agencies that don't harvest the body parts of babies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. and at this time i am going to close and kind of draw to an end this debate. i do want to remind all my colleagues, we're not discussing government shutdown. what we're talking about is a bill that would withhold funds from planned parenthood for a period of a year while we have an investigation. now, i know they called this a smear campaign. we are investigating the operations of planned parenthood. why are we doing this? planned parenthood is big abortion in this country. 300,000 abortions a year as opposed to 1,800 adoption services. 98 1/2% of all women who go there for a prenatal service, it is an abortion. think about that.

98.5%. there is reason to review how they use taxpayer funding, and we are justified in withholding taxpayer funds until we finish that. now, our colleagues have chosen to say we are radical, dumb, shameful, disrespectful, foolish, extremist, deniers, deprivers, mean-spirited and beating up on women. think about that. l because we stand for life, for liberty. we stand for life rights, a first right and these are the names. these are the names you attach to people who defend those rights. you know, saturday i went to a baby shower and an excited grandmother said, meet my granddaughter. it was an ultrasound, a 3-d

ultrasound. her name is jessica. that is a baby with a life. and planned parenthood is aborting 300,000 of those lives each year. it is time for taxpayer money to be withheld. i support the bill. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 421, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for a moratorium on federal funding to planned parenthood federation of america, ncorporated.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. esty: i am. the clerk: ms. esty of connecticut moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3134 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. mrs. blackburn: madam speaker, i reserve the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman reserve a point of order? mrs. blackburn: yes, ma'am, i reserve a point of order. the clerk: at the end of the bill add the following, section 6, no impact on funding for organizations providing women's health services, notwithstanding section 3, nothing in this act shall

impact the amount of funding available for any organization that provides women's health services such as preventive care and cancer screenings. an appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2016, including any continuing resolution. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. esty: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not stop the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, this bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. i rise today as a mother, as a woman and as a representative to offer this straightforward amendment to protect women's access to vital health care. contrary to what many americans have been led to believe, the bill before us today is not about abortion. this bill would, however, restrict women's access to

health care all across the country by entirely eliminating all federal funding for planned parenthood. let's be very clear. no federal tax dollars go towards abortion, and none have since 1976. that is not what this bill is about. we all know a woman who has been diagnosed with cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer. it may be your mother, your neighbor, your wife who sought preventive care or screening from a doctor of her choice. and we know a woman who received quality medical care at planned parenthood. in fact, one in five american women have sought medical care from planned parenthood. it may be your daughter, it may be your boss, it may be your colleague. my amendment will ensure that

any qualified organization that provides women health services can receive funding. it's simple and it's fair. we need more access to quality health care, not less. we need to stop trying to restrict access to life-saving cancer screenings, birth control and well-woman exams. we need to stop fighting 40-year-old battles on women's rights. defunding planned parenthood would have a devastating impact on women, especially low-income women, women in rural communities and women of color. and it's not only women who receive health care at planned parenthood. men receive health care at planned parenthood too. here are some facts about planned parenthood's critical role in providing health services to americans every year. planned parenthood provides family planning, counseling and

contraceptive care to 2.1 million americans. more than 1.1 million pregnancy tests, nearly 400,000 pap smear tests, nearly 500,000 life-saving breast exams. and let's remember that in many areas, planned parenthood is the only source of family planning services. that's why in 1976 as a college freshman i volunteered for planned parenthood because i had seen the impact on young women in my rural high school who had no access to family planning services. too many got pregnant, dropped out of school and never pursued their dreams. today with only five legislative days left, we should be focusing on avoiding a reckless and unnecessary government shutdown. do you remember the last government shutdown, the one that cost us $24 billion?

no wonder some don't think america is great right now. dysfunction in this congress is undermining the american people's faith in democracy, but we in congress have the power to act. we have the opportunity and we ve the duty to set aside ideological battles, instead take up the urgent business of the american people. we should authorize the export-import bank and pass a long-term well-funded highway trust fund bill, investing in america's infrastructure to ensure america will continue to be great throughout the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, to ensure that american women have access to vital health care no matter where they live and no matter how much they earn. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker.

i withdraw my point of order and i claim the time in pposition to their motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. we all know that planned parenthood receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. and for them to get that money while they are under investigation for profiting off the sale of body parts, baby body parts, is absolutely abhorrent. what this bill does is to put a one-year moratorium while we conduct the investigation. let's be real clear about that. a one-year moratorium while we do our due diligence. that's what you call smart business. doing your due diligence. being a steward of the taxpayers' money. now, i have founded so interesting that they continue to say this will cut access to women's health care. no, it will not. do you know planned parenthood

sees less than 2% of all american women in a given year? there is an amendment on this legislation by mrs. ellmers. it redirects $235 million to the fqhc's, the federally qualified health centers. it will increase access because e have more of those centers in more underserved areas, and they are required to provide services which include doing nostic lab and radiological services. planned parenthood has cut those screenings and cancer screenings and those services in half over the last few years while they have increased their abortions to 300,000 a year. we are right in restricting these funds to planned parenthood while we conduct this investigation.

we are right to be a steward of the taxpayer money, and at this time, madam speaker, i am going to yield back my time and urge a no on the recommit and a yes >> the house of representatives went on to pass both of today's abortion bills. the first would cut off federal funding for planned parenthood for one year. planned parenthood is already prohibited from using federal funds for abortion, but house republicans want to cut off money to planned parenthood while congress investigates allegations of wrongdoing. and the house also approved a bill today to impose criminal penalties on doctors who do not try to save the life of a baby born during an abortion. the white house has said president obama would veto both bills. the pope's upcoming visit to the

u.s. c-span has live coverage from washington, the first stop on the pope's tour. on wednesday, september 23, pope francis will visit the white house, starting with a welcoming ceremony on the south lawn. followed by a meeting with president obama. then on thursday, september 24 the pope makes history on capitol hill, becoming the first pontiff to address both the house of representatives and the senate during a joint meeting. follow all of c-span's live coverage of the pope's historic visit to washington. live on tv or online at -span.org. >> yesterday was the deadline for congress to disapprove the iran nuclear agreement and yesterday the senate held its third and final procedural vote trying to block the deal. to deny the senate a final vote on the president's deal with iran. they made their choice, but that

doesn't mean the discussion is over. today we'll have another opportunity to address the lifting of congressionally mandated sanctions as called for in the joint comprehensive plan of action. today we'll have an opportunity to vote on a question of policy policy -- should iran be left with a threshold nuclear program, one now recognized by the p-5 plus 1 and receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief without any linkage whatsoever to other aspects of this foreign policy adventurism. that's the question before us. i'll discuss that vote in greater detail in just a moment, but first a reminder of how we got to this point. here's what we know about the nuclear deal with iran. it's president obama's deal with

iran, not america's deal with iran, because the president did everything possible to cut the american people out and to block their elected representatives from having a say. he refused to pursue a treaty because, as secretary kerry noted quite candidly, he wasn't interested in negotiating something an elected congress could support. he then had to be persuaded that resisting legislation to allow congress an up-or-down vote on it, just as he had to be persuaded when congress passed sanctions legislation that helped bring iran to the table in the first place would be futile. in other words, he didn't want the legislation that gave us an opportunity to respond to the president's deal with iran. it had so many supporters, he knew the veto would be overridden.

then he finally convinced his party which had voted unanimously for the legislation that gave congress an opportunity to weigh in on the president's deal to then deny the american people the up or down congressional vote democrats had promised them. our democratic friends went to extreme lengths to protect the president politically. because they did, democrats ensured that this would be not just obama's deal with iran but the democratic party's deal with iran, too. it's a deal that allows iran to grow stronger in any number of ways -- diplomatically, militarily, in terms of trade and in terms of its enrichment program. it's also a deal that achieves hardly any of the obama

administration's primary goals. secretary kerry once declared that an accounting of iran's military-related nuclear activities -- quote -- will be part of a final deal. if there's going to be a deal, he promised, it will be done, but it isn't. secretary moniz once declared that he expected we would have any time, anywhere access to iranian nuclear facilities. we won't. president obama once declared that the deal we'll accept is they in their nuclear program. it's very straightforward. or perhaps not quite so straightforward because this deal will not end iran's nuclear program. because the president made clear his desire to secure an agreement at any cost, it became easy for the iranians to exploit

concession after concession after concession. it became possible for the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to secure a deal that allows it to enrich uranium to maintain thousands of centrifuges and to become a recognized nuclear threshold state forever on the edge of developing a weapon. iran was even able to secure a multibillion-dollar cash windfall that will allow it to strengthen terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas, along with assad's bloody regime in damascus. even the president basically admits as much. the administration is now so invested in this deal that it's likely to veto any additional sanctions passed by congress,

even those against terrorism. presidents are able to secure stronger, better and more durable outcomes when they seek constructive cooperation on matters beyond the water's edge. republicans stood proudly for more international trade jobs just a few months ago. the president agreed with us on the policy. we all thought in the -- fought in the same corner as a result. it was disappointing to then hear the same president dismiss honest intellectual disagreements on the iran deal as reflexive opposition to him personally. what nonsense. the president made a choice to turn this into a partisan campaign instead of serious debate. he tried to cut out the american people and congress at every

single opportunity. because he did, he's left his country and his party with an executive deal that has hardly any durability or popular backing. because he handled it this way, he's left his country and his party with an executive deal that has hardly any durability or any public support. the american people aren't sold on it. a strong bipartisan majority of the house has rejected it. a strong bipartisan majority of the senate rejects it, too. the deal can and likely will be revisited by the next commander

in chief, but its negative consequences promise to live on regardless, and far beyond one president's last few months in office. those who follow in the white house and in congress will have to deal with an iran enriched by billions of dollars to invest in conventional weapons upgrades and further support to terrorist groups. many of us will be here in the future when we have the need to work with the next president to decide how best to deal with iran's ambitions and the future of this nuclear program. now, one reason iran was able to negotiate so successfully because of russian support for a

deal that would be antithetical to america's interests. no surprise then that just days after the deal was counted, the commander of iran's quds reportedly flew to moscow to secure russian support for their mutual ally in syria. no surprise then that as soon as the president had seemingly succeeded in securing the votes for a veto override, we heard that russia was constructing a forward operating base to help prop up assad. iran's negotiating partner, russia, will undoubtedly use its presence in syria to attempt to leverage the western powers to weaken sanctions crafted in response to the invasion of crimea. that, my colleagues, is diplomatic linkage.

russia pursued it successfully. the obama administration did not. the administration attempted to negotiate this deal with a singular focus on ending iran's nuclear program. now, we already know it failed in that regard, but that myopia also had other consequences as well, leading the administration to ignore many issues that should have been linked to the negotiations in the first place. everything from iran's support for terrorism to its aggressive behavior across the middle east to its harassment of shipping vessels in the persian gulf, but, mr. president, not just those issues. the administration failed to negotiate to ensure the release of american citizens being held in iranian custody.

the administration failed to negotiate to ensure iran's recognition of israel's right to exist. but we can do nothing to link the freedom of american citizens being held in iranian custody and the recognition of israel to sanctions relief, something that the administration should have done. we can say it has to be corrected before sanctions are lifted and billions more flow into iranian coffers to use for terrorism. and that's, mr. president, what today's vote is about. when it comes to american citizens being held in iranian custody, the senate voted unanimously just a few months ago to call for iranian leaders to release our american citizens. one is a journalist imprisoned for spreading -- quote -- propaganda against the state -- end quote. another is a pastor who dared to

attend a christian gathering. when it comes to israel, iran employs invective against israel at every turn. it has already demonstrated both the will and the capability to strike out against the west, and through proxies and cyber attacks at allies like israel and saudi arabia. what this deal won't do is alter iran's behavior. what it will do is give iran an even greater ability to follow through on these threats. so we cannot allow iran to be empowered as a nuclear threshold state with billions of dollars without something, some protection to israel first. without at least demanding the

release of american citizens from iran after are years, first. let's at least agree on that. i understand there is strong division in this senate, the majority opposes and the favors on the iranian deal. but the very least, mr. president, the very least we should be able to come together over the vote we take today and so i would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the senate has already spoken, that the agreement with iran will stand.

remember, it is an agreement to stop iran from having a nuclear weapon. that's what it's all about. these issues have been decided. but senator mcconnell has decided to waste an entire week on something that has already been decided, twice. first the mcconnell amendment that would prevent him from it unless all americans and recognize of the state of israel. all of them, all senators want them to come back home to their families as quickly as possible. we believe that iran should recognize the state of israel. we believe the other countries in that area should join along. and we are very happy with the arrangement between egypt and israel of many, many years and has been very good for some degree of stability in the area.

but what the republican colleagues are doing right now is very, very cynical. they're taking serious issues and turning them into pawns in a political issue. yesterday a senator from michigan, and she has the person that is from michigan has been held in iran for some time. yesterday she said, the senator republican leader is playing with amir's life. the majority leader is trying to score cheap political points. no american should be used in this way. elaborating, she told me that his family wants us to stay out of it. progress is being made. please stay out of it, is what his sister said. this cynical tactic is a waste

of the senate's time. we should be preventing a gown. senator mcconnell has amounted to vote three times on a situation that has already failed on two occasions. the result will be the same today. yet the senate is stuck, even with a looming government shutdown. with a few days before the government runs out of funding. we've seen this coming for months. the republicans should have seen it also. maybe they did but just ignored it. that's why we've called for budget negotiations and that's the statement. we told the senate that only so much before this, we're going to try to use it on serious proposals that have a chance of becoming law, close quote. i'm sure he should read that to himself today and maybe

tomorrow. but after having made the statement of voting on this key priority that is funding the government, we're spending time on cynical show votes, even though everyone knows the result of these votes. despite the fact the government will be shut down in a matter of days, the world's greatest deliberative body is doing a show vote. the budget is the biggest responsibility of it was. it's an embarrassment to this institution. our leader and i don't see eye to eye on all political points but we both want to see a clear bill. that's what he said. i agree with him. it's the only way to prevent a gown, no riders, no tricky things at all. just yesterday the leader said sequester should be lifted. thank goodness he said that.

i agree with him. i agree with senator mccain, senator lense graham about this on the republican side with us. we all know how this end. the senate will pass a cleaning continuing resolution. let's hope so because that's what we should see. by clean bill, no procedural loopholes, and no tricks. so for what are we waiting? why are we dragging the senate to the brink of another shutdown? there is nothing to be gained and much to lose. the reality is that the longer we wait, the more difficult the path forward will be. republicans in the past have not governed responsibly, like the junior senator from texas. every minute we waste, that one senator's objection can force

the entire government to shut down. we're not making this up. it happened two years ago. people want nothing more than the republicans to twiddle their thumbs. every day it's more likely to shut down. we have seen this drama before. i repeat, two years ago. they need to invoke cloture two times if someone objects. we should start to process of bringing the bill to the floor by thursday at the latest. the time is really running out. next week pope francis will address the congress and perhaps half a million people to come here. and, three or four days of session next week at the most. we're -- it's time for

republicans to skip the drama, push the bill today. for months, democrats have been clear about our priorities. first, any appropriation measure cannot have ideological matters. and second, it must be matched with a dollar for dollar increase in domestic problems. these are principles which should form the basis today. but republicans have refused to negotiate. they are now focused on scoring points. we've voted twice. why waste time again on another? only a few times in session next week, and only three days before a government funding expires. that's october 1. we should act now, passing a clean continuing resolution

before government shuts down be and then negotiate a compromise. a short-term >> later in the day yesterday, the senate voted not to move forward with a vote on the iran nuclear agreement. yesterday was the deadline for congress to disapprove the deal. and because congress did not vote to block it, the president can begin to implement the iran nuclear agreement. >> the pope's upcoming visit to the u.s. c-span has live coverage from washington, the first stop on the pope's tour. on wednesday, september 23, pope francis will visit the white house, starting with a welcoming ceremony on the south lawn. followed by a meeting with president obama. then on thursday, september 24, the pope makes history on capitol hill, becoming the first pontiff to address both the house of representatives and the senate during a joint meeting.

follow all of c-span's live coverage of the pope's historic visit to washington, live on tv or online at c-span.org. >> the congressional black caucus foundation held its 45th annual legislative conference in washington today. one discussion from the gathering focused on criminal justice and police misconduct. congressman john conyers, the top democrat on the judiciary committee, and attorney general loretta lynch were among the speakers. this is almost 2 1/2 hours. >> good morning. it is my pleasure to be at the top mike up here and to moderate what i hope will be a panel where we can get some wisdom on the topic of policing and police reform, particularly for our communities.

when i was asked to speak today, asked to moderate today, i did as a normally do and went straight to bible study and thought, well, what wisdom can be offered on the issue of race and policing in contemporary america? mr. goff: and as is generally the case with my bible, which is wiser than i, i opened it straight to proverbs 4:7. it says wisdom is the principal thing and therefore get wisdom. and in all the get, get understand. somebody say wisdom. now in a moment when black lives matter is not just the call by the response, is not just the art by the science, i tend to meditate on the wisdom of what does it mean? what are we called to do? what is required of us when a person or group of people matters to us?

what is required of me if i love you, if you matter to me is not just that i get to know you, that i understand you, but that i get to know and understand the things that influence you. if i have a child, i am not a responsible parent if i love that child and ignore the friends that the child is hanging out with. if i have a partner that i'm thinking of marrying, it is not responsible for me to love him or her and have no idea with their friends are saying about me. and in black lives matter -- if black lives matter, it is not responsible of us as a people, as a nation, to be loving black lks while ignoring the law enforcement that is affecting their lives every day. if i want to get wisdom on how to make black lives matter, i need to take seriously the idea

that we need to increase our literacy on police issues. we need to understand policing. ok. and i don't just mean that we need to read about it in the paper. i mean, we need to answer some fundamental questions about the character and content of policing. so i have some fundamental questions here. how many people were pulled over in their vehicle by police last year? raise your hand if you know the answer. raise it high because we all ant to know. ok, we'll skip that one. how many times was force used by a police officer against a citizen of the united states last year? go ahead, raise your hands up high, we need to know. maybe we'll skip that one as well. how about this. are residentially segregated communities more likely to have police presence than racially i

want grated communities? raise your hand if you've got data to prove that point. raise it up high, because i need to know. our lack of literacy on police issues to this date is a national embarrassment. we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. and all of us who want to proclaim that we need to do better, myself included, i've gone from the bible, i've got to go to my mama. you can't be loud and wrong. you can't be loud and ignorant. we need to know if black lives matter, then we need to take seriously the project of coming to understand policing. of coming to become not just literate but fluent in the culture of policing on its own terms, its own sake, and the way we need to understand the friends of our children, the friends of our partners and the character of this country. if black lives matter, we need to take policing seriously.

somebody say wisdom. so that is the goal of today. up here we have some of nation's best at fixing our national embarrassment of a lack of data and lack of understanding. i'm proud to have partners up here in the center for policing equities national justice database, the first and largest collection of data on police behavior and we are going to be hearing from people that, from their tireless efforts, from their lifelong commitments and from the job they're doing right now, today, right before they showed up and right after they leave this meeting, are helping to correct the embarrassment, the lack of wisdom that we have. on how we can make good on our requirements of making black lives matter. so everyone up here and those who will come in at a later point, we'll get about seven minutes to speak -- will get about seven minutes to speak. we'll answer questions amongst ourselves and we want to make sure there are questions we get

from you all. stay with us. stay engaged. i'll be giving very, very, very brief introductions for everyone. ok. then they will expand on their articular topic. we may not be in black church, but we are of black church, so some of you may be moved to respond today. coming from the middle of the panel, i'll pick on one of my very good friends, the director of the office, ron davis who thought he was going to be safe by sitting in the middle and wasn't going to have to go first, but i think it's important to hear from federal voices in terms of what is moving on this first. ron davis, having spent a lifetime in law enforcement in oakland, then as one of the most distinguished chiefs in the nation in pa lo alto, a trendsetter, an innovator in policing is now the first african-american director of the

cops office and has been doing tremendous work in collaborative reform and giving some carrots to police departments, and not just sticks. i'll allow him to go ahead and introduce his topic now. i would prefer to see you stand. join me in welcoming director davis. [applause] mr. davis: good morning. i will say -- i would say thank you, but i'm not. i'll get you later. it's great to be here. ic this is probably -- i think this is probably great timing and great topic. i spent 34 years in law enforcement before coming to the cops office. 20 years in oakland, a community that faces a lot of challenges, then 8 1/2 years plus at east palo alto, another great, diverse city that faces challenges. i came to the cops office, i think what i brought with me was this understanding, watching the evolution of policing over the last 30 years.

i think back when i was hired as a rookie cop in 1985, they had a special program for 12-year-olds. see if you catch that. i got hired in 1985 as a rookie cop, where we were at as a profession. those who have been around a while, that was at the beginning of the crack epidemic. i think about what brought me value as a street officer, how i was evaluated, what was policing about? it was heavily about enforcing. the way you exceled in organization was by making more and more arrests. that was it. if you came to me in 1985 saying you believe in re-entry, i would say, absolutely my job is to re-enter parolees back to prison, because nobody changes. clearly we've evolved and know that's just not the case. and despite our best efforts, we have made a lot of progress since the 1980's, we're more diverse, more evidence based, but the things we haven't done have left a lot of communities behind. the first step we have to do,

dr. goff is good at this the first thing to stop and start with is acknowledging the role law enforcement has played throughout history in oppressing certain communities. we have to acknowledge that because it creates generational distrust. when you see people demonstrating, who are disconnected, they're december in-- disenfranchised, this system doesn't seem to serve them the way it's supposed to. what i would tell you in 30 years here, i have never seen such an opportunity. i was in the police department when the rodney king incident occur. it usually seems to come and then go. this, i think, is fair to say, i believe we're amid a new civil rights movement in the united states. the question for my colleagues in blue and in uniform, what role will police say in the civil rights movement. in the 1960's, we played a role of disrupting it, trying to prevent it. in the 21st century i think

we'll play a role in facilitating it and being part of it because we need to make changes. if you recall a lot of things going on in the country in december of last year, the president announced he creation of the president's task force in 21st century policing he identified 11 outstanding members to lead this. i was honored enough to serve as executive director of the task force with the cops office. these 11 people were diverse. they were police chiefs, academics, young people coming off the lines in ferguson, demonstration lines, coming off the lines in new york. they were academics and civil rights attorneys who admitted their whole career was suing police departments. when we started this diverse group had such diverse views, people wondered could we come together to build anything. i think we learned that diverse views are not divisive view. within the diversity they were able to come together and build consensus. i think the first lesson is that

you can bring people with diverse views to the table and still build consensus. the challenge is you have to bring people that will stretch you out of your limits. you can't just invite the people you're comfortable with, you have to invite the people you're not. they came up with 60 recommendations, hopefully we'll have a chance to talk about throughout the day and throughout this session on how to build trust and how to make our nation safer. when the president charged the task force he was clear. he wanted concrete recommendations to build trust between the police and community and he wanted to make sure that we would continue and have thing -- continue enhancing public safety. that's what taps was able to do. this is the report out there. now the charge will be to make sure this report doesn't sit on the shelf, that it becomes alive, that it's operationalized that people embrace it around the country that department will use it as a road map. i'm traveling all over the country and seeing police chiefs reporting to the community those things they have implemented, those things they need to

implement, working with the community to advance it. this has to be driven by everyone, not just the police. we are co-producers of public safety, the community and police together. as we start talking about pliing, i want to end with this. think about a couple of comments that drive me to be a police chief. that is, as we start talking about fighting crime and violence, sometime in that fight is where we lose our way. as we start struggling with crime rates and homicides and violence we can lose our way because we want to think the only thing we're supposed to do is reduce crime and we lose the fact that public safety is not just the absence of crime but also the presence of justice. so i want you to think about this. if you think about a neighborhood, whoever controls the open public space of the neighborhood controls the quality of life for people who live there. think about your neighborhood, think about where you grew up, especially in you are been centers. whoever controls the open space controls the quality of life.

if gang members and drug dealers control it people live in fear. if police control it, people feel oppressed. the only rightful owner of the public space is the community. the role of police is not to take over the public space, not to saturate it with stop and frisk, not to take thousands to jail. it is to empower and work with the community to take control of their own public space so they can be alive, well, and activity will reduce crime. it's all about regaining control of the neighborhoods by the community, with the community, and not against it and not fighting it. in 30 years i would say, we're at a defining moment in american policing history. we have a small window of opportunity that comes with any crisis. i caution, the window of opportunity will close very quickly. it's usually replaced with a door of past mistakes. let's not go down that road, repeating past mistakes. let's have the courage to have the kind of discussions we're supposed to have. let's use words like race and bias, talk about excessive

force, talk about supporting officers and not every cop is bad, not every young person is bad. we need to have courage to have the discussions, we need to have courage to talk about what we need in the future, we need to come together. this is one of those times, when it's time for know leave this office, i want to be able to say that we came together that we worked together and that the country is better for it. i'll tell you something, when i look at the officers right now, i'll say this, for those who may be apprehensive, take some solace knowing, i'm seing a new generation of officers that are smarter, people will get mad at me for saying this, but i'll say it anyway. that come from more diverse environments. they want to do the right thing, we have to help them. i'm seeing chiefs willing to learn and willing to embrace. let's not make this a fight. let's make it a dialogue. later.get you back thank you. [applause]

mr. goff: it is now my absolute pleasure and honor to introduce the representative of michigan's 13th district and the man who has introduced more civil rights legislation than any other individual in the history of this country, representative john conyers. [applause] top of the morning, everybody. great to be here. i'm pleased to be here to help convene the annual forum on criminal justice reform. this year, we're joined by policing practices experts to help us gain a better

understanding of the challenges o resolving the growing divide between the police and minority communities which they serve. i say that carefully. we want to understand the challenges to resolve the growing divide between the police and minority communities which they serve. the tragic deaths of michael brown, eric garner, walter scott, freddie gray, have sparked pain and outrage in communities across the nation, calling for congressional ction. now, for many in our communities, the death of these men along with many others represents a continuing and

dangerous cycle of disproportionate use of force gainst men of color. must find here, today, this weekend, concrete solutions to stop this pattern. we need to ease racial tension in america by rebuilding our communities in a balanced way. where everyone receives equal education. that's where it starts. job opportunities and a fair shot at the american dream. equal education is where it starts but the home is where it really starts, isn't it? it's the home. of sad truth about this kind root causesthat its

re tied together with societal racism, the -- that brand black citizens as predators and police practice that treats them as potential perpetrators. breeding distrust between law enforcement and the community that they are bound to protect. responding to this destructive cycle requires a broad based approach. to address police practices, i 42 u.s.c. o pass 14141, the federal statute, as part of a 1994 crime bill. to allow the department of ustice to sue or provide local

police departments with resources necessary to address dangerous and discriminatory practices that result in excessive force or racial profiling. this statute, this law has been used successfully across the nation to reduce the number of lice involved shootings, illustrative of the positive effect of legislative reform efforts. the effects of 42 u.s.c. 14141 along with the introduction of h.r. 1933, the end racial profiling act play a crucial role in breaking historically unjust practices of law enforcement. racial profiling is an issue that affects many people of color on a regular basis, let's

face it, and is just one piece of the greater issue of unjust practices directed toward minorities in different communities across the nation. h.r. 1933 was introduced to directly address the issue of the illegal use of race by law enforcement agencies. it represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system. it is designed to enforce the constitutional right to the equal protection of law by changing the policies and procedures underlying the act of racial profiling. and further i've introduced h.r.

2875, the law enforcement trust and integrity act. this legislation provides inventives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance based standards to ensure that incidents of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management training and oversight protocols. and that if such incidents do occur, they will be properly investigated. the bill also provides police officers, the vast majority of whom are pretty decent people concerned with their community, with the tools necessary to work with their communities to enhance their professional growth and education. we must continue the discussion on criminal justice reform,

develop legitimate plans to make local law enforcement agencies more accountable to their communities. until we develop a concrete plan to address the root causes, we can only wait to see tragic events repeated across other communities. so this panel will feature experts from the department of justice, law enforcement, and the advocacy community to provide an overview of the continuing challenges in police-community relations. law enforcement accountability and transparency and racial profiling. and i am pleased now to turn the floor over to professor goff

from the center on policing equity. thank you and it's good to see all of you here. [applause] mr. goff: as the professor on the dais, i feel there are lots of different modes of learning we have available to us. i'd like to now turn over the dais to ms. e d --

tonya bennett. she was -- sorry, i have the wrong -- her voice is here present with us. her spirit -- i apologize. let me have you introduce yourself so i don't get any more details wrong. i apologize. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. tanya clay house.

i will be speaking on behalf of the lawyers committee but i will be leading the lawyer -- leaving the lawyers committee, my last day was tuesday but i'm still here on behalf of the lawyers committee. ms. house: i will be heading into the department of education as deputy assistant secretary. so of course some of the issues that i want to talk about today are dealing with school discipline. we'll get to that as well. i do appreciate, thank you phillip, for the introduction to mr. k you for -- conyers, i don't know if he's still here, for allowing me to be on the panel today. i've been able to participate on these panels for a while, it's a great opportunity to have you come here today and hear what things are going on. we don't often get that chance being, we're here inside the beltway. but you need to understand exactly how things are really

working. and so as lone woman up here today, i want to talk about a couple of issues with regards to black women and policing. some of the distinctions, unique factors that are faced. so let me, without further ado, kind of go into a few things. as the lawyers committee, our mission is to eliminate racial discrimination. we were founded by former president john f. kennedy back in 1963 and not only to eliminate racial discrimination but protect our civil rights laws. part of that mandate requires we engage on issues that we see there is an inherent discrepancy, that there's disparities that are occurring. and the criminal justice system has been one of those for years. watched with eric gardner and sandra blair and

across the country seeing a lot more focus on some of the policing issues. but this is the larger function. we need to keep that in perspective. as a result of this highlighting that has been going on for years with cell phones and cameras, we are seeing a lot more of that now. the civil rights coalition of police rights was formed and we meet weekly and we bring together states' organizations, the grassroots activists and have strategy and figure out what we need to be doing out top to bottom. i appreciate the conversations that we have had throughout the months with ron davis. and he knows us well.

and had many conversations with the department of justice and met with them on tuesday. let me you in form you. part of our conversation with the department of justice where are we? hat the updates a know how are things being pursued. and we often know that those beyond a lot of us in the organization, people don't understand how that process is working, so it was good to have that conversation, we are going to putting together everybody together and saying this is how the process is working at the d.o.j. this is how long it takes. things are going on. things are happening in baltimore and ferguson. there is no consensus. things are happening and

happened in ohio and things are continuing implementation in louisiana. this is good work. but there is so much more that can be done. part of that work needs to be about policy reform. while we absolutely appreciate the creation of the president's task force, we know there are some things we need to continue to work on, the broken windows policy, the policy that is engaged across the country that utilizes more aggressive tactics on lesser crime with the idea that is going to stymie any further criminal activity. what we know is that that leads to racial racial profiling. this is the result of what has

-- of these broken window policies. we have to address that that has to be done on a policy level and fundamental change. and in addition to that, we talked to the department of justice about the issues of women, because we hear about unnecessarily so about the impact about the profiling that we'll hear about about black men. the dynamic, the power structure that is much different when it comes to the policing of women in germ but particularly black women. we are oversexualized and at the same time we are overly aggressive. there is a lack of respect and appreciation and there are tactics engaged upon black women because of the different power structures. we heard about sandra bland for

changing lanes. and then ends up dying in police custody. there is a concern about what is going on and we are continually trying to follow that situation. we aren't hearing about ma keya boid and in a tissuea mckenna. these are women, we had five black women that died in police custody. these are statistics we have to get out there and this goes to the issue of data collection and we are getting the information in. right now there is so much happening across the country. lastly with the few minutes i have left, let me say, i wanted to focus on where this is beginning, the policing as of men and women often begins in

the school. an ave right now there is overcriminalization happening in our schools. we have police in schools. and mostly, they are within schools within a high proportion of minority students. what happens is that you have our kids being arrested, a third grader being shackled and cuffed because he had and outburst. he was shackled and cuffed because nobody understood that there were other techniques that could be used to work with him. we have kids being arrested for -- having a volcano that exploded in the classroom and sent to alternative schools.

preschoolers are being thrown ut and suspended in preschool. what did you doe in preschool. i have a 2-year-old and a six yrled, you know boys. they are a little bit hyper. my goodness. we've got to deal with what is happening in our schools sm. that relationship between our children and between police. they are getting that early on and they are being taught to taught to not fear the police but our children are not the orth the respect and not worth human beings. and this mentality has to stop. so i urge all of you as we continue this discussion to think about this on a comprehensive level. we have to deal with the overpolicing, the racial

disparities, which is leading to our school pipeline and i appreciate to be here today. i'm going to say this is not as a result of our changing jobs. i have to hit another panel as well. i love you well. and i'm staying as long as we can. thank you so much. [applause] mr. goff: i want to echo something what she has had to say. the law enforcement is engaging with our communities, we are seeing the images in which black men are being violated because that's what happens on the streets. the cameras will capture that. they will capture things that are happening in custody and not capture things that are

undercover. women are most vulnerable. we move to reform, we don't the sectionism in the world the waist that reform law enforcement. gregory thomas to the front who is the president of the national president of black law enforcement. he has been a forward their on all of these issues and has three books. 17 blogs.

>> black police executives right and approximately publish policy papers. it was recommended that they vocate a re-examination to ensure there are opportunities for advancement. they recommended that black

moreover, it was recommended that black police executives at the entry level ranks to perform examples. it was recommended that black police executives be accountable to the black community and urged to speak within the department and at the community at large. good afternoon. the recommendations are just read to you were a very, very small bit of paraphrasing of recommendations that were made during a symposium here. a symposium that was attended by 60 top black law enforcement executives that represented 24 states and 55 cities. it was held to exchange views about the high right of croimr

crime and the conditions ta lead to crime and violence. this symposium was held here in washington, d.c. in 1976. during this symposium that it whereas funded. stand here as your national president. now after hearing the recommendations that were made over 39 years ago, the 19th century critic got it right when he made the quote, the more things change the more things change. recent events that happened in new york, missouri and maryland will be seared in american history and the american conscience. and have caused a tide and a tsunami in recommendations from

policy interest groups and those in the public who think they are experts on how to fix a broken law enforcement and criminal justice system. 40 years ago after the founders of nobody ell met. here we are again putting on our collective thinking caps to solve problems that our members knew how to solve. nobody ellis involved. we have been the task force that president obama too look at president obama and did a lot of work to hear the voices of our members regarding the need to look at policing in a different light. and we have been involved in the ops agency and supported congressman conyers and we are

at the same time make sure it is reasonable accountability and reach out to those ceilings. i also take pride, i got a phone call mid-day wednesday where the senior advisor to the white house to meet with nobody ell to milwaukee more about what happens to advance this conversation. nobody ell has been involved to ensure we get this right and a balanced conversation about the fact that there is no doubt there are acts that have been conducted by police officers. but not all police are bad. we want to make the raise the level of expectations and those doing. i don't know anybody in this room that will expects to call 911 and nobody answers right.

you want somebody there and be there with the right respect for who you are in that community. as we continue to discuss the need for accountability and -- m, i could ask that we if we do we are doomed to repeat them. thank you. [applause] >> it is now my pleasure -- those of you who are on twitter black e loves your necessary. he does not speak for the movement but speaks for him sex. but when he does, many in the movement speak him. he is making sure that those who

are institutions of power and authority who have the space it to change institutions are held accountable to the voices of those who are not participating in this great democracy. it is my honor to bring him to the floor. [applause]

and they knew it and neighborhoods would be safer because of relationships and you don't need to know my name. you don't need to -- when you think about the upper west side, police aren't escorting to them. let's pray basketball. the community policing is heavily -- race is always at play.

join the police, the be a part of the change. you should think about joining a police department if you want to be part of the change. i don't need to be a police officer. i don't need to be a teacher. i don't need to be a doctor. we can expect things from the institution because it is a public institution. i want to talk about crime. somebody said, one of the police members present said -- so, that is her response. and i said the police aren't on wall street and selling cocaine and horn. that is not true. and the response was less complicated when we say crime. that is raceist. when there was black people, when we talk about non-black

ople, crime becomes domestic violence. there is a crime. and they talk about the 1980's and talk about baltimore and this notion, this used to be unsafe. and the spobs to violence. it might have been unsafe. and not to like oppress and harm people. there is research that is out that i would push people to and we talk about the miss and there research about -- [laughter] >> thank you. >> it's great. to attesting to that, we got talk. potentially a better predictor,

fascinating research and out of harvard ipting research -- we talk about the policing, we believe that is important. what he is arguing,, he calls it is public disorder and a lot of violence in communities. interpersonal drama. and dispute that ripple into violence. and the myth of the ready.

we over police the protestors. we shut not have pepper sprayed that man. that is not how we approached him. and police are welcome to the tail. i don't know how we work together and i say that as somebody who had a great meeting . so many people, but again it requires this willingness to tell the truth about the actions. and two things, and we agree, but there is something about the institution of policing that is problematic. campaign zero, it's a platform of policy sluges around policing and we can indianapolis violence and police don't kill people. we have a problem.

we believe we can end this structurally. and end this notion of safety. safety is a much more expansive notion of spliss policing. and safety becomes our jobs and development and other things. georgetown is not safer. they are safer because of a host of reasons. this is an institution of policing. police officers have filed. they are removed in one, two, three years of cycles. it is not because they didn't do anything or not disciplined but purged. a lot of cities that the police officers captain give statements like in maryland.

they guarantee they won't be fair. and the person accused them has test.e a lie detector so we do want to complicate this conversation we strug the which the police moves forward. forward.ou forward [applause] . we have lost the trust

because we have many police officers that involve themselves in racial profiling. i say that, it is quite fascinating the man who led the charge, i hope you will give him another round of applause to

representative john can years. because of his traffic stop, and we can address thisish, not one one law enforcement personnel will tell you we will have to change. ood data leads to good data. they have stopped us from cleggetting that data. oy will never forget. r friends at police union -- f.o.p., thank you so much. the fraternal order of police sent a letter to john conyers in that letter they said we oppose that bill to collect data. and in that, he said, the reason is, we don't want to be involved

sperments. ll we want data to be crafted and that ig that a real problem and this bill is real crucial. defining terms. holding law enforcement accountable and did what they are supposed to be. those driving down 9 , we determined about 17% of the dwrifing top lation was african-american and routine traffic stops. we have a real problem. and thank you mr. conyers for making thurfer sure that happens. >> training is only as good as the policy. in essence if we don't have good policy when we get stobbedfer

topped, what can they use? we are amazed, a 12-year-old kid playing on a playground. it was acceptable in these controversial cases whoever was sperson. spoke john conjersreek nice that. we have to change the law. we move to pass his law, are now setting policies, using use the hen they can taster and the nightstick. it is not acceptable for a police officer to pull up to playground because a kid was

place on pla playgrouped and shoot him twice in the chest. there is a problem when the leadership says it is ok. we have a 12-year-old kid dead. and atlanta what point is it settable for a child to play for his play grouped. thank you mr. conyers. don't be fooled. we do want body cams. we want to make our policies are in place. and police officers are using ody cams and have been obstructtive. the policies must be accountable. that must happen. we want gun cams

and taster cams. it was the lethal form. we had a case where a young man was tasered once. the cause of death wasn't the the taser. are hit his hit of head. and lead to premature delivery. and he died ace a result of it. and the initial cause of death. as we talk about these issues. and yes, making one of those off 10 years and we want all those things recorded.

and not this whiletwatch of wash thing we have been seeing. look atlanta this. and the report back. if you have a problem with the i.r.s. is it is with you. i will review a full review and share with you a double space to make sure what happens and every sing 8 case, you need me a whole oney back.

and includes from collecting data and independence. you should not go into the police department to complain about the police officer. we did some testing. d in that testening, we sent ell-trained people to complain about police miscugget. go on the internet and what you see is a well man young trained .nd a form to fill up notdesk sergeant aid i will give you a forl. the desk sergeant said i won't

ll you until it's my responsibility. i don't want to talk about it now. i will take it high pressure system. another police officer walked out the door. he went around the back door. and nobody else was around, he was tackled to the ground and that to stop. the powers to subpoena is very important. the power to compel the grand jury is important. and this is very important ment two more things and i'm out. oop we just for the first time pass a bill to collect data in december 01 on united states

citizens to die. it was not collected bch that cht how per swrace i have the problem is. baugs our congress to move major changes. the policies in place. and we have to start cletting data one of oush children. killed and harmed by police. and there is a brob solved. we have to make sure to do it right. thank you so much. [applause] gov zpwoff i feel the need to do it. indianapolis metro

police department. he had a special department. he was president of the vanguard justice society that ropet black fierce. kshforse. ask him about that experience. ?

>> fixing the problem. because going during the time a lot was happening and it was misused of power and police were sent to schools, colleges and universities to prevent people of closh. why would we think we would not have to maintain a sebs of oshed. we had to conversation. 1968, a young, in man and he came to class and talked to and spent time, then april 4, 1968 changed. and i got a chabs to change. a young man watching him in his

different union firm, putting on his shield, telling us and making us getting off the treat because of dr. king. and he had one more than job. what did he have in his communities. and understanding what that looks like and making a difference? n 1980, therebs, community policing took off and gold steen and williams talked about it and community 937, the of baltimore. and i remember hearing that people of color changed from iles around and stood outs

those officers and waited for them to go to work. and they were proud they were police officers. why did we stop. why did we stop? why did we stop maying attention . why not act our police and not have the tools to address the tools. in 1980's. what happened in the 198 's? watched? they closed them down. who made us. who decides. the law enforcement should be the orderly and jails become the institution we take people too fer to. based.f this is origin

so we have to look at how we got here. how many are you willing to let your sons and daughters. and police officers the best of. how many are willing to do that. send a relative to law enforcement today. that's exactly what the number we receive who really real question care about changing the culture of law enforcement. we have to be involved. have to be active participants. and we tried to make a difference. i saw preverages of prejudice.

that was at roll call. [laughter] >> that was at roll call. than deal with people description they gave of people. and how many people would choose about the discussion about the natives are restless, we are ying those of us we fought against it. and the organization that fought against opprention. if we allow to happen that in roll call. tttive conyers and senator hilleary, but they are still speaking out. and there are's their platform.

what happens if you speak out. ow many are you going to speak out. are we prepared to support them injustice. we are doing more than drugs, money and combuns and that is the role of the police because the task ta particular call side is while we see i will. and we walk up to a police officer or a young person. you want to be talking fee him in the neighborhood. are we willing to do what isness to make a dwiff in our society. why do we stop.

move forward in our perform of policing. we are recognizing the leadership. and maugsullingsthsh ever sure there i a problem. e have to have a advice ever voice larger than this room. there are 30,000 or more police officers working . the question becomes what does the next lead are look like to you. i believe they bring about the braintrust necessary ment in doings it, we lost one in cincinnati this week.

a had-work owning man. but i any it is important to know he is taking the hits. unless, i'll glad to be your scheaf of chief. i saw a couple of things happening. i saw a community divided over that and police officer and an accident where he struck a motorist on a more sikelilt than we stand by and happen will somewhere chay whose. transparencyo have and data and pushing for that.

we don't have the monies necessary to do all that is in the 0th century. we need to help with grants. by the way, everybody loves broad cams. raise your hams. raise your hands. your home. t, go to do you trout your big brother? well ouraring clothes, family is in the night rgs are you going to turn that camera

off? what's the answer your next door neighbor wants it. freedom of information act, do e give it on it to them. and they nideoilt to be revied. and pay for it. and look forward to the discussions. thank you.

> thank fer thank you, dr. field. have been told that high his rerifle is good. i will be beaver that i had been participated. i would like to congressman

conyers and congressional black caucus for putting together this very important zaugs. i was interest, as i heard talking about my career, i have and doing this 41 niresyow hard to look back that 41 years later we are having the same discussion. same very issues that we have talked about in law enforcement and the african-frems and largest police department in this country. we have challenges. those challenges have not been uninnocence fer notice fer notice. what goes in. if you fail to bring the right

folks in, you aren't going to can right agency. we talked about officer frebbedly. i would have liked to know officer frenly, but we didn't have officer friendly. we had strens and a a an agency ta that did not represent the community that it seved. that's why recruiting is important. to live the communtse that that you want the police. it's crate call and we don't zroit. it in the city of elimination and saying this is bad policy. how is it that is a person could

ve in a city that they don't want to miss and visit that city only 10 times their lie life. there is something wrong with that policy. education is key. we are in their times, foge. this is worst than it quasstht 19 0's. and people think its ok. you heard how our leadership says, what you saw is all right. policy was followed. i can tell you as i go to think eat and i want to be believe

there is no one person sitting on this pode yes, ma'am that elieves selling cigarettes ebbs. be a death sent ks. arrants a death sent did he one person who ervings and a dealt seth evenings. oiltfment thank >> the attorney general was imminent and i pass it look. you will for give give us by her arrival. subcommittee with that, it is my pleasure while i watch the door

to tage this pleasure right now. toes of those of uzz who grew up in communities where there were church elders and community elledes who have not wisdom for us but genius that wept jub tapped. because of the ways in the qunt try. you know the person i'm talking that genius in the last general ration or so has been coming thue. ron scott has more than 40 heers of years of cow experience.

not just for co-founding the back planning per they are party but for having joan just and make it legible for people to are strangers to it. met on a bloging pam what to do with police of force. and i have a list here, everybody bio's is incredible. so i'm not going to go throughal the awards. continuein i-con as we pi restan. pleas join me in ron scott to

the perch. [applause] scott skt i thank congressman conyers, we met, shortly after he went to congress and fighting similar about the lings every year to do this. police milt tar ayesation and they said i guarantee in the next few years we when are will talk about it. didn't hatch because on it happened on trigs than i urge you wheng deal with these things, list i don't know to the

people in your community who are fighting these biteles every day, every night rgs all the tile. i think bl the dark alies and moss of murdered children, i think about those things and scenario. television and it's what we do every at the of day, and end violence. the end of vial eshes both ends us not just the police, because why we intervene and conflict rs 780 prs of prs of the cazz i are are men on men

and we found it, discovering it and a guy who quass shot by the police before it is what over. and we didn't have the big momma factor and this quelled that. denes quafered tied. and her family and the family of den ills quafered were to quoot each other. hat helped us develop. . .

family members who saw the shooting had to wait before they could get any information. sheriff, i know some of them are decent and some of them are not. the money should be withheld until such time, as there is some clarity about shootings, confrontations and someone. i will close with this -- what is policing? in detroit, we have an institute that is not the police.