tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 25, 2014 4:30am-6:31am EST
outstanding? >> i can't give you a vote breakdown and i don't know that nor can they reveal that. the federal investigation is still ongoing. they have all the information and evidence that we have. they had it as we got it. when we finished a day's worth of grand jury testimony within a day or two that was in the hands of the department of justice. when they did an interview within hours that was in the hands of the department of justice. so they will conduct their interview or their investigation as we did. they're looking at different types of laws obviously and different violations. so but when they will complete that i have no insight into that. >> did any witnesses refuse to testify? and if so how was that handled? >> i didn't hear the last part. >> if any witnesses refused to testify how was that handled?
>> there are a few witnesses who were not brought in. they were witnesses who, one didn't make a statement. there were a couple who just disappeared. we spent a lot of time searching for them. and with the assistance of the f.b.i. but were unable to locate a couple of them. so none of the information though in one case i think we had a statement from the witness. it wasn't presented to the grand jury. like i said i think there were couple of them. >> you cite officer wilson's description of brown's movement towards him as a charge. was there any other evidence that might have led the grand jury to conclude that wilson had probable cause for the use of force? >> i'm not privy to the zhrib rations so i can't say what they saw as highly significant or not. but they had all the information and they were charged with and they were told
that here is what the law requires that you consider all the evidence and the information. so it's not just, as in most cases it is not just one bit of evidence that says all right that's it, that's all we need to hear. it's everything that was presented is why we wanted to make this as complete and horough as possible. >> there's been some dispute .hether the court order >> it's a lot more complex but essentially that's how the sunshine law operates. when it's a closed case it's an open file. so that's the basis. you're following the sunshine law. there's no specific request for
it. i assume there would be a request but i thought it was important in the first place to release the information. o. yes, ma'am. obviously many are not happy with this decision tonight especially the family of michael brown. if they are watching what would you want to say to them this evening? >> as i said at the very outset, my heart goes out to them regardless of the circumstances they lost a young man. they lost a young life. and i've said many times before that the pain that goes along with that loss is just something that most people can't understand. so but at the same time everything was presented and things don't -- but everything was presented, everything was given to the grand jury and it was all put in front of them. and the 12 people made a decision that based upon all that evidence that as tragic as
this is, it was not a -- not a crime, was not one where charges should have been filed. it doesn't lessen this tragedy by the fact that it was a justifiable use of force or self-defense. there's still a loss of life here. and the family is going to have that loss forever. that will be with them for a long time. you know, no police officer or no young man shouldr be killed by a police officer. and no police officer should ever be put in that position. so that's why i keep urging people to keep this talk going. so many times we've seen in the past where the discuss starts and then it fades away and then we have the same issues and we're back here again. i don't ever want to be back here. so we have to keep that discussion going and everybody has to stay engaged in it. this is a horrible tragedy and we don't want to see any repeat. o thank you.
>> president obama spoke with reporters about the grand jury's decision not toen ditheferg son police officer for the death of 18-year-old michael brown. the president delivered a brief statement from the white house briefing room shortly after the announcement was made. >> good evening, everybody. as all of you know, a few minutes ago the deprand jury deliberating the debt of michael brown issued its decision. its outcome either way was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in ferguson but across the america. but i just want to say a few words suggesting how we might move forward. first and foremost we are a
nation built on the rule of law. and so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make. there are americans who agree with it, and there are americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. it is an understandable reaction. but i join michael parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. let me repeat michael's father's words. hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. no matter what the grand jury decides i do not want my son's death to be in vain. i want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the st. louis region better for everyone. michael brown's parents have
lost more than anyone. we should be honoring their wishes. i also appeal to the law enforcement officials in ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. they have got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. as they do their jobs in the coming days they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury's decision as an excuse for violence, distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.
finally, we need to recognize that the situation in ferguson speaks to a broader challenges that we still face as a nation. the fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. and this is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates. the good news is we know there are things we can do to help. and i have instructed attorney general holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement. that means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representive of the communities they serve. we know that makes a difference. it means working to train
officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. it means in listening the community actively on what should be everybody's goal, and that is to prevent crime. and there are good people on all sides of this debate as well as in both the public and -- republican and democratic parties who are interested in lifting up not only best practices because we know there are communities who have been able to deal with this in an effective way but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform. so those should be the lessons that we draw from these tragic events. we need to rec nidse that this is not just an issue for ferguson. this is an issue for america.
we have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. i have witnessed that in my own fe and to deny that progress i think is to deny america's capacity for change. but what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up. separating that from this particular decision there are issues in which the law too off feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. i don't think that's the norm. i don't think that's true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. but these are real issues. and we have to lift them up or not deny them or try to tamp
them down. what we need to do is understand them and figure out how do we make more progress? and that can be done. that won't be done by throwing bottles. that won't be done by smashing car windows. that won't be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize property. and it certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. so to those in ferg son there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. michael brown's parents understand what it means to be constructive. the vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand it as well. those of you who are watching tonight understand that there's
never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people and good will out there who are willing to work on these issues. on the other hand, those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem go away need to recognize that we do have o work to do here. and we shouldn't try to paper it over. whenever we do that the anger may momentarily subside but over time it builds up and america isn't everything that it could be. and i am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively, then we can make progress not just in ferguson but in a lot of other cities and communities round the country.
>> [inaudible] when things settle down there? >> we'll take a look at what's going on. eric holder has been there and i think they have done very good work. the vast majority of the community has been working very hard to try to make sure that his becomes an opportunity for us to seize the moment and turn his into a positive situation. but i think that we have to make sure that we focus at least as much attention on all those positive activities that are taking place as we do on a handful of folks who end up using this as an excuse to misbehave or to break the law or to engage in violence. i think that it is going to be very important and i think the media is going to have a responsibility as well to make
ure that we focus on michael brown's parents and the clergy and the community leaders and the civil rights leaders and the activists and law enforcement officials who have been working very hard to try to find better solutions long-term solutions to this issue. there is inevitably going to be some negative reaction and it will make for good tv. but what we want to do is to make sure that we are also focusing on those who can offer the kind of real progress that we know is possible. that the vast majority of people in ferguson, the st. louis region, in missouri, and around the country are looking for. and i want to be partners with those folks. and we need to lift up that kind of constructive dialogue that's taken place.
all right? >> on the next "washington journal" we will discuss monday ds announcement regarding the resignation of defense secretary chuck hagel. military times pentagon reporter joins us. and then the group share or strength we'll talk about hunger in america. we'll also take your phone calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter about the grand jury decision in the death of michael brown. "washington journal" airs live every day at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. >> i just have to tell you that to see these people in person, to hear them, have the panel discussion or congressional aring, it is so important to
understand the context and to listen to the statement in its entirety. >> i have been watching for a few years and i really think that book tv is the greatest program on tv. i just really like how these authors pick the time to not only present sum ries and jists of what they write but the moderator always does a great job of stimulating the conversation. i think it's fabulous. it's what i look forward to on the weekend for me to watch as much as i can. >> i watch c-span all the time when i'm home. it's the only station i have on most of the time. i think it's absolutely excellent. i watched all of the debates around the country. thank you form the book talks
and for the history. i like all of it. and i am thankful that it is there are there and i use it in my classroom. i teach at a community college in connecticut. thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the rograms you're watching. >> common congressman tom petery is retiring. prior to serving in the congress he was a wisconsin state senator. representtive petri sat down with us to talk about his time in washington. >> congressman tom petri, you have been in the house of representatives since april of 1979 and you are now down to your last few weeks.
what's that like? >> well, it's been a good run and i think we have a sense of moving on. i'm in transition now. i'm told you don't use the word retirement, you use the word transition. so i'm looking at things to do more in the public service area and things of interest. >> will you stay in washington or go back to washington? >> probably do both. my wife is originally from indiana. we met here. she has a job here. so she goes back and forth as she can. and if i'm going to keep the family together i'm going to have to spend a little time here as well as at our house. >> what do you think you're going to miss most? >> i think a couple things. one, the opportunity to meet a lot of different people and to learn about and hopefully be of help with their problems. we do a lot of constituent service and working with different organizations and trying to help people in organizations in the district work their way through the washington maze.
and be competitive in their businesses and all the rest. and the other thing is learning -- the job like this is kind of a social connector job. and you learn about all kinds of different things that you had never -- you special lies in a particular area also but here you have to learn a little bit about almost everything and it is amazing the things that come -- become a concern as you're doing the congressional job. like wise what's been the most frustrating or what will you miss the least? >> i don't know. i've enjoyed the job a lot. i'm not sure there's anything that's particularly frustrating. one thing i guess is that there isn't enough time in the day to deal with all the different things you would like to deal with. we're fortunate in that each congressional representative represents some 650 to 700,000
people, maybe even a little more in some states, and it's almost impossible -- it's basically impossible to do all the different things involved. so we do have in my case we've had very, very good effective able people in our congressional and district offices who really carry most of the daily burden. >> your arrival here is almost completely coins dental with the arrival of televised congress. it started in march of 79. you came in one month later. let me talk about your observations about the changing media and how it has affected this institution. we went from a televised congress to 4 hour news channels and now to social media. how has that impacted the work that you do and your ability to do the work? >> well, i've never been in the congress when it wasn't televised or when we didn't have electronic voting in the
house of representatives. two innovations that occurred just before i got here. so i -- but i did in the early ars many of the procedures were still those that were followed before there was electronic voting where people had to stand up to get a roll call vote and so forth. that went away and roll call votes are basically now automatic if anyone requests it. but before, they were very rare really partly because it took so long. you read the full 435 names twice and then people were gathering if their name had already been called the second time in the well of the house. so there is another hour. well, people actually cast their vote. so the whole process could take a couple three four hours. electronic voting, do it in a minute or two, at most 15 at what a great efficiency it
would be. the result has been there there's been a proliferation of votes on procedural issues so we're casting thousands of votes of congress whereas before they might have cast, i don't know the number, but a hundred or couple hundred votes. i'm not sure that the quality of the thing has gone up. i have talked to people who served in the congress before television and of course you can't fight change. you have to figure out how to work it to your advantage. but as we all know in washington the supreme court has been very reluctant to televise their proceedings. i don't think they still are. they do allow them to be broadcast now on radio. and they're edging into it. members say well before television representatives would actually stand up and sort of negotiate bills on the floor of the house and talk with each other back and forth.
and engage in sort of substantive discussions. now, it tends to p be pretty much a show for television and people are nervous if they deviate and do something that's not already scripted or prepared by people and their staff. they get themselves into some sort of a pickle. when i first got here, there was actually some question as whether you were allowed to use written material when speaking on the floor of the house. i you were not supposed to be -- you could just put things in the record if you had it written. it was supposed to be you're speaking not your reading. now of course it's totally different. >> now members can bring i pads on to the floor. >> they seem to be doing selfies now that's against the rules. >> you've not done a selfie? >> no. >> moving from televised
congress a few years later cnn came with the 24 hour news cycle. but now it's instantaneous. with social media anything that happens will be disseminated instantly. has that had an effect on how you legislate? how you do your job? >> well, i think all kinds of institutions are in the process of trying to adjust to the changes in technology and this has been going on since morris invented the telegraph but it seems to be going on with an accelerated fashion. and why does it cause anyone problems or whatever? well, if you're in the business like the news business or other business of being an intermediator trying to figure out what's important and what isn't and put it in context and edit it and you earn your keep by saving you a lot of time by trying to accurately sum prize and riretize information in a particular area, suddenly all
available ins tain yussly on line it becomes very flat and messy. and all kinds of good bad and ugly stuff out on the web. and that's a problem. -- for a lot of people in the news business and other businesses. the other thing is that there s something to be said for the old adage act in haste and regret at your leesure. and before -- certainly going back to the days when we were a colony you take a couple weekend to get over to europe and then a couple weeks to get back. so you had two or three months if you sent a letter and then you could send another letter. a lot of times to think about it what made sense and what didn't and focus on things instead of all this. and now people are figuring out how to get a little space so
they can give some depth to their thing rather than just reacting but certainly i can remember as a kid, they say people are impressed in america by who are at all aware of the political -- like whoever was president when they were first aware of this and sort of influences their political attitudes throughout the rest of their life. so generational. i was in the eisenhower generation. and the thought of dwight eisenhower getting up every morning and hopping on air force one and flying somewhere and giving a 15-minute speech in order to be part of that day's news cycle and getting back, which is part of what the president's job has become, you just wouldn't think of it. he was never on a debate or any of the tv news shows at all. he just was a very great leader that people wanted as president. he was not particularly skilled
as a manipulator of images and things like that. it's just a whole different approach. but now we're building a memorial to him because he was a great president. certainly approach is not what's going on now. >> so we're talking to you in a week in early october and you've had some news in your own career here about an essex investigation that you asked for which the committee has decided they will continue. now i'm going to invite people watching this who are interested in the details to go on line and find out more about it. i want to talk about process because over the years you've served. when you asked for this did you have a reasonable expectation that it would be adjudicated by the time you were leaving? >> well, i would have thought it would have. they set up the last couple years a rather strange process where you have a two-tiered system and they don't always necessarily agree.
the reason i asked for the ethics investigation or review of my action is that i had gone to the ethics committee to ask that they approve or give me guidance if i was acting on behalf of a constituent company in which i owned stock to make sure that i had done it before i was in congress, before i was owning stock, and since i own stock oshkosh corporation and other corporations in our district and the issue as well was i doing it to line my own pocket or as a representative? we always made sure that if we tried to help them in dealing with congressional things we first of all had it approved by the ethics committee, certainly in the case of oshkosh truck and i -- sad to say the stock is down at least as well as up since i bought it and i haven't sold any. but we want them to investigate it because questions were raised. it all happened about eight
years ago. there's even a legal question as to whether one, congress can review the bare of members of another congress. we had a supreme court case involving adam clayton powell where he was thrown out of congress, reelected. they tried to not seat him and the supreme court said no the voters are the people whom decide. well, this is all in the newspapers for years in my district as well. but anyway we didn't want to raise any procedural questions. we wanted them to stand by their advice which they had given me. which i would followed and i hope they do. >> question since the committee's purview is seated members of congress how does it work when they won't be here any longer? >> that's why i asked them back in february to review it and they still haven't really appointed a committee to do it. they bucked it to the other panel whose sole purpose is to review things and then send it to the ethics committee if they
think there's anything there to look at. they did do that and send it to the committee and the committee said we're taking it under advisement but they haven't indicated they're actually going to do anything. >> so it's not that two years from now you mind find out a if the committee of the congress for members of the congress. it limits the jurisdiction for that congress. committee on the during the investigation of jim wright. >> a variety of others. >> i want to go back to speak or write. it was the first time a sitting speaker gave back his position. his speech doing that was very dramatic and historic. people can watch and see the
sense of history. through the lens of time, how investigation seem to you? i was not the ethics committee had two jobs. wrongebody did something in violation of the rules of the house or that brought discredit upon the house to deal appropriately with that. also, to protect members of the house against scurrilous and unfounded accusations. send things told the ethics committee or ask us to look into something before an you feel strongly about this after the election we
will be happy to take it up. a partisan political thing. shows that the speaker of the house is the leader and most powerful person in the house. the ethics committee is made up of an equal number of members of both political parties. that is about the only committee in congress like that. the idea is to make sure that's not made for political and that is. it's an instrument to act on the merits and not on the politics of different things. ashink we did that effectively as we could in that case. we never did reach a conclusion because the speaker chose to resign. there are some a congressional historian to look at that is one of the seminal where the hyper
partisanship began. intense between the two parties almost ever since. the you have any sense that that was a watershed moment? that may have been the perception. the chairman of the committee was a democrat from los angeles. i think some of the books that were written said that he had wright.h ri as the investigation went on, there was another one that had been conducted that not much came out about, members of his
own party thought there might be something there. >> what are some of the big contributors to this state of partisanship in a house today? i think a little bit of media chatter mainly. , theommittees i serve members get along very well. i just something put out by the senior member on the transportation committee on the democrat side praising the work of bill shuster who was the chairman of the committee for working in a bipartisan and inclusive fashion. i think that's the case to most committees. it's still the case in the armed services committee. partisan --bar bipartisan staff. as much asged anything that has been carried
on since newt gingrich is the draft from more autonomous and powerful committee chairman to decisions and crafting of bills in the leadership offices. -- their job that is to be party leaders. they are to build a team and keep the team together. that's fine. that's part of the deal. the chairman's job is to get something done in their areas of jurisdiction. the country has needs for investing in transportation and good tax law and all the rest. what we have seen is a drift away from the committees andating from that premise
working on their own system to them calling the party leadership and scheduling bills. it's the news cycle business. it's very short term. the quality of bills that come out as a result is abysmal. care, it wasbama never intended to be a bill. because of the way the politics of it worked, it had gone past the senate with a bunch of patches to get the votes they needed in the senate and then lost the super majority that they needed because of senator brown's election in massachusetts. it had a lot of glitches in it. everybody would tell you that who was involved with the
process. that has been true in where itation bills has been done more for the politics and by the party leadership. the committees have staffers. jim over star was on the transportation committee as a staffer and then as a member for 50 years. he knew a lot more about the ends and out of transportation bills then mrs. pelosi or john boehner or people on their staffs. to move ine tended the direction of almost passing press releases and trying to call it legislation. that works in the short run. it causes more and more frustration and problems for people who are trying to implement the law or work on the law.
it's a crummy way to do business. how has the republican conference changed over the years? >> not a whole lot. >> you describe your self as a pragmatic conservative. people look at you as a moderate and the moderate voices seem to be diminishing. >> i don't know. everyone thinks they are a moderate. a lot of people in both parties have this thing here in my democratic colleagues are theirining that people in district or their party are calling them dinos. os. then you have rin you fromd a quote from
a long time ago challenger. my eighthher was grade science teacher. her dad was the high school gym teacher and basketball coach. i knew the family since i was located. >> she says nice things about you. kinds of of those old-school republicans who have a sense of appreciation for government and its institutions and recognizes that getting along with people of different views was the way in which you could make government better. is that old-school? >> i think that's just trying to do your job. people say things become so partisan. tell that to some of the people involved in congress back in the 1830's.
henry clay or stephen a douglas. these people were struggling desperately to try to work out compromises to keep the union afloat and avoided splitting up on issues like abolition and slavery enterra's and a variety of other issues. people got more and more angry. i think there was a representative from the south and clubbedr another member of congress and they were each reelected in their separate districts. it was the psychology of people don't want compromise anymore. they want confrontation. what happened?
more people were killed than ever before in american history. we did wind up abolishing slavery. we could have done that just a few years later. when slavery was on its way out. it became a symbol of the thing. it was a terrible thing. near -- we have been through much worse times in our country. my own observation is that to put everything on ideological spectrum's. s. a lot of things really don't fit in that spectrum. we have divisions in our country that are more dangerous than ideological divisions.
when we fought the civil war, it left versus right ideology. it was regional. differencese big like that. they tend to get papered over in the left/right. is a fact the midwest much more severely than it does the coasts. electrical generation tends not to be coal-based but it is in the midwest. on tend to see more tension that sort of thing up. the economic issues -- it's much easier to be a hero on this kind of thing if you represent southern illinois. >> i wanted to talk to you about
a couple of major historical .eriods the first was 9/11. what was it like being here at that time? >> i was sitting here in this reading the morning mail and the sort of thing. the chief of staff kept the door open and she had her tv on. suddenly, there has been a terrible thing in new york. we could see the cloud. happened?this of something must've happened with the pilot. he lost control. then a few minutes later, it happened again. the second plane. .hen everyone said oh
>> did you have to evacuate? >> the pentagon was a little bit later. my reaction was a little bit different than a lot of people. there are some people saying they wanted to evacuate. a war where we are going to be bombing every building, people running in the street would create chaos. a few minutes later, they ordered us out of the building. then there was chaos on the street. no fire trucks could get over to help people at the pentagon. that all came from the virginia side. they closed schools for some reason.
my daughter was in school at the time. car out ofo get my the garage here, but it took about three hours to get from here to the labor building which is six blocks away. i could've walked up to her it was.uicker then she was one of the last kids to be picked up. we went to an outdoor restaurant and watched all the people run around. panicws the irrational which some people star up which does serve bureaucratic interests. it's not an appropriate response to crises of this sort, which are done by a few people to create exactly that sort of response. response during world war ii was to keep calm and carry on and keep a stiff
upper lip and work like the devil behind the scenes to get after these guys. that is a much more appropriate response than the one we had on 9/11. it was very human. they have these drills where they make you go out of the street and they did this repeatedly after 9/11. if there was actually something happening and we are all on the street, a sniper could shoot people in the street. where do we go? a way of protecting people who are in charge of security as they can say they did something if they were looked at in a crisis. was somethingr that came from that. you initially voted and then of votes -- voted against it. say i was wrong on
that. i think i was probably wrong to a voted for the authorization. aboute told this business weapons of mass destruction and: powell going to the u.n. and all the rest of it. it turned out they never found much. hussein and the baath party was a secular communist or a movement. they were not religious fanatic types. >> where does the country stand now that we have gone through all of this? you're about to have another debate about syria.
how does this all look to you as someone who has had this experience? we are usingike our emotions rather than our heads. i think we need to stop and think for a minute. ourselves need to ask about terrorist movements. they are nothing new. they've been around since the beginning of time. how do they end? do they and because you bomb them from the sky? this and they win and are eliminated or they are integrated into society. something that is not necessarily best dealt with tanks and planes and armed forces. it has to be dealt with on a and anal level
intelligence level, like dealing with organized crime. >> the other great crisis was the financial meltdown. i am wondering about congressional response to that and how it looks to you with some distance and time. how did we do as a country based on what came down of this? time, darrell issa and some others were asking that we call in people in the reagan administration who dealt with the savings-and-loan crisis, which involved closing a large number of banks and savings and loans. we had a huge problem. it was one of the underlying issues. he would that schedule bills. they could not close down the savings and loans that were
insolvent because they could not pay off the depositors and there would be panic. that would spread threat the system. he wouldn't schedule bills to provide more money to the pay offe so they could the depositors if they close down. they had to keep these institutions open. texas and some other parts of the country. with andthat was dealt some institutions were closed and they set up a reconciliation trust thing to take up all of that. felt that was a model that was appropriate for the housing side of this whole crisis. it was not followed. onstill have a lot more pain the part of individual home mortgage buyers and the economy as a result of the way it was handled.
they didn't look what had been done just a few years before. these guys from wall street were focusing on wall street's problem. they had been engaging in all of these insurance contracts and the like, the best i can tell they used aig as a conduit for sending money out around to stabilize global banking systems. look good money politically to send money to deutsche bank. there is a major lawsuit as you greenberg on by hank aig untilad of shortly before all of this.
they misappropriated $40 billion that he is suing for. he is one against two other countries in a similar actions. he might have a chance here. issuesme go from the big you and your legacy here. when you look back across your career, what you proudest of having been involved with? one is a small one. i was assigned to the education committee. there was a vacancy there. i was happy for that. that is something that affects everyone and it's important. bill because we had just few years before going to the volunteer army we had trouble recruiting people. i thought what if we gave the student loan forgiveness in exchange for people being in the
armed forces or the reserves. if they needed someone, they could offer that as an incentive. i introduced in the subcommittee againstybody in voted it. they did not say it was a bad idea. where an education committee in this has to do with armed services. it's the national congress. we are supposed to be working on national issues. so i introduced it in the full committee and they voted it down unanimously except for me. days, the committee chairman or influential. decide.ld
a lot of the other chairman believed that their bills as authorizer's should come to the floor of the house on an open role. they would go to the rules committee. member could offer an amendment. now it is much more controlled. it was open role. i offered up on the floor. i was frightened to death. doended up being adopted to one. it became law. some guy ran in that i did not recognize or he said he was watching on tv. man had a this young good idea. i later learned he was the chairman of the defense appropriation subcommittee. it turned into a fight between the appropriations committee and
the education committee. the bill was adopted. it was a good introduction to the congress and the rules. -- another thing i worked on that i was happy with was modernizing the earned income tax credit. i think it's a better way to go then minimum wage to help people who are low income and who need help. wage, we feelum good because we order some poor small business to pay more to the worker. able to payen not much to themselves. community as a someone is trying to support a family and not earning enough money, we all chip in and help that out.
it can vary according to family size. i thought it was better and argued for it. downey was on the ways and means committee at the time. number of others supported and we did modernize the earned income tax credit. we would move away from the minimum wage and use this as a better way of dealing with it. now we have the old minimum wage debate. it's all very weird. it serves the interest of big corporations. they don't pay minimum wage directly in most cases. a lot of minimum wage jobs are with clause eight government institutions. we will have deficits and spend money on other areas.
that was another one. the effort to get right the direct student loan program. still working on the income retention part. i think it has been a good thing. adopted in the house of representatives on a trial basis. during the clinton administration, it was expanded. now the guaranteed program has been moved to the side. it's a privatenk program and the direct is the government program, the taxpayer is on the hook in both programs. the direct program is administered by someone the government contracts with. it's a private company.
the guaranteed thing that is done by the banks and if there is a loss, they don't suffer the loss. the taxpayer suffers the loss. it was a corporate boondoggle. >> our time has evaporated. are you plan to give your papers anywhere? i was in the state senate before elected to the house of representatives. the wisconsin historic society has a program. i did send my state senate papers to them. the a storkng with society to do the same with my congressional. boxes of boxes and good it, bad, and in different things. , we'vene else wants them
got lots of stuff like that. >> thank you for reflected on your 35 years here. we appreciate your time. mccarthy is retiring after nine terms in the house of representatives. 20 years ago, she was a nurse working on long island when her husband and five other people killed by a gunman on a commuter train. us to talkn with about her time in washington. you are about to become former or x representative mccarthy. how are you processing all that? i am very lucky. i made up my mind last january. i am already there in my mind. i am looking forward to retiring. i love my job. as you know, i had cancer last year. i am doing well.
it is a terrible thing to say. as a nurse, we have weird senses of humor. if the cancer hadn't gotten me, mike family would've killed me. i had no choice. i had to retire. they want me back home. that youn't understand get on a plane from here and you had home and you get off the plane and you are doing district work. timetill don't have that to really spend time with your family. >> what would you miss the most about this place? >> my friends on both sides of the aisle. i know people say we are so dysfunctional here. many of us get along really well. -- when democrats were in charge and i was a chairwoman of the education committee, i worked with my republican colleagues to get bills done. when the republicans took over,
they would come to me to sponsor bills on the democratic side. many of us do work together. i know we call that the old days. there are many members here that work together still. the big things are the ones that make the news. >> what impressions might the public have about congress that are misperceptions? >> i think it's damaging for all when a member crosses the line and does something wrong. people think that we are all corrupt. i would think that netted 9% of the members are good people. yes there is going to be someone that puts a bad name on us. i think that is really a shame. i have money in stocks. every month we have to put in
what we've sold. i don't pay attention to that. that's why i have a broker. to have them think it we have inside information, i said to my mentionas anybody ever something that we might have inside information on a stock coming up? at a remember anybody ever approaching me about that. i'm sure that's the majority. the laws that we have before all this scandal, if you did something wrong, you go to court. when you get caught, you got punished. you had to leave congress or you were prosecutors did went to jail. >> the you think the ethics process has enough teeth to encourage good behavior? >> i do. i think they do a very good job. you will always have a member
that thinks they can get away with something. why they think that, i always have a dinner with republican and democrat women every six weeks or so. there was a time when three or four scandals were going on at the same time. we would all say, why did they think they would get away with it? god, no woman has ever been brought up on charges. that is a good thing. maybe women see things differently, i don't know. >> how is this institution different than the way you walked in in 1997? there is a difference. we can have debates on the floor and it was never personal. what i've seen in the last three years is it gets personal. they are attacking members. you never saw that before. shame.ally a i feel bad about that.
this is a great institution and we should be honored that we are here. i certainly am honored that i was able to serve. if you don't have the institution in your heart and the people back home that you are representing, i don't know if you should stay. >> you have a sense of what precipitated that? is it something in society as a whole? it's thek gerrymandering that goes on every 10 years. a democratieve that should have 97% in a district. i don't believe republicans should have their whole area. i've considered my seat a swing seat. no one ever thought i would hold as long as i did. now,very proud, especially how many republicans and
democrats will come up to me and say you did a great job. you balanced things. maybe that is just to im. i happen to think it makes you a better person. the gerrymandering, if you looked at our districts for the last redistricting, might area it was very compact and it was always a republican district. when iran, it was a republican district. now i started to get more democrats. i was fine with that. 3% colic that got the usually wins by 97%. i don't think they needed 3% more. >> you were a republican before you ran for congress. what precipitated your party change? >> it was the gun issue. 1993, my husband
was killed and my son was -- severely injured and four other people were killed. what i saw my son go through and to other families, i decided get involved in that and try to make a difference. by congressman at that time told me that he would vote to keep the assault weapons bill in place. i was watching the debate. he voted to repeal it. i got mad at them. i decided to run. i making it sound very easy and it wasn't. i don't know how many years it was. i never change my registration. i was still registered as a republican. i never thought that way. people will say that i was probably a rockefeller republican. i was conservative on fiscal
issues and liberal on social issues. background,at didn't make it easier for you when you worked across the aisle? >> i think my nursing did that. when i speak in front of groups of nurses, i tell them that everything we learned in nursing school and that we learned as , yous working on the floor had to take care of a lot of cranky patients and rightfully so. they didn't feel well. you had to hold their hand and tell them it was going to be ok. sometimes you had to push them to do something they did not want to do. that is a perfect formula for working down here. going member to member when i was trying to get people to sign onto a bill, taking the time to explain what it is and what it would do and how it helped people back home, nursing helped me a lot. >> for people who have been a
while, it's hard to believe it's colin1 years since ferguson opened fire. >> kevin is doing well. he goes to physical therapy twice a week. he's at the gym every day just trying to keep what he has. kept pushing, i him that he needed to go swimming. when he came home about four , he said my physical therapist so should swim. he goes swimming everyday now. a has jimenez to put together quote unquote normal life. >> as normal as it possibly can. he went back to work after two and a half years. and they keptll giving him promotions. --h a brain injury, worse stress is probably the worst
thing a patient can go through. we saw that wearing away at him. now he is working part-time. he is not in a stressful situation. in the beginning, he needed to get a job and do something. he said, the not going to pay me enough. it was socializing. it was being up and talking to people. it's helped him quite a bit. with gunme to congress control as the signature issue for you. what have you managed to a coppola's in that area? i believe i've accomplished several things. , but would not be bills educating people around the country. trying to say that we are not trying to take away the right to thea gun, but to look at tighter controls on background checks and the gun show loophole
where people can buy a gun without going through a there was aheck. shooting back in my district on a priest and an elderly woman. the person who did the shooting had been adjudicated as mentally ill. he should not have been able to buy a gun, but he did. the statesnd out was did not take those adjudications on mentally ill and put them into the system. bill that did not pass and then virginia tech happened and that was a horror. within a couple of weeks, i was able to get the bill passed. president bush signed it.
that is what you managed to accomplish during this time? i never forgot -- every day i've been here and there have been a lot of mass killings. each one kind of war a little bit of me away. i would take it so emotionally. it doesn't matter how many years killing,en there is a you go back to that moment when you found out about your husband and your son. every victim goes through this. tv because a lot of members wouldn't do it. i went on tv all the time. people called me some nasty things.
i was more than happy to say hopefully other people will get on. i was always being called. advocate --ecome an that other families come seek you out personally russian mark was that a role you are? -- comfort with question mark --? >> when they started to come down here and lobby, each time there was a terrible tragedy, for to get tech is a perfect example, those families came down to lobby for gun bills. i was the one who had to guide them through the highs and lows and explain to them why it would not come up on the floor. control,icans were in they would not allow the bill to
come through committee. theys hard because i know had to learn what i learned. it is difficult. i think it was hard because they came to me thinking that i could cure all. i couldn't. a lot of people said why not you give up and go back to nursing? i could not save every patient that i had. that didn't stop me from going back to work the next day in doing what i needed to do. >> do you have any sense of appreciation about the passion on the other side of the second amendment issue? >> i do. colleagueseducate my on why you shouldn't be using certain terms. nra membersn, the were getting bad in formation.
have done a better job of educating those members. newtown, we started having hearings and we brought in nra members and hunters. they did not know that so many thousands of people don't go for a background check. the majority of the going owners are legitimate gun owners. they go hunting. when i was watching the discovery channel, you can appreciate it. that's their sport. i don't think i've ever really talked about that. my husband and i were great skiers. spring, we would go shooting. all of our friends who lived in vermont were hunters. i don't know if i would be able
to kill enamel. coming from new york, i probably wouldn't want to even taste a deer. my colleagues are looking at these things different. i think the biggest difference all the different people that were trying to reduce gun violence in this country came together. they had one voice. i think that's the most important thing. that eight years ago. i couldn't get everybody together. between this job and trying to thousands of supporters together was extremely difficult. i'm going to say that mayor bloomberg made a big difference. those who have been trying to change the gun safety laws never had money. then you had mayor bloomberg
coming in and say i will support you to come together. that's what we are seeing now. we still have a long way to go. i happen to believe we should be working on the state level as we saw washington state and colorado in this last election passing laws. if we can make the members here comfortable, because they are petrified of the nra. something,a says they listen. we have to change that attitude. is there any other lobby that has as much influence on either side of the idle -- i'll is the nra? >> i worked with the nra. we did get a bill passed going back years ago. we worked together to get it passed.
every year they do support me to get more funding for the courts to upgrade their computer systems. then there were some other gun groups out there that were going after the nra. militant withry their message. they were scared. these are all businesses. people wholot of earn a lot of money at the top of the nra. they get their money from the gun manufacturers. i don't understand when the gun manufacturers aren't with us. gun safety should be one of their priorities. this was a signature issue for you. on the one hand, was it theicult to break through reputation of being an advocate for this to accomplish of the things? >> actually not.
i know i keep going back to minor scene, by republican chairman saw me as a nurse. respected a lot of the amendments that i was able to get through on different committees. they saw me as to i was. yes this was my issue. a lot of them would have liked to have voted with me on reducing gun violence. that's not what they came here for. reelection, my opponents would say she's only a one issue candidate. have been proud to say yes that's absolute right, but at least i have an issue. i do know any woman on this earth that only has one issue. when you look at the bills i did get past, most of them did have to do with children. i chose to be on the education committee.
i felt if i could work with young children in my district and across the country, if there was a way of getting them to not , most ofangs or drugs these were underserved communities. in mass killings were not underserved communities. a lot of them were in the were nowhere there minorities at all. to save the children and hope that they had the best opportunities in life so they wouldn't go into violence. >> which piece of legislation are you most proud of? obviously, getting the bill passed with president bush cited. that had to be one of my proudest moments. it was the only bill passed in
14 years. the other bills had to do with children and nutrition. i had a nutrition bill in education and could not get traction. mrs. obama came and made that her main focus. schools, we get them into programs. the grandmothers and the mothers worked in the kitchen and made fresh food for children. it worked at terrific. they have a program where it took a year to have that bill signed. you cannot copper shallot. majority ofn the my constituents have no idea how me bills i got past. faults, you dost
something and you get it passed and then i moved on. i would have to stop and think. i was already working on something else. that's just the way i am. >> what would your message be to incoming members of congress? know your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. even if someone is totally against why you came in or what you are trying to do, find other ways. i could name a couple of my colleagues that nobody would think you could work with them. it's not true. >> go ahead. .> virginia foxx i happen to like her. she was the head of a community
college. thed a great interest in two minute he has to do with education. we tried to work together with education. , things ial services and after thehelp great crash and we voted for .arp there were pieces of that legislation the needed to be fixed. republicans and myself worked together to fix them. see, justhow you because they are yelling and screaming on the floor. find it with their interest is. work with them. i think that would make us a better congress. officere sitting in your on your last few days. the walls are getting empty. where's all your stuff going? a university back home and
garden city approached me when i announced by retirement. i had worked with a delphi university for many years. they have increased their nursing program. they would like to do an exhibit next spring. why? they took just about everything. a lot of things are only going to be on loan to them. there are things i want to keep, not for myself but for my grandchildren to look back at. walls were these covered. each one reminds you of the opportunities i had to travel .verseas, i was part of nato i have a live of history. you get to know other
politicians all over europe. i can come back and educate my constituents on why we have to do something. we had a lot of members that said they were so proud that they didn't have a passport. if you look at what we do here on a daily basis, whether it's a , members should get to know why they are voting for something. member should know the money that we spend, especially in third world countries and how that helps them to grow and be lifted up. we have seen that. theworld bank or international policy fund, you give $100 to a woman to open up her own business and become self-sustaining, that is
wonderful. it's proud it to see something has grown over the years because the united states of america was my constituents want to know why we are giving money away. we were trying to make those countries self-sustaining so we wouldn't have to give them so much money in the future. that has happened. >> the leadership election this week for the new congress, the question was asked of mrs. ofosi about the freshness the leadership team and whether there needed to be younger voices. many are over 70. i am wondering what you are thinking about the institution you are leaving behind as the -- are they equipped for? >> i think we have a lot of
talented younger members. pelosi. just mrs. i think she is been a great leader and she is really good at not one ofey, that's my fortes. i was never good at that. they have to start training younger people and bring younger people into the caucus. they have to become the future leaders. things i believe with all my heart and soul is you have to know when to leave. nancy obviously does not believe this is the time to leave. many thought she might stay for another year. she would turn the reins over to somebody else. around, is anybody really ready to replace her? it's a hard job. i give her a lot of credit for what she is been able to do.
i think it's time that the leaders start looking at who's going to fill my spot. we are all replaceable. there might be some bumps in the do believe it's time for younger people to take our spots. they have fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. . see that that's progression. that's a normal progression. what are your own intentions? do you intend to stay in policy? will you help the party in any way? know if i will stay in the politics of it. -- i am making plans to do -- is to go into some colleges and educate. i think i can give a great voice to those taking political science that what they are reading in the books is not real.
we get interns here from all over and after they are here three weeks they say, this is nothing like we are learning in school. we don't asked the young interns if they are republican or democrat. i don't even ask my staff. thatnk they need to learn whether it's a republican issue or a democratic issue, what is best? to give them my knowledge that i learned all these years. i will tip my hand a little bat -- bit into nursing. don't want to say teach nursing. i want to say that with all the technology that is out there, which is terrific for the patients, you still have to go back to holding that patient's hand. family'sto educate the
and tell them that it's ok to touch them and hold them. sot makes the patient heal much faster. i know i keep going back to it. if you want a friend, get a dog. i didn't find that at all. year, was ill last republicans and democrats called me. they would send me cards and flowers. i place look like a funeral parlor. i'm a gardener, so i loved it. that you have to reach out if you want friendship down here. upnow everybody gets tied with going to the receptions in the evening. you have to do some of that stuff. to make friends with people here.
they're good people to >> we will close on this issue. as we close, what do you think about the current state of the need to raise money in order to capture the seats and what that i think that is probably one of the saddest things we are seeing. if you look when we go to the committee hearings and off a lot of members are not there, and mainly they are out fundraising. i think that is a very sad part. >> what would you do about it? >> i don't know what i would do about it. i am just lucky. i will tell you a quick story. the first week i was down here we had a committee hearing in education and my chief of staff came in and said you have to leave. we went into the anteroom and i said we do not have to go. she said you have to go make phone calls.
and i looked at her and i said this is my first hearing and you are coming in and asking me to leave? how am i going to learn anything? that is what committee hearings are supposed to be about. she never asked me to leave the committee hearing or take time out from seeing my constituents. i was way ahead of president obama and a lot of other members. we started e-mailing lists of people from around the country who donated one dollar, five dollars. i think the average was $44. that was 20 hours a week i did not have to do fund-raising calls. to be honest with you, i hardly ever made fund-raising calls. i don't know what you can do about that. there is too much money in the whole process. we as members should not be worried about raising money to be able to do a job. i know everybody thinks
lobbyists come in here. most of my lobbyists who came in here were nonprofits. i remind them, just remember that you are here to talk to me about alzheimer's are cancer -- or cancer or any other disease. but you are lobbyists to educate me on what you are trying to do. that is what all lobbyists do. some of them are better than others. i have only had one lobbyist ever lie to me, and that person was never allowed in this office again. have any anticipation of what it will be like when you walk out of here for the last time in a couple of weeks and say this is it, this is the last day? >> it has been bittersweet. certainly the last two weeks and then right before we went on the miss a lot going to of friends. i plan on coming down every once in a while. ,t was a wonderful experience
and those are memories i will have for the rest of my life. will it be bittersweet? of course. but it is time to move on, and i am looking forward to that. there is a number of us that get together every day when we are out voting, and other members get back -- when we are out boating and other members get back and, you guys are smiling too much. i don't think anyone realizes the pressure you have when you have this job. i have more energy now. i am sleeping really well. from talking to my colleagues who are leaving, they feel the same way. i don't think you realize the pressure, and the pressure is gone. i got involved in the elections back home, i did my district work, but there is no pressure. job, loving it, but i did not have to worry about the speech.
i did not have to worry about any of that. but i will miss it. i will miss it terribly. >> well, soon to be former member of congress carolyn mccarthy, thank you for spending time with c-span. >> thank you for doing this. >> on the next "washington thenal," we discuss resignation of the of chuck hagel. andrew tilghman join us. billy shore will join us talking about hunger in america. we will also take your form calls -- your phone calls. decisionic grand jury in the death of michael brown. "washington journal" airs every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. new york senator charles schumer will be at the national press club today. as democratic policy committee chair, he will talk about
election results and the democratic agenda moving forward. we will have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. overspan2, negotiations iran's nuclear program. is by the brookings institution, and you can watch it live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. president obama will speak about immigration policy at an event today in chicago, at 3:30 p.m. eastern -- at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. bob monday night, mccullough announced the grand the decision not to indict police officer in the shooting death of 18-year-old michael brown. mccullough talked about the evidence that was presented to the jury and took questions from reporters at this 45 minute news
conference. >> good evening and thanks for your patience. i am late getting up here. i have a statement, the very beginning here, and then we will answer some questions when we are finished with that. first and foremost, i would like my deepest extending sympathies to the family of michael brown. i know that regardless of the circumstances, they lost a loved one to violence. pain that that the accompanies such a loss knows no bounds. by policet and killed officer darren wilson. within minutes, various accounts
of the incident began appearing on social media, filled with speculation and little if any solid, accurate information. almost immediately, neighbors began gathering and anger began growing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tension between the police department and a significant part of the neighborhood. st. louis county police conducted an extensive investigation of the crime scene. at times under trying circumstances, interrupted at least once by random gunfire. continuing for the next three -- they alongwith with the agents of the federal bureau of investigation under the direction of attorney general eric holder, located numerous individuals and gathered additional evidence and information. fully aware of the unfounded but growing concern in some parts of our community that the investigation might not be full and fair, i decided immediately
that all the physical ever -- all of the physical evidence gathered and any other related matters would be presented to a grand jury. the grand jury of 12 members of this community selected by a judge in may of this year, long before the shooting occurred. i would like to briefly expand on the unprecedented cooperation between local and federal authorities. when attorney general holder first announced the investigation days after the shooting, he pledged that federal investigators would be working with local authorities as closely as possible at every step of the way and would follow the facts wherever they may take us. as general holder and i both went, our separate investigations follow the facts with no preconceived notion where the investigation would take us. andould only be thorough complete to give the grand jury, department of justice, and ultimately the public, all
available evidence to make an informed decision. all evidence obtained by federal authorities was immediately shared with st. louis county investigators. likewise, all evidence gathered by st. louis county police was immediately shared with federal investigators. performed of justice its own autopsy. another autopsy was performed at the request of the brown family, and all this information was shared. just as importantly, all testimony before the st. louis county grand jury was immediately provided to the department of justice. although the investigations are separate, both the local and federal government have the same information and evidence. our investigation and presentation of the evidence to the grand jury of st. louis county has been completed. the most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything, to talk
about. following closely behind where the nonstop rumors on social media. i recognize that the lack of accurate detail surrounding the shooting frustrates the media and the general public and helps among thoseion already distrustful of the system. those closely guarded details give law enforcement a yardstick for measuring the truth. eyewitness accounts must always be challenged and compared against physical evidence. witnesses to the shooting of michael brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made, and also conflicting with physical evidence. some were completely refuted by the physical evidence. as an example, before the results of the private autopsy were released, witnesses on social media during interviews with the media and during questioning by law enforcement claimed they saw officer wilson stand over michael brown and fire many rounds into his back.
others claimed that officer wilson shot mr. brown in the back as mr. brown was running away. once the autopsy findings were released showing michael brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body, no additional witnesses made such a claim. several witnesses adjusted their stories in subsequent statements. some even admitted they did not witness the event at all but merely repeated what they heard in the neighborhood or what others had assumed had happened. fortunately, for the integrity of our investigation, almost all initial witness interviews, including those of officer wilson, were recorded. the statements and testimony of wereof the witnesses presented to the grand jury before the autopsy results were released. by the media. and before several media outlets published information and reports they receive from the d.c. government officials. the jurors were therefore, prior
to the time that information went public and what followed in cycle, able to have already assessed the credibility of the witnesses, including those whose statements and testimony remained consistent throughout every interview and were consistent with the physical evidence in this case. my two assistance began presenting to the grand jury on august 20. the evidence was presented and organized in an orderly manner. the jurors gave us a schedule of when they could meet. all 12 jurors were present for every session, and all 12 heard every word of testimony and examined every item of evidence. beginning august 20 and continuing until today, the grand jury worked tirelessly to examine and re-examine all of the testimony of the witnesses and all of the physical evidence. they were extremely engaged in the process, asking questions of every witness, requesting specific witnesses, requesting
specific information, and asking for certain physical evidence. they met on 25 separate days in the last three months, heard more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testified. they heard from three medical examiners and experts on blood and dna, toxicology, firearms, and drug analysis. they examined hundreds of photographs, some of which they asked to be taken. they examined physical evidence. they were instructed on the law and presented with five indictments ranging from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter. their burden was to determine, based upon all of the evidence, the probable cause -- that probable cause exists, and that darren wilson was the person who committed that crime. there is no question that darren wilson caused the death of
michael brown by shooting him, but the inquiry did not end there. the law authorizes a law enforcement officer use deadly force in certain situations. the law also allows all people to live -- to use deadly force to defend themselves in certain situations. so the grand jury consider whether wilson was the initial aggressor in this case or whether there was probable cause to believe that darren wilson was authorized as a law enforcement officer to use deadly force in this situation or if he acted in self-defense. i detail this for two reasons. first, so that everyone will know that, as promised by me and attorney general holder, there was a full investigation and presentation of all evidence to the grand jury. second, as a caution to those in and out of the media who will pounce on a single sentence or a single witness and decide what should have happened in this case based on that tiny bit of
information. the duty of the grand jury is to separate fact from fiction. after a full, impartial, critical examination of all the law and the the deciding that the evidence supported any criminal charges against aaron wilson, they darrend -- against wilson, they accepted the responsibility in a conscientious manner. it is important to note and say again that they are the only people who have heard and examined every witness and every piece of evidence. they discussed and debated the evidence among themselves before arriving at their collective decision. after their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury deliberated over two days, making their final decision. they determined that no probable cause exists to file any charges against officer wilson and returned a no true bill on each
of the five indictments. the physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury, combined with witness statements, supported and substantiated by that physical evidence, tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened. a very general synopsis of the testimony and physical evidence follows. please note that i have promised that the evidence presented to the grand jury with some exceptions and the testimony of witnesses called to the grand jury will be released at the conclusion of this statement. at approximately 11:45 a.m. on saturday, august 9, police officer darren wilson was dispatched to the northwind's apartment complex to an emergency involving a quanzhou -- a two-month-old infant who had problems breathing. at approximately 11:53, wilson heard of radio broadcast for a stealing and progress at a market. the broadcast also included a
brief discussion of the suspect -- a black male in a white t-shirt who took a box of swisher cigars. other officers were dispatched to the store. officer wilson remained with the mother and the infant until it am arrived -- until ems arrived. vehicle, ahis police onvy tahoe suv, and drove canfield. the suspect appeared at that time, with another male. as officer wilson was attending to his emergency call at north winds, michael brown and a companion were in the local convenience store on west florescent. that store was recorded by security cameras. the video, often played following its release in august by the ferguson police department, shows michael brown grabbing a handful of cigarillos
and heading for the exit without paying. as michael brown and his companion left the store, someone inside the store called the police. florescent,ng west mr. brown was directly behind his companion across the street. as the officer continued, he encountered michael brown and his companion in the middle of the street. as wilson slowed, as he reached mr. brown, he told them to move to the sidewalk. words were exchanged, and they continued walking down the middle of the street. as they passed, wilson observed that michael brown had cigarillos in his hand and was wearing a red hat and yellow socks. 12:02 p.m.ately wilson radio he had two individuals on canfield and needed assistance. officer wilson backed his vehicle at an angle, blocking their path and blocking the flow of traffic in both directions. several cars approached from both east and west but were
unable to pass the police vehicle. an altercation took place with officer wilson seated inside the vehicle, at mr. brown standing at the driver's window. during the altercation, two shots were fired by officer wilson while still inside the vehicle. mr. brown ran east on canfield, an officer wilson gave chase. corner, mr.the brown stopped to turn back to officer wilson, an officer wilson also stopped. as michael brown moved toward officer wilson, several more shots were fired by the officer, and michael brown was fatally wounded. within seconds, of the final car arrived.ist less than 90 seconds passed between officer wilson's first contact with michael brown and his companion and the arrival of the assist car. during the investigation, many eyewitnesses were interviewed by various media outlets.
several others chose not to talk to the media but contacted law enforcement directly. witnesses were interviewed by local and federal law enforcement, sometimes together, sometimes separately, but all statements were provided to the other party. all previous statements of witnesses who testified before the grand jury are also presented to the grand jury, whether they were media interviews or whether they were interviews by the fbi or by the county police department. the statements of all witnesses, civilian, law enforcement, and experts, were challenged by other law enforcement, by the prosecutors, and by the grand jurors themselves. a common and highly effective method for challenged this statement is to compare it to the previous statements of the for consistency and to compare it with physical evidence. physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or a personal agenda. it does not look away as events unfold, nor does it block out or
add to memory. physical evidence remains constant and as such is a solid foundation on which a case is built. when statements changed, witnesses were confronted with the inconsistencies and the complex between their statements and the physical evidence. they didesses admitted not actually see the shooting or only saw part of the shooting or were only repeating what they heard on the street. some others adjusted parts of their statements to fit the facts. others stood by original statements, even though their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence. several witnesses described seeing an altercation in the car between mr. brown and officer wilson. it was described as tough line, wrestling, tug-of-war, or just some movement. several other witnesses described mr. brown as punching officer wilson while mr. brown was partially inside the vehicle. many witnesses said they heard a gunshot while mr. brown was still partially inside the
vehicle. at least one witness said that no part of mr. brown was ever inside the vehicle and that the shot was fired through an open window while mr. brown was standing outside. wilson'sle and officer clothing and equipment were examined by various technicians and scientists. mr. brown's blood and dna were located on the outside of the driver's door. his blood and dna were also found on the outside of the left rear passenger door of the police vehicle. wasbrown's blood and dna found on the inside of the driver's door. the upper left eye of officer wilson's pam leg, the front collar of -- pants leg, the front collar of his shirt -- additionally, at bullet fired from officer wilson's weapon was located inside the driver's door. the shot was fired from inside the vehicle, striking the door at a downward angle at the
armrest. the second bullet was not recovered. regarding the gunshot wound to mr. brown, it should be noted that the three separate autopsies were conducted -- one by st. louis county medical examiner's office, one by a private pathologist, and one by the department of defense armed forces medical examiner. the results of all three autopsies are consistent with one another in all significant respects. mr. brown has a gunshot graze wound to the right hand of the right thumb. the path of the bullet is away from the tip of the hand. so consistent with a close-up -- otth a close range -- so consistent with a close-up, close range gunshot is consistent with that one. there was some swelling and witness to his face -- there was some swelling and redness to his face. all most all witnesses said that after they heard the shots
fired, mr. brown hesitated and then ran east on canfield. chased after him. some witnesses stated that he fired at mr. brown as he chased after him. one witness saying that we at least one of those shots struck mr. brown. other stated he did not fire until mr. brown turned and came back toward officer wilson. at least one wilson -- at least one witness said as officer wilson got out of the vehicle, he shot mr. brown multiple times as mr. brown stood next to the vehicle. witness stated officer wilson stuck his gun out the window and fired at mr. brown as mr. brown was running. wereitness stated there actually two police vehicles and four officers present, and only one officer fired a weapon. most witnesses agree that new the corner of canfield and copper creek, mr. brown stopped and turned around, facing officer wilson. some said mr. brown did not move
toward officer wilson at all but was shot multiple times as he stood near the corner with his hands raised. in subsequent interviews with law enforcement or their testimony before the grand jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged they did not actually see the shooting. somewhere running for cover, somewhere relating what they heard from others, or, as i said, what they assumed happened in that case. several other witnesses maintained their original statement that mr. brown had his hands in the air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot. others said he was shot -- witnesses-- several stated that mr. brown did not raise his hands at all or that he raised them briefly and then dropped them and turned toward officer wilson, who then fired several rounds. other witnesses stated mr. brown stopped for a brief period and moved toward officer wilson again. one describes his movement
toward officer wilson as a full charge. according to some witnesses, officer wilson stopped firing when mr. brown stopped moving toward him and resumed firing my mr. brown started moving toward him again. these witnesses did not make any statements to the media. the description of how mr. -- how he raised his hand or the position of his hands is not consistent among the witnesses. some described his hands as being out to his side, some said in front of them with his -- in front of him with his palms up. still others said they were in front of his chest or down by his stomach. others described his hands as being in a running position or in fists. there are various witness statements regarding mr. brown's movement after he stopped and turned back toward officer wilson. several witnesses said mr. brown never moved toward officer wilson and was shot where he
stood at the corner. most said that the shots were fired as he moved toward wilson. mr. brown's movements were walking, moving fast, stumbling, or a full charge. case,ther aspects of this descriptions were sometimes provided by the same witnesses in subsequent statements or testimony. the entire area was processed why the saint lewis county crime scene unit. a total of 12 rounds were fired by officer wilson. two shots at the car, 10 more shots farther east on canfield. mr. brown sustained a graze wound to his thumb while standing next to the vehicle. he sustained six or seven more gunshot wounds, depending on whether one of the shots was an entry or a reentry wound. mr. brown sustained a second graze wound, another graze wound, to his right eye set. he also sustained -- to his right bicep.
he also sustained wounds to his forearm, upper right chest, for head, and top of the head. the top of the head, for head, and the upper right chest were consistent with the body being bent forward at the waist. except for the first and last wounds, the medical examiner's are unable to determine the order of the shots. the graze wound to the thumb sustained at the vehicle is likely the first wound. shots the only close-range . the shot to the top of the head was most likely the last three it would have rendered him immediately unconscious and incapacitated. mr. brown's body was located approximately 153 feet east of officer wilson's car. mr. brown's blood was located approximately 25 feet farther east past his body. a nearby tenant during a video chat inadvertently captured the
final 10 shots on tape or there was a string of several shots, followed by a brief pause, followed by another string of several shots. as i stated earlier, the evidence and the testimony will be released following this statement. i am ever mine fall that this decision will not be accepted by some. and may cause disappointment in others. but all decisions in the criminal justice decision must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence. not in response to public outcry .r for political expediency decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime simply cannot we decided on anything less than complete critical examination of all available evidence. anything less is not justice. it is my sworn duty and that of
the grand jury to seek justice and not simply obtain an indictment or a conviction. i do want to say that during this extremely tense and painful time that we have, the citizens of this community should be and i know are very mindful of the fact that the whole world is watching how we respond and how we react. i would urge everyone, with the loss that was severed by the brown family, no young man should ever died. this is a loss of a life and it is tragic regardless of the circumstances. it has opened up old wounds. it has given us an opportunity to address the wounds. how many years have we been talking about the issues that lead to incidents like this? i urge everyone who is engaged in the conversation and is engaged in the demonstrations to keep that going and stay with that.