tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 20, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
at president obama speeding with the gulf state leaders? >> i don't know the content of those discussions. i would have no way of knowing that. my understanding from the press is those are matters relating to defense and as such i would not expect these to be discussed because this is not a defense issue. >> very practically these are the sorts of issues that should be handled in the normal course separate and apart from those kinds of defense meetings because in a mature trade relationship just like we have with europe and the example that jeff gave with boeing airbus you know there is regular give-and-take in the state department. we have 114 open skies agreements around the world that are administered all the time all of which we support and by the way we support open skies with these three characters? we just have to have actions
this is an issue that hurts part of the industry, but there are other parts of the industry and us that are perfectly happy with the status quo. an issue of where you stood is where you stand? >> let me try that one. the issue is we care the most because it affects us the most. our our employees are here because they understand the effect it will have on them. those other organizations you describe other do not understand the situation or have the view that it does not concern the. it certainly is it certainly is better for them. here is the reality. today we are already experiencing some. and that is real damage, but what we see in europe and will happen here if i government allows for what we will see is more into the
united states from points not ago. that has a material potential impact. once that happens we, the three of us. well this sometimes, everyone pretty much understands now if we are flying international flights from philadelphia to europe they are not full of people stopping to the flying nonstop but people flying all over the united states. if we don't take that flight we will not have as many's flights into the united states. as a hub. the entire commercial us aviation business is materially different. we need many less employees command it is not right. that is that is what we will
happen if this goes unchecked and unabated. that is why we three are so concerned. those other organizations other do not understand or not care about us commercial aviation. i'm sorry. and none of all we are saying is meant to harm the cargo business and would not. it is simply about commercial aviation and passenger carriers. so we may have more education. they clearly do not understand the impacts of the united states what they would not have those views. >> what i was going to say, the cargo carriers, they do understand our issues. they. they however, have a set of traffic rights that they rely on through the middle east which are different than our sense of traffic rights. rights. this is an issue for passenger carriers not one for cargo carriers. cargo carriers are cargo carriers are concerned that
our issue could bleed over through some kind of retaliation to their rights under the skies agreements. so that they have that concern but they do appreciate the damage and harm occurring here, their concern is retaliation. >> boeing sells airplanes to you and to the gulf and as far as i can tell there staying in the sidelines. is that where they should stay because it is a no-win situation? do they need to see the concerns that you see and get involved? >> well boeing has been straightforward in its neutrality on this issue. that is appropriate for them to stay neutral. we are obviously, these three carriers on a combined basis operate more than any three that's it on a stage together. between what we operate and
what we have probably approaches over 2,000 boeing airplanes. from that standpoint it is appropriate that they stay neutral. >> two sets. i do not think however if someone were to ask jim or ray, do you have a problem with the us government enforcing us trade policy that they would say no. they should be in favor and i believe that they are. that is all we're asking for, enforcement of policy. >> if you go and look at the filings that were done against airbus you could take the words boeing and substitute american, united and delta and the issue is exactly the same command our position with respect to subsidy is identical in every respect position that
boeing took. the main took. the main difference is ours is twice as big as the largest subsidy case that has been proven by documents when compared to any wto case. from that standpoint we have the horse case our case being identical to the boeing case in front of the wto. if you go research the boeing quotes and statements made in the docket they are identical to what we're saying here. >> .-dot parker several questions that are just for you to some. >> doug likes to combine questions. one of the questions along the lines of this from a
american as part of the oneworld alliance for british airways is a a key partner in the one alliance. british airways partner is in support of the middle east and care your position on this. is a member of the oneworld alliance and apparently supported their entry into the alliance couple of years ago. maybe i want one another. it certainly makes for a peculiar get together in one world will little awkward when oneworld gets together all in one room. how do how do you figure all of the south? it does not seem to make sense. >> let me try to explain because it makes sense to me. we are part of the oneworld alliance because it is important to our
customers. we customers. we have customers that want to get to parts of the world america does not serve such as the middle east. and that i think is the right thing to do for american airlines customers. that does not mean that we should sit and watch subsidize travel and allow the us government to not enforce policy with countries. to us this is much less about individual airlines and more about public policy. policy is the us government working with the government of the uae and qatar to enforce the policy. and as it relates to british airways they have a different view and a very different network dynamic than most of us. great_ great partner, very well run and managed. we work well together, but the reality is there global hub they don't they don't
face the same issues the rest of us to because it is not possible to have subsidized capacity and enormous trenches. >> perfectly fine. you can be there alliance partner on that front that have this issue on the other front. >> a public policy issue versus a marketing relationship. >> another questioner says traditionally this is been a fight led by delta. but the all-american and us airways were mostly on the sidelines. why why has the new american taken such a strong part in the campaign? >> we saw the data. >> i like richard have been in this business a long time. when i saw my intuition was to say probably have seen
this stuff before. airlines come and go and do uneconomic things. it costs us all money, but they go away eventually. just a focused on what we do and don't worry about them. he can't fly that much capacity and expects to be profitable. then we then we saw indeed that they weren't playing by the same rules. they were playing by unfair rules and were subsidized. if you allow that to happen the rules of it completely different. so once we saw the data were all for all in. up until that time were skeptical because we had seen no proof and frankly we just assume that over time it would go way. fortunately the work was done we saw the data and we could not be more
supportive. >> given that your three airlines have two head-to-head daily competitive overlaps with the three golf carriers isn't this really about protecting passenger flow and connecting opportunities for your european alliance partners? and what is the us government national interest in demanding that the government protect your european partners by forcing passengers to connect in frankfurt munich, paris amsterdam london onto aircraft up with of the tons of khmer french can british airways, virgin atlantic. >> let me start. this is not protectionism. this is about enforcing trade policy what our nation stands for in the united states which is where competition is free of distortion particularly subsidized distortion. this distortion distortion is off the scale orders of magnitude subsidization far beyond anything that i have ever seen in my career.
this is a significant issue to us us to our employees fled to the us airline industry we fly over 5000 flights a day. we fly either directly or through star alliance in competition with the golf carriers everyday. if you take the entire network of all three golf carriers there are only three destinations not served by a member of our alliance. this is a competitive situation command we are more than happy to and do each of us complete -- compete globally are ready, willing, and able, and able to compete globally, but you cannot compete against the national treasury. you cannot compete against an arm of the state with an infinite supply of oil. it can't be done, and there has never been a thread
policy of trade policy of the united states of america since we escaped mercantilism how many years ago there has never been the policy to accept subsidized goods into the united states because of the long-term damage to jobs in the economic health of the united states. >> there was a study out today saying that you received 70 billion in subsidies 70 billion since 2,000 and include bankruptcy process and pension. and so i want to get your response to that. [laughter] >> you will have to always back. >> i want to take that one right now. i will turn to the audience and i would like the airline employees in this room who lost their pensions and
bankruptcy or have there pension person to please stand up. i like them to tell these people about whether chapter 11 has subsidies are not. it did not have subsidies. and it was the employees and creditors in a legal process that went through a reorganization. simply not a subsidy under wto law or under us law. >> it is not a subsidy under wto law because it is not a subsidy. there is no government support that provided support to the carriers. the people that made commitments have found that
they were not -- that airlines could not meet the commitments and ended up with pensions lost, jobs lost not being paid back money they had loaned. that is will bankruptcy is. if this is their defense fantastic. but sit down and talk about it. we would like to postulate that will bankruptcy really means and help them understand. that would be a great conversation to happened is all we want to do. if the argument is it is okay for us to be subsidized come on. >> in fact two of the three carriers have offered financial statements that we were able to uncover it's a fairly obscure jurisdictions and have going concern footnotes for those of you who are not schooled in the
wonders of accounting what that means is the auditors are basically saying this is not a going concern. this entity does not have sufficient cash flow profitability to survive and therefore needs to be liquidated but the government stepped in and shovel then more subsidy. so it is patently absurd not only from the wto perspective to argue that bankruptcy serves as subsidies. the people who pay for those our employees, creditors, shareholders and it is a devastating thing to occur. two two of those three carriers but for massive government subsidies $17 billion a year. almost 17.
but for those subsidies is carriers will be liquidated and would not exist today. >> but you have received government subsidies over the years whether guaranteed loans or the atc to some degree right? >> no. [laughter] >> paid for every penny. >> general taxpayer dollars. >> we can go -- >> that's not correct. >> you are you're not saying you don't get any government subsidy. >> we are. >> you are saying zero. >> we don't get subsidy. this industry is the leading taxpayer in the united states. we pay a 21 percent national sales tax. you. you had of the 15 to 17 taxes that we pay. our airport systems are self-funded. we do not receive subsidies for the united states that was part of the airline deregulation act of 1978. we do not receive subsidies.
>> tax cuts, loan guarantees you would not call those subsidies. >> if you look at what our book tax rate is in the tax rate on our financials we are a full taxpayer at the highest broker tax rate plus we pay some of the highest book taxes the kind of taxes you pay for fuel passenger facility charges, segment fees tsa fees if his fees cbp fees. i believe -- sharon pinkerton this year there are 17 taxes we pay the ticket. >> overall. >> overall. >> last -- we will do one last question on this issue and then move to general airline issues. anything you want to say you must say on this question.
do you think the government will do something at the end of the day? the "washington post" was out with an article earlier quoting a government official that said they were hesitant and made it sound like the government would not take action on this front. the you expect the government to take action? if not where you just shut this down and move along? could you see something on an export import or in some other area of benefit? >> i will start. yes. i do believe our government will take action. it should. it has enforced consistently the trade policy in the united states. it is important that this administration take action on a significant a significant trade dispute a clear violation of the underlying trade agreement
between the us and uae command we are confident that they will. should they not take action for some reason there are other avenues that we will need to pursue. >> i am confident they will take action because the evidence is compelling and it cannot be ignored. the provide the information. they asked us a series of questions. we give we gave the answers and made the case even more compelling. it is not as if you can look and say there is not enough you to act. we are concerned about urgency. 25 percent more capacity command we are concerned that there is not enough urgency in the process and are trying hard to highlight the need for urgency, urgency, but i cannot
imagine the government does not act because of the evidence being compelling. leslie we will let them get away with not acting. we have worked far too hard to get to a place for this business can stand on its own feet people can know that if they show up and work for an airline they can have a career. and that has been a hard fight. they're not going to let that go away because the us government ignore the fact that two other countries are subsidize. we won't let it happen because our people won't let it happen. [applause] >> we have been added over two years and they are not going to stop. the investigation is going to continue.
it is going to keep going. it is not going to stop. we have support in congress. or just circulated one letter, i think we have 260 member sign. we have avenues of relief through congress' but we will continue the battle because it is about the future of an industry that is vital to our country. it is our responsibility as stewards and leaders of these organizations to do what is in the best interest of the us aviation industry and we are not going to give up. >> moving to other topics why haven't savings from reduced fuel costs been passed on to consumers or customers? they are talking about airfare relief. >> first i we will do this.
my colleagues but legal degrees can do better. we have to be a little careful with the three was talking about issues such as pricing. numeral china's. the three of us being together is not a. >> there is no other reason we whatever. [laughter] >> this is our analysis. [laughter] >> that is proof positive of how serious this issue is. having said that i will try and you can chairman. the view of american airlines being seen by consumers in the united states and throughout the world's down despite the economy is improving. much of that due to capacity. my guess is had fuel prices remain high you would not see capacity be an issue. it is incorrect to
disconnect the drop in fuel prices with the drop in revenue. capacity would not capacity would be if it were not for the fact that fuel have fallen. >> does the us-based the pilot shortage -- >> i believe it does because you have several factors at work. because of what happened after 911 we had a decade in this country with the industry essentially declined in science. the events of september 11 were devastating to the industry. the industry shrunk a fair amount. you had september 11 and in fuel prices go. we all started in this industry at $20 a barrel.
in 2,005 we get to 60 and in 2,742,008 on march of 2008 we get to 150. then he had the financial meltdown. during that timeframe there was not any hiring's. now we have demographics catching up. the same time we're back adding airplanes, all carriers a lot of investment is going in. airports can't facilities technology. a pretty significant demand in the industry and in the case of delta we are hiring a thousand pilots this year. >> it is -- it is not an issue for the mainline carriers. everyone wants to work for a mainline carrier.
it is a terrific job. we treat them well. where a solid profitable industry and people recognize they can join and have a terrific career. it really affects regional carriers. part of that is the history of the pay structure which is what historically has been. that is why you have seen carriers overtime united for one dial down there dependence on regional carriers and i love the mainline. it's good for our employees customers as well this. in general the mainline is a superior product. certainly the 50 seat type products elected.
those of the products we are retiring. from the perspective of mainline carriers we have no problem whatsoever. the the regional carriers do. >> their been conversations about privatizing air traffic control. the new buzzword is commercialized but have it run by a nonprofit in the air traffic controllers are looking favorably on this idea. could this ever get done could it ever get through congress? a lot of members of congress like the control they have over the system now including the individual towers. it's as this group ever going to want to give up control? >> am happy to take a crack at. the issue with the us atc system is not the men and women at the faa.
they are actually doing a very good job given the resource and governance constraints they have. the problems are the start and stop budgeting. they can't borrow long-term. they have a great deal of difficulty managing the transition to a modern air traffic control system will we call nexgen because of budgeting problems, and the massive micromanagement by members of congress of the system itself, and that is a problem. what our nation what our nation needs and deserves is a modern efficient air traffic control system as in our neighbors to the north, canada which does a superb job. so we are keenly interested of supporting a reformation
of the nation's air nation's air traffic control system. right now the faa is in a conflict of interest position. both regulates the air traffic control system and operates it. it is a self-regulating and operating system. it will be much better if it were split off for faa were the safety regulator's in the air traffic control system is operated 2nd. i would not be supportive of a for-profit system. it will require a tremendous amount of regulation. but a not-for-profit enterprise is something that i think i think this nation should give a great deal of consideration to. this is a complex issue and not without risk. we do know that the current system does
not work well in all in terms of efficiency. when i started in the business we would schedule a flight from here and work for an hour. now we scheduled for an hour and a half because of atc delays. think of the fuel burn alone of our antiquated world war ii era ground-based radar technology the very cutting-edge technology we use in atc today. most of you have better guidance on your hondas that we have for our nation's atc system's. we need reform transformation. there are considerable risks involved transition issues. this is complex stuff. because it is difficult and complex and many issues have to be thought through many other nations around the world have done this. this great nation can rise to this challenge and should do so. >> anyone else? okay. the airline industry has made tremendous gains and
safety over decades. one of the reasons we have become so safe is when something happens you look at what happened and make adjustments. the industry made tremendous adjustments. we have this horrible situation with earwax crash germany and the pilot deliberately bringing it down. has has that unveiled any safety crack that needs to be addressed? was that just such a far-flung off the radar sort of event that there is no action that the industry needs to take. >> the us systems are very different. these airlines require incredible experience and education in order to become a one one to one atp holder.
just the specifics we have had the two-person type of rule. so there is not that situation and i believe the europeans are adopting always to people in the cockpit's. i think our systems are just different. i don't expect -- i don't know that the final recommendations of come but we should wait and see. the rules that you always follow my he always want the process to run its course. >> to your question we don't let anything just be such an anomaly. richard is right. we think our business is different enough.
no cause for immediate issues. study of the way it should. airlines pilots. people understand this. we never look to have such an anomaly that we will worry about. make sure we cover the basis >> before we get to the final questions -- and armoring short of time i want to mention the national press club as the world's leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for free press worldwide. for more information go to the website and to learn about our nonprofit or to donate visit press .org /institute. i also also/institute. i also want to remind the audience about upcoming speakers one week from today garrison keillor will
address the press club. on july 8 we have had the coach of the washington capitals still coming to the national press club command i i would like to present each of our three guests with the national press club mug. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> extremely valuable artifacts of people get when they come and speak. i i am sure it will be treasured by each. >> i'm just glad we did not have to follow garrison keillor. >> we are all three slightly above average. [applause] >> i think your good-looking to. >> we have a tradition of ending these luncheons a
little bit more lighter side we mentioned how unusual it is to have three airline ceos together in one place taking questions from the press. we don't know when this will happen again. >> hopefully never. >> well we have will we have this opportunity would you be interested in saying why you your airline is better than the guy sitting next to you? >> how much time do you have? >> is there a particular advantage a particular advantage you see? >> let me jump in 1st. [laughter] >> i actually will say something that i think may surprise you all. i think that post- consolidation the us airline industry is so much better that it has ever been and candidly i think the reality is far out ahead of perception. i think each of our carriers
offer today a better product than they have offered in history, better customer service better technology facilities, fleet route networks customer convenience schedule utility that we have ever had. the reason we can be together so well and so fervently is because we are now in a position that we are making the kinds of investments in you and in our employees that we have never been able to make him because we were stupid for because we were poor. and we were finally making sufficient money that have sufficient cash flow to invest in our businesses invest businesses, invest in our employees fleet facilities technology and
return cached our shareholders. we all are offering an ever increasingly better product for the american consumer. we're not giving up because the subsidized subsidize capacity will end up devastating this industry. this is not necessarily for me what's happening with the goal carrier invasion here using his arms of the state so damaging to the future of our own employees and airlines and the united states and the economy of the united states that we despite our very tough competition and i hate these guys. we're together.
>> we talk about how big a deal it is. several personal ceo. it is about public policy between the us government and two countries. the three of us are not fighting those. we are petitioning our government. that is where cases. please act because these other two countries are not playing fair and it will have a material impact on us trade overtime. us trade policy being violated.
>> thank you all for joining us today of this hearing. the subcommittee will come to order and you will have a hearing today entitled body cameras technology increase protection for law enforcement officers and the public. two panels. i will make a brief opening statement in turn it over to senator white house. we have this hearing today at the request of senator scott. as most of you no there's been a lot of discussion
about how to protect the public and law enforcement officers were there are forces involved not only to protect them but the public is a hot topic right now. one of the leaders in this area. north charleston which most of us have seen videos my good indication of how video is priceless in situations like this. a lot of proposals. that's the purpose of this hearing today to see which would be the best way forward. senator white house. >> thank you very much. welcome and congratulations to your 1st subcommittee hearing as chairman. >> don't get used to it.
i appreciate that our chairman is providing this forum for his junior senator always a good tradition in the senate to begin to address the question of how well body cameras work. i ask unanimous consent that my statement in that regard be entered into the record. i think this is an important subcommittee command i hope we have more hearings in the weeks and months ahead. i have been particularly grateful to work with the chairman of the white house bill improve the criminal enforcement the cyber arena. i hope that will be able to attend our hearing date to begin to get the bill through a hearing so that only addresses on the floor
we have alleviated criticism i also look forward to what i hope will be a lively hearing on what i consider to be a pretty egregious separation of powers. and so we are looking to schedule at least those two other hearings. topics. i hope we can make this an active subcommittee. this may be the most important subcommittee. it's. >> we will do both. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciate senator scott for his strong interest in the subject. as chairman of the community respect his request for a community to look into this matter. recent recent interactions between police and the public have increase the consideration of body cameras to record and
officers work. it's a good idea. certainly the certainly the potential exists for body cameras to enhance public trust the police and they may provide evidence to show the public how well on force handles very trying situations. it is possible their existence might cause police officers to change how they perform certain aspects of the job. body cameras themselves are relatively inexpensive that costs associated with their use seem to be considerable. many practical questions regarding the use the bathroom. these include determining when cameras work and would
not be operating from our privacy in people's homes and crime victims would be maintained how footage is to be retained the chain of custody preserved. the justice department has also funded some pilot programs to determine the best practices for operation of police body cameras. before we decide what if any federal legislative responses appropriate we should obtain a good sense of the issues that have arisen and state and local use the body cameras. we should know which of the competing approaches have been more effective and further shared values. the last the last thing we want to do is create an incentive for mandate the wisdom that belies from existing state and local practice. i thank you once again for all of this hearing and look forward to the testimony of
witnesses which are going to have to read because i have another assignment. i appreciate you having a courtesy. >> thank you. would you like to say anything? >> i would like to express my gratitude. starting the conversation. very near and dear to senator scott. we all recognize the body cameras are not a panacea and will solve all the problems that they may be a peace of the answer. the public confidence in law enforcement is absolutely critical. but it is also important. i no you agree because your cosponsor of this bill that
would create a commission to study our criminal justice system and large. once we get through doing the things that we can do to help improve our criminal justice system for things like passing the corrections act for sen. senator white house and i have the chief cosponsor is a played out as plato's dates i hope that we can continue this conversation in a way that lets us revisit what works and correct and eliminate what doesn't work with the goal toward maintaining and rebuilding the public trust in law enforcement which is absolutely critical. i want to commend senator scott for his leadership. >> very quickly i just have a classified briefing at four. heavier we will. maybe i will get to my questions and maybe i won't. very briefly there are so
many questions that i assume will get to. thank you for calling this hearing about what activities and practices should be on camera in which ones shouldn't how we develop the best protocols how we use the experience of communities and states the studies to figure out what is the camera on and what is it off. and so i'm looking forward to hearing from senator scott and i thank you for calling this hearing. >> thank you very much for coming. i do appreciate your leadership. you have been very hands-on. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member. very important mission.
i would say if a picture is worth a thousand words than video is worth a thousand pictures and untold lives. it is certainly time for a national conversation about body cameras and policies affecting communities and distress. whether we're talking about ferguson baltimore, ohio oklahoma or my hometown north charleston south carolina long-term solutions are very important. in addition the body cameras i we will continue to work on things like my opportunity agenda that i believe will be the hope and opportunities into this community. phase in of impacted my life my will tell you that the foundation for changing some of the outcomes start with education long-term
education will provide a path and avenue. work skills for adult learners. entrepreneurship programs. i. i'm here today because i believe strongly that another important piece of the puzzle and rebuilding trust between law enforcement and the committee truly is body worn cameras by officers. one piece because there is no silver bullet there is no panacea but rather many pieces to this puzzle. we are here today to listen and to learn from experts on how these cameras can be helpful and at the same time for us to understand the concerns like data retention or disclosure issues including for you, cost and training when you use the cameras. i look forward to the discussion as well as the hard work ahead. the good news is according to at least one study public
complaints against officers wearing cameras falls by 90 percent. use of force drops by as much as 60 percent. that is moving in the right direction. testing the federal government to support body cameras through resources should not be confused with federalizing local policing which i would object to nor is it an attempt to mandate the use of body cameras rather an attempt to keep law enforcement officers and our communities safer. let me close with a heartfelt desire of mrs. judy scott son was killed in north charleston. she was not looking for revenge. as a matter of fact she said forgive the officer. she did she did not speak about the need for justice in our initial comment.
>> thank you all. please stand and raise your right hand. our panel consists of mr. peter weir dist. atty. for the 1st judicial district state of colorado from golden coral nancy miller senior research associate police executive research forum in washington dc for president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights and executive director of south carolina sheriff's association columbia, south carolina. welcome.. welcome. we will start with the speller and panel. >> good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to
speak today about the important issue of body want i am a senior research associate with the police executive research forum commend command independent nonprofit research organization focusing on critical issues of policing. our work began in 2013 when we partnered with the us department of justice office of community oriented policing services to research the use of body cameras. last september a publication was released examining the benefits of body cameras and considerations for implementation. the report provides a set of 33 comprehensive policy recommendations the refract -- that reflect promising practices and lessons learned. today i will touch briefly on key findings. my submitted written testimony provides additional details. first we caution the
decision to implement a body camera program should not be entered into lightly. agencies must thoughtfully examine the issues and develop careful written policies to govern use. we found that when implementing a camera program is critical that agencies engage with committee organizations, line officers and unions local policymakers and elected officials prosecutors, and other stakeholders. this can help strengthen the legitimacy and make implementation run was. we also caution that while body cameras can be a useful tool they are not a cure-all they must be viewed as just one tool and not as a substitute for policy, training policing programs. when it comes to the benefits they have been useful for several things, strengthening accountability and agency transparency, improving behavior of people on both sides reducing and resolving officer use of
they must balance the need of a transparency with avid did jerry concern. we'll is one to make sure to make sure they don't end up on you to. these are a few of our 33 recommendations with data storage and training and evaluation also how leaders can engage policymakers and the public. when implemented correctly to provide real benefits for the community. for deployment and above all we must remember the ultimate purpose is to help officers serve within their communities. thank you for the opportunity to speak today i will answer any questions you may have. >> in the second director of
the association did is an honor to come before you today i would like to begin by applauding this subcommittee to do this of the body carries before enacting legislation and for raising new technology officer accountability is 80 to produce benefit also serious unintended consequences. today crossly 15% shares offices have implemented this program to provide a significant it officers. also help to resolve officer involved conflict they have experience at the piquet reduction in complaints on
officers. everyone including the officer in the person seem to behave better when they know they're being filmed. body carries are more accountable paraprofessional in these agencies. silly thing preventing them said to be implemented is the server to costs. they must weigh the cost of the technology against potential benefits. causes too much for an agency to absorber go it is unique that the initial phase with the implementation and. when the law enforcement agencies struggle to find
money but of mandated letter for your body carries you sicken nightmare although a trust would help to fund this cost and this provision in to prevent law enforcement agencies to fully embrace this technology is privacy while it is an open concept it is not always conducive to produce successful police work sometime in the best tips come from criminal informants are those who wish to remain anonymous. there is a great fear that the proliferation will further divide our community to have a chilling effect within a stage of officers and communities they serve. these are not intended to be the source of embarrassment or humiliation for the often end encounters of the sins and data should be used as
evidence to enhance our pursuit of justice but not to humiliate or entertain neighbors. britisher said a single moment of indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of the embarrassment and when gil tennis's is determined in a court of law and public opinion. it is support for community leaders to manage these expectations of the public. every police action will not be caught and there will be times it is not possible or feasible to have the footage the absence of video does not automatically equate to innocent suspects are guilty officer but it should simply assist in the overall quest for justice. yes when used properly technology and by the cameras can increase protection for law enforcement officers and the
public we should be careful not to put too much trust in this technology can aid in transparency bet will the not help a community relations. neither will lead address tragic incidents. em but would be accomplished it is often said is true that they're far too many law enforcement agencies that barely make ends meet pearl with ted d. escalation in training that just basic training is critical throw public safety by one to increase protection for law enforcement officers to attract and retain the best officers.
to be sure that they protect our communities with fairness and justice. thank you for the opportunity to speak i will be happy to answer any questions. >>. >> the future members of this subcommittee i've said district attorney from colorado and now speaking on behalf of the district attorneys association we appreciate the opportunity to lend our voice to this important topic. in the body was cameras is the foundation of the criminal justice system and
that is one of trust and fairness a trusted and the men and women who work in the system and ultimately that justice will be done. for what is generated by body warned carries a hint keep in mind that is evidence there are many uses generated by body warned gingrich says has been alluded to with the issue of trust and accountability and transparency are critical functions. we cannot lose sight of the fact there are many considerations to take into account when we deal with the collection collection, retention, lead distribution and processing
of evidence as evidence from the body warned cameras from the prosecutor perspective this can be very important. sending us a case to a jury they would benefit from the circumstances to evaluate credibility and demeanor that is recorded and when we start talking about officered fault shootings and by the cameras can play a role to determine whether that officer may have violated the oath with justifiable the goal grounds of community supports the use of body one cameras with
appropriate safeguards their procedures and has been mentioned already there are areas of concern shared by prosecutors said i need to stress that the prosecution in community be part of a dialogue to create policies and procedures at the state and local level to engage with authorities to identify the issues that make the unique to each jurisdiction and. one size does not fit all talk about judicial districts and law-enforcement agencies in sheriff's departments of various sizes what works with one locale my now working in others. the question that is critical for prosecutors what is being recorded?
what is the extent and perhaps when should you not record? it is easier to say record anything anytime officers on the street the camera is on but is this really the process we want? with those extraordinary cost not necessarily the cost itself but opprobrious storage to archive and catalog so that evidence could be used to the appropriate manner. prosecutors are also concerned with storage irretrievable. we have obligations to present this evidence to defense attorneys. we must know which portion of a recording pertains to a specific case to distribute that to the bar. that leads to the question what is the broader responsibility to the
public? many have open records laws that mandate much of the information much -- the list be disclosed where is a fine line to collect the evidence and what we will be distributing to the public at large and as has been testified it gives a different perspective. three are optimistic of the possibility of body warned carew's then used appropriately kim be said to will for law-enforcement and prosecutors. thank you mr. chairman. >> good afternoon chairman gramm, ranking member in members of the subcommittee i am president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human-rights local shops of organizations charged with protection of the rights of all persons in the united states for crop
also the professor of law at the david clarke school of law it university of district of columbia. thank you for bringing us together today. over the last year we have seen a growing movement to address police practices with the disproportionate impact on low income communities, communities of color and african-americans in particular. these practices like profiling or excessive use of force and explicit and implicit racial bias of law enforcement have framed the national debate around police reform to prompt a national conversation on the use of technology technology, specifically by the cameras as one possible means to renounce the -- to enhance accountability. across the nation people have been transfixed by a
studio by concerned citizens between police and who they serve not since the of said deep -- bloody marchers on bloody sunday have we seen a video make such a profound impact on public discourse. prior the voting rights act did not exist with those images inspired the nation to write it and pass it less than five months later. today's citizen the dealers have inspired the nation once again. to hear the plea that he cannot breathe or to see walter scott shot from behind it is hard not to be moved. chairman you spoke for millions when you described his killing as horrific and
difficult to watch. there is the temptation to create a false operation from the body warned cameras and there's the committee not to give in to this temptation because they will not be operated by concerned citizens and will not be recording officers but instead directed at members of the community. that is why last friday though leadership conference joined with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy and media rights organizations to release principles for the use of body warned cameras by law enforcement i would like to introduce these into the record today to recognize that cameras are just a tool, not a substitute. they point out that without carefully crafted policies
and safeguards there is a risk that these devices could become instruments of injustice rather than tools for accountability. it is important now when deployed it is with this set of clear and nearly defined purposes than those policies are developed in concert with public stakeholders. these cameras should be tools of accountability not of face or body scanner for everyone who walks by on the street. facial recognition in biometric technologies must be carefully eliminated if they are used together with our cameras that will absolutely intensified disparities of surveillance their more heavily policed communities of color. earlier the pilot program suggest officers will not necessarily record when they should and for the reason it
is important that departments have stringent discipline officers who fail to record encounters when they're supposed to be on camera. calling for of prohibition on footage until after the reports are filed footage qian be misleading or incomplete that is what other sources of evidence including their own recollection must be preserved allowing officers to provide the footage means they could confirm reports what it appears to show over what they recollect in there is a risk that the video may confirm each other independently when they're not at all. the leadership conference urges federal, state, and local governments as well as police departments to consider the principles as
they development policies and programs. without the appropriate safeguards, we are at risk of compounding the very problems that we're seeking to fix. thank you for your consideration of the forward to your questions. >> we will accept your principals without objection to be part of the record. and with the ranking member our privacy and technology of subcommittee mr. interceptions raised facial recognition and that possibility we know that technology is here and there raises so many issues.
a the lawsuits and investigations and anecdotally we hear absolutely the cost is very steep. >> so there is of benefit versus other benefits so that obeyed god's behalf -- that may not equal the of cost. some of the issues raised are duendes the officer turned it on or off? with the 60 minutes stories
it isn't very hard to reduce the what type of protocols are in place to make sure that doesn't happen? end i imagine how do we avoid the "60 minutes" story for someone who has been in prison 20 years for something they did not do because of a misuse. >> senator first of all, let me thank you all for having this hearing to put the
issue squarely and we're appreciate that. so let's develop these policies in public there should be involvement obviously the law enforcement professionals are advocates in this area but the guidelines have to be developed with the subsequent use of this information in various cases second these cameras offer protection to good officers say and the public that they serve those underdoing what they should be doing and that is the vast majority we left them in salute with they're committed to reduce but unfortunately not every officer follows appropriate
to protocol. for those that have an influence on officers inclined not to follow existing protocols. to ensure that the officers received appropriate training of these cameras. all of these can contribute to the investment that should not be a undertaken lightly with the expense that is considerable. said it would work out but
to talk about storage and archiving for retrieving and disclosure and it is what do you shoot the and when? began to talk about a carefully crafted policy. that is the savings that we need to keep in mind as we go through this technology and this new world. >> thank you for your thoughtful testimony that is one of the most refreshing things i have heard is how not simple this is. it is a little more
complicated than meets the eye because some of the suggestion is put the cameras on and you are a good to go in that does not appear to be the case. i have a question about victims called the federal victims crime act one is to be reasonably protected from the accused one is with fairness and respect for victim's dignity and privacy. i would like to get your comment on how we protect the victims of crime probe. >> we recommend to obtain consent so that gives the dignity this there is the
issue of private disclosure and way recommend agencies consider you don't want to see people at their most vulnerable so careful review to make sure vitter is evidentiary with careful reductions. >> we are currently working through state legislation forebody warned camera is so not even subject to the freedom of information act not considered a public document the incident is not
policies of its said the agency is critical at that point and then it is remarkable in its absence with the most importance individual to explain that to be very important that there has to be operational policy we certainly believe the rights of individual victims should be protected that the rights of the casual release there should
be access to that information as quickly as possible in those policies with the access to information should be strictly enforced so officers failed to report incidents there should be of consequence for the rest to be trading ahead reinforcement and a sense these officers are helped as much by the existence of the cameras as the public that they serve and put into conjunction with one another can produce positive results >> if i could just follow up to be responsible to turn it off and on and on at the right time my kids see how that itself is controversial
because what did they choose to record or not to? so as we said earlier it is not quite as simple. >> but again, if the department gives clear operational guidelines for access then the officer is not left having to decide for him or herself what requires reporting and what don't. there is that line the revolt encourages them to do the right thing. that is why it is so important that these guidelines be developed with public review and disclosed openly for the transparency and debate to serve the interests of the officer as well as the public thank you. >> this is a very
interesting hearing. i will echo what my friend has said that the un is simple and this of this is the most significant thing we have heard. and as we know better to see people at their worst day see people in times of emotional agony with terrific physical injuries in the video record of the great deal of that would be hugely intrusive to those individuals and in demand by the 24/7 news media if it pleases of these cultures of to expect intense conflict over the availability that you could go into people's homes does that person have a right to to not have what
is in their homes seen? of kr a offical. it is important with the police use of force but not to open all whole new array of problems. there are 46 different sheriffs? >> we have 39 cities and towns most of their own department. >> comedy have a sophisticated it department? ltd. is dependable but there is some donate a handful. >> we have police departments hit by crypto locker and shut down if they are targeted by hackers so
turning the camera is on and off so when you have the call on the radio then it goes to the end of the incident. if they said don't want you to come in with your camera on i don't know what you will do with that footage. >> then they recommend they continue reporting of messages say victim who'd just says they don't want their face on camera as long as they have of legal right
to be in the home but to not have that footage of that incident with the privacy peace. >> bettis the supreme court decision how they look at what the police always have done but now when hyper enabled with technology it is a new question this is an interesting hearing. >> decide among yourselves. foucault's next. no? [laughter] simic thank-you chairman for calling this hearing the american public is searching for answers how to
effectively shield those divisions be trail law-enforcement and the communities they serve there last week was national police week we honored those killed in the line of duty as a stark reminder that policing is a dangerous profession and it is our duty to support the of resources they need to come home at the end of each day. we have also seen disturbing footage from missouri and ohio and in each of these taken by law enforcement has highlighted those deep divisions retrieve law enforcement and the communities that they protect so to help bridge those divides i welcome today's hearing what is the best way forward for finding
common ground? i believe body cameras have tremendous potential if implemented correctly and thoughtfully to settle conflicting witness accounts or contribute to transparency or safety with the deep divide but there are concerns you have raised today in beating those concerns is essential to be sure they are properly deployed tools rather than of a means of furthering division. i have a couple of simple questions. when designing and implementing the rules who should be at the table? then how can communities be sure the rules or access is properly filed? >> thanks for the question. we recommend pretty much any
stakeholder that could be affected community organizations line officers , unions prosecutors , as the courts they all could be included with policy development and the second part with the accountability portion we recommend agencies share policies on line with the public the retention schedules for data and collect statistical information to make that public as well so they can see how they are used and what is released. >> ted again we are looking at implementing statewide legislation to have body warned cameras that task has
been sent over from across the state i know they are ready have plans to include as well as the criminal defense attorneys to make sure every freddie has input of the implementation of those policies i second those comments that is the best way to do that. >> thank you for the question and. it is critical to keep in mind not just looking at the front end with their transparency is very important. the back end is what will we do with it? it is evidence is collected now that is stored or manage your disclosed and to the
public or under some circumstances to respect privacy interest they're all important considerations. these should be addressed at the local level that the community itself needs to be a engaged in. when we talk about developing trust between law-enforcement a and the community it should happen well before we rollout body carries. the relationships have to be formed to. we cannot lose sight that at the end of the day the collection of the data is for evidentiary purposes and how we preserve that. >> thank you for the question. i agree with their remarks
of my colleagues all stakeholders should be invited to the table with the public debate of these issues including elected officials of law enforcement and legal advisor is or former prosecutors m the defense bar should be encouraged. a civic organization as well was ngo that has a role to play in the implementation like human rights groups to be included in the debate. having said that it is only one tool. but you have a policy to address some of the and on racial profiling that continues to be a factor in law enforcement to defeat
the purpose of the body warned camera to reiterate law-enforcement and community together. >> i appreciate your answers as co-chair in the previous county with those represent to help develop of model guidelines to have the resources in the cameras are misperceived as an easy solution to do deep-seated problems to do the hard work first to make sure those parameters are understood. >> first could i ask unanimous consent the statement of the ranking
member be added? >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here. this is near and dear to my heart i was a prosecutor this was the first state in videotaped interrogation as anything in custody and when it came about because to prevent any type of questions of activities also to protect civil rights but i made the argument it also protected them it made for a better process for people to see a video tape when they were questioned so they're jurors could judge for themselves. we had cases where people would say things that are incriminating on the
videotape that the jurors could see to make sure rand rights were read and the process was fair so i start with that. now with more jurisdictions is accepted and it was accepted pretty quickly once it started. and there are other issues with body cameras that we have pointed out there and just interrogating one person but to start with the concept of the interrogation , i realize not every jurisdiction has of mandatory reporting how would you compare body cameras to other types whether the issues you don't have with the body camera? >> thank you for the question. there are other recording devices that our more widespread such as the dashboard camera.
those have been proven to be very effective tools for many of the reasons that you articulated to show the officer acting in conformity with best practices you would expect from troopers and officers it is also great evidence of what happens on the scene. >> is also great training to watch each other what is good or bad thing it is a good way for people to learn and watch each other. continues. >> high degree for go all self-worth -- also we try to improve our process. oracle is to achieve justice.
we don't hide from the fact and if a video recording helps to establish that fact it is a tool to be used. with respect to videotaping of interactions and conversations with witnesses and defendants that is a good practice and we do and as often as we can. however is not mandated in i am reluctant to advocate to mandate that once the pursuit of truth there may be legitimate evidence the results from conversations between individuals them law-enforcement that could be lost that subverts our pursuit so with the right circumstances it should be encouraged by certain they would not be in favor to
mandate. >> i think ours was the supreme court decision but police have grown to like it for the most part and we have not had issues to not get convictions because of a practice they may have to explain why day did it a certain way but overall they found it to be beneficial. of spot mecca i would echo the comments with the us prof -- best practice to get the interrogations' on film but it is not mandated in south carolina. touche transition to a different point that was the great fear of powers to support the legislation we do have dash cam we have seen the problem where somebody's foot can go off the scene than the case is
dismissed then you cannot see everything we don't want that to take place with the body camera we don't want to get to the point where the footage is the end all or be all of the evidence. >> we would call that the scsi effect of where no possibility of dna then they say no dna. the point is well taken we have to explain why something is not necessary but that is a good point. i thought the senator was asking questions of a pilot and we have a private in toulouse and burns fell maybe to look rap what they're doing but i do think it is a good way to figure out what is working fast to
allow states to work on privacy policies that are in place to make this work. >>. thank you. pilot studies could be useful for information considered with though wider audience but having said that i hope states and localities will not use that as the delay to not go for word now that the department of justice makes available funds to support some states moving in this area i think it should be encouraged spirit that is why i lead with the interrogation issue preference first officers were concerned but then they grew to think of was the good policy over time. i will admit this has more
complications with privacy and tapes as opposed to your just interrogating someone in a squad car so it is more complicated and we have to consider that the thank you for being here today. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing for i have met with more than a dozen groups from above to turn the information over to the committee for the record. day you know, how many jurisdictions are currently running a pilot program or have adopted by a worn cameras? to make it is the great question but i don't know the answer purport don't think anybody knows the exact number i heard between 3500 and 4,000 agencies but
it is just an estimate even not even the most recent or current purpose that is what people are working on. >> that number is not nearly as important as the level of activity so four or five years ago is the foregone conclusion with those officers wearing cameras but it is important to see the of laboratory at work with the best policies to look around the country to find the best practices and policies around the country it is important to look at the local development at the local effort not a federal effort to figure how to federalize local police above to hear your thoughts
on the mandate side i think we should not mandate what local law enforcement should do but we should interject and rekey and but create the framework. >> thank you. i victory and i expect most of my colleagues in the prosecution community would agree. there is a place to delineate best practices and a place to articulate those kinds of issues to be addressed or even suggest a solution but fundamentally this is a local issue. it varies significantly from one locale to another based upon resources, training and the requirements needed to effectively prosecute. a the resources are a huge
issue not just with respect to the money of the data storage but personal to accurately document what data you have on hand in from the prosecutor's perspective terry drawdown confirmation to identify which portion of recording goes with which case and how is it used? all other you generate significant evidence but if you have nine different cameras:that exponentially increase is the review that you may have that could be extraordinarily relevant but some of it may not but that still translates into zero manpower cost so it is important to be done with a local basis with guidance
from the federal or state level been discussing important from the stakeholders as the important component. >> we heard a lot of raw privacy issues one of the questions i have is in public spaces with the number of cameras available whenever your phone of choice for the of the persian storer or walking down the streets the truth is there is a new conversation to be absorbed with privacy issues in public spaces have you thought this through yet?
the was my best joke by the way. [laughter] >> i will be very brief to identify a complex challenge after all goering's thruway a debate of the tennis day what kind of information can be gathered so there are heightened sensitivities and that should be the case and the new policies have to be developed how we access this information these are all very relevant questions that should be discussed before the investment is made
rather than after to identify the issue we are not giving adequate attention. >> senator limassol -- limassol? >> i will be quick. >> as that conversation happened that the sec said conversation ultimately came down to do a matter of the freedom of information act to come down to a resource issue with very small police departments to create the department to maintain all this data. so of the decision was made not to make it up public document to give that to a
small amount of people. that is the way the public does still have knowledge as the heads could release the public as well. >> thank you for holding the hearing with the initiative taken by emma strong supporter of body carries by police with the full appropriation for those that find them and to their make a substantial contribution for law enforcement at the same time i think the care and thoughtfulness to go in
to do this policy that they are simplistic a camera will record everything no problem and no question there are questions about privacy and custody and who has access for the body warned carries and a chain of custody issues are multiplied and what are the standards for policy guidelines? and there is a role for the federal government to play not only that but of necessity for error criteria for admissibility