very sensitive to cost concerns. as you note, you have in your packet information in our freer, we provided technical assistance to them during this time period at no cost to the city. we have discussed this issue with the city. we had come to terms on agreement to be particular to the city council. the agreement was to be approved or rejected. the city was clear last night that they rejected the agreement. >> what was your reaction when you heard that the counsel objected? >> disappointment that they chose litigation over faster moves that would bring constitutional policing to the police department. is your understanding -- of what the sticking points were? why did the city council vote this down? the city council had public

hearings on that, but it is unclear as to whether or not those are the concerns they were relying upon. you would have to refer to them. what i can say is that after painstaking negotiations a document was reached in which every detail was discussed by both sides, and decided to present that document to the city council for approval or rejection. every part of that document was discussed and was negotiated extensively. >> thanks. >> thank you. todayayor of ferguson said they are willing to negotiate, but wanted to put the ball in your court to come to some kind of an agreement. they also said only within the last few weeks has the full cost of th what the dissent decree would mean, and that is why they wanted to vote on it. what is your reaction to that? would there have been room for negotiation, and why did you decide instead to announce? >> we simply follow through on

the discussions that we had with the city for almost a year, in which we made clear from the beginning that our goal is to avoid litigation income to a court-enforceable agreement with constitutional policing. as i indicated, we were sensitive to cost. those discussions were had. in fact, as we indicated, the agreement that was being reviewed was painstakingly negotiated by both the department and the city's own team. the city was well aware that by deciding not to accept it, that they would choose litigation. this is their choice. ma'am, do you think the estimates the city put forward in the last 24 hours are even legitimate? they seem to have been much higher than what was estimated before. do you believe this process, which is in the normal process you guys go through in negotiating settlements, was done in good faith? >> i'm not going to speak to the

process, because the city is an independent entity. you are correct in that it is not the normal process that we go through. as we indicated to the city, we felt that the city council had before it an in-depth, substantial agreement they could approve or reject. had it been approved, we would have filed it in court, and together we would have had a fairness hearing in which the court, a neutral, uninterested, observing party would have been able to listen to these concerns. with respect to the processes always, we are always cost sensitive when dealing with municipalities. however there is no price for policing.onal this citizens and the residents of ferguson deserve what every american is guaranteed under the constitution -- the right to be free from excessive force, from

unconstitutional stops and arrests, and from a fine system that was breaking their backs. >> were you disappointed, but were you surprised given all the negotiations? >> well, we had been negotiating with a team that was responsive. we have had extensive discussions. had come up with an extensive and detailed document that provided for substantial changes in the city's practices, and also in police and community relations. we felt this was in the city's best interest, in the interest of the residents of ferguson to avoid costly litigation and to start working right away on all the support changes. i made reaction was disappointment that they had not taken advantage of that opportunity. what is thedo sue, end result look like? doesn't get t you back to where you would have been to

what they should have committed to less night? option.rtainly is one we will be monitoring the situation throughout the course of the lawsuit to make sure there are no new problems in ferguson. we would be asking for injunctive relief, and if a have -- therses of action right to be free from excessive force and discriminatory policing based on race. we are asking for relief from those actions, for specific remedies that would give the still feelnkly, we they have an opportunity through this process to come up with a system that would provide a substantial benefit to the city. it is extremely unfortunate that the city has chosen to litigate this matter rather than move directly to these remedies and reforms that would, in fact, have been proven a benefit to the city and avoid the cost of litigation. individualsf the

mentioned in the original report were following the negotiation process. financial manager, i believe, had come up with some of the estimates. do you think that played an influence? >> i don't have any insight into the estimates they used, particularly the varying estimates. i'm not able to give you that information. what i will say is that, as i indicated before, we do not believe there is a price to be placed on our constitution. all citizens are entitled to what everyone enjoys the birth of this country -- the right to be free from excessive force, the right to be free from discriminatory policing . we had before the city of ferguson that would have allowed them to sir making these reforms right away. indeed, we have been providing assistance to the city of ferguson in training and other police technical assistance at no cost to them. that would have been part of our ongoing discussions, had we gone forward with --

>> -- that were deal breakers for you?what were the issues ? >> i think you can look and see the issues that were raised. i want to go down them in excruciating detail, but what i can tell you is that our views the citizens of ferguson deserve constitutional policing a matter who was in charge of their police force, is to allow the city to invade the terms of an agreement carefully negotiated and presumably agreed they simply transferring police department control to another state entity was simply unconscionable. it frankly would have meant that this could have been avoided at any point in time. when we have to focus on, again, is our goal, which was to achieve constitutional policing with specific changes without would have benefited the.

we think our technical systems his argument of benefit. >> to what extent is the decision to sue based on the notion that you can't have a process with this investigation, and then city councils are some other entities decide to renegotiate? how much do you need to set an example of ferguson, that this is not have a doj will handle these cases? >> every case is different. we deal with every jurisdiction on their own terms, openly, and we hope they deal with us in their own way. this is a very specific message, a response to their decision after literally weeks, months, almost a year of discussion, at which point to teams had come together with an agreement that was going to provide real relief and was rejected. as we made clear from the outset, in the absence of a court-enforceable consent degree, we would litigate the matter. >> attorney general, you say you

are doing is to protect the rights of ferguson residents. do you think that the council of ferguson is acting in good faith to do the same thing? >> i am not going to characterize their actions, because i haven't spoken with them. but i will say that this matter is one that has gotten a lot of public attention, so i think you are able to observe how it has been conducted. i think you can see that both sides have spent a great deal of time thinking very deeply about how to manage the situation. the department of justice has provided assistance in an attempt to start the managerial process, so our hope and expectation had been that we would be able to continue the process with a consent decree. as i said before, we are disappointed they made a different choice. >> following up on that question will the process, you guys continue to negotiate, presumably, as you do in any negotiation -- is it not the negotiation the issue, but more

the process? we had a deal, the deal says he voted through or you get sued, or is it a legitimate sticking point on their negotiating points? because their counteroffer is no good or are you suing because there should have been a counteroffer? >> we suing because the negotiations were concluded, in the agreement between parties was that the city council would review the agreement that had and struck by both sides decide whether to accept or reject it. whether or not there will be further negotiation is something i can't regulate on. we will proceed with litigation. >> i'd like to ask you about something in pop culture -- beyonce has released a video addresses -- doelease you have a reaction? >> i haven't seen the video.

i saw her super bowl performance but i can comment on the video. i of the performance was great. [laughter] >> coldplay? [laughter] >> everyone brought their specific talent to the field. [laughter] is disappointment really the right word? you seem rather fired up. is that really the right word? >> it is. i think the city ferguson had a real opportunity to step forward . they choose to ignore the complaints of their citizens and to ignore the clear findings that this department presented to them almost a year ago in

march of last year. they had many opportunities to deal with this, and we had hoped they were on that path, as we hope that every jurisdiction is on that path. view was that we were moving toward a system in a process and that we can work together for everyone and i am prevented disappointed they made a different choice. think you'll. -- thank you all. the white house coverage continues tomorrow when former president george w. bush loins republican presidentia canada jeb bush at a rally in south carolina. live coverage beginning at six look p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this president's day,

american history tv on c-span3 will feature special programs on the 1966 in all hearings, 50 years later. the hearings include testimony from witnesses who will pose for johnson's accidents in vietnam. it will first hear from george in an nbc news special report from february, 1966. then, retired general james gavin, followed by questions from senators, including jay williams fulbright. >> in korea we had learned that air and naval power alone could not win a war, and united ground forces cannot win when either. it was incredible to me that we had forgotten this bitter lesson so soon, that we were on the verge of making that same, tragic error. general, as far as you know, are in indochinans different today than they were? >> we will also hear from a

special consultant to president johnson, general maxwell taylor, and dean rosk. for the complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> >> join c-span on our newsmakers program this week as senator johnny isakso, a republican completing his second term, and who has announced his candidacy for the next term. he is the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. > thank you for being with us. great to be with you. >> let me introduce the reporters will be with us. we are changes is with the military times, and connor o'brien covers that covers defense for politico. leo, you are up first with questions. >> i wanted to talk about the budget announcement this week, in particular the v.a. budget and you originally said you had concerns that the obama administration is growing more money at all the v.a.. that is not the way to solve it.