tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 14, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on senate concurrent resolution 11 offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on senate kohnres. 11 offered by mr. -- senate co n.res. 11 offered by mr. shan hollen. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this -- by mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 187 the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the chair appoints the following confer yeens senate concurrent resolution 11. the clerk: mrs. tom price of georgia, rokita, moll far, van
hollen and ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6 2 to amend the internal revenue code to make permanent the reduction of state and local sales taxes, to provide consideration of the bill h.r. 605 to repeal the estate and generation skipping transfer taxes and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1195 to amend the consumer financial protection act of 2010 to establish advisory boards and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.
the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a young woman and brave college athlete taken from us too soon. her name is lauryn hill. many in cincinnati know lauryn hill's story of strength and resolve. luren stood as an inspiration to us all. her dream was poo to play college basketball and she committed to the mount st. joseph women's team. mr. wenstrup: then cancer struck. lauren was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. too many of us know the
devastating feeling when a loved one receives a cancer diagnosis. knowing that her days were limited lauren didn't let it stand in her way. she took her fight to the court, she played with a purpose. her purpose was for others, not for herself. although she passed away last friday at the age of 19 she has left a legacy of hope for a cure, as thousands came to see lauren play and support her mission, she raised over $1 million through her nonprofit a nonprofit to find cures for those that follow in her footsteps. lauren hill, you're an inspiration to the world. number 22, god bless you. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for
one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to offer condolences to the family and friends of officer michael johnson of the san jose police department who was killed in the line of duty on march 24 this year when he responded to a 911 call and was shot by a disturbed man armed with a rifle. ms. lofgren: mike graduated from the san jose police academy on june 15 2001. over his 14-year career mike served as a patrolman, court liaison, prescription drug fraud specialist and most recently a field training officer in charge of mentoring young cadets. like other officers, mike recognized the inherent danger in wearing his badge and responding to callings but he sped these risks and ultimately gave his life serving his community. he is survived by his wife nicki, parents daniel johnson and kathleen decker, step-parents dan decker and penny johnson, sister, jamie, a niece and nephew, a grandmother
and his in-laws. i hope they take solace in knowing that our entire community is in mourning with them. the san jose p.d. is in mourning, the city of san jose is in mourning, this congress is in mourning. i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, while iran pretends to want peace, it continues to prepare for war and more war. while the administration was negotiating a deal regarding iran's nuclear weapons iran was developing new war technologies. iranian news sources indicate that since 2014, iran has been developing combat suicide drones. this technology uses drones as
suicide weapons to destroy jet aircraft, helicopters and even warships. the drone development includes drones that allude radar have tracking devices and fly for hours with a long range. the iranian supreme leader even stated while the nuclear weapon negotiations were taking place that he wants to destroy the united states. suicide drones are yet one more example that iran is determined to have military dominance in the middle east. iran wants to annihilate israel and the united states. the united states should not be disillusioned by the iranian ruse claiming it wants peace. the best hope for the world is for the people of iran to rid themselves of the warlord mullahs and replace them with a rational, nonaggressive government. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition?
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker i rise today in honor of equal payday. it's an absolute shame that the united states -- that in the united states, women earn on average 78 cents of every $1 that a man makes. for women of color this gap is even worse 64 cents for african-american women and 56 cents for latinas. mr. speaker, pay gap is harmeling working families in every -- harmeling working families in every state but it's particularly harmful in the 2/3 of families where women are the primary bread winners. lower paychecks mean less money for groceries rent, child care and other family necessities. mr. speaker, i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of the paycheck fairness act, which will make it easier for women to win pay discrimination cases and harder for companies to justify unequal salaries. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill with me and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker i rise today to congratulate deve row, the national nonprofit behavioral health care organization on the opening of their new autism assessment center. the senlter is designed to help families get access to autism spectrum disorder assessment and diagnosic services, it will help familying facing the uncertainties of a autism diagnosis. mr. costa: with more children now -- mr. costello: with more children now more than ever being diagnosed, experts agree that early diagnosis and intervention for autism is critically important. currently receiving access to diagnosic testing can involve waiting lists up to 18 months. that's why this can provide an important service to the greater delaware valley region. i'm excited to soon be taking a tour of the facilities and want
to thank president -- thank the president the vice president, the board of directors administration staff and volunteers, all of whom provide compassion and excellence in care and advocacy for so many who may be disabled but indeed are very able. able to live meaningful, productive lives filled with laughter learning and productivity thanks in part to the great work done day in, day out. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous concept to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, with april 15 quickly approaching this week the house of representatives will be taking action and voting on a number of bills to ease the pain for american taxpayers. across pennsylvania's fifth congressional district, i have heard from constituents expressing their ongoing anxieties when it comes to the complexity of our federal tax
code. mr. speaker, there are more than four million words in the tax code. only 462 words in the bill of rights. this country is long overdue for a more simplified tax code. this week the house is considering legislation to ensure i.r.s. transparency, repeal the immoral and oppressive death tax and pass a taxpayer bill of rights. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these commonsense measures to protect the american taxpayer. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. duncan of south carolina for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair lays before the house a message.
the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i transmit herewith a report to the congress with respect to the proposed rescission of cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. signed barack obama, the white house april 14, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity tonight to address my colleagues and the american people on the eve of one of the most concerning days for many americans. that of tax day. april 15. my previous colleague alluded to measures -- illule conscious alluded to measures -- alluded to measures on this.
this is a very human and uniquely american moment this evening, as many people are overwhelmed with the deadline that they face tomorrow. to submit their taxes. and i think it's safe to say that an appropriate word of many americans this evening and into tomorrow is one of resentment. resentment for many reasons. for many it's simply the complexity of our tax code. that today in 2015, our tax code is so complex that many people struggle with compliance. or for those with resources have to turn around and spend their hard-earned resources to hire a professional, simply to understand the laws and the code that we have implemented here in washington, d.c. for others, the resentment is about the amount of taxes they pay. and this is across all income spectrums. the resentment is relate to --
related to the fact that they question how their taxpayer dollars ultimately are resourced, are spent, are obligated by this body. some studies have shown that as recently as 2012 over $100 billion was spent in the areas of waste, fraud and abuse. taxpayer dollars. not washington's dollars. but taxpayer dollars. that we each remitt responsibly to our government, that we entrust our government to spend wisely responsibly to invest in the right priorities for the nation, but also to ensure that the business of government runs exactly as that. as a business and an efficient business. so there is frustration by many people. and yet even worse the system is designed today to on i have skate responsibility. think about it. we live in a generation today
where, for the majority of americans, your taxes are with held from your paycheck. the generation that enters the work force today simply knows that if they're to be paid $100, it's not really $100. that there's money taken out of it. that wasn't always the case. until world war ii we didn't withhold. in fact, there's a 1943 when congress passed and the administration enacted the current tax payment act. that began to withhold. there are a lot of arguments to be made for why we withhold ensure the responsible flow of taxes to government. but understand what that very simple measure did. it began the slow -- to slowly remove the american taxpayer, the american citizen, from the actual act of remitting, of paying for the government that they have. it made it slightly harder to
recognize the responsibility that the money that is being sent, every time there's money with held from your paycheck, to washington, that in fact that is the taxpayers' money. instead we have generations that have come up assuming that you're paid $100 but you only get $80 or $90, that's just the way the system works and there's money coming out of it. as opposed to making that $100 and having to remitt a commeck to your government -- a check to your government and then holding that government responsible. i know this sounds like a crazy notion in 2015, but it's an important context for the conversation we have in terms of the amount of taxes that are placed upon the american people and the expectation for the level of responsibility of our government to actually spend those resources. this is a very real conversation. this was brought to me just last evening. by a woman who owns her own firm, her own practice, and is married to a husband who likewise owns his own firm, his own practice.
now in that situation they are responsible this couple is responsible, actually for writing that check, for paying what we call estimated taxes each quarter. and then at the end of the year reconciling whether they paid enough or not. for that couple, it's a very real experience, it's very different than the majority of americans who are employed by an employer and in fact the money is with held. because for that couple every quarter, every quarter they have a conversation around the kitchen table about the amount of taxes that they are sending to their government, the amount that they are resigning over to government, and what they expect in services in return. . that creates a certain efficiency a certain accountability. it's an interesting question. it also leads to how much should that check be that this couple writes in estimated taxs? this is an area of broad debate,
it can be a constructive debate, what is the right marginal tax rate is something that people of differing convictions have. i can tell you this, though we live in a world where the average american is subjected to multiple taxing authorities and consider this, we often think in this body only of the federal marginal income tax rate and the contribution that individuals nike social security, medicare and other mandatory programs. so in washington you might have a debate that focuses solely on what is the appropriate marginal tax rate? in state capitols around the country, you have state governments having that same debate. but there's a gap. rarely would washington ever consider what is the state tax obligation in a specific state and rarely would a specific state worry about the -- what the marginal tax rate is of the federal government. and then extrapolate that out to taxing authorities at the lowal
and municipal level, school board car taxes, think about all the taxes a single individual is responsible for pay bug we have no tax ombudsman that represents the taxpayer before all of these taxing authorities. we have no collective assessment of what is the total tax burden of a single individual, not just from washington, but from your marginal income taxes to to your mandatory contribution to entitlement programs to your state taxes, to your sales taxes, utility taxes, car taxes what is that total tax burden? and on the eve of april 15, i think it's appropriate to have a conversation about what is the total tax burden of any one -- that any one individual should be subjected to, not the marginal income tax at the federal level, not whether it should be a progressive or flat
not whether it should be simpler fairer, flatter which certainly i think every member of this body would agree to, but what is the total tax obligation that any one individual should be subjected to. because ultimately taxes fiscal issues, tax issues, are freedom issues. how much do we as government collectively of all forms ask for an individual to resign over to government to make decisions for them that payment of taxes, that resignation of resources by the individual to a governing authority, those taxing issues are actually free tom issues. how much does it leave for the individual to have discretion as the decisions they get to make for themselves? i've introduced legislation, h.r. 144, called the alternative maximum tax and it's a very simple proposition. sit says that -- it says that no
one individual should have to give to government collectively more than they fete to keep for themselves. think about it. why in the united states, great land of liberty, the country founded on the notion that freedom is granted not by government to disperse to individuals but it was given by our creator to individuals and as individuals we get to decide how much liberty we resign over to government. our nation was founded on this remarkable notion that freedom is first granted to the people, how could we ever argue that an individual should then have to re-sign over more than half of their income more than half of their resources to government collectively. understand this isn't simply a conversation about the marginal tax rate at the federal level. this is saying from state to local to federal to water district, utility district, what's the appropriate total taxation of any one individual because that ultimately is a freedom issue.
so the legislation i introduced actually does exactly that. it says an individual is able to add up every single one of these taxes and if they hit a threshold of 50% they hit a maximum tax. we have an alternative minimum tax in the country. that says if you fully comply with our tax code and you qualify for tax deductions tax credits, but washington decides you didn't quite contribute enough we're going to hit you with an alternative minimum tax and say, too bad, we don't like your math, we need more money from you. why don't are we have an alternative maximum tax to protect the tax rate? marginal tax rates are something for debate. i think 50% is too high. i would like to see that number come down because i believe it's a matter of freedom. but this legislation, h.r. 144, i will tell you what's behind it it is to beg the question, the very simple question, should any one individual have to give
to government more than they keep for themselves? it's a moral question, i believe new york 2015. we also this week looking for solution on behalf of the american people, will consider other commonsense proposals. one of them would make permanent a sales tax deduction. one in five americans live in states that do not have an income tax but do have a sales tax. the state of florida is one of them. and for that one in five americans a sales tax deduction is very important. think about it. income taxes at the state level are deductible on your federal tax return but if you live in a state that instead of having income taxes has sales taxes, shouldn't that be deducted just the same? because the principle mind the state income tax deduction on your federal return is it's recognizing, as i discussed in the max tax, that an individual -- is already paying and contributing to a certain amount
to their state for government operations. it would not be appropriate to tax those dollars. we allow the deduction of state income taxes from your fall tax return. we should likewise allow the sales tax. now this is something that unfortunately does not have a permanent place in the tax code so later this week, we will consider and i believe the house will approve h r. 622 to make permanent the state and local sales tax deduction. we also will vote on h.r. 1105, which would ensure the elimination of the death tax. the death tax. think about this. a nation that says you may have already paid money on your income, but the day you die and leave it for your family your family has to pay another tax on that. it's as outrageous as it is insulting and it's a very simple measure that we'll consider this week to repeal that we do have across the country tonight a
will the of concerned and frankly angry constituents probably in every single congressional district. tax policy, budget policies, we've seen can be very divisive. but as a congress and as a nation it's appropriate that we gip to have a national dialogue about how we can do better. how we can do better on behalf of the individual taxpayer. because the current system doesn't work. we know that. there's a reason that everybody has different ideas about tax reform. well just as we should be doing on so many other matters in this congress, let's bring a package to the house floor. let the house work its will on behalf of the american people that we're elected to represent. let's give voice to the american people that we represent. have an honest and constructive dialogue about the future of tax policy. we owe it to the american people to do our job and on the night of april 14, when so many people
are working tirelessly, simply to comply with complex regulations and laws that have been enacted by this body through multiple administrations and multiple parties, no one party bears all responsibility but we know we have burdened the american people tonight. so let us as we consider these bills late they are week do our job on behalf of the american people and recognize this burden that is create -- that has created such resentment. moving forward, let's bring a tax package to the floor. let's have an honest debate between two sides of the aisle do what's right on behalf of the american people. mr. speaker, i thank you for the opportunity this evening. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. jeffries: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jeffries: mr. speaker once again, we are moved and compelled to come to the house floor to deal with the seemingly unending problem of police violence in america. over the last year we've seen a parade of horribles examples of police violence caught on video for all of america to see. we're compelled to ask the question what more does congress need to see in order to understand that we've got a problem? that requires democrats and republicans, people in the house and the senate, working in partnership with the president, address. i certainly am of the view that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are hardworking individuals who are there to protect and serve the
community, but how can we continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that police violence all across america essentially has presented an epidemic of injustice that we've got to deal with. in a free and democratic society. what more does the congress need to see. we saw 12-year-old tamir rice gunned down by a police officer in what many view as a drive-by shooting. rice didn't present any danger to the offer who simply pulled up and really without warning shot him dead to the ground. based on a call that had been made that someone seemed to have
a toy gun. then of course in new york city, eric garner was strangled to death with the use of a choke hold employed by a police officer despite the fact that for the previous 20 years choke holds have been unauthorized as part of the poll sthoif nypd. 11 different times eric garner a father of six, said he couldn't breathe and on 11 different occasions the officers whrp there failed to respond to mr. garner's pleas for help. as a result he was killed. on a new york city street. for all the world to see. and then a grand jury fails to indict even on simple asalt. and now of course we've got the
tragedy of walter scott. someone who was killed running away from a police officer after having been tazed. and it's not clear to me that it's a courageous -- that if a courageous bystander hadn't captured that incident on video the officer responsible for killing walter scott may be patroling the streets of south carolina today. what more does congress need to see to realize that we've got a problem that needs to be addressed? i'm thankful that several of my colleagues in government beginning with the assistant democratic leader, we've got a -- who's got a tremendous
history of combating injustice before he got to congress and in his two decades plus of serving the people of south carolina in congress, let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of south carolina assistant democratic leader, james clyburn. mr. clyburn: mr. speaker i request permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend, mr. jeffries, for yielding me a few moments here this evening. i visited with the family of walter scott, i attended his funeral and not long after the services were over, i was approached by two women who
identified themselves as mothers of two young men who had suffered unusual and unnecessary brutality at the hands of the officer who perpetrated the unnecessary shooting of walter scott. . both these women said to me that throughout the north charleston community there is significant apprehension as to whether or not they could accept or expect any kind of relief for the pain
that they are suffering. i remained in charleston over the weekend and on sunday evening i saw that the mayor of north charleston, the chief of police of north charleston, both along with the sheriff of charleston county attended the healing services that took place at the baptist church there in charleston. i applaud them. the mayor, the chief and the sheriff for responding to these three families and there may be
others. but in a way that makes us all proud. i'm hopeful that after this weekend and some subsequent occurrences that congress will take a long, hard look at whether or not there's a role for us to play in responding to what seems to be an epidemic. i applaud those in the south carolina legislature most especially the senator for his authorship of body camera legislation. and i thank the various
newspapers. most recently this morning the state newspaper. for endorsing this concept. saying that it's something that the legislature in south carolina should authorize and fund. now there are a lot of departments police departments that have -- that are too small to raise the necessary funds. and a lot of them are so big to where the cost might be prohibited. to that i want to say, mr. jeffries as i thank you and congressman scott and congressman richmond, as well as congressman gowdy, shafer and labrador, for all the work you're doing, trying to pull together a piece of comprehensive legislation that will reform our judicial and
criminal system in a way that would make things much better going forward. please, i ask take a look at whether or not it's time for us here in the congress to make the funds available so that all local police departments can afford to do something that i think will address the national problem. i also believe that the time has come for us to maybe mandate from this level the body cameras . i think congresswoman brown and congressman cleaver have both proposed legislation in that
area. let's take a look at their legislation. hopefully your task force will look at their legislation and see whether or not we can incorporate that legislation authorization, as well as the funding going forward. now, i want to thank the attorney general and the f.b.i. director for proposing that we deal with this issue of data collection. that's going to be very important. as we take a look at these issues and these incidences and see whether or not it's time for us to do something at the national level to deal with data collection. that too is an expense. that is something these departments would have a problem with in terms of size whether
they're so big they can't afford it or too small to raise the funds. and maybe we can find a way to help fund the storage of this data so that we can create a better climate. now before i close i want to say something that i get beaten up a lot for raising this issue. but i feel strongly about it. i'm not easily intimidated and i refuse to be bullied. so therefore i want to say once again, whoever is funding the activities of the american legislative exchange council,
they are funding the kind of legislation, stand your ground, that creates vigilanty activity in this country. it's clear that is what has formed from that legislation. they're also funding legislation that is suppressing voters and when you suppress voters you're in fact ruining activity at the community level that i think is very, very important. also funding the bleaching of legislative and congressional districts. all of which i believe add to the creation of a venomous climate throughout our country. i spotted my professional career
-- started my professional career as a public school teacher. teaching history. i have studied the history of our great country and i have taught it and i can say that it is clear to me that a lot of legislation that is being proposed today a lot of activities that we are experiencing today we went through this before. and i would ask anybody who may be interested in this subject to just take a look at what occurred in this great country between 1872 and those new institutions -- constitutions that went in place throughout the south in 1895. will you see that through that 23-year period same kind of
vigilanty activity, all done under the heading of jim crow laws. the same activity with a different label. it's what we're beginning to see today. so i would hope that all the people here in this congress and around the country will really take stock of who we are, where we are and let's do what is necessary to move our country to common ground for all of its great citizenry. thank you so much for allowing me a few moments and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. jeffries: i thank assistant leader clyburn for his eloquent articulation, both of the history of police violence and oppressive laws and statutes done on the color of state law,
designed to undermine the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law, as well as for suggesting some of the things that we can consider doing to improve the situation. one of which would be to make sure that we capture police encounters on video in a manner that benefits all involved. so we can have a real understanding of what took place during the encounter. new york city has begun an experimental program placing body cameras in a few of the precincts throughout new york city, including the 75th precinct in the east new york community that i represent. and in talking to the commander of the precinct the officers, while many were initially skeptical eventually embraced the presence of body cameras for a variety of reasons. one of which is that it often
defuses an aggressive encounter. because the officers upon approaching a situation, when they're wearing a body camera, now are required to say to the individual citizens they're confronting, that this confrontation or this exchange is going to be recorded. what the officers have found is that in many instances that will defuse a situation that otherwise might go in the other direction. so body cameras are something that should be considered and in fact many law enforcement officers and departments across the country who have gone down this road have embraced it as technology that benefits the law enforcement community in addition, of course, to making sure justice takes place when a police officer crosses the line. it's now my distinct privilege
to yield a few moments to a new member of the congressional black caucus, as well as the house of representatives, who has already distinguished herself in terms of being a passionate advocate for justice and for progressive change in this country, that's the gentlelady from the garden state right next door to new york, congresswoman watson coleman. mrs. watson coleman: thank you very much to my esteemed colleague from new york. i am new to congress and i've had quite a few occasions to come to the floor and talk about issues that are very pressing to my community and to me. so i stand here as an african-american woman who represents the state of new jersey, but i stand here as a
wife, a mother, a sister, an aunt and a cousin to african-american men. and in that capacity each and every day that one of them leaves our presence and leaves their homes i wonder, will they come back safely? i know they mean no one any harm, but i don't know that the police that they might encounter would see that in them as i do. my community has cried out for a long period of time that there has been unjustice and there has been -- injustice and there has been harm and needless death facing our young men and even some of our young women. as a matter of fact, mr. clyburn mentioned the issue of data collection as being such an important element here in helping us to find our way. and i would note that "the
washington post" said that out of thousands of fatal interactions between the police and citizens only 54 officers have been charged. and of those, most were cleared and acquitted. so we need better data collection, we need greater accountability and we obviously need greater justice. because in those instances, the majority of these officers are going back into the streets, patrolling these communities and those people who are in charge of them are still in charge of them and are still performing what should be a public service. i understand that not every case that we are encountering is as clear-cut as the one we just encountered with officer slager. i understand that there are other cases that have resulted in other findings. i don't understand how some of
these findings could have occurred, given the things that we've actually seen. one of the things that i stand here for is i recognize that this congress can indeed help these local police departments with things such as body cameras. the cost-benefit analysis is a life, worth enough to invest in these police departments. and i say yes. but there are other things that i think congress should be considering. and that i think we should be leading the way and the discussion. and one of those is that there are consequences that should not only be felt by the officer who is actively engaged in the misfortune such as the slager case, or even in the brown case in ferguson, but what bess about those individuals who knowing -- but what about those individuals who knowingly participated in the policies that ended up creating this disparity in our
society this injustice in our society? they're given the opportunity they're given the opportunity, they're given the opportunity to retire. they're given the opportunity to resign. they're given the opportunity to move on with their lives and to benefit from the pensions and other benefits that are accrued by the number of years that they've been working as public servants, even though it is clearly demonstrated that their service was not to the public. there needs to be consequences that need to be addressed with regard to that also. there's a lot that needs to be done. we can see it, but we can no longer be silent on it. congress does have a role here. congress has a response to believe the ensure that the laws of this country are protecting all of our zit ens. we need to do things like invest in body cameras not just to catch those who are doing these
things which are harmful to our community but to protect the good policemen who are sometimes subject of complaints that aren't verified. i honestly believe that those who don the blue uniform do so with the expectation and desire to protect and to serve but those who do not and those who allow those who do not to continue to do what they're doing need to be accountable. and i look forward to working with my colleagues, my esteemed colleague who is in charge of this special order hour, and all of those who are working with ensure that there is justice safety and security and that as a mother i don't have to worry, as a wife, i don't have to worry, as a sister and an aunt and a cousin and a friend, i don't have to worry every time a black man that is associated with me leaves my home. thank you very much. i yield back my time. mr. jeffries: i thank the
distinguished gentlelady from new jersey for a very eloquent and passionate remarks -- for her very eloquent and passionate remarks. one of the things we have to grapple with in this country is the fact that the criminal justice system is broken. there are many components to that. we've got a situation where far too often when a police officer crosses the line and engages in unlawful conduct they're not held accountable for that conduct, what kind of incentive does that create for good conduct to take place moving forward if in the overwhelming majority of instances, such as the eric garner case when a police officer crosses the line, a grand jury or local prosecutor or often -- will often fail to hold them accountable? the other problem that we've got to address is overcriminalization in america. mass incarceration.
if you look at some of these encounters that have taken place and that have gone wrong and have resulted in tragedy, they often began with what was really overly aggressive unnecessary policing strategy being deemployed. to tackle at best nuisance like act tiffity. eric garner is dead today because he was selling loose cigarettes and someone at one police plaza gave the order to aggressively police this activity. crime is down in new york. but there's still a couple hundred homicides committed every year. there's still some gang activity. still some assaults taking place. but we want to use police resources to aggressively go after someone who is selling
loose, untaxed cigarettes. that's an overcriminalization problem. connected to broken windows policing. walter scott is dead today because he had a broken taillight. four children are without a father because walter scott had a broken taillight. we've got to evaluate this overly aggressive policing strategy connected to the phenomenon of mass incarceration, so i'm pleased to have had the opportunity in this congress to work closely with someone who is one of the leaders in the house of representatives and in the capitol in dealing with our broken criminal justice system and working closely with colleagues on the other side of the aisle like trey gowdy and jason chaffetz and others who are interested in trying to figure out collectively, how we can make america a fairer, more
efficient place in terms of our criminal justice system and so let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of louisiana who represents the wonderful city of new orleans, we refer to him, of course, as the franchise because of his prolific baseball abilities, but he's also one of the most talented legislators here in the capitol. i yield to my good friend, the honorable cedric richmond. mr. richmond: thank you, representative jeffries thank you mr. speaker, for allowing us to address this most important issue. as we talk about it today and members of the black caucus address this country and address this chamber, let me just start with this is not a black problem. it's not an african-american problem. it's not a hispanic problem. it's not a minority problem. this is an american problem that's eroding the fabric and the core of who we are and what
makes us exceptional. as we talk about police violence let me just start with, as we assess it, we try figure out if we have a few bad apples or whether this is a systematic problem that needs to be addressed. i prefer to believe that it's the former, a few bad apples that need atension. and with that, i will say and i will use an example in representative jeffries i'm sure you know, we had a police shooting in new orleans airport a couple of weeks ago. where a man who was otherwise peaceful lacked medical attention and was paranoid and went to the airport intending to
do harm and in fact he did do harm. but in the process lieutenant heather silvy had no choice in this situation but to fire and discharge her firearm and she killed richard white. she had no choice and she saved many lives. and i would like to believe that there are more heather silvys out there than what we're seeing on the news every day but the preponderance of what we see every day are shootings that are not justified. so when we talk about what can we do, when we talk about how things affect, well, body cameras won't stop the event from happening. but like red light cameras and automated traffic tickets, what they do is change behavior because hopefully officers will realize that there's nothing
done under the cloud of darkness anymore that whether it's body cameras or civilians standing up and recording the interaction whatever you do will be recorded to show an independent version of what's going on. and maybe, just maybe, that will change behavior and make officers just take notice that today is not yesterday and you can't do the things that you used to do. let me just say as we address it that one of the things we also can look at is the diversity of these police departments. the diversity of the f.b.i., the d.e.a., the a.t.f. those departments and those police forces and those law enforcement organizations should reflect the diversity in their makeup of the great diversity that we have in this country and u.s. attorneys in this country should stand and fight for civil
rights violations just as they do to headline grabbing public corruption and all the other things they focus on. as we talk about this and we have the new cases but i have old cases in new orleans after katrina, henry glover, an officer on a second floor balcony shot him dead with an assault rifle work a sniper rifle, saying that he posed an imminent threat to that offer on the second floor. and not only after he was shot and killed, the police took the body to a levee in an abandoned car and burned it. if we get past henry glover we can go to the danziger bridge where officers engaged in a fire fight with six civilians of which today we learn all of which were unarmed and none of which fired on the police department. and two of those civilians were
killed. so this is a very hard conversation to have. it's a conversation that we have to have because the longer we ignore it, the longer it will fester and i will tell you that urban communities have been singing this song and have been reporting this for years and years and years. and it's not until new technology that we see that this was not a fabrication but a concerned community watching their sons and their fathers killed by the hands of law enforcement. so i will say that we're part of the greatest body on earth which is the united states congress, and we can solve problems when we have the will because my grandmother always said, where there's a will, there's a way. and it's time for congress to dig up that will, make this
country a more perfect union because we all know it's not perfect. it wasn't perfect when it was created, it's not perfect today. but with the courage of legislators like representative jeffries from new york, representative johnson from georgia who will speak next with the will of strong legislators who are not afraid to have an ugly conversation, we can wrap our hands around this and we can make our streets safe for everyone because our lives do matter. and i think that it's time that both republicans and democrats and whites and blacks, we sit down and say that this is unacceptable. because the hate and the disgust and the hurt that is growing in african-american and urban communities around this country is playing out to be justified.
and the only thing that i can hope and pray, representative jeffries is that we're bigger and better than that as a country. so i look forward to working with you and i look forward to working with this congress to find solutions to these problems so that we don't have to bury another father or another son who -- whose life was snatched from them simply by the hands of either inexperience or -- inexperienced officer or worse than that an officer that just had ill intentions because every day, good people put on that uniform, go out and risk their lives to make sure that our communities are safe, that our children get to and from school, that our husbands and wives get to work and get home. they do that every day risking their lives and they sacrifice much so we can be safe and we need to make sure we root out those bad apples and make sure
it doesn't happen to any more families. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from new orleans for his thoughtful and eloquent exposition of the situation and for pointing out that while this is not an easy conversation for us to have around the police use of excessive force, often resulting in the death of unarmed individuals such as walter scott and eric gearn, it's not an easy conversation for us to have but it's a necessary one. if we're going to continue our march toward a more perfect union. i also would like to yield time now to another distinguished member of the judiciary committee who has taken an active role within the congressional black caucus and beyond to introduce progressive pieces of legislation designed
to address this problem. let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, representative hank johnson. mr. johnson: thank you mr. johnson: thank you for organizing this very important special order. thank you, mr. chairman mr. speaker, for hosting this. and we're here to talk about a very important subject the extra judicial killing of black males in america. it seems to be an epidemic. but it's really not. it's just simply the fact that we are hearing more about it. we're hearing more about the deaths that are occurring. we are seeing with our very eyes
looking at videos. we are seeing that some of these killings appear to be unjustified. and when we -- when we understand that we're seeing what's been going on for a long time, but which has not been addressed we understand that if we don't do something to address the problem, then these killings will continue. now, why is it that we have what appears to be unjustified homicides of african-american males at the hands of law enforcement repeated daily in the 108 days or so since the michael brown killing in
ferguson. we have heard of so many african-american males losing their lives. it's very disturbing. why is it that it continues to happen? well i would submit congressman jeffries, that one of the reasons is there seems to be two systems of justice involved. one for police officers and the other for civilians. it seems that there has been a reluctance to prosecute police officers when their actions go across the line. now you as well as i know that most of the law enforcement -- law enforcement officers out
there, male and female top to bottom from the east to the west , are good people honestly trying to do a good job. and their job is to protect and serve us and a lot of times, we make it very dangerous and we make it very hard for them to do their job. but that is their job to protect us and to serve us. and when one of us goes astray that doesn't give a license to a police officer to pull out a gun and stop the individual, shooting them in the back. it has happened more than once it has happened more than twice, it has happened frequently. sometimes we don't hear about it because the person is injured, and there is no video.
other times there is video and the person is killed and we find out about it and we see it. but it happens far too regularly, and it happens without any penalty for misconduct. now i've said that most of our law enforcement officers are seeking to do the best job they can do, but nobody is perfect, but they err and when you err and you violate the criminal laws, then you should be prosecuted yourself. i want to take this opportunity to commend the officials in north charleston -- in north charlotte, north carolina, who immediately, when they saw the video and saw the evidence, they didn't waste any time.
they didn't try to cover up or hide. they went and did the right thing. they charged the officer just as they would have charged a civilian, had a civilian shot someone. and it appeared to be unjustified. i'll give you an example in my state of georgia, where on new year's morning, 3:00 a.m. in the morning one of our local police chiefs was asleep in the bed next to his companion, who happened to be his ex-wife and due to some problems that he heard, he went and grabbed his service revolver and went downstairs to check on some noise and didn't find any disturbance and put the gun according to his testimony or his statement, on the bed and went to sleep with his wife
besides him, his ex-wife, and he was awakened to a gun firing and his wife, his ex-wife ended up being shot in the back and he called the police to report that i've shot my wife. and he was not arrested. he has not been arrested to this day. although about a month ago, the solicitor, who handles misdemeanor cases -- excuse me, the prosecutor, the district attorney who handles felony cases said that he intended to take the case to a grand jury to ask for a misdemeanor indictment against the officer, but there's two different systems of treatment, two systems of justice, one for the police,
because if he had not been a police under those circumstances, he would would have been arrested that same night, charged with a felony and he would have been forced to -- after being arrested, he would have to get a lawyer to have to break the case down into something like a misdemeanor if he was fortunate to have a good lawyer, if he could afford one. so when these kinds of things happen and people don't get charged, then it's a license for other officers to be reckless themselves. and so what we have had is a cascade of reckless behavior, which has resulted in people being killed. and being no penalty. and so it just continues. that's why it's important for congress to take action. there are things that we can do
here on a federal level and congressman jeffries, i know you have been working on some of these measures. i have been working on some, too. i tell you body cameras is a step in the right direction. and i would like -- i will. mr. jeffries: very important point that i want to make sure that is not lost and i look forward to you articulating on legislative proposals. most folks in america do believe that police officers are entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the context of a police encounter because of the inherent, dangerousness of what law enforcement officers do. certainly the former mayor of the city of new york said, in every case, i want to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. but there is peril in the
misapplication of that standard because if it goes too far, as the gentleman points out, there are some who believe that even if i cross the line, there will be no accountability and in this particular case, what was so chilling about the video after walter scolt is gunned down is that officer, not knowing that this entire encounter was covered on video, that he could drop something next to the body of walter scott and primebly in his mind that would be part of the narrative that he would use to get himself exonerated, because he understood he would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and in the absence of video in this particular case, could potentially have gotten away with murder. i thank the gentleman for
raising that point. we have to have a real conversation in america yes, the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are hard-working individuals dedicated to protecting and serving, but there is a problem with the misapplication of the benefit of the doubt standard in every instance because in the absence of video you may allow some officers who crossed the line to get away with being held accountable and that's a terrible thing for justice and for encouraging behavior moving forward. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. johnson: i would also note, congressman jeffries, that in watching that video of the shooting in the back of the gentleman aweek ago what i saw
was another police officer, who arrived at the scene as the subject officer walked back or actually ran or tried to back to the body and as the video was slowed down in slow motion you could see something coming out of his hand landing next to the victim. and it's thought that the item that he picked up, that the video shows that he picked up was a taser. and it appears that the -- it was the taser that was then dropped beside the body of the victim. with the other officer looking at the scene as it unfolded. so i would think it's reasonable to assume that that officer, the
first one to arrive at the scene who happened to be an african-american, it looked to me, apparently, i would think that it's reasonable to assume that he saw the officer deposit that item, which i believe to be the taser, beside the victim. and so what does that tell us? it tells us that there's a thin blue line over which law enforcement officers do not step . they protect each other. when they see wrongdoing, they do not call it out. they do not expose it. and so, when that happens congressman, it impugns the character of all law
enforcement. and if law enforcement is operating under that mentality that we see no evil, hear no evil and will not speak of it if we do see it, that reinforces the systemic problems that we obviously have in law enforcement insofar as it relates to african-american males. our lives do matter. and it's important that if law enforcement officers as a group are to uphold the standards of their profession and they must step across that blue line when they see something that another law enforcement officer does, which is illegal or that is not within the bounds of propriety, they must police themselves.
>> would the gentleman yield? i thank representative johnson for raising a difficult point. mr. jeffries: it is not easy to have a conversation about law enforcement conduct that crosses the line into illegality. but we got to ask the question, is there a blue wall of silence that exists such that good officers who observe inappropriate conduct engaged in by bad officers, are afraid to speak the truth about encounters that take place that cross the line? and if, in fact there is this blue wall of silence, i ask the question, how can that be good for our democracy when it means
that a victim of police violence in most instances will never get equal protection under the law consistent with the 14th amendment? because of this almost impen trabble blue wall of silence. and having this conversation about what we are going to do about police violence and should be a republican and democratic conversation and a blue state conversation, it happened in new york, a red state conversation, it happened in south carolina. this is an american problem. so i think the distinguished gentleman and i yield back for raising this issue. it's a difficult but we were not sent here to run away from difficult issues -- it's a difficult one.
we weren't sent here to run away from difficult issues. mr. johnson: that thin blue line, the blue wall of silence, it's not a good thing for our democracy, it's not a good thing for freedom, because the truth is that when one's freedom is taken away, then it affects potentially all of us in having our freedoms taken away. so the truth is that all americans are at risk when bad actors in law enforcement are allowed to act badly with impunity. all americans are at risk and i will also -- and i know that congressman jeffries, you represent new york and i know
that when the two officers were -- lost their lives by -- at the hand of a bad guy who ambushed and killed two innocent police officers in new york and thousands of police officers came to see -- to the funeral to see off their fallen brothers as they should do. and many other americans watched on tv. and i was, quite frankly, disturbed, greatly disturbed when the police officers some of them, some of the new york officers, turned their backs on the civilian head of the city of new york. think turned their back -- they turned their backs to the mayor as he was speaking at the funeral a sign of disrespect for
civilian authority. that attitude contributes to the thinking of some law enforcement officers that it's ok, that whatever they do is acceptable. so the police organizations must come to grips with the fact that they have a responsibility to do the right thing when one of their own does the wrong thing. they have a responsibility to do so. and so, i know that many officers many police departments don't pay their officers very well. civil servants in general are not paid commensurate with the value of their services to the people that they are serving, and police are no different than
that. police officers have the same concerns that we have that civilians have. sometimes they have problems at home with their wives. they have problems with their children. they have bills to pay. they might be a little bit behind. they have a lot of pressure. and so i think we should do a little more to -- in the area of mental health evaluation and counseling and help for our officers. we should encourage them to come forward if they are hurting. it should be a part of the culture of law enforcement that you're not too big and not too powerful to be able to ask for the help that you need, and our society should be willing to give them that help and we should be willing to pay for it
as well. and so this is not -- this issue of black males being killed by police officers is not a simple -- there are no simple solutions. there are a number of solutions that can help make this situation better and that's why we in congress and others in state legislatures and city councils and county commissions should be discussing this issue. we should be trying to do what is necessary to break down the systemic problems that have led to this result and to do something about those problems, to get those problems alleviated and eventually eliminated and so i'm so happy that you have seen
congressman -- you have seen congressman jeffries, you have seen the need for this to be a topic of discussion and i deeply appreciate the opportunity to come here and to participate in this discussion with you. and i let you know that i'm looking forward to continuing to work with you as we do what we know that we need to do in order for congress to address this issue. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentleman from georgia for his continued leadership and involvement in this issue and trying to bring about resolution. as we prepare to close, let me again make clear that in my view, in the view of i believe, many throughout this body and across this country, we know that police officers the overwhelming majority of awe enforce. officials go to work every day trying to do the right thing.
it's a difficult job. but because you have the capacity to take a life, we've got to make sure that when you exercise deadly force, that it's deployed only in circumstances where it's absolutely necessary. not a choke hold resulting in the strangulation of someone who is el -- who was selling untaxed cigarettes who pleads for his life 11 times and is killed. on video for all of his six children to see. we don't want to see deadly force used when someone who has been tazed is running away, the supreme court said in 1985, you can't use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. walter scott wasn't even a felon. stopped him because he had a
broken taillight. we just want to make sure that in america there's a balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for the constitution and for civil rights and for equal protection under the law for everyone on the other and that is our objective. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. mr. jeffries: mr. chairman, i move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
co-founder of standard oil company with john d. rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise, and as it turned out florida was it. he realized that he needed to own the rail rode between jacksonville and st. augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently system of clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary. >> watch all our events from st. augustine, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv" and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. next a look at the 2016 presidential race and what's ahead this weekend at new hampshire's republican gathering of potential contenders.
it's from today's "washington journal." isturbing thing to me. that is almost an afterthought to you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: already a very busy week in 2015. here to read all down is the boston globe's shira center and catherine lucey. who is hillary clinton meeting with and what will are the events that you -- that she will be getting to today? guest: she got out as fast as her scooby van could carrier. she will be doing small towns and much more intimate gatherings. she we touring a community college today, meeting with
educators, students. tomorrow, she will be at a produced business and doing a sort of business roundtable. beyond that, i think they are expected to be doing some more private meetings with lawmakers democratic activists, but the goal and your campaign has been very clear about this, that they want personal -- her campaign has been very clear about this that they want personal interactions, regular talents -- regular people. host: here is a tweet from earlier this week. and there's a picture of the family there. shira center, i want you to have a chance to get in on this. how does someone who is so well-known reintroduce themselves? guest: it is going to be
difficult, and you could argue it is the greatest challenge ahead of her in seeking the nomination. a quinnipiac poll came out last week that showed something like 90% of people had an unfavorable opinion and just 5% of people who were polled said they had not heard enough to make a decision about her. if you compare that to the republicans in the race, it is something like 54% of respondents in the survey who said they did not have enough information to make a decision about a republican candidate in the race. there is very little wiggle room for her. i think part of what the road trip is supposed to do is to reintroduce her as a new hillary clinton, metamorphosis her into the woman's woman. host: and all the cover of the boston globe, iowa voters examine alternatives to clinton.
as you are talking to political watchers, veterans who have watched so many campaigns come through iowa catherine lucey, what are they saying will make a successful rollout in just the first couple of days of her campaign? guest: i think clinton's people are probably talking to the same people i am, because there is a real sense that people want to see her come in, go to diners coffee shops, the kind of loki, retail -- low key retail caucusing that iowa voters expect of their candidates. that is what i'm hearing that many activists want to see. and in the republican field where you have this huge field of candidates, there is less happening with democrats. they want to see the candidate
talk to them, that then, -- vet them even if it is hillary clinton and they have met her before. host: we are happy to have your calls on this issue. the numbers are on the screen. there is a special line for those residents of iowa and new hampshire in this segment. a lot of focus in those two states, especially this week. shira center, take us to those state and what is going on. guest: saturday and sunday nearly every residential report -- presidential hopeful will go to nashua center.
there are 19 speakers who have signed up for this. the only two who are not on the speakers list are ben carson and former senator rick santorum. it is going to be two solid days of speeches. rick perry will kick it off around lunchtime. marco rubio and jeb bush will hit friday evening, and scott walker will close it out saturday night at dinner. host: and of course, marco rubio announcing his candidacy yesterday. i want to show our viewers a bit of that announcement. [video clip] [cheers and a clpplause] we are never going back. we americans are proud of our history, but our country is more about the future. and we have the greatest chapter
get in the amazing story of america. but we cannot go back to the leaders and ideas of the past. we must change the decisions we are making by changing the people who are making them. [applause] and so, that is why tonight grounded by the lessons of our history, but inspired by the promise of our future, i announced my candidate before the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting] host: that announcement coming
in marco rubio's home state. here is the "miami herald" front page story on it. we are talking with our political experts, shira center of the boston globe and catherine lucey of the associated press. a special line for iowa and new hampshire residents, otherwise the phone lines are as usual this morning. republicans, democrats, an independents. we start with george from louisville, kentucky. caller: good morning. nice to hear from everybody. i'm just hoping this doesn't get too negative. i hear that the smear campaign will be up in mass. it started with the lee atwater campaign in 1988 with the negative ads. i just hope that if hillary gets hit with a lot of i think the benghazi ordeal was a scam
scandal. there was no standout order. i think most of the lies are coming from the right wing crowd. i'm tired of hearing about negativity. i want to hear why we should vote for somebody as opposed to something else. i am tired of the smear tactics from the other side. thank you very much. host: catherine lucey, pick up on that and republican reaction to hillary clinton's announcement and now the van to or through iowa. -- tour that's probably pretty unlikely and given the times that we are in. there has been interest on the republican side on clinton, when she will get in, and certainly there have been criticisms and
negative commentary about her before this. certainly, now that there is a candidate in the race, the huge republican field can focus on her a lot more directly, and they probably will. host: we should know that hillary clinton will be in monticello, iowa later today. you can watch that appearance on c-span 2 at 1:15 eastern time, 12:15 central. speaking of the ability to go out and see presidential candidates, a tweet from jody. she says, iowa is the only state one can talk to the presidential hopefuls. we will go to paul waiting in chesapeake, virginia. our line for independents. caller: a couple of comments here. one is a question.
are any governors looking to get into the race and set of senators? some of these senators who are getting in our young. we just went through eight years of that. can this -- the second question is hillary clinton claims to champion the middle-class. 12 years in the governor's mansion in arkansas, eight years in the white house, and then secretary of state. my question is whether she really know about the middle-class? thank you. host: shira center at "boston globe" if you want to take that. guest: when you have 21 possible republican candidates, yes, some of them are governors, most notably, scott walker, governor of wisconsin. he is pulling quite well in some of the early polls. governor jeb bush is another essential candidate with executive experience.
other candidates who are not pulling as well, former new york governor, george pataki, just to name one. host: catherine lucey, if you want to pick up on the challenge of hillary clinton relating to a middle-class americans. guest: that certainly is what she is setting out to do here. she is going to be here talking one-on-one with real people. we saw the tone she is setting in her video. she wants to connect with everyday folks on their problems and concerns, looking to the future. i think one of the things she will be talking about, she said on her website, she wants to be people's champion. whether -- in terms of how she will say this, i think it will be, i understand your concerns, i will fight for your concerns, and i think that is how she will focus on this. host: you have this recent story
from ap, about another former executive on the campaign trail, martin o'malley. guest: certainly. martin o'malley has been in iowa several times recently as he ponders a 2016 democrat bid as well. he has been well received here. i saw him at a couple of events, and he is definitely offering a percu progressive message talking about income inequality, raising minimum wage, financial reform in terms of oversight of banking, and people are responding to that. i think he has a message that people are interested in. also, democratic activist year want to see options. they don't want to have a
coronation, so to speak, of hillary clinton. host: hillary clinton so far ahead in the early polls that we have seen. catherine lucey, do they matter at this point? shira center, i want to get your thoughts on this of as well. guest: certainly the polls matter. it is adjusting, almost one year out from the iowa caucus surprises can happen. these are not states where you put in time, if you're really making the rounds, meeting with people, people are going to listen and are going to give you a shot. the caucus voters -- the caucus participants here really want to that the options and take seriously that they are first in the nation. they will give anyone who comes in here a look. host: just one of those polled on the democratic side of the ticket, hillary clinton ahead by 40 points in north carolina to
her next closest challenger potential challenger, vice president joe biden. o'malley with just 5% to clinton's 53% in that "foreign policy" poll. shira center, do polls matter at this point? guest: not really, but not why you think. yes, it is early, they measured largely by name identification. hillary clinton, as we have discussed, is well-known. even if you have something like nine candidates really active in the primary, the winner will only get between 15% and 17% of the vote, maybe 20% if they really have a blowout. if you're looking at numbers that small, it is extremely hard to judge this far out how well a candidate can do. host: for about the next half
hour or so on "washington journal" we will be talking about this topic. david is on the line. caller: it seems our politics have become some sort of perverted the editor. -- theater. any politician that does not raise millions of dollars cannot run. any politician that says anything against israel, even if it is true, cannot run. hillary is not even talking about -- rand paul, for instance, who i am not a fan of has said some things that are common sense about how america should free itself from its relationship to israel. the media does not give him due time like they will clinton or rubio, or jeb. kennedy, when he said that there
are forces that want to enslave america, we know three weeks later, he was killed. americans need to stop being transfixed with the theater and get down to the truth. host: catherine lucey, the first part of the question has to do with fund raising expectations. what are the expectations on hillary clinton after her announcement over the weekend? guest: i know that obviously she is getting right into fund-raising. they are starting right away and they will raise huge amounts of money. the race on both sides -- we have seen this the last few cycles, there are so many vehicles for fundraising and spending as far as candidate committees, and also outside the committees. huge amounts of money can come and in a lot of different ways. she will have ample
opportunity to raise and access funds. >> on the next "washington journal," dodgeman jim mcdermott of washington, the lead democrat on the committee talks about doc fix and challenges to the president's health care law. then congressman james rene see of ohio. he -- renacci of ohio talks about tax bills on the floor this week. after that, our spotlight on magazines features justin worland of "time" about his story on the shooting of an unarmed black han. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.
>> really fan of c-span's "first ladies" series? it is now a book looking inside the personal lives of many first ladies. learn details of all 45 first ladies that made these women who they were, their lives ambitions, and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book,"first ladies, presidential historians on the wives of -- on the lives of american women." it is an illuminating, entertaining, and inspiring read , and is now available as a hardcover or e-book for your