, which we oppose come which watch people whether anybody is present or not. everyone is carrying a video camera in their pocket now, and when you are being watched all of the time, it is not a good thing for the american public and our public spaces. there will be chilling of facts. it might take a while for people to understand just how under surveillance they are, and

eventually they will, and it may have chilling effects on american life. but with a police officer, they are already pretty chill most of the time. you are to watch your self a little bit, so in those cases they have less of an effect. a camera sitting up there watching people on the street, some camera watching you that is a completely different kettle of fish, so one of the reasons we have not then totally against body cameras -- we are against them if the policies are not good, that the reason we are willing to accept them as the policies are good is that you're in front of a uniformed police officer. if you do something illegal and there is no camera, then you're going to go into a quart, and the cop is going to say, i saw him do this, and then you are going to say i did not do it, and the word of the cop is always going to win over the word of an accused criminal, so

if you did something illegal instead of the officer's word there will be video to back it up. now, if the officer is lying you have some protection. rachel; the use of color, some of those that they are trying to protect, and then particularly by the transgendered youth who have experienced homelessness and more. a lot of different kinds of discrimination including discriminatory policing, and we have had a lot of conversations about body cameras and this questions -- question about whether it will actually event police misconduct. if they are clear about documentation, or will it prevent things, and it is for

them and for many people in the larger coalition. there is more questions than answers, and i think particular, you're talking to a community who just watched two police officers just choke a man to death, knowing they were filmed, and then placing a black pregnant woman in a choke hold and who can find on youtube countless videos from dashboard cameras and video cameras of the behavior so i think there are solid questions about whether or not this actually changes behavior. they have heard from the young people in new orleans, the lgbt or people of color where the police officer walked up to them, turned off the camera, shot them, and turned it back on again. looking at with the policies will be and how the programs are going to play out before they feel confident that it will actually change behavior towards

them. i think there are still a lot more questions. a lot of cost-benefit analysis that we have to do, as well. tanzina: we often hear it is communities of color and low income to entities that will be more heavily surveilled. is that something you're hearing, as well, in terms of a concern about the use of these cameras? rachel: very much so, and i think people are concerned above the impact of surveillance given who they are. a video is almost live streamed on youtube. there are people who appear in a particular way, a context where you feel safe, and you do not want that footage on the internet where others might see it. also a concern in washington state are things that went up on

the internet. tremendous amounts of police abuse, and particularly against women of color, and gives the lgbt people of color those involved in the sex trade. it is also a tremendous invasion of privacy, and putting that footage on the internet is a concern. there are now people who are accused of engaging in prostitution the videos now posted on the internet for anyone to see. and i think the broader surveillance concerned -- the homeless community, constantly in the public space. tanzina: and this is playing off a little bit something that jay had said, what we know about

what they camera is capturing and what the opposite is seeing. capturing it with what the officer is saying and if someone reacts. obviously, it would capture something like the sound of a gunshot, things like that, but it is a fairly narrow view. i have watched a couple of videos, depending on where it is worn. wraps you're looking at somebody's chest, and you cannot make out that whole area, which in some ways is good from the civil liberties, having a concern about a panoramic view or something enabling a top-down, but i think it does speak to the limitations of what you're getting from the camera and it is really of the person who is having the interaction of the police officer -- with the police officer, not the police officer himself.

tanzina: like what with jay was saying, people feel concerned about it, that we are recording. coming up with some agreements with how that is used, but i think that that feels like a different experience of recording. jay: it is important in the communities, where there is a shift of power, and there is a danger that these cameras will become just another means of diverting power. if they have complete control over which videos get released which is a big data we're starting to write now, even with

the police units that support cameras, they want complete control. when it officer saves a baby from drowning, the video will be on the news, but they will keep other things under wraps and also it is important that other policies be good, as well, in terms of when the recording is taking place and so forth so i think the suspicions are with the clients you work with may be well-founded. i think a policies are put in place, they can be a good thing and they can be help with, and we are seeing departments where they have good body camera policies, but they are not enforced, so it officer is supposed to be turning it on and does not turn it on, shoot somebody and says i did not have it on, and there is no consequence to the officer.

tanzina: is a consensus of when it should be turned on or off? about if it should be on 90% of your shift or 100% of your shift, and i have a tip for you and i don't want to be filmed, and there is a sensitive situation or a domestic abuse situation, should there be times when the opposite should be allowed to turn it off? do all i with the person with the tip or the sensitive case, do i have the power to tell the opposite, can you turn it off? when do you turn it on, and when do you turn it off? jay: there are a couple of circumstances there, what is going on. it should be on when ever the opposite is involved in an active service or something that becomes hostile in any way. there have been some proposals where basically all interactions with citizens detained.

that is not happening. i do not see many doing that create we backed off on it after some things were much worse. there is a danger that if you give police at her discretion to turn it on and off, they will turn it off and engage in abuse turn it off on the fly. there need to be very clear rules on what it is expected to be on, and we have talked about cases where a crime victim once it off, a consensual entry, and there are so many uses in swat rates, or if they are getting a tip, a crime tip in the neighborhood and they do not want that on video. there are reasonable exceptions. the officers wanting to chat with people in the community. there is no reason for the camera to be on in that situation.

jim: this highlights who is missing from the panel right now, which is the elected officials, because so much of this is directed at what the mayor says. if i was a police chief who did not hurt -- hold someone accountable return to their camera off, i would be looking for a new police chief so i think this highlights the role of elected officials in laying down legislation, and it also highlights difficulty for police officers who tend to be very pragmatic in their orientation. just tell me what the rule is. right now, we are about privacy versus transparency. what do you want me to do? do you want me to turn it on or off? i do not think it makes any sense to the victims of crime. if there is an enforcement activity, you have to have a camera running, because those things can go sideways in two seconds, but if you want to tell me about somebody telling about

a crime, i do not think the camera has any business running. there are certain things to automate this. so another other words, if i pull my gun, my holster would be a smart holster. i pull my gun and it turns on the camera. if i pull my taser, it turns on the camera, or if certain keywords are used, it turns on the camera, so you can avoid this turned the camera on or off, because it is a practical reality when they are involved in an enforcement activity, the last thing that is on their mind is pushing the button to turn that camera on. if there is any chance that that person might harm them, then that is what they would be focusing on first, so if we find a way to do that, but there are other things that have nothing to do with the technology. turn them on or off, and whether we like it or not all of us

have to accept the fact that police officers need a certain level of discretion to do their job, and that discretion of what happens or does not happen in terms of transparency issues are set into law. the cops follow what the law is. the people you need to be talking to is the state legislatures to get them to change what is there. it is not that simplistic, but there are other things that i think the police -- the blame for some of these issues, i guess, have been laid at the front door of the police, and i am not sure that is where they go. they should change the laws if that is a problem. rachel: no doubt and i think there are questions about a thoughtful process before it jumping into full penetration. i think in the wake of the incidents you mentioned and many

others, people have been grasping for solutions that will prevent things that many people feel were terrible abuses of peoples rights, and we are reaching for solution. a company that makes tasers offered one up, and we have to think about where that is coming from. but we need a broad consultation process. and the agency goes down the road of deploying body worn cameras, it will be increasingly difficult to scale it that, so i think we need to have public confrontation policies around issues of discretion, around issues of concern, around issues of access to footage evidentiary concerns. that in the domain of lawmakers freedom of information. there is so much in there. what exceptions there might be around domestic violence and in people's private homes and also

some undercover operations, for instance, another issue of concern. domestic violence is very much an issue with the lgbt community filming those responses, and i understand officers feel those are some of the more dangerous things to respond to and want to have the cameras on, and then what about the privacy of people who are in one of the most difficult and challenging moments of their lives and may also have other privacy can turns, so there needs to be so much public conversation before we jump headlong into something that can have so many unintended consequences. people are sticklers on all sides of this issue, i would say. tanzina: there is one thing like jim said about when do i turn it on, and a study, sort of the

final findings that came out recently, and one of the interesting things they found is if there is a requirement that cameras be turned on, something like 80% of the cameras are turned on or during 80% of those interactions. they are turned on 50% of the time. when police officers are given a guidance in these nine circumstances, they go on, and then by and large, they go on. and we have been looking at comparing the policies that are out there, jurisdictions using body cameras in sort of the pilot project phase, and most of that has published policies, so the guidance that occurs that the executive research foundation put out and also different jurisdictions around the country in terms of when they are supposed to go on, and i thought most followed the guidance, kind of a variety of interactions. there is actually a decent amount of variation.

not widely, but i think different cities, different departments have decided on different times when the cameras will be turned on, which may be appropriate. there may be given means that the states and the cities provide to see ok, how does it play out in terms of effectiveness and trinity relationships in this scenario? but right now, there is at least some variation across the country in terms of when they are triggered. tanzina: and as much as there is a consultation process on the front end, there is a consultation process on the back and in terms of changing behavior and how the unintended consequences are playing out.

jim: this is why i think it is important to coproduce this. there is a reason we have 17,000 police departments. on some of them, that makes no sense. it makes sense when you understand communities desire to customize and tailor what they have in their communities. whether that is right or wrong, that is what we have so in some communities, you may have lots of committee involvement in that police, and that results in a different triggering of when you turn them on and when you turn them off and all of that, and i think that is appropriate as long as there is some guidance to set this up to make sure you are doing that. that that is with the transparency comes in, the community coproducing the policies with the police department. that is where you address these kinds of things.

i may be a well-meaning police officer or police chief trying to do the right thing but have no sensitivity or understanding as to how it is perceived and why that is a problem. this is not a simple issue. it is full of gray areas. >> we hear that they are having a hard time paying for these and the infrastructure that goes along with it. washington is starting to put money towards body cameras, quite a significant amount of money, and there have been hearings about this, and i am wondering whether or not that money that police departments need in order to implement these cameras should mean that those departments are required to follow some sort of federal guidelines. short of a federal law, should there be federal guidelines for police departments in order to access these funds that are

starting to come down the pike. -- down the pike? jim: there is a model out there already. the department of justice provides the funds, and in order to access that money to offset the cost of the best, you may have a policy that that mandates officers to wear those best, so you could say if you're going to accept our money to buy those cameras, then you have to use our policy. jay: and the justice department is getting ready to distribute the money that was made available by the obama administration. looking at having a good policy in place, and the details have not been worked out yet. it is not clear what is that point to look like and exactly how prescriptive they are going to be, but that is a good thing with what you're talking about. >> and i think there are a few things. there are policies and terms of wearing them, in terms of the

privacy peace, in terms of the acceptability to the public which i think is a very complicated issue, and then there is also i think a piece about gathering the data, right? so assuming a lot of this is happening in a pilot program context and money being given for that, what kinds of information are these jurisdictions gathering. if this comparable across departments, across, the groups they are working with this down the line to do some of this retrospective look at how they are being used, do they were, what are the consequences, because i think without that, it is going to be really hard to make any assessment of how these are contributing and about the how with the values. jim: that is why there needs to be funding set aside for the science of this stuff. how do we know this works?

>> i would agree with all, and also there needs to be things meaningful, also being able to assess these with the individual interactions. i do feel compelled to say on behalf of the young people i have been working with that one of their first responses to this is how many millions of dollars and why are there still only 200 shelter beds in new york city for lgbt young people, and should we not put this into things to keep us out of the crosshairs of policing? because there are no other options available to us, and i feel that is a question around the millions of dollars speaking for some folks right now. it would change their experience of policing.

jim: there are some that fear that it might help them in the police abuse settlements, that they can help civilize their police officers. they will spend much less money overall, because despite the cost of the cameras, they would be spending less money out. tanzina: i wanted to mention jay, you talked about this earlier, who can have access to it, and there is legislation in some states to limit how much of that video is available to the public, so who should access these? who should be able to prevent access to the videos? should all of the videos be made available to the public? should they be on youtube, even if they are reductive? and are there certain states that are sort of on one side of the spectrum and others that are a little more lenient in that

regard? because i think that is a really important question. it is one thing to have the video and another to make it accessible and to us in the media. jim: that is a good question. we have given it some thought. they be held for a relative. keeper of time, 60 or 90 days and then be deleted, unless there is a use of force by an officer, a felony arrests, or there is a complaint against the officer, in which case the video is flagged and retained for a longer period of time and available to the public with foia requests, and that it shouldn't be searched, no face recognition, no analytics and

even police management should not be looking at a video unless an officer calls attention to it, because we do not want them to think that management is out to get them or that they get way too many ticket, which is what the study found, because they will be deemed by their superiors if they exercise any discretion looking the other way, and so we think we are seeing -- what we are seeing out there are some extremes, and some of them are set by state open records laws. some of them, like minnesota washington state, new mexico have very broad open records laws that basically define all video captured by all cameras as an open records request, and we think for privacy, all kinds of stuff that is of not of public importance but is private will be publicly releasable. you will tv seeking all of this video to run things for purely.

interests -- purely purient interests, and another thing we saw like a law that was just past in south carolina and the lapd law which basically allows the public to access none of the footage, which i talked about earlier, and it becomes a police propaganda tool. if there is a shooting of an unarmed person, that video should be released, and there is a chance there is bystander video. the only video not released is the police video, and so that is a delicate alex, and neither extreme is the right one. basically, it should not be public releasable unless there is an arrest, a use of force, or there has been a complaint against a police officer. >> i think it is critical to have the consent of the person filmed as being as integral if not determinate with that

calculus, because of the reasons i just talked about earlier. there is plenty of footage of people in various states of undress. there is just so much there. there is fundamental privacy concerns and issues of public interest. i think there is a balance. doing it only with the person's consent or where there is a court involved in determining whether the public interest outweighs the privacy concerns and that it would also factor in the consent of the person. again, that raises 10 more complicated questions. if five of us, the police rushed in right now and something happens, i might wanted on the internet, you might not, and how do we navigate that? the issue of blurring of faces and then redaction which then up the cost, so with an ideal, it there is the consent of the individuals in the integral

part, but that raises many more questions, but i fully agree that we cannot have footage just flying up on the internet of every interaction. i agree with you that is currently a problem with bystanders footage that we need to find a way to collectively address, as well. rachel: there is this issue that if there is a video out there often they do end up exonerating police officers. sometimes they and up exonerating the accused, and there is a story they tell, and one of the things we are seeing with research anecdotally is different people see videos differently, so you kind of take your own biases into watching the video. there is some interesting research showing interviewing motorists of color who are stopped and white motorists who are stopped, and something like

10% of the white motorists stopped saul the officer a posse is hand on their holster as is required, but more if they were colored. if the officer had his hand on the gun. and there has been a variety of studies on this, that people will see different things really coming to different conclusions based on what they bring, so i think we will see that playing out as well to the extent that videos, even just the extent that they are used as part of a case or a complaint even if literally it is only the complainant and people in the police department seeing them. there may still be different narratives that come out. jay: i think that is an excellent point. i think we on the to get more

sophisticated in terms of how we look at them. they are not objective. angle, lighting, when it is turned on and off, and a lot of the videos just catching somebody's chest. i think in england, there were talk police officer's interview women, and it was just looking straight at their cleavage, -- there was talk of police officers interview women, and it was just looking at their cleavage. and then there are some where it is completely muddy, and we do not know where to start. there are other times where it more or less tells you what happens. there are other cases where the video does not tell you what happens or where it is deceiving. there will be cases where the video is clear as day, but overall, i think we would be better off than he said/she

said, officer in uniform versus accused terminal. jim: i think this underscores the need to put a lot more resources towards the research around this, because we are all entitled. we have 60 people in here. 60 opinions as to when they should come on, retention, etc. etc., but what we are not entitled to is our own set of facts. do not know enough about this field get. the extent to which we, science, can develop good findings about what works and what does not work to achieve mutually agreeable goals is to develop a national coherence around this, and we are not going to do this because there are opinions and we all have an opinion about all of this. tanzina: is an issue that

possibility, and recently there was a huge hack of washington data, and hacking is going on in any part of our lives from health-care system is a small town's from becoming hacked and having the city is humble whether they have policies in place or not, to protect privacy, it is that from happening? are often thoroughly equipped to protect him at video and data to mark >> i can get some ways there is a slightly different question, which is -- by and large, major companies are producing body cameras. they manage the information by and large, for most of these police departments, and the ownership of the actual data. these are things in the cloud so they are things about the cloud safety.

are there ways to hack into it or as most of these hacks turn out, is there a way to get his credentials to fool somebody into getting access to the information, and then there is a big mother lode of information, which goes to how long this is kept, and the less time the irrelevant video is kept, there is at least less video to be accessed, but i do think that is an issue. jim: problematic, many of the small police department who have their hearts in the right place they are trying to get involved in video technology and cannot afford this. this is expensive technology, so they go online and find a $70 clinical camera that you take the card out of and put it in the pc, and this is hugely accessible to hackers. jay: there are some who encrypt

their hard drives, and several small ones that have to pay thousands of dollars to russian hackers to get their data back so it is a very real problem. tanzina: we talked about the public and the media being able to get these videos, but what about the officers themselves the ones wearing the cameras? should officers be allowed to view their own video, and if so, when? jay: i think they would want to be able to view it, to review their actions, for training, and what they may not want to do is review it when there is like a shooting, where there is an investigation. you do not show them the video before you take their statements.

and we have one set of evidence which is what the police officer remembers about what took lace and then there is the video, and neither one is objective. you take one statement before you show the video to the officer so they do not become cross contaminated. if you show the officer the video before taking his or her initial statement, then you are contaminating -- literally changing -- studies have shown that the officer posse is memory changes. also, is the opposite has done something wrong, you're giving them an opportunity to lie like if the camera goes away, he can say he reached into his waistband. using video to elaborate or explain things on the video but, of course, they can do that.

this is a very divisive issue or civilians and many police around the country have felt strongly the other way and there is why don't the police give their best statement when looking at the video, and that is because there is contamination and lying issues, so that is a bad idea. >> i think that would be something to be introduced in the case. it is part of a story and i have seen and have been part of cases on the defense team, but i still feel like your ability to tailor your testimony in a criminal prosecution to something you have seen before you give your initial statement is upsetting the balance of due

process and fairness in those situations and for all of the reasons that jay gaze. jim: this is confusing even in the community. lawyers and police officer's would-be able to cite evidence to the contrary of what we just heard and would have a position about their client and their rights and what makes sense since even within the policing community, it even if you are police chiefs, half of you would say they should look at it, the other half would shea -- with say not to look at it. one of the things -- i will go back again. we just do not understand enough about our memory and how something appears to be the case that turns out later on not to be the case, and because he is such an orientation towards blaming in this society, we fail to say we are not blaming anybody. we want to hundred and how this works.

i think there are ways to do that in many instances. where you say we had a bad outcome. how do we get to a better outcome, and we are not going to blame anyone. there are courts for that. there is similar court -- civil court and criminal work. we do not have the ability right now to look at this without blaming, and therefore we deny ourselves huge opportunities to learn from a bad incident that had bad outcomes, because we need to make sure that somebody is blamed for whatever happened, and i am not saying we should not hold people accountable. it is a difficult model. if you had some attorneys in here to represent police officer is, you would hear some a very different about what the science says. jay: there are some who worry about how their memory matches the video, because memory is not perfect, and they are afraid they will be made to look like liars.

police should not be able to get special treatment about seeing the video before they give their statement. but i do think body cameras have the potential of being an excellent training tool, and doctors have a thing where they all meet once a week, and they talk about their medical errors an area of not blaming, and it would be nice to see that evolved at the police department . i had these three encounters this week, and they turned south, and let's look at it together, and let's look at how i could have de-escalated it that are, so it could be a tool to get at some of the deeper issues, and body cameras are not the solution to the problem of policing. in some cases, they are a band-aid, and the real solutions are a change in the culture at some departments. as somebody said recently, they think of themselves as guardian

and not as warriors, and that they do not feel like occupying armies in some neighborhoods and these are very deep, complex and, and body cameras may have a role, but i think that better training and so forth is really the direction things need to go. jim: i would agree with that statement that the camera has huge potential for training, except that the law or committee expectation say you cannot keep it for privacy reasons, so you cannot keep it, so here you have the raising of that same video that runs head on into that reality. a great video for training except we cannot keep it because the law says we cannot, so we have to find a way to meet both of those interests. the video is very hard to watch of that texas officer that completely mishandled the episode with the kids at the pool party. that is great training for all

of the departments. see this? don't do this. look at how that cop got himself into that place. >> and emphasizing that. and i think in new york city, we have created a scenario of cop watch, were now if there is a stop and frist, there are five of us out there videotaping. i have seen it were literally a police officer has pepper spray out, and a very mild situation, i have pulled my iphone out and the pepper spray goes back in, and everything dissolves, and that was it. he could be achieving many of these results with coming up with the collective agreement with how we do it for and by each other. i think there might be other ways of arriving at that. jim: we have to be careful as we

go down this road. when we want to hold those people accountable -- i am all for that. i think your example makes sense. but you have to remember these are the same people you expect to run headlong into a very dangerous situation that you have called 911 about, so when we begin to -- and there is a balance here between holding them accountable and demonizing the people who risk their lives for perfect strangers and i personally believe this is a very slippery slope for us as a society, because everybody in this room and everybody watching this, if you are being attacked by somebody, you're going to call 911, and you want them to get there as fast as they can and save you, and that means they are going to use their discretion and all of the tools available to them, so if we are not careful about the messages we send to people who are willing to donate their lives to save you and if you question that, i suggest you go to the

law enforcement memorial where there is about 21,000 names of officers who have died protecting people, we have to protect the opposite is willing to do that. i am not denying what you just said. there is a balance here. there is a very clear balance. we just have to be careful because we are not the people who respond when they call 911. believe it or not, cops are people too. jay: the cops getting too much deference and respect when they are using force. in many cases, the law allows opposite her use force where it is not necessary, but it is completely legal. there is a problem with excessive use of force and police abuse. i think it has remained hidden, and it has been apparent to especially people of color. visible to the elites, and think

the videos are opening people's eyes as to what does happen, and hopefully ultimately, we will move forward to a path of understanding that the police video cameras will play a disciplinary role in curving back those officers who might get a little bit out of control or departments who have bad cultures, but at the same time it also has the potential to increase understanding about the public about what police officers do. some of these videos are going to show heroic actions and already have. a greater understanding on all sides. jim: this is why legislation is so important, because we do not like the law that sets the sidelines for these abuse of force. then we need to change that, and the rules need to change, and the guidance to police officers needs to change, such as the police -- supreme court decision that said you cannot shoot some buddy is running away from you.

and 70 who does is going to go to jail for the rest of their life as a result of that. just tell me what the rules are. i will follow this to the best of my ability, but when the rules and the sidelines are this wide, and i am operating within them, then -- narrow the sidelines or something so i understand the rules better. >> -- rachel: i was doing an interview -- tanzina: i was interviewing someone and it was an outstanding for comprehensive police reform, and i think that is what you are touching on right now. what does that police reform

look like? going beyond the technology question my because that is something we are hearing out of camden. camden, new jersey, they say yes, we have got 20 survey of cameras, a center, and tutorial cops on every street corner talking to residents, doing ride along. is there more that can be done beyond just old fashion policing and technology in terms of actual police reform and if so what is that? jay: community policing and in general having police officer as being in touch with the community they are policing, not being occupying armies and oversight.

that kind of thing, changing the culture of some police departments. as i talked about earlier and we can maybe look forward to a day when body cameras no longer seem necessary perhaps? who knows? andrea: this goes to accountability, regardless of who is capturing the video and what is on the video. how do we make sure that the footage leads to accountability but also to change of behaviors so we are not just having continuing accountability but not stopping the behavior itself, and i think that goes too many kinds of reforms, not just training and culture but in what you were just talking about, so there is a list of very specific reforms in the president task force on 21st

century policing final report everything from narrowing the use of force to what is absently necessary as opposed to what is allowed by law, which is much broader, which is what you were just saying, to having very specific guidance about the use of force towards pregnant women or the elderly or children, very specific guidance, and whether you can ask for consent to a search, and then how do you make sure there is consent recorded somewhere for a search, and these things that can look at how interactions happen between individuals and police officers most of all ensuring that people's rights and safety are respected, because it also means protecting against police violence and harassment, and it is about coming up with very specific guideposts with how

they interact with very specific immunities are likely to experience police abuse, so whether that is making sure -- we all have something because of federal law. very few have sexual harassment and abuse policies so much so that the international chief of police put out guidance in 2011 saying, you need to have this, and making sure there is guidance around how to respectfully and safely interact with members of the lgbt community in such a way that we are not perpetrating more violence intentionally or inadvertently, because these guys have been affected to make sure that their rights are respected and that they stay safe, so there is a lot that needs to be done in terms of comprehensive police reform, and it is not the policies written on paper but the enforcement and accountability, because otherwise it is just the paper. i think if we move forward with

some real policy change and real reform -- as i was saying earlier, it has to be created in partnership with communities, so come for example, in new york city right now, we are going to a process where the people directly impacted have to be part ofreforming what it looks like what police impact looks like in the city, the solutions lie in the city and i feel like that is where the communities are being occupied. that is no accountability for violence in communities of color. >> if you have a solution i think we are seeing a number of police officers who feel like they are trained and a print like soldiers. and honorable tradition of policing has existed for a long time. again, guardian cops.

>> one other small piece that was alluded to before, we should not forget and this is not to say anything about the efficacy of body cameras, but that body cameras themselves are a business. there are companies that sell them, the same for tasers, they make a very different kind of instrument for police officers. there have been questions, by no means in every department but a couple about the relationship between the police department, the chief of police and decisions being made about body cameras and that that is an overlay that again does not necessarily speak to whether or not they will work or what they will contribute, but that there is another sort of issue in terms of separate accountability for people to pay attention to.

>> i want to take the opportunity to ask the audience of they have any questions. if you're too shy you can always tweak me. i always ask you that. i should say that before that my phone goes over jim may need to leave in a few minutes. if he gets up and goes, it is not a commentary on any of the russians area -- any of the questions. >> my name is jeremy. i have been involved in the body camera debate. one thing that i do not see a lot of that you got into a little bit in this panel, asking the question of whether police audie cameras are the best way to do accountability. we are having this panel, there are a lot of issues. privacy for the officers

privacy for the public, surveillance, liability issues. in california the highway patrol responds to an accident, this woman -- photos of that got out were released. chp was sued and had to pay millions. there are similar potential liability issues here. they are going to push facial recognition technology on it. more of an accountability tool. i don't know if they can be replicated throughout the country. whether or not they can have those positive outcomes as short terms that he is shown. there is the struggle about whether it is the best way to do accountability as opposed to things that jay mentioned earlier. handling situations better, kind

of duplicating the situation and where it comes from. can you respond to that? >> it is important to remember that the police department is a system and that any technology it will never be the one thing. that is kind of how we think about things in this society. it is just too complicated. this issue, underlying all of this accountability has to do with who we hire, what the organizational values are, who becomes the police chief, the transparency within the community. that is the accountability model. i realize that that is kind of pollyanna-ish in many ways. if that was the case we would have to have more criminal laws over what we have. there are many other accountability systems in the

police department, what the supervisors do, analytics that you can pull out of your data system, arrests, what kind of arrest are there? giving you some insight into what that officers doing. whether other officers feel free to tell you that someone did something wrong . at my former entity this happened on occasions and i was proud of those situations where the officers said the supervisors that that officer did something wrong. they came to us and said -- i did something wrong. there is a huge difference between a mistake in the head and a list taken the heart and how you talk about stuff inside the police department culture the leadership, the intent -- in tangibles that make the business difficult for people and create space for misuse and abuse.

this is what we are talking about here, it's much bigger than cameras. it is much more than just a camera issue. >> we did just get a question from twitter. "does the panel know if there are organized trainings for the public to work toward organized trainings -- organized police encounters? >> there is a coalition in new york city called just this and a website called cop watch nyc that together a lot of the resources out there of the justice committee in new york city and the grassroots movement have been conducting trainings for over two decades. the research -- resources are up on cop watch. the civil liberties union is very helpful, people have used it. we have all had our phones. >> we have a number of alleles

that basically they use it to record an automatic upload to the aclu. if you are worried that your camera will be seized. the most important thing has happened in accountability overall, it may just be the right to record. we have had a huge struggle getting police officers to recognize that there is a first amendment const no right to take photographs you are in a public place where you have the right to be. we have faced litigation around the country over this. the courts have been pretty much unanimous, you have a right to board. fortunately we are seeing fewer and fewer police officers trying to repeal that right but it does happen, officers harass or worse for taking out a camera and recording. as we have talked about in many cases the by standard video has been more effect it then police

videos in it -- in providing accountability. i think that the answer is no, cameras are not -- i am all as a tool for accountability but they are definitely not the best way to improve policing in america. but the question is -- are we better with them than without them? that is in some ways a harder question, something that we are struggling with an ambivalent about. this is how it is happening, and we are saying if you are going to adopt them we will oppose them unless they are done with good policies that make sure that they do so as a tool for accountability. >> any additional questions? in the back? and then we will take the gentleman in the month after that. >> regarding the feasibility of gun or taser mounted cameras there is a fear that the cameras

won't record the unrelated violent incident as they were intended to. >> i don't see any downside to a gun mounted cameras. if an officer's gun is out, that is already a situation that needs to be recorded. in many ways gun mounted cameras would help with fewer of the downsides that the body cameras have because they will not be recording most situations. >> this gentleman in the front with the tie? >> i am curious about the use of body cameras which rations involving first amendment activities. there is a sensitivity about

recording individuals engaged in that where there is potential for abuse. we have seen a lot of instances in the last two years, occupy protest with videos, clamped down on demonstrators, they have helped stop us from being shut down. >> this is an interesting thing in d.c. especially, there is a policy for the pilot rim on body cameras and it speaks to basically body camera recordings of first amendment -- i don't remember the exact word -- first amendment activities or events things like that. the language that is specifically written in is that these videos will be cap or longer, three years, much longer than the policy otherwise had. i think, though it does not say specific the, that coming out of the master asked from 2000, from

the inauguration of 2002, there is this concern that there was major suppression of first amendment rights and really extra sensitivity. it obviously creates videos depicting people exercising their first amendment right. it might just be available if there is hacking out there. one of the things that we looked up when we were doing was this comparison two different policies across the country and to what extent do they speak first amendment concerns? it really varies -- what do they do? is it an attention issue? is it a general body camera should not be used to suppress first amendment rights? an important weston and i don't think we know enough yet. exactly as you are identifying there could almost competing interest that could be

vindicated in competing ways. to keep that footage for as little time as possible, the other would be to keep it for much longer to allow for records of accountability. >> is very chilling. as someone in new york city in 2004, we saw the importance of civilian video and organized civilian video collection because it enabled us to eliminate perspectives that would come out through the police captured videos. i think that it just keeps coming back for me to larger policy questions about how things are police and the importance of nonpolice video. >> any other additional questions? one more here in the run?

>> i was just wondering, some of what i did regarding the camera policy developed with police officers and the ability to assist in prosecutions and things like that, or do you have any ideas for good policies to try to fix the safety, privacy regarding prosecutions and investigations? >> i overheard a conversation about this for coming in about body cameras for victims of prosecution. i think that it takes away autonomy from survivors of violence to make decisions about what kind of accountability they want, but it is often informed very much by their own knowledge of the dangers that it will those in their own lives. whether it is an economic loss of someone going to prison that they need to survive or potential retaliatory violence.

if the right camera comes into a volatile situation in there is no rarity about how that goes down, on top of that you have got a videotape here and they come to you for that. i feel that this is one of the areas that deals most sensitive around figuring out and send autonomy and consent for self-determination. it is one area, like so many others in line oarsman, that are being as kind of on the back of survivors of violence. like it will help us, help survivors, but it has a lot of rollback with a significant amount of concern. as someone who has long worked against women in domestic violence -- worked with women of sexual violence, lg bt violence -- people want as much control over homophobic and trans-phobic violence as they do around other violence for many of the same

reasons around privacy he, and self-determination. no one is more aware of the con lances of the accountabilities than the survivors themselves, so they need to be in charge. >> thank you so much to the panel. [applause] >> earlier today president obama's time to deals into law. one on international trade another providing help to workers whose jobs may be displaced. congress will be able to approve or deny, but not change or delay them. flanked by members of congress, he uses 18 pens to sign the bills and the law. the pens are usually given to those who helped pass the legislation. this is the last day of the current term of the supreme court.

three decisions were announced earlier, including limitation on mercury emissions. the court upheld the use of a drug or exit asians by lethal injection, five to order, in a case from houma. the court also upheld arizona's congressional this trick and the use of independent commissions to redraw lines. you can listen to the epa air case at 6:25 p.m. eastern and at 8 p.m. the challenge to lethal injections, followed by the weston of lethal redistricting -- legal redistricting at 9:05 p.m. tomorrow, chris christie is expected to announce he is joining the race for president. we will have that live, here on c-span. >> tonight, on "the communicators," we visited the microsoft washington, d.c. office to talk about a lobbying

goals. we will talk with fred humphries , the corporate vice president of research, jeannette wing, and michael with housekeeping -- michael which housekeeping -- michael witkowski. quite frankly i don't remember the exact numbers, but we have some of the innovators here, researchers here. we have them better -- we have them all over the world with our scientist and engineers. it is for other companies as well. there is no a need, when you look at the job perspective. >> the application of the project is actually to collect vetoes that have hit people and to determine what kind of viruses might be around, what kind of his might be around.

through the taking of blood samples of the mosquitoes and figuring out genetic code of some of the constituents of their blood. >> it was around what we would be able to do with data freely available in the environment today. one of the things we have noticed is that there are a lot of air f line around the united states that could be considered censored. they have data on them and are providing information that is freely available, provided by the fda, they use that information to provide to the community about what airplanes are doing. we decided to take that information and see if we could use that to help us to predict a more accurate wins for losses forecast. what the wind is doing in terms of speed and direction of

various altitudes above the surface of the earth. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on "the communicators," on seas and to. -- c-span2. >> we sat down recently with democratic candidate and vermont senator, bernie sanders, who talk about his early life, family, first major bill in the senate and why he thinks people should vote for him. it is part of a series of conversations with declared or potential candidates as part of our road to the white house coverage. we spoke with the senator on his office on capitol hill for the five minutes. >> senator bernie sanders, i want to talk about some of the issues that motivate your work

in the senate and campaign. i want to talk about you first. you ran for the senate in the 1970's. at one point you got 2% and in 4% of the vote in vermont. you kept coming back, why? sen. sanders: i'm not the brightest guy in the world. in those days, 1970's, essentially we were running educational campaigns. i enjoyed them very much. when i ran for the first time in the special election in 1971, i got 2% of the vote to i came back and got 1%. i got 4%. then i got 6% of the vote. i always enjoy the opportunity getting out, talking to people going to meetings, and talking about the most important issues facing working people. in 1981, somebody suggested to run as an independent to become mayor of the city. we put together this incredible coalition of women's groups neighborhood activists organizations,

environmentalists, unions, and burlington patrolmen's association, an incredible coalition. we won by 14 votes. >> you ran for the house, loss and came back. sen. sanders: i ran for the house in 1986 in a three-way race, 14% of the vote. we were heavily outspent. it showed me and the people of vermont that there was significant support for that message. i ran for the u.s. house, and the republican won in a three-way race. the democrat up 19%. i got 31%. i am a fairly persistent guy. host: your legacy in burlington is mayor.

sen. sanders: most people will tell you we essentially transform that city. it is now regarded as one of the most livable, exciting cities in the united states. thousands of people in downtown. we have a beautiful waterfront. we have a bike path that runs nine miles. we paid attention to the young people. we let the nation in coming up with a housing trust fund for affordable housing. we had a positive relationship with workers in the cities, with unions. we had a neighborhood planning associations so people could have input. i will tell you something i am proud of. at that point, we had two-year elections.

in 1983, we can close to doubling turnout. we almost doubled voter turnout. a lot of working-class people said, government can actually work for us rather than big business interests. bernie is standing up for us. i won the working-class areas to do one, three to one. host: you are not a native of vermont. how did a new york resident end of their? sen. sanders: in the 1960's, you could buy land in vermont for a ridiculously low amount of money. we bought some land in middlesex, vermont. a few years later, we made it our permanent residents. host: your dad was a painter? sen. sanders: he was a paint salesman. i was born in brooklyn.

my dad came from poland at the age of 17, without any money at all. could not speak a word of english. came here with no money at all. he never made much money in his life. he was a paint salesman. we were lower middle class in a rent-controlled apartment. what of the great disappointments of my mother's life was that she always wanted a home of her own. we never had the money to do that. she died young and never achieved that dream.

my father died reasonably young as well. but both of their sons were able to go to college. host: how would you describe your parents? sen. sanders: wonderful people. my father, i think because of his financial background, having come to this country without any money, living through the great depression, was very worried about not having a job. my mother was more ambitious. there was a lot of tension in our household. it is something i have never forgotten. my mother wanted her own home. not the biggest dream in the world, but it was to her. my father was nervous about spending money. what happens if you lose your job? so that tension over money was very significant.

so that was an important part of my background, the fear of not having money. seeing other kids with more money. my mom, what can i say? they were wonderful people. my father was a gregarious guy. when you come from poland, his kids were able to enjoy a quality of life that would have been unthinkable. he was just, without talking about it, a proud father. host: did you apply those experiences in raising your own family? sen. sanders: if you asked my wife, she will tell you i am also tight with money. when i was elected mayor, i was living in a small apartment.

she forced me at that point to buy a home. so i think i have inherited some of my parents 'tightness with money. host: how did you meet your wife? sen. sanders: funny story. jane was active in a neighborhood organization called the king street youth program in downtown burlington. they were, obviously, concerned in 1981 about the election for mayor. she came in with the incumbent mayor. she started telling him, why don't you do this or that? he said, you sound like bernie sanders. she said, who is bernie sanders? well, we married in 1988.

host: there is a recording of you in 1987. you know what i'm talking about? this land is your land. it is available online at berniebeat.com. how did that come about? sen. sanders: we had a great band in burlington. they had a studio, music studio. not far away from where jane was living. they said, we will put together a band. come by and do some recording. it was a lot of fun. it was nice to see how an album is put together. needless to say, people should not vote for me based on my singing capabilities.

not what i'm running for office on. i'm not getting out my guitar. host: let's talk policy. the role of the federal government is what? sen. sanders: in a civilized democratic society, the role of federal government, in my view is to represent the vast majority of people. to do everything we can to make sure all of our people have a decent standard of living and quality of life. one of the points i have been making in this campaign is that many people are not fully appreciative of how far behind we are many other countries in protecting the rights and standard of living. i do not know how many people know, there is one country that does not guarantee health care as a right. that is the united states. that is wrong. health care should be a right. we live 100 miles away from canada. they do it. germany does it, scandinavia doesn't. -- does it. if you are working-class and

have a baby, you have no guarantee you will be paid to stay home and take care of your baby. that is an outrage. i will fight for the right. not only moms, but that's as well. they have a right to get to know their baby. our people are working the longest hours of any people in any major country. many new jobs offer zero weeks of paid vacation. i want to see us learn from other countries and make sure college is affordable for all people. it is beyond stupidity to say, you do not have money? you cannot afford to go to college.