political system. as a matter of fact we almost closed on the government over abortion just last week, a strong political point of view and religious a point of view many americans hold and in which their government can do. so what i just want to make sure we are doing this in the right frame work and that we don't cause america to heighten the tension or there in society but that we do get the correct intelligence of that. thank you for being here. >> with a hearing is not for asking them classified information mr. gutierez commodores this to get their opinion of what is going on in these countries that they know about because they are academics. we are going to have a closed hearing to talk with the people on the classified information side. >> professor brown and i guess

professor satloff, outside a lot of the muslim brotherhood has been focused but of sight of egypt which is the most active for influential chapter of the muslim brotherhood, for it simple, what role does the jordanian brotherhood play in that country and is there an international muslim brotherhood? out of the arab will just don't know anything about them. in terms of the active political role probably the most prominent is obviously hamas, an offshoot muslim brotherhood that really identifies with it and they are covering half, governing hadassah. second would be in kuwait where they said ministers to the government. they are a major political force in jordan with your very much in opposition force. in terms of the international organization, there is some sort of a formal international organization.

when i go to countries and look for signs of this activity i don't really see any. it seems to be sort of coordinating and swapping experiences in a region dominated organization effectively, the international so that people in other countries kind of will sometimes look and say it's dominated by the egyptians we don't have any ownership of it on paper and the informal ties among muslim brotherhood movement in various countries can sometimes be fairly strong and they often know each other and aware of each other's actions and doing some writing. but it's very, very loose organization. >> congressman, i would just add to my colleague and say the most important innovation is how technology has enabled the internationalization of the brotherhood and it's true that there is no common term of the muslim brotherhood, no secret little room people are pulling things behind windows but if you

get to give for example who sits in qatar that can broadcast through a plethora of the networks throughout the arab and muslim societies and spread a certain a theological view that touches life from larocco to jordan to the gulf to the east asia and into europe doesn't have a difference of political network being created you do have a very important transnational aspect and in jordan and the thick of subterranean syria and at one point the most powerful.

>> [inaudible] -- there it is. okay, got it. is it dr. vidino? okay. you refer in what i tried to describe the western brotherhood. - we really need to be precise in describing organizations in america. so what criteria did you use to develop western brotherhood? i'm trying to develop where in the muslim brotherhood is internationally as it relates to the united states, but when we have titles of what to make sure we fact that up. can you explain how you came to that phrase and what it means to you and why -- how it relates to the united states? >> it's kind of a loose term of

course. what i refer to is organizations that topped off as the student organizations created by a handful of activists that came to study mostly american universities in the 50's, 60's and 70's who had experience in the brotherhood in their own countries and created these organizations. many of them left and went back to the middle east to their countries. some stayed here and these organizations proved and became some of the most visible of the american bar from european muslim organizations. with time they have the fault of course credit for some of them is fair to say that the brotherhood origen was significant. for others i think that is not the case. if we talk and i agree with my other colleagues we're talking about an international global muslim brotherhood movement is an organization that is hardly functioning as a common term,

very loose network and it's even looser when it comes to the offshoots here in the west. there are personal ties of course internet and other communication that helps the ties with their very much independent, so there's kind of a heritage in the brotherhood thinking but for some of the of moved partially away. the dewey team and again, we are talking about a certain number of organizations, so the -- this doesn't apply to them in the same way. the do retain some and the methodology, the lotus a operandi of the brotherhood but they're very flexible so they understand that what was prescribed eight years ago in egypt and apply ebit for chicago in 2011 doesn't make a lot of sense. so they changed their tactics and their priorities and in their goals. so it is a very formal network

to describe as a sort of western brotherhood. if the egyptian brotherhood becomes effective in shaping the foreign policies what issues would be most at odds with the current u.s. policy other countries as israel would be the concerns about that policy if they were brought in the foreign policy? >> sinnott about how the western border doherty nations would be involved but just the egyptian? >> yes. >> i think it would unquestionably be the top one and we have seen as the other panelists have said some inconsistencies in the statement coming from the top brotherhood people which might indicate a certain level of being deceitful or on the other hand some people make them out to be so different

voices within but arguably we would be the first when it comes to foreign policy. intelligence sharing with be the second issue that comes to mind. the relationship between the egyptian and american intelligence i suspect wouldn't be as it was in the past under the brotherhood influence government. that is the second that comes to mind. >> if i could just add some specificity we tend to view the question of egypt as a black-and-white they keep the peace or don't but it's actually far more detailed. yes they will probably keep the peace but the security on the gaza border would be changed, the policy about counterterrorism in the peninsula would be changed. it was on the operation qualifying industrial would be changed, the policy of the sale

of natural gas of israel will almost certainly be changed. the policy on the operation of the embassies in the two countries would be changed. all that could be changed while still keeping the peace. then there's other items. we saw just last month for the simple the egyptians permit it to an iranian naval ships that pass through the canal the first time in 30 years and this is not necessarily directed to the muslim brotherhood preference but the idea that egypt would shift its foreign policy orientation to the more islamist orientation from one that is closer to the united states and its allies and it's definitely welcome to the muslim brotherhood world view the would be promoted in the public like public discourse and i think we would be will to see that in terms of u.s. egyptian military cooperation and other corporation egypt would have with western nations. >> [inaudible]

>> i would like to pick up on what dr. satloff said. the muslim brotherhood would probably want to revise things like the qualified industrial zone or the natural gas to israel etc but it's important to know if we are going to make policy towards egypt is the focus of the forefront of calling for change on these things were not the muslim brotherhood. i mean, the fact is these are very unpopular policies there. they would be extremely secular if you go and ask about natural gas to israel it will probably tell you know or the price would be higher. is the point is it's just we need to be very careful. we need to understand that democracy may lead to some divergence to how they perceive their interest and how we proceed our interest but if we label that a function of islam that we don't know what's going on and we will do damage to our own credibility trying to deal

with that region. very important. >> thank you. dr. mansour i wanted to give you a chance, we cut you off when we were talking about ideology but i wanted to give you a chance to finish your statement. >> thank you. first of all, talking about muslims here, the majority of them are the best muslims [inaudible] in doing the american values. american values are the theme justice and freedom so they are supposed to have a big role in forming the federal muslims in the middle east and other muslim countries. but what happened is some

leaders established that influence and becomes a problem. second is talking about muslim brothers, we have to keywords. the first is [inaudible] data pulled and teach tradition and we have another discourse for other discourse so in the field of politics religionists

become dangerous because i want to talk with people about islam as peace but the same time jihadis have to do something and so secretly another key word that is infiltration, as we are talking about this, first of all not muslim as individuals. again, as the muslim score so this infiltrated people through the mosques and education

to look at the world is facing this from within islam by share muslims and a very peaceful and discuss all of this for the reform and he's promoting islam and also to stop the dangers of fisheries -- of sharia. and the only way we have is to a rastus and we have four ways of arrest in egypt, and now it is occupying in egypt, not only egypt but american interest in the middle east and because all

this who are advocating there are maybe individuals but it is why we should be [inaudible] >> thank you very much. there we go. thank you all for being with us today. we appreciate your time in coming and this is ending the hearing. >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> now a two-year senate investigation on the cause of the 2008 financial market crisis. this report was put out by the senate subcommittee on investigations which is chaired by senator levin of michigan. the ranking members senator tom coburn of oklahoma. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning everybody. with the release of this report is the conclusion of a two-year

bipartisan investigation and it's a long report obviously it catalogs conflicts of interest, he blessed risk-taking and failures of federal oversight that helped push the country into the deepest recession since the great depression. this report uses e-mail and other internal documents of the people involved in the institutions and businesses involved. the report tells the inside story of an economic assault that costs millions of americans their jobs in their homes while wiping out investors, good businesses and markets. high-risk lending, regulatory villiers, inflated credit ratings and wall street firms engaging in massive conflict

contaminated the u.s. financial system with toxic mortgages and undermined public trust in u.s. markets. the report we are releasing today is accompanied by over -- could we -- are we able to remove that? the report we are releasing today is accompanied by 700 new documents that were obtained since our hearings and of those documents together are over 5800 pages long and the report is about 2800 footnotes. it's the one mr. portales subcommittee is ever released it comes at the end of the longest investigation we've ever done over two years. it is a bipartisan product of a him bipartisan investigation that is bipartisan every step of the way.

the threads that run to all of the chapters in this sort of story are conflicts of interest and extreme agreed. the story starts with the largest thrift, wamu or washington mutual, sending tens of billions of dollars in dubious and often fraudulent mortgages either directly or through mortgage backed securities creating a veritable conveyor belt of shoddy loans and mortgages and in the process polluting the u.s. financial system with junk assets. the next chapter is about a federal regulator, the office of thrift supervision, ots, seeing the danger but sitting on its hands instead of acting to oversee a bank on which it

depended for 15% of its budget. it turns to the credit rating agencies, moody's and standard and poor's. which were getting aaa ratings to high-risk securities, securities issued by the firms that it was dependent upon, that they were dependent upon for their own business, which also was a clear conflict of interest and when the securities collapsed in value leading pension funds and municipalities and other investors, they were all left high and dry. the final chapter of this book looks at investment banks manly goldman sachs. they created a huge market for shoddy mortgage related securities, then packaged and sold them using deceptive

practices, placing bets, huge bets, and placing secret vets against the very securities that they were selling to their clients and then making big money when the house burned down. senator coburn and his staff, chris merkley working with me and her staff have produced an in depth and adamle of the financial collapse which has affected every american, and i want to thank senator colburn and his staff as was my own staff for their extraordinary commitment, participation and contribution for this report. that makes all the difference in the world when an action like

this is a bipartisan action. it deserves bipartisan support and has received it from both senator coburn, dr. colburn and myself and my staff and it's been a pleasure to work with dr. colburn and his staff. now let me turn over to senator coburn for his opening and then i'm going to return with a much longer statement he's going to have to then leave. >> i would make four points, two of them are really duplicative of what senator levin made. the first is we don't need the cash and to do what job. we spent $8 million in 15 months on a federal financial condition that didn't report anything of significance. the staff did it in a period of months with the stuff that we have and we outlined a is a very serious report that july culminates for our financial

regulation and most of those you've seen in the report we concur with. there's been some differences on policy, but overall what this tells you is congress would have done oversight like this on the appropriate committees prior to this we wouldn't have had the problems we had in 2007 and in 2008. a significant conflict of interest led to this precipitous change in the country and the economy, and they could have been identified in advance. >> [inaudible] >> we can hear you. >> [inaudible]

>> i thought i had heard things appear. i'm not sure i had. but conflict of interest led to a lot of poor decision making and a lack of transparency also led to a lot of poor decision making. a lot of what we see in this report, had there been transparency, would have never happened. and finally, what i would comment on is that the congress hadn't done its job and other areas. i think we have done a great job on this committee and this is a long report. i actually read it in detail. it is factually accurate. it is backed up by facts and it shows without a doubt the lack of ethics and some of our financial the institutions who

embraced the known conflict of interest to accomplish wealth for themselves not carrying about the outcome for their customers. and when that happens, no country can survive and neither can their financial institution. so i am pleased to join senator levin on this report. i think it will send us in the right direction. i think it is a model for every other committee in congress in terms of doing the investigations that need to be done given the flight of the financial system today and the waste fraud and abuse within the federal government and we can advance fees to happen if congress does its job on a routine daily basis instead of after the problems have occurred. senator levin?

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the report we are handing out the is intimidating and its size and complexity but that's what it took place out the details that are involved in this massive failure. we have tried to assist in the number of ways, hard copies

which we are handing out. this is on our web site. each chapter begins with specific findings of fact and details the evidence and then there are recommendations which are read out in all the recommendations in one place on pages 12 through 15. the first chapter is about washington mutual, the largest thrift institution in the country and it's about the loans they made and the mortgage as which resulted from those loans which defaulted in mass leaving hundreds of billions of dollars and losses and triggering the economic disaster that followed. there was a warning from the achieved risk officer of months before the high risk lending strategy was presented to the wamu board and that is laid out

on page 66 when he talked about housing bubble that is coming and that they should be much more conservative despite that the wamu board was presented with a high-risk strategy involving relying on supreme loans for the borrowers were definite -- or there's no verification of income these are the so-called stated in come where there's no vehicle low initial teaser rate on loan or there is negative amortization loan and option arms are the person taking alone is able to pay and less than it's going so that that means the principal grows instead of declines. that is laid out on page 19 of the report. the reason this course of action was taken this because of profit

and on page 64 of the report you will see the presentation to the wamu board showing the margin of the game on the sale of these products in the basis points and the government guaranteed mortgage had a margin of 13 basis points compared to fixed mortgages having 19 and then you go all the way down to these high risk mortgages option arms with 109 basis points, home-equity loans -- >> [inaudible] >> had been what? so the relative gain on the sale, depending on the type of mortgage, there's a huge difference. subprime mortgages averages 150

basis points compared to the fixed loans of 19 so seven times as much profit the went to wamu from the use of this strategy, so there was a huge gain in terms of profit, a huge risk as it turned out, but that is the reason they went in this direction, and that chart on page 64 was the presentation for the wamu board. .. the collapse followed, and one

of the key points that we are making in the wamu presentation here is on page 126. the representation to the buyers of the wamu mortgages near the end, just before the collapse, when they saw that their mortgages were in trouble, that representation to the buyers was that there was no adverse selection procedures in the selection of mortgages. and on pages 1272134, you can see as a matter of fact that was a false representation. first on page 126. excuse me.

near the bottom, says that wamu e-mails in the memoranda obtained by the subcommittee indicate that prior to assembling the loan pool used in that securitization, that wamu identifies delinquency prone option a.r.m. mortgages and it's help for investment loan portfolio and transferred those loans to its portfolio of mortgages available for sale and securitization. wamu selected loans for the loan pool used in the securitization and further down, and the eternal e-mail demonstrates that wamu selected delinquency prone loans for sale in order to move risk from the bank's books to the investors at wamu securities and profit from it internal analysis which was not available. so while they had a commitment in the written commitment that they would not in a way that

would be unfair. in other words that they would not have an adverse selection procedure. in fact they did have an adverse selection procedure. some of the restriction on teaser loans and negative amortization loans are in the dodd-frank legislation. chapter 2 is the case study of ots. and the office of thrift supervision. they identified -- they identified during the years 2004 and 2008, 500 deficiencies in wamu. 500 deficiencies. you will see on page 164 of the report, that we find that the ots allowed mahmoud year after year to engage in shoddy and fraudulent loans.

we find that it abdicated its responsibility. we find that if the regulatory latte ots impeded fdic oversight of washington mutual, and on pages 177 and 195, that the bank examiners quote are well aware of and have documented the banks high risk poor quality loan and deficient lending practices. so, despite that, all of that knowledge, ots sat on its hands and failed to do what it was put into business to do and if you will take a look at page 1, it is kind of an interesting e-mail that went. from the ots direct your to the

wamu ceo. so this is the head of ots e-mailing kallinger, the head of wamu. he addresses and starts over this first name. we apologize. he said i am sorry to communicate by e-mail. i left a couple of messages on your office phone but i'm guessing you may be off for a long weekend. he has been wrestling with the issue he says of a memorandum of understanding versus a board resolution as a result of our conversation. i've decided and mou is the right approach for ots. and then he goes on. we almost always do a memorandum of understanding for three grated institutions and if someone were looking over our shoulders, they would probably be surprised we don't already have one in place. socom as much as i would like to be able to say a board resolution is the appropriate

regulatory response, i don't really believe it is. so, he would like to say a weaker action on his part is appropriate but he doesn't believe it and then he says, if you believe we need to do and mou. we don't consider it a disposable event and then he goes on to say that we also think the investment community won't be surprised if they learned that and would probably only be surprised to learn one did already exists. page to 11, the top of page 211. continuing this e-mail from the director of ots, this apologetic e-mail to the head of wamu. after 500 mistakes. 500 identified problems with wamu with no public action having been taken. now you get this e-mail, apologizing. sorry to communicate this way. instead of lowering the boom on

wamu he sends this kind of message and then he says again, he is sorry to communicate this decision by pale. and in in the words of our report, next paragraph , what this does is convey a sense of familiarity and disclose disclosed that the head of ots knew his agency had already been providing preferential treatment to the bank. by failing to impose and mou after its downgrade to a three rating, five months earlier in february of 08 and mr. rich i think he pronounces his name, the head of ots, says that quote looking over our shoulders if others quote looking over our shoulders would probably be surprised that there was not in an mou already in place. no kidding. the ots was abolished by dodd-frank and for good reasons. chapter 3.

these are the inflated credit ratings and i'm just giving you some highlights here and then i will turn -- answer some questions and turn us over to the staff but i want to say most of the time chapter 4 is mainly goldman. chapter 3 is the inflated credit ratings. inflated credit ratings in the words of our report on page 5 now of the report, and the executive summary. inflated credit ratings contributed to the financial crisis by masking the true risk of many mortgage related securities. page 6 of the report traditionally aaa is less than 1% likelihood of default. still on page 6, 90% of the aaa ratings given to sub-prime rmbs's, residential mortgage-backed securities that were rated in 2006 and 2007 later downgraded to junk. and so we also say in our war dead in acura aaa credit ratings

were a quote key cause of the financial crisis. there is an inherent conflict of interest when the issuer pays. in other words, when the money that is coming into the credit rating agency comes from the person whose security is being rated, and they point out that the credit rating agency weakens their standards in order to keep wall street business. they were aware of the problems on page 7. they did not temper their ratings despite the fact they were aware of the high risk loans, and on page 256, we talked about the revenues which were received by moody's, and standard & poor's growing from 61 in the case of movies from 61 million to $260 million from 2002 to 2006 in the case of

standard & poor's also going up about 400% from 64 million to $265 million from 2002 to 2006. page 273 of our report, we say that the drive for market share and increasing revenues, ratings shopping and investment tank pressures have undermined the ratings process and the quality of the ratings management at moody's and standard & poor's and they used intense pressure to maintain market share. that is all laid out on page 275 276, talked about the ongoing threat of losing deals as being one of the drivers in providing these ratings which were so exaggerated and the recommendation by the way we make at least one of them at the end of this particular chapter,

is that the sec should use its regulatory authority to rank the ratings organizations in terms of their accuracy. kind of a new approach in getting some objectivity into the ratings business. now, the fourth part has to to do with investment bank abuses and this is the case study of goldman sachs and deutsche bank. mainly goldman sachs, there is a section here on deutsche banc because we have covered some information showing some disturbing activities there as well. from 2004 to 2008, the financial institutions, the united states issued 2.5000000000000 rnd's residential back mortgage securities, and 1.$4 trillion cdo's which are these collateralized debt obligations which are backed by mortgage related products, so it is a

huge outflow of these structured transactions. these financial products were developed by the investment banks. it allowed wagers to rise or fall in the value of specific securities or collections of securities which were referenced in the cdos in the so-called abx and the indexes which allow people in these financial institutions and their clients to back on the rise and fall on the value of a basket of sub prime securities. on page 319 which will be the next page i would like to refer you to, in the middle, we find the following. in the case of goldman sachs, the practices, their practices included exploiting conflicts of interest with the firms compliance.

for example, goldman used to cvs and abx contracts to place billions of dollars of debts that specific rmbs security basket of rmbs securities or collection of assets for cdos would fall in value while at the same time convincing customers to invest in new rmbs and cdo securities. then it makes reference to hudson which i will get into some detail in a few minutes. in one instance it says in our report goldman took the entire short side of the $2 billion cdo known as hudson one, selected assets for the cdo to transfer risk from goldman's own holdings allowed investors to buy the cdo securities without fully disclosing its own short position and when the cdo lost value, made a 1.7 billion-dollar game at the expense of the clients to whom it sold the

securities. and then also, -- now the deutsche banc material comes next on page 330 and on and i will leave that up to staff to get into because it is running kind of late in terms of what my plans were. page 376, we are back to goldman sachs, it and i will refer you to that page.

the hudson anderson timberwolf and abacus cdo show how goldman use these financial instruments to transfer risk associated with its high-risk assets, assisted favored clients make a 1 billion-dollar game, and profit at the direct expense of the clients that invested in the goldman cdos. in addition, the case study shows how conflicts of interest related to proprietary investments led goldman to conceal its adverse financial interest from potential investors, sell investors poor quality investments and place its financial interest before those of its clients. that is a pretty damaging kind of a finding, but there are 10 pages of evidence that are between these findings that are

supported. now, something which is totally daily billion here is that goldman attended what is called a short squeeze, and that information is also going to be discussed by staff. that is laid out in this report between pages 386 and 430. i will just give you a couple quotes from some of the e-mails just for flavor here. page 426.

excuse me, the bottom of page 425. this is a self-evaluation of one of the traders on the desk that ran this operation. this is what he wrote. in may and me while we were remaining as negative as ever on the fundamentals of subtime the market was trading very short and susceptible to a squeeze. we began to encourage this squeeze with plans of getting very short again after the short squeeze cause capitulation of these shorts. this strategy seemed doable and brilliant. once the negative fundamental news kept coming at a tremendous rate, we stopped waiting for the shorts to capitulate and instead just reinitiated shorts ourselves immediately. this was an attempt, and part of

that attempt on page 426. these are some of the e-mails that were written. near the top we should be offering single name protection down on the offer side of the street on tier 1 stuff to cause maximum pain. four days later. we should start killing the single name shorts on the street pick up some high-quality stuff that will later on we'll have people totally demoralized. further down, goldman document showed there was a plan and an attempt to conduct a short squeeze despite the harm that might be cause to goldman's clients. that is the finding of our report on the short squeeze that i want to go back to the big short. page 446 describes the large net

short positions in sub-prime mortgage markets the goldman had through most of 2007. the end of february 2007, $10 billion net short position, mid-june 2007 at 13 billion net short position. goldman on page 451 claims that the net short language is too simplistic. and that it doesn't account for the weight or value of short positions in different asset classes. that is goldman's claim laid out on page 451. but their own charts and their own documents use the term net shorts. 3400 times. the never used the weighted method for their assets so their claim is the use of the term net shorts is too simplistic. you have got to use the weighted method.

3400 times. these are just in the documents we have seen and we have seen a lot of documents, millions but nonetheless 3400 times net shorts, not once is the approach they think is more appropriate which is the weighted value. and by the way, the shorts were not ahead. that is another claim that goldman has made, they were hedging their own documents on page 474 explicitly saying this is not a hedge. now, when you look at their documents from pages 460-6469, we lay out their own document, talking about the big short. 466, i am quoting. these are report quotes. their risk by us was to short. 467, the overall net short in the third quarter is what they representative to their own

board. for 67 the mortgage debt in the faded from a proprietary short. 468, we put on a big short position. for 469, enormous directional short. for 69, goldman to the sec, we chose to take a directional view of the market during most of 2007. we maintained a maintain the net short sub-prime position and listed the benefit from declining prices in the mortgage market. now, page 470, mr. blankfein, a public conference said quote -- this is from the newspaper. blankfein said the firm is still betting that mortgage-backed assets and collateralized debt obligations will drop. given that point of view, we continue to be net short in the market quoting blankfein. they neared their cfo page 471, we made money on mortgages as a result of our net short position 472, they neared we had a big short.

473, birnbaum, the greatest trade ever made. i had the huge short. now, later on goldman denied that there was directional bet against housing and they denied that they were consistently net short. page 474, and i want to go back to actually reading from the report. near the bottom of page 474, goldman's denial of its net short positions in the sub-prime mortgage market and a large profits produced by those net short decisions are directly contradicted by its own financial records and internal communications as well as its own public statements in 2007, and are not credible. that is our finding.

their denials are not credible. now, later on, couple of pages later i think we get the answer as to why they were designed with a obviously were doing. and that is that the evidence discloses not just that they had a big short but that they engaged in troubling and sometimes abusive practices. page 476. our report quote the evidence discloses troubling and sometimes abusive practices, which show first that goldman knowingly sold high risk poor quality mortgage products to clients around the world, saturating financial markets with complex financially engineered instruments that magnified risk and losses when their underlying assets began to fail. second, it shows multiple client conflicts of interest

surrounding goldman securitization activities including its use of cdos to transfer billions of dollars of risks to investors and assisted favorite favor klein did make a billion dollar gained at the expense of other clients and produce its own proprietary gains at the expense of the client, to whom goldman sold the cdo security. why would goldman deny what is so obvious that they were engaged in a huge short in the year 2007? why would they deny it? because they gained at the expense of their client, and they used abusive practices to do it. pages 482485. show what happened at the end of 2000 -- 2006, the beginning of

2007. in the mortgage market began to fall. they tried very hard to return some of the securities back to the people that they had obtained them from, they being goldman sachs. they said they were trying to quote but that is these loans getting the back to the people who had sold them to them quote will be a battle on page 44. the analyst, we analyzed that they would have to put back at least 26% of the new century loans. than on page 46, new century stop paying back the money that goldman was claiming it owed them because the loans were so deficient and what happened after all of this happening all of this evidence of goldman's awareness of bad mortgages, failing mortgages, they continue to securitize those same mortgages and that is all laid out on page 47.

on 488, they securitized a billion dollars of subprime in march of 07. this is after their own assessments were that the market had gone under, that they were trying desperately to return those securities to the people that had issued a them and to get reimbursed for them but nonetheless they were continuing to sere cup -- securitize into cell and they did so large numbers of these mortgages and securities, excuse me, in the early months of 2007. the huge sales efforts that they made, making this a top rarity, page 503, to sell the securities which were based on mortgages that they knew were defective, deficient and they were failing. they were selling to nontraditional clients around the world. they were giving out what they called giant armor sales credits to their salespeople if they could sell them.

now, page 513, we find that in 2006 and 2007, goldman securitization business with mark not just by its hard sell tactics but also by multiple conflicts of interest in which goldman sachs financial interests were opposed to those of its clients. and that gives us finally to hudson. this is one of the four securities that we have analyzed it some length. is the hudson security 2006-1. it was synthetic, $2 billion cdo that reference certain assets and i won't get into that detail but the key feature is the number of conflicts of interest that were involved just in hudson. and i call it the hudson scam.

page 517. right in the middle there. in one key feature of the three hits in cbo's would include the one we are talking about that goldman itself without any third-party participation in selected the asset which was supposed to remain with the cdo until they reach maturity or were deemed credit risk assets to which.goldman acting as a

liquidation agent for the cdo was responsible for selling them. in each of the hudson cdos, goldman played multiple roles in in its formation and administration including selecting assets serving as the underwriter initial purchaser, collateral provider, senior swap counterparty and credit protection buyer. in hudson one, goldman took 100% of the short side of the cdo and declined goldman tate -- a 1.3 billion-dollar profit at the expense of the clients to whom ended had sold the securities. ..

the mortgage department to sell off its holdings after several weeks at efforts the desk was unable to find buyers as abx dropping in value losing millions of dollars in the firm, so what did they do? they tried 19, they decided to craft a ceo to incorporate in the abx to try to see if they could reduce the firm's risk in that way and the history of how that first ever abx cbo is what we call on page 519, would function as an exit for the firm's long abx position as all

lead out on these pages here. now i want to jump ahead. the marketing book, page 524. this is the marketing book for us. do we have that appear? >> page 524. this is what it represented to people trying to sell this security to. right in the middle. goldman sachs has aligned incentives with of the hudson program by investing in a portion of equity and pay and

play the ongoing roll of liquidation agency -- agent, so that was the first we are going to focus on, the first representation to buyers that they had aligned incentives with the hudson program because they claim they had -- and this is in the booklet they sent that they invested in a portion of equity this is not true. the incentives were not aligned. the incentives for the opposite. their investment on the long side or the risk side that they were taking was what they called the portion of the equity amounted to $6 million their short, hidden, secret short

$2 billion in hudson. in other words there opposite positions was 300 times the size of their unwind positions. that's the representation. incentives are aligned because they had invested in a portion of the equity. then they represent further down on page 524 that the assets were sourced from the streets and that isn't true, it was sourced from goldman's colin inventory and the lead up the criteria for what would be incorporated in the security. they said it wasn't a balance sheet if you look down at the bottom of page 524 it was a balance sheet ceo.

it came from their balance sheet and from their criteria. it referenced and reduced the risk and took the risk away from their balance sheet and transferred that risk to their client. so the incentives aligned, know they want, 3,000 to 1% aligned 997,000 for the opposite source from the street. no one. and then they say that they evaluated the assets for the portfolio suitability. yeah, their own portfolios to the devotee. i will get to the liquidation agent in a minute but i want to talk about that word may invest. because they did say in the area of the possible conflict they said the following: in the

middle of page 527 this is in the offering circular describing certain conflicts of interest. here's how they describe t. isi, goldman nor any of its affiliates may invest an ordeal for their own respective accounts and then they list the things they might invest or might invest in and in the credit to be felt swaps, quote, whether as the protection by year or seller -- buyer or

seller. this was a fundamental misrepresentation. they have secretly without disclosure already purchased 100 per cent of the short side of this deal. this wasn't that they might do something which obviously tells people who read this that they may or may not do something contrary to the long position. they already had obtained and committed to keep because they were trying to go short on this area, and so on page 527 we say near the top the hudson disclosures come excuse me, goldman was making a proprietary investment which placed it in the direct adverse position to the investor to whom it was selling the hudson securities and relative to the word may

invest at the bottom of page 527 this disclosure indicates goldman sachs may invest and then we say the offering circular misrepresented goldman's investment plan. at the time it was created, december, 2006, goldman had already determined to keep 100% of the shortsighted and act as the sole counterparty to the investors by young had sensitivities thereby acquiring 2 billion-dollar financial interest that was directly adverse to there's.

>> there is a section here about bald and acting as the hudson liquidation agent when the security fell through, and on page 575 we find near the top that in hudson one, goldman's role as the liquidation agent and short party in the cdo created a direct conflict of interest between goldman and the client to whom it sold the hudson securities which goldman exploited by placing its own

financial interest ahead of those of its clients. when the liquidation process took place, there was a fascinating conversation which we have uncovered, and this is close to the end. between goldman and the national australia bank this is on page 580. this is after the national

australia bank already purchased the security and this is being liquidated by goldman. there's a lot of issues between goldman and others about the delay and conflict of interest involved in the delay in the liquidation and i'm not going to go into that again, you can go into that perhaps if you would like. this shows how secretive this process was, the short position in hudson and how goldman was deceiving clients buy not only not saying they had the short side right from the beginning as a proprietary matter but also with a were going to keep the interest hidden right through

the liquidation. here's the conversation, somebody that works for goldman. page 580. mr. case, that's goldman employee here's his note, he says nab sent him an e-mail page 580 near the top unmasking of goldman held any of the hudson investments. as goldman sachs called any of this, there's a direct question from a client case responded according to his own notes that it owns equity in a different pieces of the various trenches decent sized in the number of class is on our books and non-response. case did not disclose in

addition to the 6 million equity we've talked about that they held 100% of the short positions and that $2 billion ceo and the short investment would increase as the hudson assets lost ball you. the case notes go on and near the end of 580. the australian bank replied by asking goldman to provide more specific information about the holdings in the transaction. quote, could you please follow-up with which voltmann holds, direct question from a client. and then according to his notes asks the australia bank why does the bank want that information? the bank response, i want to make sure you, goldman, are

making restructuring decisions for the right reasons who make sure serving the right interest, they want to make sure who's interested in the service. and according to his notes, the case replied again that they are not a response, the intended goal of the agencies to serve the best interest of the cdo and that is the duty of the liquidation agent. the deception can't get much clearer than that. a direct question, mullen response. page 602 is the analysis of goldman's 12 conflicts of interest. page 637 plays out the conflict of interest provisions we are able to include in the dodd-frank bill to try to get at

the kind of conflict of interest which were so right throughout this story right from the beginning with the washington mutual bank down to the end when even after the security that they gained $2 billion from on the short side by misleading and misstating their interest. goldman is still hiding the fact that they were the beneficiary of the failure of the hudson cdo. i've gone way over and my staff is still with me. i will turn over to them that first see if you have questions. >> [inaudible] are you making any referrals -- do you consider [inaudible]

criminal decisions are not made by us, they are made by the department of justice, and enforcement decisions are made by the sec and not by us, and so we will be referring this matter to the justice department and to the sec. in my judgment, goldman clearly misled their clients and the congress. the third question? >> [inaudible]

ha my answer is that there is still time. hope springs eternal. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> but for the greed and deception of the huge bank, and there's other banks besides washington mutual but engaged in such greed and deception the failure of the pollution of the system upstream would not have occurred so they were a major factor. but for -- of the stream --

>> where the mortgages were signed and granted and collateralized at the beginning such as washington mutual that is where the pollution began, then there is another but for the failure of the regulatory agencies. in this case the office of thrift supervision because the failure to supervise the bank after 500 notices of problems doing nothing until we have the largest bank failure in history by far. but for that failure just this problem may have been avoided, this collapse of the market may have been so it's a contributing factor. there's not one factor, there's a number of factors. for the conflict of interest which caused the standard was and moody's people rely on when d.c. aaa ratings, but for their failure and conflict of interest

they are caving into pressure from the wall street banks to give aaa ratings to securities that didn't deserve them and they knew it but for that you wouldn't have had the collapse of those securities. but for the agreed and misrepresentations of banks such as goldman sachs, you wouldn't have had a securities which not only failed but shafted their own clients, the failure of the securities in the hands of the pension funds, municipalities when they fail you have a housing market which whose collapse was just about a once a total of huge. so you've got just in this report for major causes of the economic collapse and there's others but this didn't intend to cover every possible element but the four major causes of the

financial collapse. >> [inaudible] >> not my understanding that that is just one complaint, one problem some there's a lot of other possibilities out there it would seem to me for people who've been harmed by the deceptions and misrepresentation to take action and seek action. and i think the sec has been slow to act but hopefully they are going to continue the probes yeah?

>> [inaudible] >> to help of weighted i can't say with certainty it would have avoided and it would have been less severe. the protections in dodd-frank we leave those out by the way after each chapter with the legislation did to address the problems that we have identified so we do go into that in each chapter and i made some reference to it, so i think it would have avoided if we had that in place, i wish we could say that with 100% certainty. yes? >> [inaudible] >> one is the proprietary trading which we try to end in

many cases and have it fully disclosed in other cases so we are going to reduce it and make it much more safe where it's allowed and not allowed at all in other cases the the other part of berkeley levin which hasn't been enough attention paid i don't believe for the fact that we prohibit conflicts of interest in these kind of transactions. we leave it to the regulators to specify which conflicts of interest are going to be prohibited to flesh out those words that for the first time we have a generic prohibition on conflict of interest in these. it's a generic provision of conflict of interest and as dr. colburn said and as i have said and this report says that is the threat that runs through all this material of the misrepresentations and the

failures of the thread is the conflict of interest and there's also the extreme who greeted. yes? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> yeah, i think we've got to be much more cautious so i tend to lien to the side of having a significant requirement down payment requirement, so why can't tell you the final position on that, but i lean towards going the other direction obviously from what we saw with these mortgages, and the second part of your question

was -- >> the rating agencies make -- yeah, we have a new alternative here which is the new regulatory authority that they have that the sec we believe has the authority to rate the rating agencies. then you have with automobiles entities out there that rate automobiles in terms of the number of repair required. we think that in dodd-frank itself the authority given to the sec is efficient that they can describe the accuracy and measure the accuracy and keep track of the accuracy of these ratings and have it in their power to raise the accuracy of the rating agency themselves to hand out ratings noss of the securities, not of the mortgages but out of the rating agencies.

>> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] i don't know that removes it. it says we should rely less and i think that is true. the extent there is going to be reliance on the rating agency it would help if those agencies were greeted by an outside independent of objective source and that can be someone who keeps track of the accuracy of the ratings and we believe the of already exists in dodd-frank to do that. >> during your investigation may be your folks can across any memos or e-mails by the joint council in the relative period? >> we are going to get in to deutsche bank after i'm done, okay? is bald doing that or -- >> [inaudible]

>> my staff who's going to cover deutsche bank can answer that. they have the answer. i don't have the answer. but ask them. >> center, a lot of investors were in [inaudible] what do think the impact would have been on the perception of the u.s. and the financial system abroad? >> i think it's negative and understandably so that there'd be a negative reaction. there's a number of females in this report which talked about the reaction a number of clients and other countries of goldman and how quickly the securities they bought went under, and the targeted other countries. they knew that the market here had gone sour so they had a very aggressive campaign in the number of the securities and putting hudson and all of them and the other two we have to get

into. they targeted the vulnerable clients because they had either less knowledge of course these things are so complex, these securities that it's kind of hard for any potential client even one that is in the united states to be able to pierce through the complexity that when you're overseas they targeted koreans and other countries and i think that is very, very sad that they would do that. i think it's bad for our country and i believe there would be a negative impact. >> [inaudible] >> it's a major piece of it but they had trouble selling the

peace. so they sold earlier and then they have a lot of trouble selling the rest, and that's where they're very aggressive sales campaign kicked in, and that's where they turned to let's go after the potential lawyers and other countries -- buyers and other countries. >> [inaudible] >> goldman was i think the only major bank that did well during the recession and it's important we try to find out how is it that they did well and the tactics that day use i thought were to disgraceful and to their own clients violate their own claim that the client come first. they've got a website which says

the client comes first. the client's interest always come first. that is simply not true, not with goldman. there's hundreds of pages, thousands of documents which show these hundreds of documents and probably dozens of pages and hundreds of documents. i don't want to exaggerate. it's bad enough to show that a client's interests did not come first in very critical ways. so, what was the first part? in terms of this leading the

congress, i believe they must with the congress. there's no doubt in your testimony if they claim they didn't have a big short in 2007 and in so many other ways the testimony was misleading i believe inaccurate and what they are going to do is refer to the department of justice. >> [inaudible] >> it's just a referral to the dvorkin of justice for whatever action they may think is appropriate whether or not that constitutes purview is for somebody to decide, not for us, but it needs to be decided by an appropriate authority. we are not the appropriate authority. >> [inaudible] >> okay. i'm going to leave you with this. i appreciate your staying power.

>> [inaudible] complement our staff this is a superhuman effort over two years i've never seen anything quite like. so we hope something good comes out of this and it is a deterrent along with new legislation to repeat this kind of bad conduct. >> everybody, we have boiled down the goldman and deutsche bank's and technology -- >> up next on c-span2 the senate judiciary committee looks at founding

[inaudible conversations] now a look at the rights of victims of crime.

we will hear about the crime victims' fund paid for by federal offenders for fines and penalties. justice department officials and counselors who work with victims of crime testify at the senate judiciary committee hearing which is about one hour and 25 minutes. >> good morning. i apologize things with the budget and all have been a little bit mixed up and senator grassley and i are three different directions in getting things schedule that once but i appreciate the people here and the witness come from what has a family emergency and she will not be here. this week is the 30 the annual national crime victim's right week. i was here in the senate in the first one and thought how overdo it was 30 years ago and fortunately we've kept it going.

we recognized the suffered by victims and their family and acknowledge the hard work being done to help people rebuild their lives after tragedy hits. it would be cruel irony if this were the week the victims' fund was gutted as the news accounts yesterday. no one should be complicating readiness for the crime victims' for some short-term advantage. i know the needs. i've seen them and as a prosecutor and a cementer. for nearly three decades it's played a central role dictums. we've created the victim's [crying] of 1984. that's been the primary wave of the federal government for the victims and their families. it funds dictum assistance and compensation programs to serve

nearly 4 million crime victims each year and in terms of the punishment of the people it costs the taxpayers nothing and is supported by those paid criminal not by tax payers' dollars. i've always felt the irony would weaken if we had a victim of serious crime we could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes necessary to prosecute the person who did that to lock them up and keep them there and the victim is told your on your own. it's upside-down in a case like that, victimized twice. after the tragedy you recall in oklahoma city i worked with this committee to ensure funds available to help victims of mass violence and also providing the rainy day reserves.

we do this because nobody can predict certainty in advance and oklahoma city and instead of distributing the funds collected in the previous year we have a trust fund with deposits retained in the years crime victims and advocates are not less without resources are recently some including former president bush fought to go in to the trust fund and to the reserves and both parties to work with me to protect them. and insure the reserves preserved for their intended purpose and only one helping the crime victims and remain committed to making that reserve to make sure the funds are there. no less than social security trust to the american people establish crime victims' fund represents the commitment to the crime victims to be respected

and honored used just as some kind of a convenient pt bank with the federal gorman has been doing to support those by crime but more we could do to renew this part of the commitment. these efforts have never been more important than they are today difficult economic times to stretch her state and local service forces including victims' services for the breaking point. virtually every state in this country. families need more vulnerable financial stress struggled more of an effort to overcome the emotional financial and physical damage caused by crime they need help. we are honoring the past as appropriate. take stock of what we've accomplished the past three decades and what is in need ahead. as a country we have made great

strides in the decades and for the victims but we also know that we can do more. the crime changes and responses have to adapt and we of the complicated rise on the identity theft nobody really thought of the problems of identity theft and have all these other things. victims and the crimes have unique needs. they've been targeted with greater frequency and they often require specialized services to recover from the exploitation. for the housing and medical needs and immigration and financial crime. transitional housing services are essential for the crime victims also the criminal

justice committee to become increasingly and appropriately focused on evidence based practices and scientific research is becoming more clear how much data we need for the crime victims and who they are, how they are victimized and comprehensive research to make a lot easier and what resources they do have for the states to tailor their needs. and the witnesses have been thinking about these issues i look forward to learning from their experience. and sorry the victim's advocate of the attorney general's office and in the family of course couldn't be here the written testimony. he's the chairman of the board for the crime victims' services for attending this and i make a personal note you helpless in

vermont all the time and make me extraordinarily proud. you've always been there. for that, senator grassley. i think you and i agree on this. i don't know if i need to speak or not but every senator wants to save himself, right? i have time reserved on the floor of the senate so i will be absent a little while. thank you for this hearing. thank you to the witnesses as well. crime victims deserve better than they've been getting. crime victims received compensation and assistance as we know from this crime victims' fund. it's not dependent on the tax revenue. it's for the purpose of helping crime victims and it comes from fines and penalties from those convicted. for more than a decade now there is in a cap on the amount of funding each year to be distributed to victims.

the chairman and i recently wrote a letter to the budget committee on which we asked the cap be raised more than 30% from the current levels. that is a much larger increase in its proposed by the administration. the cap illustrates the problems which so many federal grant programs and get creative and sometimes duplicate existing programs they do not fully funded, so effectiveness of the program is often not as strong as it could be. we should be cautious about creating new programs for victims until we raise the focus cap to funding existing programs the way they ought to be funded. the failure to adequately raise the cap means the number of the victims under the existing programs has fallen in recent years. it's not right, nor is it right to talk about the new programs until existing ones and the victims who benefit from them receive the output support especially support that doesn't

derive from tax payers' dollars. the administration is following a different path, however. they have not proposed raising the cap buy nearly enough. it is this sort of gamesmanship that has led a crime victim's down capping the fund has limited resources provided to the victims' services and the organization's thereof throughout the country. instead the fund has built up and on obligated balance of over $6 billion. the limited disbursement has led to the creation of additional grant programs to provide services to victims. these grants break the formula of the fund by using taxpayers' almost fund but some programs instead of the fines placed on the fund from convicted criminals. another consequence of this is highlighted in the forthcoming continuing resolution being be negotiated by the president and

the congress. unfortunately the proposal in the budget gimmicks that are more sleight of hand and funding cuts. one of those impacts the fund. in the legislation nearly $5 billion in debt on obligated balance is held in this fund is rescinded to the general treasury. so all the money that we've been supposedly holding on to victims is now gone to pay for spending and other programs that haven't been cut. this is the wrong policy if we are serious about kutz we should cut spending not simply writing the spending off with non-tax payers' dollars from this fund. i have concerns with the president's budget for fiscal year 2012 and the way that it deals with crime victims. the president has proposed zeroing out on an important existing program the federal victim notification program this provision of his victims when the perpetrator defended against them would be released from

incarceration congress passed a list of victims' rights which includes the right to be notified of the release of criminal offenders who harm them. apparently the fiscal year 2012 budget doesn't recognize the six victims' rights until just last week the administration was willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars terrorists in downtown manhattan but oppose spending to modify crime victims the the person who harmed them with the release. it's against this backdrop of the tough budget decisions that we must address the issue of the cap along with duplication overlap and fraud and grant programs yy strongly support pushing more money out to the victims and victims' support programs which is the money from the people convicted of a crime i believe we need to take a hard look at other grant programs. we need a comprehensive new view of grant programs or review where savings can be achieved.

they support michael's for review and she states in written testimony, quote, we need rigorous evaluations of the victims service programs to learn what works and what doesn't. so i agree in light of the fact that in the last ten years and funded by the department of justice in fact in the last ten years the inspector general has reviewed 19 grants of funding for victims programs. of the 19 the inspector general found 15 it could have won support documentation and other problems one study is a stunning example this report examined the the legal assistance for victims grant programs for the community legal aid society in delaware and the inspector general found that the guarantee was the material on compliance with grand requirements and the inspector general question over

890 -- $829,000 which accounted for 93% of the grant. here we are given the dire fiscal straits and the federal government faces is more important than ever to ensure federal dollars are spent in an efficient way as we studied how to provide victims of crime receive the help they deserve and need to examine both of the sources of funding as well as how the guarantees your lies those funds. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator grassley to get we will begin with mary raised no stranger to this committee. the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the office of programs of that the part of justice and held that position since september, 2009. prior to rejoining the department in 2009 the executive victims of crime and during that time, too and she's also

previously held a number of positions the department justice serving as united states attorney for the district of columbia we have one other united states, former united states attorney on this and was acting director of the community oriented policing services deputy assistant attorney general and her bachelor's at syracuse university masters and ohio state and the law degree in northeastern university school law. it's always good to have you. go ahead, please. >> it's a pleasure, senator leahy. distinguished members of this committee, thank you so much for inviting me here today and i am pleased to talk about what we do to fulfil our obligations to the victims of crime. the department of justice program has a broad mission but

it includes providing resources to support the key services for the crime victims. my own personal commitment was well beyond the justice of office programs that i was a former united states attorney in columbia and a local prosecutor in massachusetts. so i have been working with victims pretty much my entire career, and i am very proud to have served as the deputy director of the national center for victims of crime at the national nonprofit here in washington. as you know this is the national crime victims' rights week and just last week the attorney general had a special ceremony honored men and women from across this country who have devoted their lives to serving victims of crime. several of the people who were honored actually were victims themselves and had used the experience to help others. the stories that they told remind us crime victims must

never be forgotten. justice for victims is justice for all. i don't think there is any better example of that kind of commitment than what we've seen in arizona with the shootings there and i am proud to be on the same panel with can who has done so much to help the county and the state of arizona to recover. this is the 30th anniversary of the national crimes victims' rights as the senator said. during this ronald reagan centennial year, we should really honor that part of his legacy which is lesser known than other aspects of his administration. 30 years ago, victims were almost entirely overlooked. they had no right, they had very little support. so 1982 president reagan commissioned a task force under the crime. they held hearings across this nation and several colleagues of

the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. staffed that commission. their findings led to the establishment of the office for victims of crime in 1983 and in 1984 the statute was passed into law. that created the fund which senator leahy has described for us and since then more than $8 billion from the crime victims' fund has been distributed to states and communities so what does that mean? in human terms it means 2 million victims have received compensation and more than 67 million victims have received counseling, courtroom advocacy, temporary housing and other services. the funds have also been used to aid other victims of terrorism and to train victim service providers. every year 87% of the crime victims' fund allocations go

directly to the state and believe me those are surely needed in these times. last night i was reading the task report and its cited that very same fact 30 years ago that said these are tough budget times, states are having to cut back and victims were suffering. here we are these are all over again. we'd like to assume of course all victims will be taken care of but that is simply not the case. especially for elderly victims of financial fraud, human trafficking, crimes against gay lesbian and transgender people and in fact just like 30 years ago today 51% of violent crimes still one reported.

crime victimization itself is changing the advent of technology and also makes the criminals more anonymous and the victims are sometimes harder to identify because victimization is changing and services must also change. and that is the goal of the vision 21. it's a marvelous initiative of the officer victims of crime at the department of justice. they are undertaking a comprehensive analysis who are the victims, what do they need, how can we serve them better, how can we serve them smarter? several teams have emerged from that. one of the most powerful is the need for the wraparound services for the victims of crime. victims' need services, so legal assistance, legal assistance in criminal justice and some other

support mechanisms, and another major theme of the vision 21 is technology how can we use technology to better serve victims and how can we better understand the technology that is used in the victimization. they would be flushed out in a full report, and i can't wait to share that report with this committee. please be assured that department of justice will not waver in its dedication to serving the victims of crime and we welcome any suggestions from you all how our efforts can be improved. thank you so much. >> it's interesting i remember our conversations with president reagan during this time with his interest in this area that was at the bipartisan support for the legislation. speed burbank is the director of

the fema county attorney's office in tucson and he's held that position since 2007. this number you and your staff serve in 2,000 victims a year? of course the one they saw was of the january 8 shooting of congresswoman gabrielle giffords and his office coordinated dozens of victims advocates to support the victims the victims and their families of the crime scene the recognition has worked in response to the horrible tragedy and received the 2011 distinguished service award and has worked more than two decades for the human services and has a master's degree in the social-service administration from the university of chicago.

i hope we can continue to help crime victims. mr. burbank, everybody here, and i'm sure you especially never have another situation like the one you had in january. >> good morning mr. trash and centers. my name is speed burbank and of the director of the pima county dictums office in tucson arizona. our community was shaken by the tragic and senseless shooting that took place at representative deferreds congress corner even. the havoc created by one man's fact left six people dead, 13 injured come over 100 witnesses and shock and panic in the community stunned. a victim advocates were among the first responders within minutes we had several advocates on the scene and within an hour we had 35 at tickets de at tucson in putting the hospitals

receiving with the wounded. i was at the crime scene along with the pima county barbara toward meeting communication and overseeing our advocacy efforts. throughout the day and night the advocates were quick literally hundreds is above victims and witnesses and the family members providing them with crisis intervention services and emotional support. on more than one occasion our advocates had to deliver the difficult news to the family members that their loved ones had been killed. angela is the daughter of to of the january 8 shooting victims. angeles mother was greatly wounded in shooting and her father was killed. angela describe how difficult the day was for her and her family. she told how her sister and brother-in-law, quote, raced to the safely, and the carnage looking for mom and dad. while mom kept talking to my sister on her cell phone and data lead diene on her lap.

angela recounted how her son left them minutes later the hospital to find his grandmother covered in blood, five gunshots in her legs. angeles said to me dictums services was beside them. victims' services provided the council were to guide my precious loved ones not only through the grief and loss of extreme violence and trauma. this is a testament to the critical importance of having highly trained experienced and professional victim advocates and the community. with over 35 years of experience, ours was one of the first of the nation. over the years advocates have been called out to work with victims of natural disasters and terrorism including the oklahoma city bombing and 9/11. currently under the leadership of the barbara the victims' services division has a staff of 28 employees and more than 120 volunteers that allow us to do this work. the pima county attorney's office has been fortunate to

receive an anti-terrorism emergency assistance grant through the victims of crime act otherwise known as voca to meet the needs of the generate victims the next several years as the case moves through the court. without these funds our resources would have been strained to meet all of the needs. but the downturn has put a tremendous strain on the partner service organizations in the community. nationally most of the newly found of legal clinics for victims or in crisis. since to doesn't for when congress passed the justice for all act that a number needed to write for federal crime victims and and put it funding for the end was that of the rights, 11 clinics opened across the country but despite the success virtually all the clinics will be closed by the end of the year without further action by the congress to support their work. in arizona, the recession has meant significant decreases in the state and local funding for victims' services and for victims.

there has been a 42% reduction in the state funds for domestic violence services and shelters since 2008. tucson's primary domestic violence service agency emerged center against domestic abuse while 24% of its state funding for shelter services over the past couple of years. sarah jones the exit of director said to me our shelter beds are full, our phone lines are ringing day and night and we are turning away on average ten to 12 women a week. the cuts in private and public health care coverage made it difficult for victims to get medication they need for conditions like depression and a society that doherty result of the victimization. for closure and cuts to the housing assistance and domestic violence victims to return to their abusers or sleep in their cars. during these troubling economic times, communities depend on different compensation of victims assistance funds provided by voca vandals of violence against women act, vawa

to read this is the time the government should be increasing the funding for the victim service organization by raising the voca cap. the funds come entirely from the fines and fees and other assessments on criminals, not tax dollars. so increasing this fund cap would result in more funds flowing to the victims who most need them. it's not only the compassionate and right thing to do but also makes financial sense. if these funds don't come from criminal activity, they will most likely come from local communities and state government will pay them in the form of higher unemployment claims, medicare and medicaid cost and community mental health services. in arizona we are fortunate to benefit from some of the most robust victims' rights statutes in the nation. these rights make a difference in the lives of victims. according to a measure of fairness, dignity and respect in the system that is often

confusing and overwhelming and these rights, exist harmoniously with the rights of the accused within the criminal justice system. ..

it. >> i could not have done it without you. thank you. >> thank you very much mr. burbank. meg garvin executive director of the national crime victim of the lot institute and chairs the organ attorney general task force on the public policy committee of the attorney-general sexual assault task force out. and board member of the national organization of victim assistance the undergraduate university and master's communication at the university of iowa and got a law degree from the university of minnesota hong

-- law school. we're surrounded by people. [laughter] go ahead. >> a good way to be surrounded. mr. chairman and distinguished members thank you for having me today is an honor to be here on the 30th national crime victims of rights wreaks per car 12 talk about lithium which is reshaping the future and honoring the passport of the reason is because we have made commitments to victims in this country and our history shows what they are and how we can fill those victimsñi going back more than 30 years to the founding shows the victims of interco part of our criminal justice system from the start gets over the years they have become mere witnesses to cases as pieces of evidence and that would showxd quite

dramatically in the 1970's and early '80s and literally victims were asked to sit outside courtroom doors and peeked through? to see what was happening. reno el one daughter who was kidnapped and raped and murdered was told to sit outside during the trial of the offender. that was happening in every case. homicide, sexual assault, a domestic assaults that victims were mere pieces of it evidence not to do withñr humanity and dignity prepared to remedy that a lot of flaws have beenñi passed in every state comment 33 states about constitutional amendment six every state has passe statutory screening for victims' rights but if you look nationally the right-- their rights vary

greatly so i called the judge to defect depending on which judge you are in front of you get differ rights if you're a crime victim can happen within a state or across state borders is certainly state versus federal system and treated differently. fortunately of birds that the federal level have pass statutes to allow for some similarity achievement and some fairness regardless of the system with the key piece was the crime victims act of 2004 giving a specific rights to allow them purchase price status and most importantly independents standing which means the rights are owned by the victims they can assert them when they want and can say what they want when they need to say a. with the federal crime victims act happened in the ninth circuit occurred

to -- corporation said was changing the modern criminal-justice system with the assumption crime victims should be behavior like children seen but not herbert we have a federal law allowing us to rally have victims seen that hurt in the system in notably that authorizes funding for appropriations for legal services to make sure they have meaning having legal services to protect rights is critical as the supreme court has said the right to be heard in is of little avail if they did not comprehend right to be heard by council even the layman has sometimes no skill in the science of law and having a lawyer sitting next to makes a difference. u.s. supremeçó court said 1930 to about defendants' rights but what about victims' rights? in another case trying to exercise his right to be

heard the leeway it was allowed to get pro bono counsel and took an appeal to the ninth circuit court. worded that come from? a national network of victims' attorneys the fbi launched what started as five clinics is now 11 operating across the country and has represented more than 4,000 victims 2300 pleadings in more than 100,000 hours per gross of day this network is in jeopardy. of 11 clinics will shut this year and no enforcement if and -- funding continues as it is. of the impact will be significant progress of march 31st there was 285 open criminal cases in the country and the impact of the numbers is more

meaningful if you look at the people being served for the one of the victims was in the tucson shooting case. of arizona clinics represents one of the victims in that case seeking justice making sure he can exercise his three days rights when he needs to procure another clinic represents a victim in the united states verses kiefer in a fraud case and the victim was not even notified of proceedings because it was under seal so the victim did not even know if they were a victim or not or until the pro bono attorney fought for the right at restitution and to be heard at the sentencing now they are challenging it again. 1984 congress made a promise to victims' that funds would be available and services would be available. 2004 congress made another promise they would have rights of the

criminal-justice system and not mere interlopers. vision 21 is a wonderful project that we use to envision the future and then unless you are fully committed to the effort as we are red notably it has been said one of the key findings is that victims must have access to competent and independent lawyers. even when looking fresh a victim services the answers to iraq is one that congress articulated in 2004 lot of fund legal services for victims' of crime. it can be capped at but the cap could be raised is indisputable there is sufficient funds to fund legal services for victims and others that are necessary across the country i urge congress to a critical look at the promises that have lowered been made and to recommit to upholding those promises.

thank you. >> i think all of the panel. we read your statements earlier and there in the record, but i hope people are listening. i am glad that many are because senator grassley and he and i both agree it is not a partisan issue. you don't ask if a crime victim is a republican in third democrat or independent. they are a victim and may have several former prosecutors on this day and a senator klobuchar and i were here earlier and we know how. efforts should go after the perpetrators of the crime but to that is too easy.

and mr. burbank, as you know, so whole country's heart goes out to your community and the people whose lives are changed forever. and something like that is overwhelming and four victims services, to help the community's be provided i worked with the program with those of both sides to get it done. besides the funds from the crime victims funds that we use in an emergency like given tucson arizona. i understand our constituents received 1.7

million? what will that do? >> it will help enormously. as you are mentioning come in these types of situations can quickly overwhelmed the services available because already we're operating on a very stretched budget. so to suddenly haveñr the a magnitude of victims needing additional services means we need to ramp up very quickly. have this grant the we just receive from the antiterrorism emergency assistance fund that has been set aside will be incredibly beneficial they will provide funds as they move through the court system. >> replay will never be necessary but we had other

horrific situations at the price of the country. i don't want to put words in your mouth but would you suggest we keep that? [laughter] >> absolutely. you don't need to put words into my mouth. obviously it is an incredibly important piece to act very quickly in the emergency situation makes it different and we are most grateful with the foresight to create this to begin with then the justice programs through a special process. thank you. >> talk about changes of client victimization what

are some of these changes and what gaps would it create? >> i am sure you remember your days as a prosecutor as i do. i felt that criminals were way ahead of law enforcement all the time with technology and everything else. that continues. we are seeing criminals become increasingly anonymous from victims harder to identify because of things like financial fraud, the myriad of schemes that we read aboutñr in the financial lose every single day and sometimes we don't recognize the instruments that are being used. there are all kinds of technology being used to stock individuals and it goes way beyond the internet

although that has proliferated all kinds of cyber crime and child exploitation is absolutely appalling and widespread and a friend of mine come with the inspector general for the new york city's school system told me he used to worry about it teachers having access to kids who should not have been in a classroom in the first place birkenau it is almost impossible to deal with that because these folks having contact with kids online and you cannot monitor that. there are all kinds of technological challenges that we are just beginning to recognize. and of course, the flip side is how can we use technology to our own a vantage with law enforcement and as

victims' services and providers? do want to talk to the 15 year-old victim? they're unlikely to chat with you on the phone but the texting and twitter and all kinds of chatting with kids online smart phones and cellphones and webinars and all kinds of things that frankly i cannot even imagine that within the next five years. >> also skype. >> absolutely. >> look at telemedicine. >> talk about the crime victims' rights acts one of the reasons we try to strengthen their reauthorization act, i am to

through a different hearing to recognize senator franken before i do but senator klobuchar has done this quite often and i appreciate is willing to take it just be sure to give it back. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start with ms. mary lou leary i have been hearing tremendous things about the work you have been doing in your department to help states and local and have great day partner from victims services and saying you have got a fair way to reach out to minnesota and how you

have been incredibly fox -- flexible. >> but minnesota has long been a leader in the domestic violence program in the city of st. paul campus the blueprint for domestic violence strategy should be a model of criminal-justice agencies can't work together. i am excited to think those programs rely and evidence based on decision-making ba'ath guarantees that every dollar they spend is being used to fund programs that are proven to work so can you tell me more what they're doing to promote the evidence to ensure other states have access to innovative programs and strategies like st. paul? >> minnesota does a long and rich history serving pricked

of this. i know the senator was significantly involved with that. but in terms of the evidence based approach and some may do that kind of information i am pleased come with this is a big priority but i am pleased to see we move with victims of services as well. starting off as the grass roots of the kids and all about compassion for victims and has evolved with dave professional feel we will never lose compassion but much more professional as well and victims services have to work smarter.

basing what we do from what we know from research and statistics. so the most significant thing we're doing right now is an exercise called fission 21 is a comprehensive effort to look at victims services to see who are the victims and what to redo to serve them and where are the gaps and whether the emerging challenges? and how do we build the capacity for those providers across the country blacks obviously the key is we have to do more research and have to collect trader at -- better data. we have the national crime victimization survey is a

wonderful tool but not adequate to for the task there are certain types of crime where the survey does not get back the nuances and there are all kinds of other statistics we need to be gathered for instance we need to be doing a lot more research and data collection. you certainly know from your experience that the violent crime and the sexual assault crime rate is unacceptable we would never put up with that with any other committee and we don't know the half of it because it is a reported and we have not done enough. so win new plot the strategy going forward come you have a solid base of knowledge.

she has the research nine the characteristics come in the this both now and in the future thinned you can apply your dollars wisely. >> thank you. i just have a few seconds but i agreed with the indian affairs committee i tried to address that plant madame chair, can i ask one more? >> please. >> mr. burbank i was horrified by what happened in tucson but the services that you and your team and staff and volunteers could provide to families and

friends and witnesses of this horrible tragedy is amazing. frequently as a last resort when they run outñr to they may pay the price introduce legislation to ensure survivors of sexual assault are never charge the cost of their rape kit exam might find it appalling sometimes the states will build victims are forcedñr them to apply for insurance coverage to seek reimbursement and as somebody who works on the ground using theçó practice of billing sexual assault victims for medical exams makes them more reluctant to report their crime? >> i certainly agree that charging victim's for things like better called exams is unconscionable we should not be shifting those burdens on to victims.

i am not sure whether or not that is a deterrent coming forward, but i do know that certainly there is the emotional burden to come with up. after being passed to pay for that after ratepayers of -- or sexually assaulted and oftentimes feels like a second victim. >> thank you madame chair. >> senator roy house? are you ready? [laughter] >> a one to think the panel very much for being here for their testimony and service and prosecutors and u.s. attorneys think you. i just want to get your reactions to the news that has come out about the extent of which the cuts that have recently been agreed to focusing on victims of crime on the

budget and what is your in advice to all of us to try to prevent that damage from having to much impact on the victim's that frankly are prototypical innocent victims and there is no reason they should bear the cost but it looks like they will be. to have the chance yet to analyze how deep those cuts will go and to what extent they may to support what you're doing right now? >> [laughter] >> i will go down the line. >> we have not had a chance to do a full analysis. i also read the article in the "washington post" saying almost 5 million had been cut from the fund but in fact, we later learned to

our relief act is not the case. but it is an accounting issues so we were very relieved to hear that and the amount of funding in the crime victims fund will remain the same for this coming year so they will have the same amount of money for their programs. but there are other cuts in other parts of the department of justice act there is a percentage cut across the board. it depends on how that plays out. there are programs that and did training law enforcement and we know the first thing

counter is law-enforcement obviously the first person and research shows that can have a significant impact on how the victim moves forward and if the victim is able to move forward toward recovery. we do not have a chance to analyze act yet. >> just so you know, i heard the same theme the reduction from 6 billion down at 1 billion is the accounting adjustment of having immediate effect in the actual expenditures available to the victim's of crime with said the part of justice but when you see big money moving around it is hard to see it would have to superiority. >> i was it is being watched very carefully but the

downturn in the economy has had tremendous impact on the local and state levels per arizona, least two organizations have closed doors including one family advocacy center and other agencies across the board pretty much have had to cut services because of decreases of the state and local income coming in for the victims of services. the concern is the use agencies depend on federal money at this moment to keep the doors open fending is incredibly important for the victims services organizations and if the money should go away will be reduced, we would see further cuts of already damaged services and the safety net crumble. >> it is my view it is it offset and in offshoot if a

close eye was cafta and then rhetorically we have less money in the fund which they aaron willing to give to a cap even know that exact amount comes back into the field as prior years that is not enough for the field and we see the ramifications right now. we have to keep a close eye but the victims fund is victims' money and that is where it should be going. >> thank you for what you do and your testimony. >> senator grassley? >> [laughter] >> i explained to the chairman -- . [inaudible]

>> ms. meg garvin can you tell me the fact the cap has had on to those victims that you provide services? >> the services that we provide are funded through to streams. the federal crime victims' act has that opening for appropriation and it has come through that although that hasn't happened since 2008 than others come to grant programs and a cap with abbas to our services nationally is not enough money making its way out to the field. we know victims have more needs and are being funded and the legal clinics that we oversee will shut down this year and victims and including those of the tucson shooting will not have an attorney with them as of july this year and it

will not have funding to continue to provide representation. the cap was restrictions on the service is available. >> you should be sure change because they are fully funded those that are providing good services and tested but our program has been tested and answers should also been funded first of this a promise we already made and looking forward is a visionary thing to do but not at the sacrifice of those promises we have already made to the victims. >> ms. mary lou leary the administration proposal only a small increase from the

crime victims' fund and zero out of notification system which i said in my statement notifies crime victims when the individual who committed the crime is released. further reduced by one-third of the budget for the national crime victimization survey. do support the cuts they have proposed to the national crime victimization survey? >> senator kumbaya when of the things it department is thinking about what the impact of fishermen 21 initiative which is ongoing to take a comprehensive look at what we need to better serve victims going forward from here? of the past there has been piecemeal looking at the system trying to improve things there and it doesn't

work unless you lookout whole and look at the kinds of programs that are needed and to make decisions based on that. that is exactly what we're doing and out of that process will come a different way to look at victim services, proposals to fund all of those stains that fit into the comprehensive views to use the funds in the way that are the most appropriate for but we know victim's name. i totally agree we need to avoid duplication of services and we need to help victims service providers learn more about how to base what they do on evidence and helps them learn how to increase their own capacity to serve victims in this merger and more efficient way. >> i cannot find fault with your survey and being

evidence space-bar this seems that by doing too these two programs what they're doing, they have already made a declaration so you think they wait until the study is over before you reach a conclusion that it would say low parity on supporting crime victims as evidenced by these cuts. despite the cuts that we mentioned the administration proposes moore's bent on violence against women has called for new hate crime discretionary program it was with stimulus when they recommend the shortfalls it has been made clear today do believe certain types of victims should take priority

overñi others? that is what i sense from the priority given to these programs and a i don't see anything wrong with those programs but it seems to me that they have a greater priority. >> but what we know senator is in fact,, right now a good percentage of the funds go to violence against women because unfortunately, that is one of the enduring challenges and there are so many overwhelming those talk about the shelter to turn away with 12 women per week and then national network to end domestic violence there is a snapshot every year and a survey of the shelters and service providers and the last snapshot that they took and that one day, these

organizations had served 70,000 victims, women and children mostly but had to turn almost 10,000 away on a single day. it is just that we know it is such a pervasive form of victimization with unmet needs, a difficult to comprehend because it is so significant. be still need to do all lot more and it across his age and race and social and economic lines. >> thank you very much. >> thank you madam chairman. i have a question for name also more than a fifth time this services i am really

and deservedly so, my office is working with a group called voices of september 11th that works on health screening and case work that provides services in those areas. i wonder if you could talk about the strategy of your respective efforts in terms of dealing with the longer-range services that can be provided to crime victims? >> speaking for the county attorney's office recognize not only short-term but long term. short-term are met through the crisis intervention work so when we go out at the request of law-enforcement as we did on the january 8 shooting, then we follow those victims with support

throughout the criminal justice system and not the only is the advocacy but have lots of other needs in the making in time to ratio -- to make sure and two negative involved with the compensation fund of pimento health and of their health needs. >> it is crucial because of the nature that these will be at least for five years and potentially much longer than that but with the oklahoma city bombing and we know that many wounds are still there for these victims and they have needs that the one for years and years. it is a very important part and i am glad you focus time and energy to look at the ongoing needs of the

victims. thank you for that. >> i would like to echo that i know it in our work so far one of the things we have noted coming from the field is a long term care is the case is that we are working on is that if habeas case the woman was stabbed 18 years ago and if it was just filed an she can go to deposition 18 years later we needed to have a lawyer from -- for her nudges the original prosecution the ongoing care is critical to as much as continuity to make sure the victim and said they have developed relationships are there 20 years later it is critical. >> thank you for that question. i am familiar with the september 11th organization from my work from the victims of crime

and i know the acting director is a very familiar. excuse me. they represent the significance of those kinds of needs, the long term needs and as said, there is a lot of focus on the activision 21. but we need more research so we have a much better understanding over the impact of i think with those emotional issues and what kind of an impact does that have when your family, loved ones over the long term? it is usually significant

and many victims including the september 11th victims have spoken to us about the pain of people to retain them as if they should have gotten over it by now. and our society is still rather in sensitive about but. >> my time has expired but i want to commend you and thank you for the great work you aren't doing. thank you very much for all you are doing. >> guy want to thank of fat come on this importuned today the 30th anniversary of the first annual national crime victims we have come a long way despite the jonge azria facing we had to bring said county attorney's

office and met my counterpart to steer and we were a leader in those areas including domestic rates center where rehab 12 one-stop shop for fearless of domestic assault but the shelters and the others are there to help them and 1/2 fined obviously the results are importuned to come by convictions are important and just as important it is more important to the victims and how they retreated in the system and so many times the victim advocates were there because prosecutors would be off to wayne case is so beyond what people think about with hope and counseling and having people there through the process even though the case

had to be dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence or the police had to be taken it was not exactly what they wanted, having the victims' rights advocate gave faith in the system and made for such better cases so both they fell, the ball about going forward and it did not back out at the last minute. i just want to thank all of you for all of the good work you're doing. but i have questions first of all, in his 85 of the vision 21 process. as we talk about of the cuts we aren't concerned about you mentioned in your testimony that one area of vision 21 is to improve data collection and victimization issues and data can help until they've with fine gained the most effective

program to make sure the money goes where it should also to support the work that is being done. could you talk about that data collection aspect? >> yes. vision 21 groups i think have focused and on the need for research and data collection because there is a lot about victimization particularly among the underserved populations that we don't know. the under reporting of crime is a huge problem so we have to figure out under reporting was exactly the same statistic guest today and i find that quite astounding. been no it is not likely to change genetically say you

have to start relying strictly on to the but that is what the survey it comes to do. but it has been in a system is for quite some time and i know that jim is actually looking and a redesign of the survey? because we have to come into the 21st century to figure out better ways of getting folks to respond to the questions of victimization and. and ways to collect data and for those to be left out or withdrawn like the native american population is a good example. young african-american males. we know very little about that type of victimization other than what you read the

they don't know much about the process and that is another group. we know almost nothing about victims to our in institutional settings and that is where you find your victims of elder abuse of all clients and those who have mental health issues were developmental challenges. but if you think about the elderly those are the fastest growing segment of the population we cannot afford not to know. >> and also when you talk about the technology and changing neutral crime to have them build with kay

bailey hutchison about updating the stock cur legislation and cyber legislation it is very outdated to reflect cases like we had in the last year with a newswoman who was addressing and someone fell inter then to put it on the internet. they were also working to put a case together and they did but it could be updated if we updated our laws but along those lines you said vision 21 would address how the latest technology could be leveraged how we reach and serve victims could you talk about that? >> there is a huge gap identified by efficient 21 that in the capacity of the service providers, their technology is so unsophisticated because they barely have money to pay their staff to keep them around to help the victims

and they don't have funding for general operations or to improve technology how can we reach out? it is a rural area. how do we connect to those six dems who are faraway? how to reconnect with our language and cultural barriers that technology could facilitate white translation services and things of those natures? to be things rivera not just geographically but in terms of technology that those victims use. so those segments of the population would be likely to have a typical technology %communityñiçóçó is more likelo

be using a cellphones and a computer-- computer which i learned with the chicago police department how do you reach out? you have technology that they actually use. >> mr. burbank you describe the crime scene on january 8 and that horrible day when so many people were gunned down. could you tell us people think it is like magic of the victims people, can you tell about the training that goes into building the advocacy division? your right it does not magically appear it takes a lot of work to put it together and for us to send

our volunteers almost a identical training of paid positions because we rely on those volunteers to do the same market as a staff person. but it it anytime day or night we send them through 36 hours of basic crisis intervention training that is available to anyone in the mature area of tucson two per tick. then of course, 30 hours of the advanced training then it is on-the-job training. we ask least one year commitment and 20 hours per month from our volunteers. >> one of the things that people think make use more volunteers.

it is a good idea we had of him in terms of my was the only senator fur eight months we could not add any staff to the budget but then you still need training and people to oversee the volunteers. >> absolutely cannot all be done with volunteers remake amazing use of them and are proud of that but the reality is we have to have staff to oversee and train and it is an enormous commitment of time and energy to maintain the volunteer pool to provide the services. >> >> guest: to answer a question how volunteers are crime institutes and how we could utilize volunteers and how they have to be supervised and trained? >> absolutely. as mentioned in my testimony i have 11 clinics operating around the country but we try to complement that by

growing a national pro bono attorneys to put them through training so national alliance of victims' rights attorneys with almost 1,000 members but we can have an attorney anywhere in the country but they have not have the training on victims' rights for as you know, from moscow, the word victim and victims' rights does not yet show up been in moscow curriculum today. such training lawyers how to represent it is in the intensive process. we work nationally to try to have lawyers know how to do it with three victimizing the victims but it takes intensive work and we need to keep at it. >> the models that we had, i don't know, a 20 year 30 people, non lawyers that were basically the victim's

contacts. rugrats is not mean there were not working with them but so they could do the case it was all felony level so they were able to do it that way and to me is saved money in the long term because the prosecutors could focus on the case and the victims' rights advocates for teams of attorneys. >> that model with the prosecutor's office is a great model and allows the prosecutor to do the prosecution and the advocate within the system to help navigate but the complementary model is to have community-based legal advocacy to liaison and independently protect victims' rights and saves money all around because of the long-term care aspect aspect, fd we give wraparound services and a good prosecution based advocates and legal

services, we help reduce the trauma they experience going through the system. >> the domestic people have their own people of then we have the property team actually was community-based and handled things by a area so they have people that dealt with it that way and the rest were specialty areas price founded to me incredibly helpful more than just holding hands. it was hoping to get the case is running to make sure the victims' for their on-time pro-choice still remember talking to one victim advocates who had a white collar case where it was a widow and the husband was ripped off by somebody who took all of their money and went to costa rica to get a facelift for a price at least you're not dealing with the murder case she said you kidding she has

threatened to killçó of the perpetrator. above so for victims of crime they need somebody bioveris side to make sure the criminal-justice system is fair. what law firm did you work with? >> you cannot lie because you're on the record. [laughter] >> this is our i get my curious things i just ask them on the record. [laughter] i have lots of friends there. i want to think you. we have a lot of work to do. you see a committee devoted to think demonstrates search of a former prosecutors on the committee that understand how this works and we will continue to advocate for you not only the budget that the reauthorization and other bills going forward. of thank you so much. of the work that you do is in the trenches and people never know the hard

decisions the advocates have to make and the wrenching stories they have to hear then go home to be with their families and a smile and pretend with everything was okay. i want to thank you for the work you're doing in the justice system and help the you give people. we will keep the record open. i lost my gavel. hold on. [laughter] the record will be open for testimony or anything to put on the record and a the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen. please welcome margaret warner and heard distinguished panelist. [applause]ñr ♪ ♪ >> good evening to all of view it as good to see you here at this last-minute three dinner panel to talk about the issue that is hot on everybody's mind so it is

libya of course. i do not need a big drumroll of introductions why these issues are important but i can give you a quick update because what you have been at this conference things have been happening. airstrikes are continuing in the bill itself and in doha the contact group of libyan rebels along with nato and regional partners of the african union met and at that meeting they did to not to say gadaffi absolutely must go and tougher language then they have used before but it they are our main fear rebels with the prince actually saying fab but there was no agreement that they did agree to set up a trust fund from international donations to channel money to