police reform legislation. the house returns june 25. watch live, on c-span. first ladies, influence and image, examines the private lives and public roles of the nation's first ladies through interviews with top historians. tonight, we look at dolley madison, elizabeth monro, and luis adams. watch first ladies, influence american, tonight, on history tv on c-span3. host: joining us from atlanta this morning is former congressman bob barr. he represented the seventh district of georgia from 1995 to 2003. he is also the president and ceo of the law enforcement foundation. mr. barr, let's begin with your foundation. how is it funded? >> the law enforcement education foundation headquartered in atlanta is a 501(c)(3), that is

a not-for-profit tax deductible foundation. we are funded by private donors and we provide information to law enforcement and to the public on law enforcement matters. we are also able as resources permit to provide grants to law enforcement agencies across the country. are funded by private donors and we provide information to law enforcement and to the public on law enforcement matters. as resourcesble permit to provide grants to law enforcement agencies across the country. host: what is your foundation's position on policing? thenews we have seen, protests reacting to what has happened to african-americans, and what do you think should be done? guest: there are a lot of things that can be done and we always need to be willing and open to making reforms to law enforcement. i am a strong supporter of law enforcement as a former u.s. attorney, however i note that from time to time and we see this recently as well, that

there are problems that manifest themselves that we see in law enforcement. are thees i think these result of poor training and poor resources available to police departments. one of the things or a couple of the things for example that we need it to be doing is dramatically increased training and resources to police training. we also need to do a better job of making sure that law enforcement understands their role in our society is not to be an armed force, but to be a domestic law enforcement agency that is bound by the constitution, which of course is very different from how the military operates. therefore, i think also some of the proposals to lower the militarization of prospective or aspect of policing would help

also. includesyou think that also not giving law enforcement military gear? yesterday there was a headline in the papers that police have received nearly half $1 billion in military gear under the trump administration. guest: this is not something that began with the trump administration. it has been a problem i think for several years, particularly since 9/11. billion's of dollars over the course of the last 20 years have gone to law enforcement, civilian law enforcement agencies in the form of military equipment. much of this is really not needed by local police departments. most police departments do not need armored vehicles, armored cars. they have an only limited need for fully automated weapons into the whole notion that every time

a law enforcement officer or group goes to serve a warrant, that they need a swat backing thisup, that leads to notion and perspective on the part of some law enforcement that they are not bound by what traditionally should be the standards for police officers. that is within the bounds of the constitution including the fourth amendment, which does not apply to our military overseas. i think that dramatically trimming back on the military equipment given to police departments will help in that regard. host: how long are police officers trained for the job and what changes would you like to see to that training to address the concerns that you have spoken about this morning? guest: as with most things in our society, greta, sooner or later the answer to these questions comes back to resources. when police departments are

facing limited or cutbacks in their resources, that is the tax dollars that they have with which to work, one of the very first areas to be cut seems to be training. this is unfortunate. i think that police departments need to pay a lot more attention to and put a higher priority than they often do on training. this falls not so much to the federal government although there is a federal role here that we can talk about, but the primary responsibility for ensuring that police departments across the country are properly trained falls on the local elected officials, the county commissioners, the city mayor, the city councils and the state governments. they need to put more resources into training and they need to do it consistently. host: let's go to robert and brooklyn. a republican color.

you are up first for the former congressman -- a republican caller. you are up first for the former congressman. caller: train and d arm the the police.arm know that that -- several of them commit genocide and still get to come into the united states. host: let's take the first part u.s. policere the officers being trained by the military in israel? guest: for many years there has been a sharing of police officers or certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with the -- four

certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with the israeli police. i have no problem with that. techniques can be really effective. as some are not applicable to our society and the laws into the constitutional provisions that are law enforcement officers have to operate under so it is a good program to broaden the familiarize asian of our law enforcement officers to ion of our lawt enforcement officers. host: let's go to south carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening and all of the things that need to be done as far as police in this

country. i have been listening to bob barr into the rest of them, but do you really -- if you really think about it, just like your own household, you are the man of your house and ye care of your family. we all sit there trying to figure out how to govern -- are governors going to take care of states, everybody. you know as well as i know what you have been listening to on ,he news that president trump all right, and a trey gowdy and lindsey graham, if you put them care in control of taking and putting things in place like you are talking about, it will happen, but people all over this people with that leadership and you know that. host: ok. joe in alabama, a republican, you are next. caller: it is pretty easy

sitting in your office they are saying that the police don't need military type weapons when you are not doing the job. that is the problem. most people are trying to run the show from an office. you are not out there in the public having to deal with people that have a lot of heavy duty weapons now. for -- think it is right a lot of people sit back and like i say run the show from an office. host: ok. mr. barr? valid your color makes a point and that is that the -- your caller makes a valid point policet is that the way are held accountable must factor in. the circumstances that police officers themselves face, for

as congress is now proposing a one-size-fits-all for use of force, use of deadly force by police officers, i think this would be a mistake. there has to be a view that the officer on the street facing the circumstances that he or she faces, that has to be the primary focus of their accountability. that officers should not be accountable for abusing that authority. they should. this notion that you can set an objective standard for everybody in the country, all police officers, will not work. it will create more problems than it solves because police officers be very hesitant and will back away from confrontations and that will only embolden the criminal element and lead to further problems. with regard to your colors s question oraller'

statement about military equipment, i'm not saying that police don't need any nilla terry grade equipment. metropolitan police -- any military grade equipment. some do, especially metropolitan police. to give police across the country all sorts of military equipment is not needed it. it needs to be more carefully utilized and selectively given. president'sbout the executive order today on a standard for use of force? do you a -- disagree with that? guest: the president can control federal law enforcement officers and setting a standard, a careful standard for federal law enforcement officers use of deadly force is entirely appropriate and within the jurisdiction of the president.

translating that to law enforcement officers across the country is not quite so simple. the president doesn't have the authority to simply mandate a standard for all police officers as he can do for adderall law enforcement off -- federal law enforcement officers. through the use of grants to local and state law enforcement officers, tying those to a reasonable standard for use of force is entirely appropriate and timely. host: the president will be signing that executive order at rose p.m. today in the garden. ironworks, new hampshire, an independent. caller: you can have the house and senate work together. that is what they are paid to do. maybe the world would be a better place. host: the democrats as you noted

in the house and senate have put forth the justice in policing act of 2020. it would prohibit racial and religious profiling. the federal criminal statute to prosecute police misconduct improves investigation of police misconduct at a federal level, bands choke holds and no knock warrants and makes lynching a federal crime. guest: i think all of those are worth looking into and i support many of them. the lynching provision is already irrelevant. that is -- is irrelevant. it is already against federal law if it is on federal property or against a federal official. that's already on the books as a criminal, sometimes a capital criminal offense in some states. are somem that, there worthwhile elements in this

piece of legislation that the democrats have provided. some of the concerns i have related to the effort to mandate standard forts-all police across the country. for example, use of deadly force --vision in this peaceful piece of legislation has several pages that the individual officer would be held to account for the four they use deadly force or afterwards in terms of a review or a lawsuit. it is unworkable what this law, what this legislation provides. for example, before the officer would be allowed to use deadly force permissibly, he would have to essentially know what is in against of the civilian whom he is confronting.

he would have to take into account for example according to this legislation whether the individual is pregnant. how would the officer know that in many cases? the officer would have to know and to take into account whether the individual that he or she is