tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 23, 2014 2:30am-4:31am EST
it is amazing to see the insides. they are coming out of all sorts of technologies we didn't have before. the things they are doing are getting better. the revolution giving us insight into how things work and how things go wrong. the efforts to understand the and the advent of electronic health records. all of these things are coming together in a way i would not have imagined in my lifetime, yet we are not nurturing that the way weiscovery could be. a statistic i think is particularly troubling, often discouraging to young scientists thinking of getting in the field is the following. what is your chance, if you have a great idea about cancer research and it is preclinical, but you have an idea about where
you're going to get funded. what is the chance the grant is going to get funded? it's about one in six. traditionally it has been one in three. in the cancer institute it is one in 10. it's even lower. you might say we were funding too much stuff before, and we weren't putting a tight enough filter on this. the filter is rigorous peer review by experts in the field. went back and looked. this was in heart disease research, but i imagine it's true across the board. i can 2001 we were funding a third of the grants -- back in 2000 when we were funding a third of the grants. does a grant in the 10th percentile turnout more productive than a grant funded in the 25th percentile? it is. viewed, so is one better than the other? what happened?
peer-reviewed, so is it better than the other? there is not a difference anyone can tell between the 10th percentile and the 25th percentile. they are both great. that shows we are living have to grade science on the table right now. just at this moment of great opportunity. that's the thing that wakes me up at night. that's the thing that causes a lot of the biomedical research .ommunity to really hunker down many individuals deciding after to go on to does something else or go on to another country where the support happens to be better. we alone of the developed countries are the ones cutting back on biomedical research. look at what happens in europe or china or singapore or south korea. brazil. they are going the other way. trying to be what we once were.
is that america's vision? is that where we want to go? >> and must be agonizing to make decisions on funding -- it must be agonizing to make decisions on funding some of these grants. onwe may have just turned the next nobel prize without realizing it could have happened. we may have convinced a young investigator who is trying for the third time in not quite making the cut it is time to go to law school. wrongat there is anything with going to law school, but i think we need science. >> talk about collaboration among researchers. is that something that changed? you mentioned the lung cancer effort. there isis no question collaboration. for centuries academia celebrated the individual, but now we see multidisciplinary activities eating brought on very complex, large-scale projects, -- being brought on
very large-scale projects, so you really need to bring together a collection of disciplines, use technologies to really be able to prosecute these ideas, these complex areical trials, so we seeing that because folks recognize in order to achieve the goal they want to have in their careers, which is to make an impact on the cancer problem, that they have to do that in collaboration with other team members. science continues and should support individual investigators , that lone wolf that will make some seminal discovery that will change the world. an example of that is jim allison, who in the 1990's, was trying to figure out why the immune system was asleep at the wheel in cancer. it was his discovery of a molecule and the drug that led
to a whole new class of therapeutics. that was individual investigator activity, that has brought in a multidisciplinary effort to bring up to full fruition. what do you think that would be funded now if he came forward with that idea? >> even now it would be a challenging time. he was a real maverick. there, there is no conceptual president. precedent.t -- you have to have the judgment to realize this will be an opportunity. those grants will not fare well in district attorney in setting of limiting resources. >> you have been affected by the breakdown of the budget process in washington, by sequester, shut down. what makes this work better?
does the whole government have to work better for things to work better for your agency? good luck with that. lost 23% of our purchasing power for medical research over the last 10 years. inig chunk of that happened 2013 with the sequester, which took away 1.6 billion dollars. it would have gone to medical research. we have not recovered from that. if anyone thinks the sequester is over, remember there was a deal made thanks to the hard work of congressman ryan. , and just a two-year deal the sequester comes back unless action is taken, that's where we will be. they would then lose over the next 10 years $19 billion that would have gone to medical research. the trajectory, which
is basically the default of what happens next. i am an optimist. i think winston churchill was right when he said you can always count on the americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all the other options. compelling.e is so it's not just that this is the engine that has led us to --ances in month 70 longevity. it has also been probably the best driver of economic growth since world war ii, and everyone's interested in seeing the autonomy grow. i amenome project, which privileged to be leading. of thed an analysis money spent on the genome project over the 13 years, and they came up with close to a trillion dollar answer. basically would hundred 78:1 --
178:1 went into it. the women's health initiative. is the return in investment from that important project looking into what works and what doesn't work. we are starting down the path to look at the brain initiative, and i'm sure there is going to be all kinds of technology that is going to create new businesses and economic growth, but we are struggling to get this off the ground at the level it should be, so there are all these arguments. when i have a chance to speak to members of congress and the administration, everybody says, you are right. this is something we should be doing, but we are caught in this current gridlock. this inability to come to a long-range plan about how resources are going to be spent. we continue to be as part of the discretionary budget victims of that long, drawnout process that
has not reached a conclusion. just enough of an optimist to think ultimately the case will be so compelling as to be turnistible and we will the corner. corner, it washe great from 98 until 2003, but it sowed the seeds of what happened next. namely, we don't have to worry about you. we need is stable, predictable trajectories. then you can plan. scientists can say it's a career for me, and it's not going to get pulled away by one of these terrible downpours. we are not going to have a roller coaster. we are going to have a pattern.le there are people in congress advocating for that. there is a bill pushing that.
?hy should that be part of it it's something everybody has a stake in. everybody who has a family member or friend with medical illnesses looking for answers. >> i am going to ask one more question and then turn to the audience, so you might ask the question that occurred to you. before you do that, you mentioned prevention that could cancer deaths. we know about cigarettes. you get the sense that every something doesys or doesn't cause cancer. stories whats causes cancer. i found out wearing a bra does not cause cancer. local mom wonders about artificial turf's cancer risk. that's a new thing to worry
about. we see stories about the link between obesity and cancer. is this the whole household, or t the people feel whiplash? >> there is evidence that rests on a bed rock of knowledge that does make a profound impact on health and well-being. i think this goes back to some of the things we talked about earlier. going on a website to find out what you can do to prevent cancer is a very generic, broad-based recommendation. what i want to know is how often we should be screened for what. what are our risk factors? what can we do to modulate disease? what you are going to be seeing is personalized wellness, where you're going to be able to, based on family history, genetics, the kinds of food you eat, the environment you live in, you may have different
levels of screening or different things you might eat in order to change the trajectory of diseases that might afflict you versus someone else. arsenal eyes wellness -- personalized wellness is going to be important, but for the big ones, smoking is public-health problem number one. second, we have obesity as a major problem in the united states and other countries. this is a big problem that really does impact certain cancers. we have viruses. as well as hpv hepatitis, which are major causes of cancer deaths worldwide. -- what ishat interesting about all of those as many of those are operative during childhood. if we think about what we can do to change the trajectory about how we managed health and well-being in the united states
and other countries, i think we have a mixed opportunity to teach children to influence them and give them the knowledge they need select the right time in their lives they develop the habits they need. 88% of adult smokers start as kids. hpv needs to be given during childhood to protect against infection later in life. 80% of the human population is hpv positive. it depends on which subset you get as to whether you are going to get disease. cancer prevention is a childcare issue. i think we have a responsibility to make sure our children are empowered with knowledge and protected in a way they should be protected so they will have a future that is lower incidence of cancer. the power of ad
positive thing. does every -- of thought as a positive thing. does every patient mentioned that? >> and patients are empowered by not -- the patients are empowered by knowledge. amount ofa specific patients that have that mentality, but physicians don't automatically recommend what they should be doing to prevent disease. a good example is we are front of mine with respect to tobacco cessation. found is if you get an listed in a tobacco cessation program, it is 37% success versus 5% for self quit. it's a great opportunity. physicians who are busy don't always remember. now we did that automatically.
the electronic health record, and as soon as it goes in, the patient automatically gets referred to the tobacco cessation clinic, and it increases fivefold the number of referrals. i think there are technologies we can exploit that can really impact the front end of the and screeningtion efforts. >> this is a smart group of people with intelligent questions to ask thomas to let me turn it over to you. ask, so let me turn it over to you. we're going to hand over the microphone. identify yourself if you will. >> it seems the underlying argument is you do not have enough monetary resources. have you ever thought of working with other countries as a team as opposed to doing it alone? it seems to be the most intelligent way of dealing with the situation. quest that's a great question,
and we should have addressed this already. absolutely. -- >> that's a great question, and we should have addressed this already. there is an international cancer genome consortium that has many countries working together to build this amazing database of what do you see if you have hundreds of lung cancers and hundreds of ovarian cancers and hundreds of gastric cancers. every country has a different epidemiology of which cancers appear. all the countries agreed they will follow the same standards about the quality of data and data access so everyone can see the information. that was built upon the human .enome process a lot of people doing the work were not even in the u.s. soy basically agreed this is important we're going to work together.
i am the chair of something called the heads of international research organizations, and around that table the ceos of the public funding agencies and some private philanthropy account for intof the dollars that go public funding of biomedical research. constantly looking for ways we can be synergistic and not duplicate. sometimes we duplicate on purpose. we see, it worked in this setting. does it in this setting? you are right. about theould be said private sector. i have spent more time talking with the heads of big pharma than any of my predecessors trying to figure out ways we can knock down some barriers, and we have made some interesting models happen. likewise the foundation, trying to figure out ways philanthropy
can fill in some of the gaps, although if you add all the philanthropic contributions, we still fall short of what they lost in the sequester. it's all relative. >> they have launched a global program. on the globaleen front for quite a few years. we have 30 sister institutions in 22 countries. this allows us to work not just with great institutions and those other countries to elevate quality of care and research, but also we work with governments in those countries as well as media so we can drive both alice he and education -- education of the population. it's important it's not simply resources that is important, but there are organizational opportunities that relate to these sorts of collaborations between the private sector and and other countries and so on. it's a big problem. many nations that are now
solving their communicable disease problems are being faced with an aging population, and they are concerned about this collision course they are going to be facing decades from now with alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and so on. is a big problem worldwide. we have estimated by 2025 1.2 billion people over the age of 60. -- we havelly essentially doubled life expectancy. a big problem. >> another question. wait for the microphone. >> i was wondering -- >> go ahead. we will go to you next. >> i was wondering if they age of your parents when you were born would affect your chances of getting cancer, because i have read older parents, their children are more likely to be autistic.
they are also more likely to have down syndrome, and i have also read if your mother was younger when you were born, you're more likely to live longer. i wonder if the age of a has any effects on your chances of having cancer. what a thoughtful question. we do know there are certain consequences that occur when parents are older than average, and you mentioned a couple of them. certainly as maternal age goes up, the risk of chromosome abnormalities, down syndrome but also others, increases. older, -- get older, there are more mutations in the dna. veryn actually be precise about that. if your father was average age 20's to early 30's, you probably
have somewhere in the area of 50 to 60 new mutations. that seems to be true across multiple different groups, but if your father was 50 years old, you might have 100 or 110. why is that? that's because the process means cell division is happening all the way along, and the older the father is, the more the sperm has gone through copying opportunities and more chances for a mutation to appear. it's a modest effect, but it's clear if you are looking at the condition like autism where we know new dictations play a role, the risk goes up a bit. if you're looking for a rare new , youion genetic disease will find more often than average the father is a little
older. when it comes to cancer susceptibility, theoretically i could imagine that might be the case. if you have one more mutation or two more mutations because your father is a little older and they happen to fall in a vulnerable place in the genome, but i don't know that is enough that you would ever see the actual impact, because it would be such a rare event to happen in that vulnerable spot. thatot aware of evidence cancer risk goes up. >> that's correct. the overwhelming factor for the development of cancer is our age. it works every other statistic example,m tobacco, for which dramatically increases your risk. changingle demographics, aging of the united states is the single most important factor for the development of cancer. by 2030 we anticipate just
because of changing demographics and the aging of our nation, a 45% increase in the incidence of camera just because of age. how the odds about of getting cancer increases with increases. >> for alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, every sive years the incidence doubled. by the time you're 45 you have a 45% chance of having alzheimer's. by the time your a dui the one in two chance if you're a male, one in three chance -- by the 80, you have a one and two chance if your mail and one in three chance of your fema. it is a question, can we afford ?ot to support the solution quarter of ad a
trillion dollars for 5.4 million americans inflicted with the disease. spending $1ill be trillion in today's dollars if we don't impact on the disease. we have to make a concerted effort to get out ahead of these problems in a way we know we can research,cisive development of drugs, and so on that would make a difference. >> not to mention the human cost. she didn't have the might. -- mic. >> i am karen brooks. i want to thank you both for a lifetime of science. can you speak to the state of brainch and treatment for cancer and other such forms of
cancer? >> we have made tremendous progress across many different fronts. among the most challenging, to diseases i spent time studying in my laboratory is the brain cancer that took senator kennedy's life and also pancreas cancer. there has been a tremendous amount of basic science work that has given us the atlas of , really those cancers outstanding genetic model systems that help us understand what those genes do, but we are faced with converting into therapies that truly treat those diseases. i am cautiously optimistic of early data beginning to emerge in the immunotherapy space, which may give us a foothold upon which we can build quite rapidly.
a good example, another disease we studied because it is a very tent disease -- virulen diseases melanoma. in 2009 there were very few advances that had any impact on survival. with the advent of this new enemy in therapy, we have 23 percent of patients that appear to be cured. these are patients out 13 years. this is within six to nine months. 23% we have durable responses and now the addition of another appearsodulating drug to be generating similar results in the majority of patients. maybe be 80%. because itay yet hasn't been around long enough. it could be in the next five cure we may have 80%, 90%
of those with advanced disease. wasperspective is there nothing for these individuals, no hope, and that's the example of science being converted into new life-saving drugs. of these otherme diseases, if we can get a crack on the armor, we can build with combinations, because we have this enormous technology to really figure out what is going on with these complex diseases. that's difficult. we have getting drugs in. there is a whole bunch. the same thing with pen creat a cancer, issues relating to drug penetration. cancer, relating to drug penetration. eached a special effort in of these areas. this is a great opportunity, but we need a stronger critical mass.
>> i would say another word about the immunotherapy approach. this is so exciting. it has been built on efforts many thought was never going to pay off. science magazine calling cancer immunotherapy the breakthrough of the year, not just in medical research, in all science. was themmunotherapy most exciting thing to happen in the view of the editors. one already talked about the way people like allison figured out a way to unleash the system. bring itout how do you back to life, that there is another, even more sophisticated approach where you not only activate the immune system in a general way, but you train those youlls to go after a target identified in the tumor, and you basically give those cells
instructions. you educate them about what their target should be. antigen chimeric strategy developed by a number of groups. there is a paper describing dramatic results with the approach in leukemias and lymphomas, but it has been tried in brain cancer. there is a trial on going. i happen to be watching it closely, because a dear friend of mine is one of the participants. a woman who lives in michigan, and she comes back every couple months to see what happened. she is now two years out without any evidence of regrowth, which is pretty good. anecdote, but it is a fascinating strategy. it's using the approach, which she refers to as her ninja
warriors going after those cells that need to be wiped out. it's really tough. brain tumorswith were pancreatic cancer would say this is anything but a tough problem. there are all kinds of problems. i would say we have a better set of ideas and strategies than we have ever had. we ought to put every bit of energy into making this real. >> you talked about some kinds of cancer that are essentially cured now. what is going to be the kind of cancer that is the last one to solve? pen create brain and a cancer? what do you think? cancer?eatic what do you think? but there are challenges with diseases that show heterogeneity. one cancer.pay
those cancers such as lung cancer,: cancer -- colon cancer, it is as if there is a hand grenade in the nucleus, and there is massive regeneration of the genome. this is why it is so exciting because it is designed to go after complexity. it has many billions of combinations that can deploy to identify heterogeneity, and the targeted therapy does not elicit those responses unless used in that combination. it is the category of disease or which there has been wholesale change in the genome. we can get the detection of cancer much earlier at a time in the history of an aspiring cancer to be able to thereene at a point where are fewer cells, they have less levels of genetic alteration, i
think the fight is one that wond be one more readily -- more readily. it's the combination, but brain cancer is a tough problem. and greedy as cancer is a tough problem, in part because we not -- pen creat take -- pancreatic cancer is a tough problem, in part because we do not have a way to get adequate amount of to the system. but i would not expect melanoma would be one of the early successes, so i am totally unable to predict what will be the last one. >> we are constantly humbled. >> we have about five more minutes. we have lots more questions. >> i am a head and neck cancer survivor, not caused by the hpv
virus. i have a great interest in the vaccine. do you feel someday it will be mandatory? initiative, weur have embarked on a number of cancers where we are trying to push policy education on a variety of different fronts, be it tobacco or vaccines. i think it is an enormous missed opportunity for us not to vaccinate all of our children during the window of opportunity. girls and boys. there is an epidemic amongst men. like is no pap smear cervical cancer where we can identify these cancers early, and it extracts a very significant toll on these individuals. we have hopefully later this year and early next year the fda may approve a vaccine.
this is a unique opportunity we have where we can inspire our legislative bodies across the country to enact appropriate guidelines so we can really protect our children. incredibly safe, incredibly effective vaccine. this is what we have been dreaming for. a vaccine that can prevent cancer from happening in the first place. this is manna from heaven. we need to take advantage of this, because anybody who feels this vaccine should not be given, i would ask them to come with me and do one examination headpatient with advanced and neck cancer, advanced cervical cancer, and you tell me what the appropriate case of action should have been for those individuals decades
earlier. it is a childcare responsibility. we as adults have a solemn responsibility to protect the of future well-being generations. i have three children, ages 10, 12, and 13, all vaccinated. one boy and two girls. >> you saw what a political yourall that became in state of texas. >> i think the approach was one -- the approach governor perry took was one where he did the right thing but did not engage instructionpriate needed so there would be grass-roots consensus. we will approach the legislation or -- legislature in texas and a variety of other states so we can educate our legislators of the opportunity. to appreciate. this gets mixed up in sexual promiscuity.
time between ages nine and 13 where there is optimal immune responsiveness to the vaccine. that is the window of opportunity. it's not like you could wait later on and say, let's make a decision at a later time. 80% of the world's population is infected when they become adults. the vaccine does not work as effectively or at all later on. the time to give this life-saving vaccine that can prevent over 400,000 deaths worldwide is in those ages, and we must do it as a society. >> did you want to add anything? >> i totally agree. >> one last question. using you can address viruses -- >> if you can address viruses to treat cancer. do you have hope in that area? >> i will just say a word.
triedy in which we have to approach cancer has many different avenues. small molecules, biologic antibodies, and of course more traditional things like radiation, surgery. the virus approach often is you are trying to arm the virus to specifically go after the cancer cells. often it is a virus you engineered. i think there have been advances in that regard, some of them in brain cancer, what not to the point where we can fully see how that is going to provide a major we want to use against most cancers. >> there are many viruses being utilized to try to take advantage of differences in cancer cells versus normal cells , that viruses may replicate in cancer cells versus not replicating. this provides opportunities to really disrupt those cancer
cells and lead to death of the , but as francis mentioned, this is not as effective as one would imagine on the basis of that particular approach and paradigm. however, those viruses that are new antigens, when combined with immune modulation may provide significant opportunities to train the immune system to recognize not only viral particles but bystander mutations that are occurring in the cancer cell, so it may really prime the immune system further. there is exciting work going on with a particular engineered virus and brain cancer, which is showing impressive result that of patients. we need to understand why some patients are responding versus not. those are exciting opportunities. i think that estimate is going
to need to be combined with other modalities to bring out the full potential. quest we're out of time. i want to thank you for such an >> coming up tonight at 8:00 eastern, a look at the death penalty in the u.s. criminal justice system. we'll hear from sister helen "dead manuthor of walking." and lawyer bryan buick is a story of justice and redemption. here's a preview. >> i remember being shocked, i lot through "dead man walking" and being with people got executed and people who didn't and how the whole worked. system it shocked me pro foundly. one of the things is when you sote a book you do research, i learned about, for example, moreolice brutality,
complaints of the justice department. wasalso that when slavery abolished in the 13th amendment, it was except for those who are in prison or indentured servants. not been abolished completely in this country. i've been amazed, i'm just going to say it out, just the court.in the supreme study in an extensive georgia about how when the death sentence is given, it corresponds to is white, thectim sought, when is the victim is black it's barely a blip on the radar screen. saw that when i was living in new orleans.
almost always it was a drug deal gone bad. white person was killed, it was always on the front pages of the paper. >> i was in a courtroom in the midwest, and we started representing children, prosecuted as adults, and when i talk about this presumption of guilt that poor people and color are born with, that's one of our great challenges in america, we've got black and brown children in this country born with a presumption of guilt and dangerousness that follows them wherever they go. and we are suffering from the, we're suffering in new york, suffering in ferguson, we're suffering in these states have these stand are ground laws because it becomes an opportunity to victimize people. in court sitting there to get ready for a hearing, first time i had been in this i had my suit on, i think it was this suit. was just waiting for the hearing to start and the judge walked out and the prosecutor
walked out behind him, and when the judge saw me sitting at the he said hey hey you get out of here, i don't want any defendants in my courtroom without their laters, you go out in the hallway and wait until your defense lawyer gets here. stood up and said i'm sorry, i'm actually the lawyer representing the client today. the judge said you're the lawyer? i said yes, sir, he started laughing and the prosecutor started laughing. and i made myself laugh too, because i didn't want to disadvantage my client. then my client came in, a young white kid who i was representing. ( laughter ) we did the hearing, but afterward i was thinking how to dealng it is to have with -- these are judges, the people who are supposed to be fair, the who aren't supposed to act on these presumptions of bias. so for a lot of defense attorneys, courtrooms are not friendly places, they're not
convenient, they're not places because all of that rage gets directed at you. clientsourse for our it's even more hostile. we have a criminal justice better ift treats you if you'reh and worse not. the deathversation on penalty and the u.s. criminal justice system airs tonight at c-span.tern here on c-span's q and a series is 10 years old, and to mark the decade we're featuring one from each year of the series over the holiday season. conversation it a with lonnie bunch, the director of the museum of african-american history and culture. the museum is currently being washington. mall in eastern.t at 7:00 p.m. now a look at the future of the keystone pipeline and other
energy policy issues facing the next congress. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. ne xl pipeline. politico energy reporter elana schor is back to talk about that topic. it is a project and political debate that congress is not going to wait let long to get back into in the 114th congress. guest: it will be number one on the list in the senate. mitch mcconnell made that announcement last week before republicans left town. it will go through committees. run theise is, i will senate much different from harry reid. i will bring this up to the energy committed circuit be -- committee so it can be committed. so it could be the keystone and any number of things. host: why do this first? what is the politics here? this is a huge issue in which they can take a fight with president obama and they have the majority of americans
backing keystone in every poll almost. there are other parts of the policy that are less publicly popular. host: you bring up mitch mcconnell. he made some of those statements in his end of the year press conference. here is a bit from that. [video clip] >> we will be starting next year with a job-creating bill that enjoys significant bipartisan support. first item up in the new senate will be the keystone xl pipeline , that bill. it will be open for amendment. on bothhat senators sides will offer energy-related amendments, but there will be no efforts to try to micromanage the amendment process.
we will move forward and hopefully be able to pass a very important job-creating bill early in the session. about an opend amendment process. explain why he would do that. does that help or hinder the passage of the legislation that he is looking to move? guest: great question. it depends on how many democratic amendments he will allow. harry reid, when he was in charge, would do what senate watches called fill the tree, parliamentary jargon for preventing amendments from being considered. most amendments, little on controversial amendments, are things republicans cared about. mcconnell wants to change that. he hoped that senators want to discuss energy issues. there could be controversy. but there is also the interesting test of where the senate stands on other issues. host: we are showing a map of
the potential routes of e keystone xl pipeline. if you want to talk with elana schor of politico, phone lines are open. republ interested tod be hear from viewers in canada. we have talked about congress. let's shift to the white house. what is the status of the white house and what is the president saying? thet: all eyes are now on nebraska supreme court which may seem fairly minor, but the white house is indicated it will keep its review of keystone on pause until that court rules on a challenge through the pipeline's route through nebraska. that could happen anytime between january 2 and the end of
2015. it is very open-ended. that is a good thing for the president. the president said on stephen colbert, one of his last shows, that it is exaggerated on both sides. he has pooh-poohed the effective gas prices. sounds like this guy is going to say no, but it is a matter of when. own: the president in his words as recently as his end of the are press conference last week. here is president obama talking about the keystone xl pipeline and its potential impacts. [video clip] >> very, very little impact. nominal impact on u.s. gas prices, with the average
american consumer cares about. weight this desk the way this gets sold his let's get this oil and it will come here, and the implication is that will lower gas prices in the united states. it is not. there is a global oil market. for the canadian oil companies and the canadian oil industry, but it is not going to be a huge benefit to u.s. consumers. the president talking about the keystone xl pipeline at his end of the year news conference last week. a question from twitter. if obama gives in on the keystone xl pipeline, what can he get in return? up an that brings interesting question. in washington, it is fun to talk about what kind of treaty we might get or what kind of deal
we might cut it six months ago, i might have told that viewer he could get something. he could get republicans to stand down. since then, keystone has done so much more acrimonious, and the president, as you just heard, has really said it loud -- this does not seem like a dealmaking thing for them anymore. it could change next year. host: we're talking with elana schor of politico, talking about keystone xl pipeline and u.s. petroleum imports. in 2013, the u.s. imported about 9.9 million barrels a day, imported from about 80 different countries. 51% of crude oil that was processed in the united states at u.s. refineries was imported. net imports account for about 33% of petroleum consumed in the united states, the lowest annual average since 1985. a, thefacts coming from ei
energy information administration. you can check them out online. brian is in michigan, our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the keystone pipeline, in and of itself, is a danger to our groundwater because it travels over at least two different aquifers. if the canadians want this so darn bad, why don't they put the refineries in their country? the only way people will make money on this are the canadian oil producers and the carlyle group in the united states which has the rights to the refinement. almost all the fuel is going offshore. it does not do anything to the american domestic fuel market. prices will go up. they need to be more efficient. it is shoved out onto the world market. part of why it is going down right now -- host: do you want to pick up on some of the impacts he is
talking about and president obama talking about in his press conference. guest: there are two interesting aspects of this debate. number one, why don't canadians build their own pipeline? the answer is they want to, but they are not building their own refineries to process it. that has to do with any number of factors could we also have not built a new refinery in america in many years. it is very hard to duke and there is a lot of environmental permits and union negotiations. ity have to get the same oil would carry to either coast, their west coast, their east coast. it is not that they're not trying to process it and ship it through canada, but that is also hard because canada has an active environmental movement. hopefully that resolves the caller's question. leaders of thehe environment movement in the united states trying to block the keystone xl pipeline? is it local groups or is it more nationally-led? really 18hink it is
effort. unlike a climate change bill that might be tackled inside the beltway environmental guys. there are a lot of local groups, ranchers groups, and native american groups involved. it unifies and find the militants -- unifies environmentalists. the other aspect of the question that is interesting is, you know, who will benefit from this? u.s. refiners will also benefit from this. the truth is, we do not know how much will be exported abroad. at least some of it, but the way the president talks, it might be more than we know. there is no guarantee because it is supply and demand in the global marketplace. u.s. refiners will benefit just as much as canadian oil companies. host: elana schor is with politico and covers the keystone xl pipeline. at politico but
environment and energy news before that. she is taking your calls and common spirit we have a call on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. how are you doing? you remember me. i am for that xl pipeline. i am for drilling and everything. we're losing our coal. up threeprices going times the amount it is now thanks to that dictator we got that we call of obama. idiots. a bunch of biggest farce ever put on the american people in this country is climate change. china is laughing at us. they want us to get rid of our energy. host: one of the nearly seven in10 voters who support building keystone xl, according to a new poll out on this. those numbers have not much changed in recent years. of voters0 7% -- 70%
were in favor 2013. , reported 2012 poll on by fox news. that was in the field earlier this month. elana schor, if you want to pick on anything he talked about. guest: it is a real cultural issue for the supporters of keys don't it some of us may not know much about the project or have a middle of the you, because to them it is really a stand-in for climate change, whether you are an environmentalist or not, it is bigger than then just pipeline. i would like to know, how many jobs will pipeline actually create, and how much involved are the koch brothers? start with a jobs first.
it is something that confuses a lot of people. you hear president obama use a couple thousand. that is about 2000 construction jobs that would come directly from working on the pipeline from the two years or so it takes to build keystone. after the pipeline starts moving oil, those would go away. about 50 of them stay full-time. you hear supporters use numbers as high as 42,000 jobs. those are the total indirect jobs, which is what economists worker that a hotel processes these people, line cooks, those jobs will also go it away after the construction period. to do oil unions, they do not mind that it is temporary. about 50 permanent operating jobs. brothers?he koch
are the biggest porno leaseholder -- four and leaseholder. whether or not they will benefit from the pipeline, it's impossible to say based on public records. kochs are a privately held company and are secretive, but we also know that they own a refinery in the midwest 10 days benefiting from this oil without keystone. they may benefit from building it, but they are also benefiting from the current situation. they are savvy businessman after all. host: the top sources of net u.s. petroleum imports, canada at number one. again, lots of facts and figures org.lable at the eia.
richard in gross city, good morning. caller: a couple weeks ago, i was watching michelle on cnbc and she would do a cost analysis of oil production around the world and she says the production in the canadian oil sands is over $110 a barrel. the cheapest place for united states to get oil out of the ground is $40. if the current price is $50 and the canadiens cost $100 a barrel, then we would lose $50 per barrel. they would go bankrupt and you would have a pipeline to nowhere. what is your analysis of the cost factor? andet the environmental other spurious things. this is about business. you should get michele on your show and have her explain what
she explained on cnbc a couple weeks ago. host: the cost factor. guest: i cover the same issues and i'm happy to explain that. the numbers she was using his new production costs. costs a lot of money to start new production. the numbers going on once the facilities are open. they say once we have facilities open, we can break even with oil as low as $50. they have to say that. they are dependent on shareholders who want them to succeed. we are somewhere in the middle. oil being as cheap as it is is squeezing these guys. issue is actually related to climate change in the end, which is the most interesting part of this. cheap enough and it is that cheap now, not building
keystone could prevent the oil sands from growing further and could therefore be beneficial to climate change. so we are this interesting gray area where it might be hard to start new projects, but that is almost more important from the environmental perspective, even though he told us not to think about that. have you many times been up to the oil fields in canada over the years? guest: just wants. it is very remote, but i was able to tour two different kinds of facilities. if you go on google, you can see bleak, martin looking strip mine. that is one kind. steam heated out of the ground, so it looks very nondescript. elanawe are speaking with
schor. winston-salem, north carolina. good morning. good morning. i wanted to comment on the pipeline. that theen said pipeline gets a lot of its resources from fracking, which has been noted, mrs. with our water resources. onple have been seen documentaries lighting their water supplies. i was wondering if it is worth it to go to these extents. i have not heard too much about solar. it is very clean, abundant. i have not heard too much difference about that. also, i want to comment on the guy that said we cannot worry about the environmental impact,
let's worry about the business impact. if you do not have an environment, you have no business. i saw a bumper sticker, no farmers, no food. the food is part of the environment. if people cannot eat, we do not have markets. it's important to note, fracking will not reduce the majority of the oil that runs through keystone. fracking is a technique used for natural gas and oil in u.s. shale which will be about 12% of what goes through keystone. the oil sands is produced a different way. that said, fracking and keystone -- share the common issue of water quality. this runs through the biggest aquifer in america. a lot of farmers and environmentalists fear what happens if there is a leak. it could pollute local water quality. we know what the state
department and other expert reviewers have said. they say there is the likelihood that this pipeline will leak on some minor scale. the effect on the overall water quality will be minor. the caller also mentioned solar. this oil would be unified into gasoline for our cars. predominantly used for electricity, so we are looking at two different pockets of energy in our lives. democrats have been pushing for solar for some time. you will certainly see that next successbeit with less with the republicans. host: have there been reroutes of the proposed pipeline because of the environmental issues you brought up? guest: the court case that i brought up earlier stems from a law that was passed in 2012 which allowed the republican governor to snap his fingers and
change the route in the effort to avoid impact. the first route would have gone through land which i visited as well. the water table was about a foot away from the soil, so they were afraid about the water. plan has been moved, there is still some concern, but some people feel better. host: next phone call in frederick. good morning. i am a construction person. i have not heard too much about -- i think it will be difficult to protect the xl pipeline from vandalism. as we know, there are all sorts of crazy people in the world. to damage the pipeline by blowing it up or setting it on fire, it is something they should consider.
i don't think you can protect the pipeline that long without costing a lot of money. schor, to that end, aren't there already thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline across the country? enough to go to the moon and back. these are mainly belowground. if you wanted to do damage, it would be pretty difficult. host: a question on twitter. how many jobs will be lost because of the keystone xl pipeline? that's an interesting question that has not been studied. the question assumes the fact and rail are experiencing more shipment.
it could be that the canadians would keep using the same truck and train transport, so it's tough to say. host: mike is in hays, kansas. on the republican line. caller: this is oil patch out here. dropped so far where they are starting to shut down ricks -- rigs. you are spot on, it is a debate between a larger picture of climate change. anytime you get these guys that say there is no climate change, you can tell them it is a proven, scientific fact. keystone is not much different from any other oil infrastructure. and look at current usage compare it to what is happening now.
host: do you want to pick up on his comments? frankly, the reason the issue has become controversial is because you do not hear people talking about the way that he did. , we tende discuss it to polarize it. that said, there are moderate democrats who share the caller's views exactly. some of the lost the elections this year but they say we need to think about climate change and also build a pipeline. robert is in new mexico, on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning ann merry christmas. when they started with his keystone stuff in canada, the canadians put up a big fight. map, it is at the
shorter route to the coast than going down to the gulf of mexico. the canadians put up such a big fight, they do not want to go down to that area to the coast which is why they are trying to do it down here. jobs, that seems like a big farce. it will not be a lot of jobs. it will not do anything for the american people. and it be a big risk seems like the negatives outweigh the positives. know whatan people they are doing, they don't want to going through their land. we need infrastructure. everyone knows we need more infrastructure. i think this is a big farce.
the american people are being channeled. american environmentalists fighting a fight that canadian environmentalists have already won? won yeto one has because the pipeline is still in the mix, but it is pretty well stalled here. the caller did not mention the tribal communities rights in canada. there are indigenous tribes there that have a serious constitutional case for stopping the pipeline because it would run through the ground that they own the rights to. it's important to note, president obama has already approved and the second leg of keystone is already in operation. this one is shorter than the canadian proposal. the original keystone ran from alberta to texas. the president had approved part of that. what is the point of
having the second leg if you do not have the oil coming from the second leg -- first leg of the pipeline? alreadyhere are pipelines that carry the oil from the midwest. a lot of refineries are getting very cheap, heavy oil because they are conduits that go to the midwest. before he acted, not many went from the midwest to the gulf. john is on our line for independents. merry christmas, i think she just answered my question. i live in the shadow of the bp refinery along lake michigan. they just got done putting $4 billion into that refinery to process the heavy oil. i have not heard an answer yet why the oil is being diverted to the gulf coast to be sold on the open market, rather than going at lakep refinery
michigan, for the people of america. god bless america. i will take my answer off the line. right, i partially answer the question. a lot of that oil was and is going to that refinery, which is that moneyt all expanding. also refineries in the gulf want more of this. refineries are a bit like ships. it takes years to change the way that refineries operate. a lot of them have been changing to process the lighter oil coming out of america but they really want the heavy oil and they have not been getting enough of it. host: and why do they want the heavy oil compared to the light oil? gasoline and diesel are the two main products when you are fine. overseas, that is what is needed. diesel helps heavy industry in
asia and europe. america does not use as much of it. the heavy oil helps the gasoline-diesel mix become or profitable for refineries. is here to schor take your questions about the keystone xl pipeline, one of the first issues in the upcoming congress. elmo is in denton, texas. caller: good morning. i in 82 years old, grew up most of my life in cushing, oklahoma, so that gives you the perspective of where i'm coming from. i have also been in the oil business, have visited the mines in canada, back when it was not .rofitable to produce them i think some people do not realize that we have a lot of
oil and gas in north dakota that can also utilize the pipeline. as far as the lower end of the pipeline, i don't see why president obama needed to approve it because it does not cross a boundary. that was my understanding of why they were able to go ahead and continue building. the cushing pipeline crosses the united states. a lot of petroleum comes into cushing and is transported to the gulf coast. the united states will by the oil is it is cheaper to buy the oil there than it is to import it. any oil that will come into there will reduce the amount of oil that comes in by ship from the middle east and so forth. right now i am paying $1.91 a gallon at the pump. reason, i lived in a
refinery all my life in cushing, oklahoma, and the tech farms only have about three days of storage. so if more oil is coming in then , then theorage for market has to be increased, and the way it is increased is by reducing prices. let elana going to schor jump in and then we will come back to you. guest: he is correct that obama did not need to approve the ,ipeline running from oklahoma where he spends most of his time in texas. it was a big political more asp. the original keystone had gotten rejected and the white house stepped in and said that it could bureaucrat a clear fast-track that southern stretch. he is correct about that.
the other thing the caller was talking about was oil and gas coming through the pipeline from north dakota. this is just an oil pipeline, number one. isber two, all we know ,00,000 barrels maximum per day about 12% of its capacity, is reversed -- reserved for u.s. oil. dakota wants more space, we can give it to them, but they are not required to. they are assured of a maximum of 100,000 out of 830,000. remindcanadians want to us of is that it helps us, too, but a small share. host: did you have a follow-up question? no, except i don't think canada was to sell to china. defense budget is almost negligible, which is why their economy is so good.
their defense is taken care of by the united states. canada and the united states are such serious runs, although we may hear threats, i don't think there is a chance that they will sell their petroleum to china. before, canadaed was the top source of net u.s. petroleum imports in 2013, accounting for 43%. the u.s. importing about 9 million barrels a day, imported from 80 different countries, but canada leading that. joe is next on our line for democrats in pennsylvania. know why theyt don't run the pipeline up to vancouver and let them put them on ships, which will keep the jobs going for a long time to come. usemember they were telling
the alaskan pipeline would benefit us, but i remember in at the end of his term it was four dollars a gallon for gas. what happened to the oil in alaska? host: elana schor. guest: entrance alaska pipeline is running at historically low capacities. if you ask your senators, they will say a lot of that land is federal and has been cut up to oil production. that is a separate discussion from keystone but he makes a bigger am point, which wants to the president's response. these infrastructure projects get sold. a case wherein the interplay of supply and demand in 30 years makes the pipeline similar to alaska. he oil sands are expensive and hard to produce. we just cannot produce the future. -- predict the future.
from a lot of concerns citizens in different states. how did nebraska become the focal point of a lot of the debate over the pipeline? is from theof it aquifer that stretches across the states. waterka depends on that for their agricultural industry. the other thing is nebraska politics. the state legislature has no political party and there is a very strong populist tradition that has come into play. a lot of locals dubbed adtran canada took liberties, threatened eminent domain, seized land sooner than they could have, and generally did not act like a good neighbor and that raised a lot of the common sentiment that has just become more intense. , --: a story on omaha.com
we are talking about the land along the route that would be used for the pipeline. eminent domainis issue that appeals to a lot of the conservatives opposed to the project. going back to that supreme court case, a law would give keystone a new route but would also give transcanada two years from its passage to use eminent domain powers to take land, even from landlord to -- who do not want to make a deal. only 14 of your years. where it gets interesting, eminent domain rights expire at the end of january but this law is being challenged in the supreme court right now. you can see transcanada tried to steal land through these landowners to eminent domain. milwaukie, wisconsin is next. chris on the line for independents. caller: i am against the
keystone pipeline because of the aquifers. i don't know why they could not shifted farther east where it wouldn't go through it. the people depend on the water for more than just irrigation or crops. it is unsure how they will clean up and offer for once it is contaminated. i watched a program in florida about the aquifers and the pollution there and how bad it swamnderground when they under, through the aquifer. we need water to live, no doubt about it. .e do not need oil to live it would be uncomfortable with no oil, but i really care more about the water. three years to clean up the kalamazoo river, and that is a river on top of the ground. if they can clean
up and aquifer, when xml still has pollution from alaska from the oil spill up there. jobs, i dot all the not believe it. we have callers like chris who are concerned about how hard a cleanup would be, and then there is a tweet from people ike jim on twitter who say have never seen oil and water mix. water is heavier than oil and always falls to the bottom. about we are talking basically water saturated rock. oil getting into it is not as simple as that. when people talk about the migration of an oil plume in and aquifer, that is different from the river than the caller was talking about. these are complex scientific questions so it is tough to do
discuss in a digestible way, but the bottom line is, the pipeline may leak and the best analysis we have seen says that if oil --mes travel far underground, it would not travel far. there are a lot of confused people out there because of the complexity. what happened in kalamazoo is a very rare issue. this water was very turbulent so the oil sank to the ground. the heavier molecules ended up being stripped and fell. ,hen michigan officials saw usually oil flows, but because it was turbulent, it fell on the making it hard and expensive to clean up. every oil because different circumstances, so it's easy to be concerned. host: a few minutes left with elana schor from politico.
david is up next in west liberty, kentucky. on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, first time calling -- caller. i have been trying to call since president clinton was in. i agree with the pipeline. i think epa has too much power. have heard them paying up to $200,000 a year on some of the welding jobs, which i would like to get in on now. i am a little old now, but i'd like to see it come in. l. area is stee there are some places that are $1.99 a gallon. i know they talk about losing a lot of jobs and layoffs but it does not make sense to me. that is about all i have to say. host: did you want to pick up anything from his call? guest
key debateaises the with gas prices. we could see a few cents increase as more supply comes into the market. analysts say the opposite, that is one drive up the price of gasoline because it will eliminate the glut of oil in the midwest currently keeping it so cheap for the refiners. not beings back to and to predict the future. it is important to know that this canadian oil is traded at a different benchmark than the typical barrel of oil that we typically hear in the news. it could be there is no effect on gas prices despite this talk. the line fromn deadwood, south dakota. caller: good morning. i live in the black hills in south dakota here. we have some experience dealing with canadian companies. i have a gold mine about three
miles from my house that was being operated by canadian rorators, and they ran into rainwater hit it, turned into asset, it went into our creeks, they shut down the gold mines. when that shutdown, the canadians folded up and went home. i just don't trust the canadians. that was the last comment on transcanada and how they have acted over the course of getting the xl pipeline approved. aret: certainly, there landowners who are upset with
transcanada, but i want to be clear that they will be subject to all of the laws that american companies are thinking that happens. that said, there is one level of , which is thatrn there is some evidence that they don't pay into the trust fund and that has a lot of environmentalists upset. they want to be assured that these companies will pay. host: we appreciate y >> on the next "washington journal," the chief economist of the national association of realtors on the reason trends in the housing and mortgage markets. and we'll talk with former cbs correspondent and author of the "washingtonlled."
journal" is live with the day's phone calls,ur facebook comments and tweets, every morning on c-span at eastern. up next on c-span, a conversation on curbing violence african-american communities. then united nations debates human rights abuses in north korea. on this morning's "washington journal," a look at recent housing ande mortgage markets. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a look at some of the programs you'll find christmas day on the c-span networks. festivities start at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree, by the white house decorations with first lady michelle obama, and the lighting the capital christmas tree. 30, celebrity: activists talk about their
causes. then at 8:00 supreme court justice and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on c-span 2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the art of good writing pinker.ve and at 12:30 see the feminist superhero, on the woman.history of wonder pamela paul and others talk about their reading habits. at 8:00 a.m. the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage and bobdent george bush dole with speeches from presidents john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first ladies' fashion choices and how they represented the the times in which they lived. thantom brokaw on his more 50 years of reporting on world events. that's this christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to
c-span.org. legislators, ae police chief and former los angeles police officer discuss ways to combat violence against and within african-american communities. austin,so hear from roy the white here think are important, for the record. >> we recognize the systemic complexity of this issue and advocate for a comprehensive integrated multifaceted approach to finding a solution. that solution has to include stakeholders, collaborating or systems change.
to deal with this issue, we have to talk about changing systems. the problem will not be solved today. not in today's discussion. our goal is for the audience to first and foremost, provoke thought. we want to give some thought to this and we want you to leave specifics of what you might do when we get back home. focuses the lens on recent officer -- cop violence against young black men. and addressing gang and domestic violence in our communities. violence has always been a concern in communities of color. but recent events have put it at the forefront of most if not all of our minds. had, over the recent
months, three indictments against law enforcement officers for shooting young men of color. just some statistics as you listen to the presentation. african-americans are about three times as likely as white drivers and two times as likely as latino drivers to be searched during a traffic stop. even though they are significantly less likely than whites to have contraband when they are stopped. and even though there is no additional database on the total number of officer involved fatalities, each year from 2005 to 2012, a black person was killed nearly twice a week by police. beinglmost 20% of those killed under the age of 21. our nextlk about
generation, statistics in and of thelf will impress upon you fierce urgency now taking action. these facts deserve a better public policy response. that is why we are here. at the same time, we face violence within our own community. we are not running away from that fact. we acknowledge that. wanted to be clear that african-american firearm related deaths are twice as high as they are for whites. black women are almost three times as likely to experience death as a result of domestic or violence.artner teen or youth violence continues to be a problem among black males between the ages of 10 and 24. the homicide rates exceed those
of hispanics and whites of the same age group. let me try this again. you know i was thinking about rudy giuliani and i lost a train of thought. [laughter] let me try this one once more. interracial --at intra-racial violence is not unique to the black community. [applause] fishing for at compliment or a clap their. that said, it also merits our full attention and sustained emphasis on sustained commitment to doing something about it. we need social action and collaboration from the public and private sector. i will stop because all of these stats are beginning to overwhelm
me. i started out saying it's not about me and it's about these men and women on the panel. let me quickly moved to that. peoplewe hear from our on the panel, i want to take a a young mantroduce that has taken the time to come from the administration to share the administration's position on this issue. and before we get to our panelists, please allow me to introduce mr. roy austan, the deputy assistance for the president of the office of urban affairs, justice, and opportunity. coveringnates policy criminal justice, civil rights, housing, and other areas. he's also a member of president obama's "my brother's keeper" task force. these welcome mr. austin.
>> good morning. like roy austan, you might think i'm from texas but i'm from the great state of pennsylvania. start with some words from the president. this is from a speech that he gave not too long ago. he said as someone who believes -- enforcement has an even incredibly difficult job that every man and woman in uniform are putting their lives at risk to protect us. that they have the right to come home from their jobs just like we do. there was real crime out there. they have to tackle day in and day out. that they are only going to be able to do their job effectively if everybody has confidence in the system.
right now, we are seeing too many instances when people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly. and in some cases, those may be misrepresentations or misperceptions. in some cases, that is a reality. it is incumbent upon all of us as americans regardless of race it is incumbent upon all of us as americans, regardless of race or region, or faith, that we recognize that this is an american problem, and not just a black problem, for a brown problem, or native american problem, this is an american problem. when anybody in this country is not being treated equally, under the law, that is a problem. it is my job as president to help solve it. and those the words of our president, and he has been doing what he can do to help solve it. so let me continue with some of these statistics. some of these many of you know already.
we have 5% of the world's population, and yet 25% of the world's inmates. one third of all americans have some kind of arrest record or criminal history. it is 2.2 million people who are currently incarcerated in our jails and prisons around this country. we know for a fact that the impact of a criminal record is enormous, both on the individual, on the individuals families, and on our communities. we absolutely know that the impact on the african-american community is far greater than it is on any other community. we also know that the levels of incarceration that we see today are unsustainable. they are unsustainable financially. they are unsustainably sociably. and to be honest with you, they are on sustainable -- unsustainable morley. -- morally. we know this is bigger than just
the criminal justice system. we know this is about jobs, housing, and education. we know all those things matter, and one of the best things we can do to help to fix the criminal justice system is to make sure people have jobs. this president has created over 10 million jobs. but let's talk about the criminal justice system, and things that have already been done. things that i would hope you're doing in your districts to move forward and to help solve the problems we see in the criminal justice system. one thing is the school discipline guide that was put out by the department of education's and apartment of justice. -- department of justice. we know that youth of color are disciplined more severely than other youth in their schools. this guidance helps to educate -- health educators help to fix that problem. we know that attorney general holder has instituted what is called smart on crime. to look at only the most serious defenses, so we are not
incarcerating people for the wrong reasons. the office of juvenile justice has turned that and made it smart on juvenile justice, so we're looking at alternatives to incarceration for our youth great we know that we have the justice reinvestment initiative, which is currently in existence in 21 jurisdictions. when it was justin 17, it was evaluated and found that over 10 years, it was save us $4 billion by not locking up so many people. it is working. for the first time in 40 years, we have seen a reduction both in incarceration, and in crime. the first time in 40 years. we know that we do not have to incarcerate everybody. for there to be public safety. we know that for the first time, we've seen a deep freeze and federal incarceration. we know that many states, including the state of texas are reducing the number of people's
who were incarcerated substantially enough eating an increase in crime. we know we can get these numbers down even further. we also recognize there is more to do. and the more to do is -- the president just announced a task force of 21st century policing that is going to look at policing across this country. we know that we just looked at all of the equipment programs, $18 billion going into police department. and that is going to be reformed. we just announced $75 million we want to see go towards body cameras. the president, the attorney general, and the secretary of education just announced a correctional education guidance for kids who are incarcerated. we know we have my brother's keeper communities out there, over 200 communities that have stepped up to push forth the my brother's keeper community program. we know this is bipartisan.
we know there are numerous bills on the hill, both republicans and democrats to the value in reforming our criminal justice system. and we are listening to. the attorney general is out there listening. he has been to atlanta, cleveland, and memphis. he is on his way to chicago, philadelphia, and oakland. we going to continue to listen to you. we ask you to reach out with new ideas. we want a partner with you, we want to make the system a better system. we want to ensure that we really have a country where all of us are equal under the law. i thank you. [applause] >> thank you, reverend austin. [indiscernible] [laughter] >> for our sound people, is it ok if i sit here?
>> feedback. i hear it. >> i will get up and do what i need to do from up here. we are ready to start our conversation. we are really pleased to be able to offer you a five-minute women with the level of expertise that they have. we've talked about how we wanted to flow, and we thought a lot of you're like us, lord -- bored with having talking heads sit and read from prepared remarks. we thought a u-shaped table would help us to see each other, and have a conversation. if you have question, tweet your questions about hastag nbcslalc38.
first we have the
lady of texas, the queen of the texas legislature. representative senfronia thompson is with the texas house, and is the longest serving women and african-american in texas history. she has been a champion for the underserved in the underrepresented. she has authored bills on racial profiling, to mr. violence, and the hate crimes act. next, we have dr. david klinger. he is our researcher, who is going to tell us all we need to know and give us the data to back that up. released the source of the data
to back it up. he is
a professor of criminology, and criminal justice at the university of missouri st. louis, and senior research fellow at the luis foundation. he has worked as a police officer in los angeles, and redmond washington. he has written on the issues of -- on the issues of arrest, practices, and use of force and terrorism for the last 10 years. next to that is chief john dixon, iii. we were teasing him that he came in his uniform so we know he means business. we will listen to what he has to say. he is with the petersburg police in petersburg, virginia. he previously served the richmond community for over 24 years, and had a chance to experience all aspects of policing. his passions are in the area of
community engagement, use engagement, and improving the overall quality of life and neighborhoods. he is also the immediate past president of the national organization of black law enforcement executives, known as noble. then we have representative deborah barry, who is championing legislation to take lethal weapons from convicted domestic abusers, keep children safe from online predators, and educational reform. lastly, but certainly not least, we have a new be on the panel. a freshman legislator, emmanuel chris welch, who is been serving in the illinois legislature ends january 2013. -- since january 2013.
he has authored and passed legislation on reducing gang violence in communities in schools, he also served as legal counsel for various school districts and municipalities. lenin mention a couple of ground rules. each panelist will have five minutes to make their opening comment. we will go in order with each panelist. afterwards, i hope that the conversation -- i will begin a conversation with our panelists. later on, we will open it up for q&a. there are cards that were in your seats. if you don't have a card, raise your hand, and a staff member will bring a card to you. you don't have to wait until the very end to write your question or submit your question. if you are like me, you probably want to write it as soon as it comes to you, because you might
forget it. but feel free to put the question on an index card, and submit it. they will respond to those questions at the very end. we want to make sure that your phones or silence, that you keep your side conversations to yourself, and finally, if you would rather tweet your questions, we would ask that you please tweet any questions to hashtag. we are ready to start. are you ready? all right. miss t. if showtime. -- it's showtime. >> when you have been in legislation this long, you are flexible. >> i bet you can hear me now.
i want to welcome you to taxes. you have been welcomed by my colleague. -- welcome you to taxes -- texas.
i want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, representative helen giddings and the senator for luring you to our state and being so successful in doing that. i'm serving the legislature here for some 42 years. i had a whole lot of other things that could have been doing. but i enjoyed my stay in the texas letters later. -- legislature. i'm single, i'm independent, i have a job, i work, make my own money.
[laughter] but there are persons in our society who cannot afford to hire a lobbyist, to come up to the state house and advocate for themselves. those
are the little dogs. i like to look out for the little dogs. those people don't feel like they have anybody to take care of their needs, their wants, and their desires. sometimes you want to say, hell, i don't be bothered with this damn bill. why did they bother me with this? but after you listen to this person, in you listen to their needs and cries and hurt, you can't afford to let them walk out the door without giving them some help. i worked on a hate crimes bill in texas. let me give you the backdrop.
you knock down a fence and kill a chicken, a pig, a cow, or a bat, you can get a third-degree felony and go to the penitentiary. it sounds like a joke, but it is a truth. but the residents -- the legislation was resistant and being able to force people to face the fact that hate crime existed within the state. and that the life of a human being was less valuable than that chicken. and that pig, and that calvin you might have asked that we run into a fence and killed, and get a penitentiary in texas. we had a man who lived in jasper, texas. going home, minding his own business, not emitting any crimes. two white guys decided to change him behind the truck -- chain in behind a truck and pull him behind the truck until they had dismembered his entire body. he was so dismembered, his family could even successfully bury him. they went to the funeral home to take a suit, the man says there is no need. we can't even fit the body in a suit, because we have body parts. we passed that bill in taxes because we had a hate crime bill that would not pass constitutional muster. the biggest obstacle was the did not want people with sexual orientation to be a part of that protection. i know you feel like me. america ought to be good on its promises and protect all of its citizens. and then we pass the bill on racial profiling, driving while you are black. and one of the things i want to tell you, the reason we have such a problem with racial profiling is because we have institutionalized the fact that it's all right to be able to profile people according to their gender, according to their race. and we are back in dread scott, whether you want to believe it or not. when the judge in the dreads got case says a man has no right, a black man has no right which are white man was bound to respect.
this is something we still fight for today. we have a racial profiling bill, and i passed that bill. but the last session of the legislature, we passed a significant piece of legislation. by saying to the district attorneys in the state, you cannot withhold exculpatory evidence -- we had a man who spent 25 years in prison, and they have the evidence he was not guilty of killing his wife, what he had to sit in prison for 25 years, until one day this evidence was discovered. the prosecutor withheld because they wanted a conviction. they already knew he was innocent. my time is up. [applause] >> dr. klinger. >> can you hear me? >> first of all, i want to thank
everyone for coming in this morning. i think the panelists and the organization for inviting me here. i want to talk about two things that i think are really in a and two things i think they can help us deal with this critical issue of the use of deadly force by police officers in the united states. as a former police officer, i understand both sides of the equation. i have been talking with the chief about this issue. i think that one of the ways that they legislators can make an impact on what police officers are doing is pay attention to the training that is going on in your state, about a particular issue. and that is the tactics that police officers are trained in. one of the problems, in some of the recent events we've seen on tape, is police officers are doing what we call getting into close, too fast. what happens when police officers are into close, too fast to individuals, they don't have as much time, they can't think as quickly. it leads to unfortunately, some tragedies. one of the things that is
important in your state, there's going to be some type of we typically call police officer standard in training. a post-association that has power to mandate the type of training officers get in the academy, and then in-service training. if we can spool up legislation to get more training for officers about how they need to enter interactions with people, we might be able to reduce the number of police shootings. if we reduce the number of police shootings, we are on a better path. this isn't necessarily a black/white issue, it's an american issue. we need to make sure that american police officers across all 50 states are really trained. the second thing, as gilda mentioned, about the data regarding how often police officer skill citizens in the night to -- in the united states. we have three different data sets that are spread across
different agencies in the federal government that tracks dead people, i.e. people killed by the police. the senate just passed the death in custody reporting act, which is a step in the right direction in terms of getting better data. what we have to understand is most of the time when police killer's shoot, they don't somebody. the bullets either miss or the individual issued survives. by focusing on dead bodies, we are missing the big picture of the use of deadly force by the police. i working with jim behrman, the president of the police foundation in washington dc. we are putting together a pilot study, where we hope to get a by and for many of the major police arms across the country, already the los angeles police
department is working with me and working with jim to put together a serious data collection program that will permit us to track every single time a police officer discharges his or her firearm. i would ask you to use your leverage as state legislators to assist us, the police foundation of the university missouri st. louis, and other entities that want to get this up and running, to go ahead and give us your support. i think these two things, in terms of improving police tactical training and improving the data collection, so we can really know the scope of the issue -- right now, we honestly don't have a clue. we have a baseline in terms of dead bodies, but we don't know what lies above that in terms of many people who were killed by the police are not counted in official statistics. we have no clue about how many people are wounded by police gunfire. we have even less of a clue about how people are shot at and missed. i would encourage you, from a pragmatic perspective, to try to use your power to leverage these two issues. improving police training, and getting a more robust data
collection system for the use of deadly force by police officers in the united states. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. chief, you want to talk? can everybody hear me? it's a pleasure to be here among such an esteemed group. you guys are the ones that make the laws and make it happen. we enforce those laws that you make. i want to make that really clear. this is so important to be here, and to have this mesh of individuals here to be able to deal with this. so some real change can take place right here and now. let me start out by saying that the vast majority of law enforcement officers working within our communities are well-meaning, and goodhearted individuals who want to do the right thing. with that said, one incident of violence in our community is one too many. we all have to strive towards bridging the gap between communities and community's of color law-enforcement officers.
nelson mandela once said people respond in accordance, and how you relate to them. if you approach them on the basis of violence, that's how they will react. if you say we want peace, we want stability, and we can then do a lot of things that will contribute towards the progress of our society. the problems in our communities did not happen overnight. and there is no one response to why it happened. it is going to take some time, and there is no cookie-cutter solution. we have to look at an array of philosophical solutions. we have to educate our community. both on voting, and not just voting on the process of voting. i can't sit here and tell anybody how they should vote, but educate yourself on what
voting is, and how to do so. there is a push right now that a lot of people don't know, in criminalizing menthol cigarettes. by your response, i see you didn't know that. but there is a push on criminalizing menthol cigarettes, which will have an adverse effect in african-american communities. we need to be educated on those things, and be in front of it when these things happen in order to address it. we need to have transparency within our organizations. transparency a heard mentioned earlier about body chemistry body camera certainly is one way to create transparency. i keep in mind, we need to have policies that address those issues as well. those body cameras inside your
house, when you are at your worst, will become viral. i see a lot of heads shaking. a lot of people haven't thought about it that way. all of that stuff that goes on is now going to be on youtube and on the news, you will have an opportunity to see those things. people at their worst. if you have a good government job, you may want to look at that. [laughter] training for officers, as the good doctor mentioned, is important. we have to look at training. we have to look at how we train our officers. if we train them to be combative, guess what, you get combativeness. if you train them to be solution oriented, you get solution oriented processes. we have to stay focused on that. i would like to end this with something -- where do you want a star of -- solve this problem? y